PROFANE MUSIC IN CHURCH?
What makes music sacred or secular?
Dear Reverend J:
There is a big controversy in my church over what kind of music is
acceptable to use in our services. Some are objecting to certain
kinds of Contemporary Christian Music as sounding too "secular" for
church. How do you determine the difference between "secular"
and
"sacred" music? Where do you draw the line between what is
profane
and holy? Does the Bible give any specific guidance on this subject?
Music Minister
Dear Music Minister:
The Bible simply says, "Let everything that has breath, praise the
Lord." The Psalms are full of encouragement to use all kinds of
brass, woodwinds, strings, and percussion instruments to offer
praise. The fact that these instruments were used rhythmically to
get the body to move and feel the joy of being alive is obvious:
"Praise him with tambourine and dancing." (Psalm 150: 4)
The Hebrews were normally quite phobic about adopting the customs of
their "pagan" neighbors. The Mosaic laws had 613 rules, many of
which spelled out in exact detail how NOT to behave like the nations
surrounding them. Rules about diet and dress codes and all kinds of
things. But when it came to music, absolutely nothing is forbidden.
They used the same musical instruments and styles as anyone else.
The only difference is that they used their music to worship the one
true God and to celebrate life.
Music is the language of the heart. The language itself is neither
holy or unholy. If the heart is profane, then what comes out of the
heart is profane. If the heart is pure, then what comes out of the
heart is pure. (Matthew 15: 18,19) It's not the sound of words that
makes them holy. It's the intention and motive behind the
communication. We now have historical evidence that the Hebrew
language grew out of Canaanite dialects. So did their music. They
borrowed from their contemporary culture and made it their own.
Though we have no record of music being a source of controversy in
the Old Testament (or the New Testament for that matter), the history
of the Christian church has been full of controversy over this issue.
At one point only unison chant was considered "sacred". Harmony
was
considered too sensual. Worship was perceived at that time as being
only contemplative and sober and the music of the church reflected
that.
This controversy runs like a sticky thread through the entire history
of the institutional church. It has no basis in Scripture whatsoever
but in tradition and culture. Calvin condemned the pipe organ as
being profane. Luther loved it. Today we all consider Handel's
"Messiah" as being one of the greatest works of sacred music of all
time. But when he composed this masterpiece he was roundly condemned
in conservative pulpits all over London. How dare he profane the
Word of God by using the same musical motifs
employed in Italian operettas? And to make matters worse, he
premiered this work NOT in the church but in the theater--a house of
secular entertainment. To many Christians this was shocking and
offensive.
Luther's music was just as scandalous. His most famous lyric "A
Mighty Fortress" was set to a beer-drinking tune straight out of the
pub. Today it's considered traditional "sacred" music of the
finest
order. Charles Wesley had the same mindset that Luther had. Make
church music singable, hummable, simple and melodic--but with
profound theological lyrics.
Move forward to the last century and we see the emergence of gospel
song writers who hijacked popular music and did the same thing.
Songs like "In The Garden" were considered too romantic and
sentimental to be sacred for some. John Peterson's gospel songs like
"It Took A Miracle" even landed on the hit parade in the fifties.
Stuart Hamblen combined Country Western and pop musical motifs during
that period to write such standards as "Until Then". His best known
song, "This Ol' House", became a chart-busting hit.
During the sixties, Ralph Carmichael scandalized the evangelical
church by using the same sensuous orchestrations with gospel songs
that he used when arranging for Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, Roger
Williams, and other pop artists. He had his feet in both worlds and
the church didn't like that much either. How dare he use the rich
sensorial harmonies of jazz and pop music to interpret sacred themes?
And he didn't stop there.
While scoring the Billy Graham movie, "The Restless Ones", he was
pretty much the first
Christian musician to push the envelope further into using rock
motifs. "He's Everything To Me" comes from that movie.
Today that
song is a standard and most of Carmichael's music from that period
would be considered classic and traditional now.
Everyone knows Bill Gaither's enormous legacy in gospel music. His
premier song, "He Touched Me" was roundly criticized in the late
sixties as being too sentimental, too pop, too country, too simple.
Today you can't buy a hymnal without it being full of Bill and Gloria
Gaither's rich repertoire of gospel music. They have changed the way
the church sings. And it just doesn't get much better than "Because
He Lives." If you can't feel the gospel thrill you right down to
your bones with that anthem then you might as well fold your cards
and go home.
The seventies witnessed another shift as Contemporary Christian Music
created a genre all it's own that paralleled all the styles and
sounds of the popular culture. Lots of controversy once again. But
as Larry Norman put it: "Why should the devil have all the good
music?" At last the pseudo-boundaries of sacred vs. secular music
came tumbling down as artist after artist claimed their own unique
voice. That genie will never go back into the bottle. It's taken us
this long to get back to what the Hebrews knew millenniums ago.
"Whatever has breath, praise the Lord!"
I have an observation about all this. Christian music today employs
all the sounds and rhythms of virtually every cultural expression.
Personally, I think that's a triumph for the gospel. No other
religion can claim that. How many Grammy categories do you see for
Moslem music? Buddhist music? Hindu music? It just isn't
there.
It is the gospel that has universal appeal. It is the gospel that
speaks to young people and old people. Conservative people.
Progressive people. Red and yellow, black or white. All are
precious in his sight. There isn't a single style of music today
that isn't giving praise to God. That's something to celebrate, not
condemn.
To those who still hold on to the presupposition that there is a
difference in the sound of sacred vs. secular music, I would ask
this question: Is there a different vocabulary you use to describe
your everyday life from your faith? Are some words holier than
others?
Words are neither secular or sacred. The New Testament was not
written in classical Greek, but street language Greek. There are no
sacred words in the Bible that weren't also used by pagans throughout
the Mediterranean world. It's not the words themselves that are
sacred. It's the message that is sacred. It's all about the intent
behind the words.
Christians have always seemed to have an uneasy time with percussion
and rhythm. But rhythm is nothing more than mathematics. With
today's musical technology you can program virtually any beat or
rhythm into a computer simply by entering numbers. It's nothing more
than numbers. Are some numbers more holy than other numbers? How
ridiculous is that? The body was constructed by God to enjoy the
feeling of rhythm. The heart beats in rhythm. The universe pulsates
and moves in rhythm. The seven day cycle of activity and rest is all
about rhythm. The more rhythm you feel in your body the more alive
you are. To not feel rhythm is to be dead.
You can also graph and edit virtually any sound or combinations of
sounds on a computer. All the audible colors of musical harmony and
expression are nothing more than vibrations. Sound waves. Is a
vibration of sound either secular or sacred? Of course not. Sound
is all about physics. Physics can't be subdivided into sacred vs.
profane categories.
Even in the somber monotone of a sacred chant there are harmonic
vibrations that the ear can't hear. If those monks from the Medieval
period could have heard them they would have freaked out. But
they're there. They're just not audible. The universe if filled
with the vibrations of sound that reflect the mind and diversity of
its original Creator. No wonder the Bible says "Let
everything....praise the Lord." It all points back to him.
What makes music profane or holy is not the subdivision of numbers
between the beats. It's not in the sound waves. It's all in the
intent behind the communication--the spirit of the music. All music
is sacred if it glorifies God and celebrates his creation. A good
love song is sacred if it honors the kind of devotional and
sacrificial love that harmonizes with the character of God. The Song
of Songs in the Old Testament even celebrates human sexuality as a
sacred gift from God. The Hebrews were not afraid of the body the
way Christians are.
In today's musical culture we are bombarded with musical expression
that is indeed profane. It's profane because the message degrades
human dignity. It's profane because it ignores God entirely and
celebrates self-indulgence. The images and lyrics regularly
portrayed on MTV are truly disturbing. The message of popular rap
artists like Eminem are beyond deplorable. They incite misogyny and
bigotry. The only good that can be squeezed out of this kind of
material is the wake-up call it signals to the rest of society. It's
really a scream for help.
The mission of "sacred" music should always be concerned with
addressing the human condition with hope. The ministry of grace.
The ministry of reconciliation. The ministry of healing and mutual
respect. Lyrically you can accomplish that with good theology that
lifts the spirit and inspires faith. Sonically you can accomplish
that with instrumental beauty that resonates with the soul. Music is
God's gift to reconstruct the human spirit, not tear it apart.
That's the best way I know how to evaluate what is holy or unholy.
But this criteria is subjective and personal. What might edify and
inspire me might not inspire you.
A music minister has the thankless task of pleasing a whole range of
musical tastes in a diverse community. Many churches have solved
this problem by splitting the services into traditional and
contemporary services. The goal should be to service the cultural
diversity within the congregation. And if there isn't any cultural
diversity I don't think that church is doing its job very well. The
gospel unites all cultures together by its message of inclusion, not
exclusion. The Kingdom of Heaven is made of up "every nation, tribe,
tongue, and people." The church should reflect that. The music
should reflect that. The key word here is "tongue". It's
talking
about communication. And music is a form of communication.
God is the Creator of variety and diversity. There's nothing boring
or monolithic about his creation. It's full of surprises. He brings
order out of chaos. That is what the artistic impulse is. And good
music is full of surprises. Like good humor it employs that
"ah-ha"
moment when the lightbulb goes on and you "get it." A great
musical
artist knows how to achieve that goal. The worst thing that happens
in a lot of "sacred" music is that it is predictable and boring.
God
is neither. Sacred music should expand the soul and fill it with
grace and insight and the delight of discovery. Nothing crosses
boundaries and melts walls quite as powerfully as music. It's our
most powerful tool of communication, rightly used.
The gospel embraces humanity with all of it's emotional colors. The
Word becomes flesh. The gospel is incarnational. If music is truly
"sacred" it will be fully incarnational as well. It should speak
to
every human emotion and yearning. If it doesn't do that then it
isn't very Christian. It should be both vertical and horizontal in
its scope. Why? Because the gospel is. The gospel isn't afraid
to
dig it's fingers into the soil. It unites heaven with earth. And
when music does that it is truly sacred.
The word "holy" literally means "other". It doesn't
mean stiff,
pious, and aloof. When the angels sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" they
are
marveling at the character of God--whose heart is fully focused on
the "other" and not on himself. That's what separates him from
false
gods. God is not narcissistic. Jesus came to serve. (Luke 22: 27)
That is what holiness looks like. That is what charity looks like.
That is what a Christian is supposed to look like.
So let us not be "unholy" by demanding that all sacred music must
serve our own tastes. I don't like every kind of music in the world.
I've traveled around the world and I've heard some things that make
my ears bleed. But I am fascinated by what the human emotion is
behind the artistic expression. It enlarges my world to make the
effort to understand. I think that's all that God requires of us. Be
respectful of others and try to understand what they hear. You don't
have to like it. But by enlarging your understanding of others you
tap into a "holy" impulse that makes you more fully human in the
image of God.
There won't be any music police in heaven. So why develop that skill
on earth? Aren't there more important issues to invest our time in?
Like maybe calming the storm in other people's lives, rather than
creating new ones. So much time and energy has been wasted over
debating issues like these. So many unnecessary bruises inflicted.
Just think of how much good could be done in the world if Christians
had their priorities focused on what really matters most.
"To every thing there is a season," the Bible says.
"A time to
mourn and a time to dance." Why is that Christians are more
comfortable with mourning than dancing? Odd, isn't it? We have so
much to celebrate and communicate. I think the real question
regarding music is: what is the appropriate "season" for this or that
kind of music. And that is primarily a question of taste and good
judgment...and a sensitivity to the needs of the community being
ministered to. There's no "one size fits all" rule of thumb.
The
Scriptures haven't given us any.
Let everything that can breathe... praise the Lord! That's as
specific as the Bible gets. It's very broad and inclusive. The
gospel challenges us to have hearts that are generous and inclusive.
I think if we're truly filled with the Spirit our appreciation of all
kinds of cultural and artistic expression will naturally be
expansive. Not restrictive. Of all people on earth, Christians
should be the most eager to expand and grow. In doing so we
harmonize with the expansive, innovative Spirit of God.
Did Jesus ever experience a "secular" moment? He was God in the
flesh, wasn't he? How can God have a "secular" moment?
It's an
oxymoron. The Incarnation demolishes all boundaries of secular and
sacred. The "Word made flesh" confirms that all of life is
sacred.
To be fully human, as Jesus was, is to live for the "other" and to
discover our true self in the presence of others. Anything short of
that is profane.
A true artist gives his soul away to others. That is his or her gift
to the world. It is a sacred impulse. A holy impulse. That
impulse
should not be contained and restricted but encouraged to flower and
flourish. Christians, of all people, should be the first to
facilitate that artistic impulse. During the Renaissance period the
church got it right.
That period produced the greatest art the world has ever seen. What
happened? We've lost a lot of ground since then. It's time to face
the music and claim it back!
-Reverend J
See ya,
Mark [Lowry]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Check out Mark's rambling reMarks:
http://www.marklowry.com/rambling.html