02.07.08
Do We Need a Moratorium on Church Music?
Greg Gilbert is coming out “Against Music’:
I wonder if the whole “excellence in praise and worship music” phenomenon we’ve seen over the past few years—for all the good it’s done—hasn’t also had some less-than-desirable effects on young Christians. I wonder if it hasn’t created a generation of functional mystics who gauge their relationship with God by emotional experience rather than the objective reality of redemption.
Good issues to ponder.
Read more: Church Matters: The 9Marks Blog
adam said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:06 pm
hmmmmm….. i’m gonna pull out my saddle and ride the fence and say that balance is the best option. Greg seems to commit to the fallacy that excellent and emotional music-inspired worship experiences cannot be balanced by a LIVED worship expressing the “objective reality” of redemption.
I’m tempted to say (as Stephen did) that redemption cannot be reality unless it is subjectively appropriated first, but that may be too post-modern eh (not to mention vehemently anti-Calvinist)? Perhaps it is safer to argue that redemption is best not so simply categorized as an “objective reality”.
Jeff said,
February 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I would say that redemption is an objective reality that is experienced and understood subjectively. It must be experienced subjectively because we cannot truly have an experience with the abstract, but can only interact with embodiments, concrete instances of the abstract. So while redemption is an objective and absolute concept, I, as a flesh-and-blood human-being, must experience this redemption through subjective experience. But this subjective experience serves as a proof of the objective reality and does not diminish it.
To say that redemption must be subjectively appropriated first is grossly synergistic and makes God beholden to my taking the first step in salvation. Pelagius could embrace this view. An orthodox Christian cannot. It’s not so much about “Calvinism” as it is about giving appropriate honor and credit where it is due. It is unjust to make myself the author or appropriator of my redemption. This position belongs to God alone.
I think Gilbert’s main point stands. I should not judge my relationship with God primarily through the lens of my subjective experience. What if I judged my marriage or friendships this way? “Wow, I just had a fight with my wife, I guess our relationship is going sour.” Is this really the way we ought to view our relationship with God?
adam said,
February 18, 2008 at 11:27 am
Perhaps my use of the word “first” was unintentional, but my point is that subjective appropriation must nevertheless take place (through the mysterious relationship between divine and human will). Make no mistake, I do not presume to say that we author/initiate/finish the work of salvation. I quite heartily agree with Gilbert’s critique if, in fact, in his experience these Christians “rely” upon their emotions to “guage” their spirituality. I have seen this to be true in large part in the Church, even in my own life. But, most often in my most recent context, one of two things seem apparent: 1.) I see the the emotional and subjective emerge as witness to a vibrant Christian commitment and/or 2.) the emotional and subjective communicate to (missional right?) and engender a vibrant Christian commitment to those who experience and relate in a culture saturated with music and yes, emotion.
I guess the more important question, especially to the “missional” is to ask “to what extent do we contextualize in the communication of truth to a post-christian (emotional, music obsessed?) culture without capitulating to that culture’s cognitive norms (like judging relationships primarily through the lens of my subjective experience)? Ought not a committed Christian passionately experience worship through music and song? I would hope that we know that it doesn’t have to be either/or. We should make clear that relationship with God nor worship itself is not to be confined, evaluated nor judged by our subjective experience of music.
It is not “excellence in worship music” that is the problem. Rather, the problem comes when the church centers its entire concept of worship around music. Maybe Gilbert is right about a moratorium on music (didn’t Matt Redman’s church do this, hence “heart of worship”?) precisely because this defines much of our church culture.
David M said,
February 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm
How would one even know if they are subjectively experience some “objectified” truth? Is the use of objective/subjective both non-humane (and therefore out of our grasp) as well as decidedly . . . Subjective? That is, how could a subjective being ever know if they are experiencing this “objective truth” or “objective reality? [Ex. “I would say that redemption is an objective reality that …” - isn’t “I” and “would” both be expressions of a subjective stance?]
Even worse, what if the understanding of “objective truth” is actually subjective? How do we even know if our methods “work” at getting to the “truth” that is being held up as a standard and/or goal?
Brass tacks: how can the “objective” statements be taken as anything other than the hope (i.e. based-on-faith) of the person (subject) stating them? Perhaps the difficulty lies in the partial-ness of both “sides”?
Perhaps the the problem is the attempt to measure something by a standard that doesn’t fit (like measuring length in liters)? I often find that when problems present themselves in dichotomies like this, there’s a problem with the assumptions. Like the Einstein quote, “The solution to a problem is usually not on the same level that created the problem.” (paraphrase).
David
Jeff said,
February 20, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ah, the postmodern dilemma (which has really been a dilemma all along, but only recently articulated in such glowingly philosophical categories).
This points to the need we have to root our faith in God and his Word. But of course the postmodern can simply say “yes, but it is *your* faith in God and *your* understanding of his Word, so it’s mere subjection all over again.” If this is the ontological framework we’re going to use, then “being” itself is stripped of all meaning. We’re just a bunch of existentialists who try to put on a nice veneer of “meaning” in order to avoid becoming nihilists and descending into the void of insanity.
This isn’t to say that any one person can or should claim that he has an exclusive handle on objective truth (well, perhaps Jesus is an exception…). We need the church and spiritual community to work together to arrive at agreement regarding objective reality. We need to vett our experience with that of our brothers and sisters in Christ to ensure that we are not straying from the way. We must always stay humble and be ready to admit when our assumptions are found to be false. But if we reject foundationalism and objectivity, we’ve planted our feet firmly in mid-air.
Now, how did we veer off into an ontological discussion when the original post was addressing church music?
Jeff said,
February 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm
And I should add a little context for those who may not be aware–I’ve been leading worship for about 20 years and “excellence” is a very high value for me (as Adam can attest). This thread was intended to simply invite us to ponder some issues and ask some questions. I’m a huge fan of emotionally expressive, God-centered, bible-based worship music! But like any other human endeavor, we need to check ourselves to make sure that it is God we are worshiping, and not the form of worship. We also need to avoid the pitfall of judging our standing with God based on our emotional experiences in worship.
David said,
March 10, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Jeff,
What I was poking at was the (oxymoronically) subjective nature of the last phrase of your quote, “…the objective reality of redemption.” What does that even mean? What’s the point of bashing “young Christians” with unintelligible phrases like that? It’s neither discernible nor helpful.
Does this quote imply that emotion is nowhere present in the “reality of redemption”? Is “redemption” simply a rational exercise God goes through? If I may, THAT would be stripping being of meaning! Sans relationship, sans emotion, sans mystical - all that which puts meat on the bones of this machine (to mix metaphors).
I should add a little context. I’ve been leading worship for 20-ish years and “excellence” is also extremely high on my list of values. I, sadly, was NOT a huge fan of emotionally expressive music for a good half of this time. And the point of my posting is to draw the discussion into a fuller context lest we find ourselves moving from one set of assumptions to another without actually moving forward, except in history.
So putting pithy phrases in print/web is something I think is GREAT because it forces us to look at what kind of context/culture makes such a statement good, an option, or yucky. In a similar manner, I’d be curious to see what your context is, Jeff, that puts post-modernity / existentialism on a continuum with nihilism / insanity — only two options, and both are “in mid-air”? Awfully dismissive in a paragraph that begins to flesh-out humility-in-community, listening, and willing to look at assumptions.
So let me finish this comment with this: the beauty of what I have come to understand about you is that there is “church music” is never, nor should it ever be, limited to “church music” — there is theology and community and context and God and history and… you get the point
We both know that seldom does anyone “just show up” to some gathering involving “church music” nor does someone(s) leading ever just “show up”! I believe you are too thoughtful for that and, probably by extension, more than that personally.
As I stated months(?) ago, my push is not against you but with you. I believe 100% that you’re doing good stuff, good thinking, good leading. And that tomorrow is built on today, putting us in the privileged place of moving forward!!
David
Jeff said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Hey David,
Thanks for keeping up the thread. I wish I had time right now for a full response, but for now I do want to respond to a couple of things:
I’m not sure how the phrase itself is subjective. I think the point is that redemption is a real and actual concept that is rooted in God and the work of his Son on the cross. Redemption isn’t some abstract concept that we can simply redefine in our own personal terms. However, one’s *experience* with and *understanding* of redemption will certain be subjective, but these experiences and understandings are only possible because they interact with a concrete reality: that God has provided redemption through Jesus Christ. And he has done so even when I don’t feel like he has.
Honestly, the context this comes from is some particular discussions between Adam and myself. These conversations would shed more light on the nature and context of this discussion. Part of the trouble with dialogue-via-internet is that we lose a lot of context.
However, I do think there is merit in comparing existentialism with nihilism. They fall on extremes of a continua whose basis and foundation is relativism. And I believe that one of the banes of post-modernism is a categorical rejection of objectivity and a wholesale embracing of “the relative.”
As I made clear earlier, this isn’t to say that I personally have a corner on the objective. It is to say that we are together working on a greater understanding of what is absolute and unchanging, namely God.
And I appreciate you pressing back! Let’s keep pressing forward toward greater understanding of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.