You are here

Home ›

Worship wars: musicians, pulpiteers, and aesthetics...

by David and Tim Bayly on December 20, 2006 - 10:33am

Much of the current battle over worship, particularly the music we use, is more deeply a battle over whether high aesthetics are always and only good, or whether they also pose a threat. Like Frankenstein, can high aesthetics turn on us and cease to be a servant, instead becoming a master of God's people at worship? Can they even become an idol, displacing God Himself?

In the corner for their posing a threat is this excerpt from the latest "Notes and Comments" at the front of the December 2006 New Criterion. Introducing a piece by Michael J. Lewis on the art historian, T. J. Clark, the editors quote Lewis:

The tendency of Clark's career has been to dislodge the aesthetic object from its pedestal to set it back into the social, cultural, and political currents that brought it forth. Such an approach, wielded judiciously, can immeasurably enrich the understanding of an object. ...(A) mediocre work of art always speaks far more eloquently about the society that made it than a great one.

The editors then comment:

For a political interpretation of art, greatness is a distraction at best, at worst it is a rival for the reader's or viewer's attention.

At least since the 1970s, efforts to dethrone the aesthetic and short-circuit or marginalize greatness have triumphed in the academy and many other institutions charged with the preservation and transmission of our artistic patrimony.

So now, two questions...

First, if it's fair to say that the meter, melody, harmony, and instrumentation of a hymn is more the aesthetic object itself, and the verse more the vehicle carrying the "cultural" or Scriptural current, have we ever considered the possibility that the aesthetic objects in our worship may sit on such a high pedestal that they overwhelm Biblical truth? That their "greatness" has become "a distraction" or a "rival (for the choir's or congregation's) attention?"

Second, speaking only to those from an upper middle class reformed tradition, if you answered a resounding "No!" to this first question, it's my guess that, whether consciously or subconsciously, you have brought into the tabernacle goals which are antithetical to true worship--namely the "preservation and transmission of our artistic patrimony."

And while my own aesthetic preferences, musically, as well as my love for tradition and history lead me to great sympathy with you on this, we must exercise great discipline here.

The best and most beautiful things always pose the greatest threat of idolatry.

Move over into preaching and we remember that many Puritans were opposed to the reading of sermons. Just as musical aesthetics can overwhelm verse and the Scriptural truths that verse bears, so rhetoric can overwhelm the sermonic prose and the Scriptural truths that prose bears. This is the reason I'm opposed to pulpiteers and their affectations of sophistication and erudition.

When a man steps into the pulpit and adopts a different tone of voice, vocabulary, and syntax than he uses with his flock and family the rest of the week, he's either a pompous ass all the time, or he has displaced God's glory with his own, and his flock will leave the sanctuary hungry still.

(B)ut God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. (1 Corinthians 1:27-29).
Tags: 
Worship & idolatry

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by David L. on December 20, 2006 - 11:57am

A few quick questions:

1) Can there be any "non-political" interpretation of art for a Christian? In other words, must we see all art as merely a paraphrase of ideology?

2) If quality is suspect, why bother doing anything well? Why spend the time we do rather than less preparing sermons, doing homework, making sure our employers get good work from us? Someone can write Christian-sounding lyrics to a song in five minutes, and another person can set it to a tune in ten minutes. Would the result be qualitatively equivalent to a song worked at for a week according to a spiritual criterion?

3) Another aspect to the discussion is our personal responsibility to worship in whatever environment we find ourselves. If I attend my sister-in-law's liberal church with its populist, non-traditional liturgy, is it OK for me to abstain from worshiping and to sit quietly sulking, feeling superior to everyone there? Or can I--should I--still worship in spirit & truth, singing in my heart to God? If the latter, would it be right to say that worship is primarily a subjective matter?

Submitted by Jack's Pipe on December 20, 2006 - 12:14pm

Though I'd rather hear a hymn than a praise song, I've pretty much concluded that lousy pop music can be suffered as long as it is theologically sound (which most of it isn't), and as long as the service itself doesn't lose the elements of worship because the congregation would rather sing 30 minutes of praise music than read Scripture, pray, etc (though this is precisely what is usually lost... Manure follows the cow?).

I've nearly given up fighting the reverence angle, since most think it too subjective.

Submitted by DanD on December 22, 2006 - 5:46am

Dr Rayburn taught that 'mere music'--music without lyrics, used as prelude or offeratory, etc. should not be something familiar because the familiar would quite often capture the mind and heart and distract one from meditating on the glory and worth of Christ. That familiar could be 'great' music or 'popular' music. His thought was that worshipers should seek to keep their focus on the Lord rather than how the song went, or 'what are those words that go to that tune,' etc.

Anything we appreciate can become an idol for the heart. And Jame 4 reminds us that it is idols or desires of the heart that are a root for the conflicts and differences we have. No wonder it is called "worship war".

grace

Submitted by Ken Pierce on December 22, 2006 - 5:37pm

Tim,

I am not sure that it's fair to characterize men who have a different pulpit presence than personal presence as having displaced God's glory with their own. I can think of examples of good men who, while very approachable in person, are regal pulpiteers. They are not putting on an act, it is simply that public discourse has a different timbre than personal discourse.

For instance, Billy Graham's nephew was a professor of mine in college. He said that Billy in person is soft-spoken and genial, but his pulpit presence was far more statesmanlike. In our own tradition, I think in this regard of John R. de Witt. Now, no mistake about it, de Witt is regal in person, but affable and friendly. But, in the pulpit, he is a lion.

I have been told myself, and not in a critical way, that my pulpit presence indicates that I am there on a divine mission, while in person, I am fairly quiet, reserved, and hopefully approachable. I don't seek to put on airs, but I do speak to groups of people in a different way than I speak to my child at bedtime.

I wonder if your thinking here isn't more the spirit of the age --pastor as "regular guy," etc? I think the glory of God demands from us a certain skill in oration --not cleverness of speech, certainly, but urgency, vibrancy, and a certain amount of Jeremiah-like "barking!" unlike the dumb dogs that occupy so many mainline pulpits today.

Just a few thoughts.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on December 23, 2006 - 8:27am

Ken, I've responded to your helpful comments on the main page, taking your first sentence as my starting point. Thank you for your helpful words, brother.

Submitted by Byron on December 26, 2006 - 5:07am

I have to agree with Ken Pierce on this one; you overmake the (mostly valid!) point by a bit when you quibble with a pastor watching such things as his syntax and vocabulary while in the pulpit. Would you watch your grammar a bit more carefully in the presence of the president than you might in the presence of your brother-in-law? I know I would; the "ain'ts" would be gone; I would take the extra split-second to say "I'm doing WELL" instead of "I'm good", and the like. I see this as being no different from ANY type of public speaking; there is accepted English for informal situations, but a bit higher standard for public speaking. It MIGHT signal pomposity to change such things, but might it not simply signal an appropriate level of decorum?

Submitted by Tim Bayly on December 26, 2006 - 7:32am

Dear Ken and Byron,

Yes, of course. This is not an argument for bad syntax or grammar at all. It's something else entirely I'm trying to get at--the presence of a man and rhetoric in the pulpit that is entirely "other."

Again, patrician pulpiteers aren't preachers. Or another way of putting it is that Mark Noll accusing a preacher of being "populist" can be a commendation of the man's faithfulness to his calling.

Warmly,

Tim Bayly

Submitted by David Gray on December 26, 2006 - 8:25am

>Or another way of putting it is that Mark Noll accusing a preacher of being "populist" can be a commendation of the man's faithfulness to his calling.

Wouldn't a populist generally be considered to be somebody who shapes his message based on what the masses want to hear?

Submitted by David Bayly on December 26, 2006 - 11:12am

Dear David,

The problem is that "populism" lies in the eye of the beholder.

You're right that the populist caters to his audience. But the assumption that doing so is wrong is part of the problem. Initial opponents of Whitefield, Wesley and other preachers of the Great Awakening routinely barred them from pulpits because they viewed them as populists. The same was true of the sophisticate church's view of men such as Tyndale and Wycliffe.

There are those who want to hear erudite, oratorical prose from their pulpit. But they're not usually those who want to apply the preaching they hear to their own hearts.

In the end, it's a mistake to assume people don't want to hear the simple Gospel.

Yours in Christ,

David

Submitted by Timothy Shafer on December 27, 2006 - 6:54am

I would certainly agree with Reverend Bayly that high aesthetics can pose an idolatrous threat - in the same manner that low aesthetics or any kind of aesthetics can pose a threat - to true worship. Others have correctly reminded us of our depraved ability to create idols of practically anything we find.

I would also agree with the premise in Reverend Bayly's first question that meter, melody, harmony, and instrumentation (as well as unspoken other facets of music) are the ingredients that comprise the aesthetic object itself. I would agree with this premise as far as it goes. But both music and Scripture have more facets than the false dichotomy established in Reverend Bayly's question.

In fact, God, in His wisdom, has imbued Scripture, like music, with aesthetic value. And as the inspired Word of God, the literary aesthetics of Scripture are unsurpassed. But music, like Scripture, also has communicative power. The Bible repeatedly reminds us of music's ability to communicate in a tangible fashion. Setting aside for a moment the argument about the excellence of aesthetics proper, directors of music must also consider the correlation between the affective content of the text of a given Scriptural passage and the affective content of the passage of music to which it is set. If the musical content does not fit the textual content, the music should be rejected based on Paul's command concerning all things in worship in I Corinthians 14:40.

If my assertions are accurate, who, then, is to decide about the fit between the affective content of Scripture and the affective content of music? According to the Bible, this is a complex process requiring the specialized training of two disciplines: musicians and theologians. The Lord reminds us of the need for appointing musicians who are knowledgeable, skilled, and trained in singing and music (I Chronicles 15:22, Psalm 33:3), who also will work together with their church leaders (I Chronicles 6:32) for effective worship.

Scripturally, the argument is not merely about aesthetics, but also about congruity between text and music, as well as holiness.

Add new comment

2013 Clearnote Summer Conference
Man vs. Lust
Sexual by Design