This perspective is from a class lecture on music from Fred Coleman. It is an attempt to give some kind of guideline for making choices about church music, but, as he even mentioned in class, it's also a way to look at life and a variety of choices. (dress, personal music, etc.) I like to call it the Coleman Ziggurat.
Click here
to see it.
Click on More... to see some explanation.
(i have done my best to present this as he did, but there's a chance i may present something slightly differently than he would and obviously i cannot defend what he has said for him. this is my best understanding of what he presented.)
All music- rather obviously, this means every type of music known to man.
Right music--of all the music possible, only some of it is right. this category could also be labelled "moral." Coleman states that the major method of identifying "right music" is by observation of the responses certain music causes. instead of demanding that only the music elite or PhD's can explain what makes music wrong, Coleman asserts that anyone who can judge responses can identify wrong music.
responses can be divided into two groups--learned (cultural) and universal. if music causes a learned wrong response, that music is still wrong for the Christian. responses can be judged biblically in a way notes, chords, etc. cannot.
Appropriate music--of all the right music possible, only some of it is appropriate. appropriateness is a matter of purpose. it is determined by knowing your culture and your people. "take me out to the ballgame" is a perfectly acceptable song, but it is not appropriate for worship in a culture whose only assocition with it is the seventh inning stretch.
Expedient music--of all the appropriate music possible, only some of it is expedient. expedience is a matter of wisdom. it is usually applied in the context of association to music that is perfectly fine, but that contains so much baggage it would not be wisest to use it. (all music has baggage. look at any era, piece, or composer, and you'll find some baggage somewhere. which simply goes to reinforce something we already know--humans are sinners, and sin pollutes.) music that distracts from the worship defeats its own purpose.
we need to be willing to disagree about stuff that is on the edge. much of the ziggurat leaves room for subjective appraisal (which i appreciate), because that's realistic. do your best to evaluate music for yourself and be charitable when you disagree with someone else's conclusions.
Posted by apelles at December 8, 2003 09:54 AMZiggurat? I assume it has something to do with the successively receeding steps, not the worship of a pagan deity. Ü Seems to me to be a fair representation of the lectures.
Posted by: Andy Merkle at December 8, 2003 10:29 AMMr. Coleman is a father figure in my life, therefore his insight into the music issues today has impacted me personally. The most refreshing aspect of his approach to the tension is the use of a proper hermeneutic, unlike many in our circles. His teaching has never left Renee and me, and we are indebted to him for the impact of a passionately Biblical perspective. Total agreement? No. Tremendous appreciation for a fresh perspective? Absolutely. Grace and peace.
Posted by: Adam Bailie at December 8, 2003 02:11 PMdefinitely an architectural reference, andy, not a spiritual one. :-)
Posted by: apelles at December 8, 2003 02:52 PMHey, what happened to the first stage of the process, gathering the bibilical data?! Is it over? Now we're right into philosopy! I could write this in a private email to my brother, Appelles is it?, but maybe twill stimulate some thought in others.
The ziggurat makes sense. I'd be curious to know about types of responses that make it clear whether a piece is right/wrong. As in--it leads someone to sin, or sing?
Baggage is an interesting issue because it would seem to assume that you have a negative personal history with the musical style in question, or somehow you have an idea that it is wrong (thank you very much to all the leaders in certain circles (ahem) who have added baggage to people's loads! :)
In other words, you are not hearing something for the first time and simply not liking it. I have one tremendously talented Christian musician friend, a bass player, who was counseling at a pre-teen Christian camp. During the socccer-type game where the kids kick the big ball, the camp was playing this energetic music with a trance beat. The kids responded enthusiastically and had a good time. He was bothered though, because from his college days he knew the party atmospheres where trance was played (incidentally he has no problem with ubiquitous drum kit patterns).
In short, I'm pointing out that "baggage" varies tremendously from individual to individual. Music leaders and pastors have to honestly evaluate their congregations. We need to carefully follow Paul's admonitions regarding making a brother stumble (I would point out that Paul's admonitions regard making a brother stumble into sin, it's not simply a matter of the brother not liking it. For example the stereotypical elderly hymn-lover who fights tooth and nail against contemporary songs and/or percussion is usually not being tempted to sin! He or she is often concerned about change, the effect on "their" music, etc.)
In many Christian circles, a drum set does not hinder worship, it decidedly helps. In some situations, though, perhaps a drum set would not be right. I have a hard time conceiving of a situation where percussion in worship would lead someone to sin (at least I've never encountered a situation like this), but I would hope that a pastor or music leader who saw this happening would even go to the extreme of advising the individual to worship elsewhere, if need be.
One more thing about baggage, and then I'll be done with my probably unappreciated input! I'm a BJU grad, thankful for most of what the university stands for, the music beliefs and the former interracial dating policy being notable exceptions.
As a student, I often heard stories about somone being saved from a lifestyle of rock music; they would be adamant about staying away from "Christian rock." They were generally not musicians, you know, just average radio-players. Anyway, so it seems to make sense, right, that if you had the baggage of hearing drums when you were an unbeliever, that you would want to forsake that ungodliness once you came to Christ?
Interestingly enough, history and my personal experience have proved exactly opposite in the vast majority of cases. I myself know many former secular drummers, guitarists, and bass players that, instead of being conscience-bothered and smashing their instruments, rather are using their talents in wonderful ways for the Lord.
Though not knowing them intimately, I also have been around hundreds, I can honestly say thousands of other such musicians. And it is also true of much top Christian instrumental talent, like Phil Keaggy, etc. etc.
While not PROVING anything, anecdote and experience in this case can inform our understanding about certain philosophical and musical issues. Music is a language; go to those who speak the language, not foreigners. Or at least visit France with a guide book!
Back in the early days of anti-"Christian rock," with the crazy sexual argument against "backbeat," neither Garlock, nor Gustafson, nor anyone that I read (or was exposed to) bothered to sit down with a Christian (or secular)drummer and ask them a point-blank personal question.
Does playing drums awaken in you a sexual response? (Of course I understand in a secular context there would be times where the entirety of the music causes a direct sexual response, not to mention that many classical musicians and scholars sense a sexual-like nature to good music construction in more general ways, and sometimes not so general).
I could put you in touch with hundreds of such people who would be honest. As a person who enjoys playing percussion, I would be glad to respond (I guess you can imagine). But perhaps that response would not have been believed and was not wanted. Instead we had some "science" about stunting plants growth and a crazy Frank Zappa quote, and thus we extrapolated...
I mean no disrespect to any individuals involved in these teachings, though I wholeheartedly disagree, and have disagreed from the first time I read such. I hope all this held together reasonably well and was not a total rant!
There is a bottom line drawn across the ages, culture can make its stand, ah but the line never changes, there is one thing that has always been true, it holds the world together...God is in control! Amen.
Discussions like this (Bible translations, etc etc) make some people uneasy about the "bottom line(s)." Be sure to reassure on the basis of what is really real!
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus... Yes.
Posted by: keithmo at December 9, 2003 12:05 AMYikes--my diatribe looked fine with the line breaks in the little editor thingy. I guess those soft breaks don't get carried over into the HTML. Sorry.
Posted by: keithmo at December 9, 2003 12:09 AMhey keith! i did a little bit of editing to your comment so it's not quite so blocky. hopefully it's at least something similar to what you had in mind.
in regard to stage one, no, it's not entirely over. i mean, we'll be culling and reviewing Scriptural data for quite a while. in fact, the plan for this weekend is to sit down with the broader general principles (worldliness, holiness) and see what bearing they might have.
but i just had the class with Coleman, so i thought i'd go ahead and post a bit of philosophy. you're seeing the whole process develop here like it is in my head--in real time. and as much as i'd like to segment my study into little blocks, the other aspects are ongoing at the same time. anyway, maybe i jumped the gun on the ziggarut...
as for your discussion, no input is unwanted here, and i appreciate your taking the time to write it.
you're right on with the stumbling thing. Tim Jordan preached two must-hear messages at the Wilds and makes the point emphatically clear.
as for baggage and people's experience--at the moment i have no way of judging how the majority of people saved out of rock and roll respond once they are, but i fail to see how much that will influence my attempt to discover what kind of music i should use.
i'm sure you know people who show a definite life change of conversion but use their prior musical abilities for their new Master, and i'm sure other people could be found who shun all musical connections to their past, but i'm not sure how much that proves except that personal experience can vary and is no sure standard for decision making.
one final but related thing your post made me think--i'm not sure how much weight i want to put on the personal testimony of Zappa or Jagger or a host of other unregenerate musicians. how much does that really help us? in john makujina's book on music, he produces quotes from rock musicians endlessly. but i'm not sure how much that proves (as you so appreciably pointed out, it's not proof, but it may be good information). how much of what they say is reality? how much is an attempt to make business or shock waves or get publicity and how much is an honest, unregenerate, depraved perspective on what is true?
i'm not saying there's no value, but i don't think i'm ready to embrace with open arms the testimony of any number of artists like some do to prove a biblical point. at the very least, that goes far down the list in my third category of "extrabiblical evidence."
i bet we could find musicians and quotes to support any side of the music issue we happen to be on. personal experience is not a sole, valid basis for determining truth.
Posted by: apelles at December 9, 2003 10:55 AMDavid thanks for putting in the line breaks. It was late after I entered it and I wasn't sure if I could edit it after it was posted.
I believe you will find that personal experience is going to be a major factor if you are trying to make a determination about musical style. It is relatively easy to draw general principles, but it leaves you almost nowhere in terms of musical style.
However, I think if you use the OT as a model you can ascertain certain things about the tone of music, and might add that I think those of us who enjoy "contemporary" instruments and music have a pretty outstanding case, at least as you compare the historical tone of traditional and contemporary music. (Whether or not the OT practice should be used as any form of a model is a huge question, though, start there. The early Church fathers all the way through to Wesley and beyond said resoundingly "no!") For example, I think you'll find quickly that joy, shouting, and an extremely high energy level are characteristic of the OT record.
In 2 Samuel 6, the ark is being brought back from the Philistines. Verse 5 records "David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines [frame drums, not the jingly things we have today], sistrums and cymbals." These are mighty men, warriors, and they are celebrating with all their might. It must have been amazing to have been there!
When I read a scripture like this, I mentally compare music styles and results. As I read this and many other passages from the Psalms, I clearly understand certain things about the music, even though I don't know the exact style. One thing I am sure of--this was no polished Sunday morning service as we used to have at BJ! These were not guys with their ties on straight, looking pretty and pert and la-laing along. No no. And I'm not saying that every service should be like what we see in the Psalms and 2 Samuel. That would be impossible for most churches. This was a very special occasion for Israel.
I do believe that some traditional piano players play with all their might at times. I certainly believe that good orchestration out of a classical background can come close to what we read about. But historically, Christian music has never looked anything like what we see described in the OT. If you study the use of orchestration in church history, you'll quickly realize that orchestration to achieve a result like that in the OT is a very recent development (St. Mark's basilica, in Venice, beginning around 1550, is a notable exception, but it did not have the approval of the Roman Church, and was a special case since it was "owned" by the ruler of Venice; it was his private chapel). So the things we have seen happening, even at places like BJ in the last hundred years, are very much an aberration. I think God has been and is doing a wonderful "new" thing in this regard. But we must acknowledge that our Christian ancestors would disagree with us all. That much is very clear historically.
Where was I? Oh, tone and energy. One of the things about energy level is that people's perception of it changes over time. One of the sad things today is that many Christian kids know what energy looks like and sounds like. They go to church, and it seems to them that the musicians are not really giving their all, that the energy level of the music is poor. Musical style has a lot to do with this. What seemed upbeat to one generation sounds like elevator music to the next. The sad thing is that the music in many churches of the past and present would not have been energetic to ANY generation, and certainly not to the Jews! (remember that music and dancing was a big part of many festivals)
When most people today hear, for example, drums and electric guitar going, they think, wow, these guys are really into it, this music is energetic! It's not something people articulate unless you ask them, they just know it. And these musicians ARE "into it," generally, because especially with drum playing there is a very
physical action taking place, it requires a lot of energy and strength. But when we hear Mr. or Mrs. polished classical pianist, who plays great technically but with little sense of energy or strength--you get the picture. Also, we have a certain expectations because of secular music. Unfortunately secular musicians as a rule are much more talented, enthusiastic, and passionate about the music they perform. Most people naturally sense this in music. They can sense emotion and energy. And they are getting that from secular performers, genuinely.
So have I ever played or sang with all my might? I think I came close to today. I was leading our church praise team, doing a newly written Christmas song in a contemporary/gospel style. "Glory to God, for unto us a Savior is born... Let the redeemed let us sing Hosanna, Rejoice! Rejoice..." Let's just say that after church my throat was burning! So all my might? I don't know, but close. There are many "slow" songs that I feel I perform with all my might in the sense of the emotion I feel and hence project as I sing them.
Here I might also make the comment that music is an unexplainable phenomenon. Certain music captures the attention and heart of a generation. There is no way to explain it. If we could predict musical style shifts and what "speaks" to people, then many of us would try to set the next trend and make the big bucks. But we can't, it's amazing. Every period of musical history has been like that. And every generation has changed, though we never forget generations before us and often come back to what was done.
So though musical style is an issue, the tone and spirit of the music is perhaps more important. Here is where I believe people with music "philosophy" like that at BJ go wrong. They do not rightly comprehend the tone of modern music, but society and even Christian society does! They are speaking French in a culture that speaks English. Yet clearly, almost all Christians recognize that musical language changes and bow to it-- almost all are singing harmony in their hymns and using instruments. Many churches are using pianos (I'm not being sarcastic. This was a real struggle.) Strange. It's like Rip Van Winkle, who falls asleep for 20 years. Except make it 100 years. Boy the language has changed! Yes you are going to be shocked. Bach would have been completely schocked at Beethoven, or even Mozart. Listeners before Monteverdi would not be able to deal with the major key. And we would not relate to the music of the Jews or the music of the early church. That is the fact and record of time.
I can go on quite a while about music, sorry for any digressions but I hope some thoughts may be helpful. More later.
Thank God for the Prince of Peace. In the spirit of unity and bond of peace.