Objective Standards - Part 1

Filed in Music Philosophy on August 24, 2009



A year ago, I wrote a published article about church music philosophy.  It started an intense discussion on the web and as a result, I was subjected to vicious attacks from many on the ultra-conservative side of the debate.

I have no interest in doing that again.  I want to address this series of articles to those who are more balanced.  There is no point in trying to convince anyone from either of the extremes, and I have no interest in making that attempt.  So, while I will welcome interaction with what I write over the coming weeks, I am not going to let the conversation degrade into the viciousness that so often characterizes these discussions.

What do I mean by "more balanced"?  Well, I do not know everything about music but there are a few things I believe I know for sure.  If someone can't agree with both of these, then I would question their balance.

1) Music (without lyrics) does communicate.  It communicates such morally neutral emotions as sadness, happiness, solemness, and peacefulness.  Because it does communicate in that way, the popular idea that any music is appropriate at any point in worship is badly flawed.  For example, playing strident march music underneath a prayer does not make sense from either a musical or spiritual standpoint.

2) The idea that the music of any culture/time period represents a pinnacle that all music should be held to is equally flawed.  If God created different cultures, it stands to reason that they will have different music styles.  Even within a single culture, different time periods have produced different types of music.  There is no objective way to analyze music across all cultures and time periods and determine what music most represents quality and morality. 

In regards to this second point, there is a group on the conservative side of the debate that believes that the Reformation was the pinnacle of Christianity and therefore, the music of that era represents a pinnacle of standards that all of our music should be held to.  I absolutely reject that kind of thought.

But on the other hand, it is wrong to say that music is just a matter of a individual's taste and cannot be judged for its quality.  Of course, the problem arises when you try to determine who is qualified to make these objective conclusions about quality.

For sure, this is a tricky issue.  In the coming days, we will discuss some of these hard questions.



Will you do me a personal favor?
If you use Facebook, please take a moment and comment on this post. I appreciate the feedback and doing this helps other people learn about my resources. Non-Facebook users can leave comments using the alternate form below.


Dave Mincy
8/24/2009 8:28:41 PM

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this, Greg.

---

James Koerts
8/24/2009 11:51:03 PM

Okay, Greg... I'm in. Bring it on!

---

Lea Ann Garfias
8/25/2009 10:04:51 AM

Even though the music philosophy discussion is a raucous one at times, it is an important issue still. Congratulations on continuing the good work! I look forward to reading some balanced discussion, particularaly as it relates to culture.

---

Paul
8/26/2009 3:29:44 PM

Greg, I plan on following your discussion on this issue because it interests me. Maybe it's just me, but I find it distracting to your case to make
uncharitable and dismissive statements about certain conservative people and their views. I know you disagree with their belief that music itself can be moral or immoral. Tearing them down and belittling them doesn't convince me that you are right and they are wrong. I hope this doesn't come across as viscious, unbalanced as it may be.:-)

---

Greg
8/26/2009 3:45:55 PM

Paul, you come across as a bit sensitive. I have never to my knowledge named even one of the people I disagree with on either side of the debate. And certainly I would challenge you to point me to where this post is uncharitable or dismissive.

By the way, if you want to see something uncharitable, go to the blog you and I were discussing a few weeks ago and notice today's public attack on a pastor. That is what I call uncharitable.

---

Paul
8/26/2009 6:59:46 PM

Greg, I have a different take on publicly naming people. When you fail to name the people you're talking about, you can state your version of their viewpoint without challenge. How can anyone check if you are accurately representing it? Labeling a view as unbalanced seems uncharitable to me. You seem to be dismissing the views of anyone who questions your beginning premises. Also, I question whether the "ultra-conservatives" would think your statement of their reasoning is accurate. I think it's tough to make an air-tight case no matter which way you go on this issue. I resonate more with conservative opinions both with my heart and my head. I'm willing to listen
to another view point, but much of what I have read of you so far seems to me to rely too much on discrediting unnamed
conservatives because they are proud, arrogant, silly, unbalanced, etc. I guess I would like to see you make your case with assertions supported by reasoning from the Bible, philosophy, and music. I'll try to be less sensitive.

---

Leave a Comment
All comments are reviewed for offensive content or spam. Your email is required but never used.

Name:
Website:
Email:
	Please email me follow up comments to this post.
Comment:	Note that HTML is not allowed, but your name will be linked to your site.
Verify Code: