Music, The Reactionary Approach (part 2)

As stated in part one of this series (Music, an Introduction), there are in today's church two main approaches to the idea of culture and therefore music. One view looks at culture and seeks to be "different", while the other view sees no problem "becoming like" the culture to win the world. In our conclusion we stated that both approaches are fatally flawed in that they set culture up as the means for making the decision. Culture (either positive or negative) should never serve as the reason for making a decision on certain issues. We as Christians are said to be "Christ-centered", not culture-centered! It is the purpose of this article to address the arguments brought up by the anti-culture or reactionistic approach to the music debate. There are several key issues brought up by those who oppose what is commonly called "CCM".

Is Music Moral?
At the heart of the debate is the problem of the background or beat. Often, when arguing against the "rock-like" style of CCM, these traditionalists will state that "Music is moral." Unfortunately, in this regard, those who hold this view end up skewing the text in order to prove their assertion. While there is an undeniable "power" to music, this "power" is not found in its intrinsic morality. Music is not an "image-bearer" as is mankind. Because non-image bearing elements cannot have any intrinsic ethical morality it must be concluded that music is amoral. This being said, music can have derived morality, or imposed morality. Any "non-image bearing item" can have imposed morality as it relates to the "image-bearers" perspective! Paul supports this view as he argues in I Corinthians 8 that there is no intrinsic "rightness or wrongness" in the idol or the meat offered to the idol. The idol only posses "morality" as it relates to one's perspective. Thus, this argument is wrong in that it sources it's sense of morality in culture (music style) and not in Christ.

Is the background more important then the words?
A second issue with a reactionistic approach to culture is found in the argument that musical style is more important than the words of the song. Those who hold this view are forced to argue this way due to their imposition of morality onto the style. If styles are moral, then they are of utmost import. We have already seen that music, as a non-image bearing element, should not be called moral. In this respect, the argument against CCM has become almost anti-theological. With the heaviest stress upon the background, the words naturally take a secondary place of importance. This is not only wrong, but ends up demeaning the process of mind renewal (which is accomplished through right thinking or theology). While I am not arguing that only the words matter, I am arguing that they play a crucial (if not the most important) role in determining the use of the song! We diminish content to our own destruction.

Is our culture better?

Those who hold this view of music end up seeking to impose their cultural style of worship upon other cultures. Because an opposition to culture is at the center of this view (and not Christ), they seek to accomplish the great work of missions through not only bringing the gospel but brining the "great white culture" to the field. How arrogant, to deify our culture and say that this is the only "way" or "form" one should use to worship our great God. God is in the business of calling people from "every kindred, tongue, people, and nation" to worship Him. Are we so pompous to think He will also call them to maintain the same worship styles as the "great white missionary?" Diversity in worship should be as multifaceted as there are peoples represented. It should also be noted that those who hold this view are merely exalting, not this current twenty-first century culture, but a previous culture's style. Our modern "traditional" hymn books have continuously been updated to reflect a 60 to 70 year gap in cultural style. This again shows just how culture centered this view has become.

Rejecting God's Word?
This view ends up trumpeting a "anti-culture" stance as the most important issue to consider when joining a church. If a church does not agree with their view on music, it should not be attended. Frank Garlock, a champion of this perspective states, ". . . it would be better to go to a church that you know doesn't teach the Bible than to go to one that still preaches the Bible but then allows worldly practices (specifically CCM) to be a part of its ministry (Frontline, March/April 2004)." What a statement. At the heart of this statement is a definition of spirituality that is centered around culture and NOT Christ. God has not promised to bring life transformation through the music one listens to or allows into the church! Life transformation is only sourced in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Thus, the position of Frank Garlock ends up belittling the vary thing we turn to in order to find growth and solace!

Other side issues?
Often those who hold this view hold that only "high-quality" music is worthy of worship. Therefore, those who are not at this level are relegated to serve at a lesser level (like Wednesday or Sunday night). This view elevates man's ability to produce something that will "please" God, again, denying our only way of pleasing God -- through Christ! Sometimes those who hold this view deny the importance of emotion in worship -- as if God wants stoic, non-emotional people worshiping his name (how hypocritical). You wouldn't love your husband or wife in this way (emotionless), why would you think it possible or necessary to love your Heavenly Father in this way? Lastly, when culture is our center, we are constantly forced to change our position, we end up often having to go to an "expert" to tell us what is right and wrong. This should not be the case as we are all "priests before God." When there is some special information that the pastor or song leader possess, that others do not or cannot understand, we ought to question whether the information is truly from God or sourced in man-centered, culture-based, reactionism.

Conclusion:
When our source for spirituality is found in this world's system or culture, we have no "rock" on which to place our feet. The arguments discussed above are fruits of seeking to react or "be different" from culture -- a negative response to it. This is not what we are called to do. We are called, not to define ourselves as being opposed to this and this and this, but instead, to define ourselves by who we follow -- CHRIST. When I was married, I did not stand at the alter and think, "Hm, this means I can't marry this woman or that woman!" Instead, I was so enraptured with the beauty of my wife, that I clung to her, desiring nothing else. When we begin to define our spirituality based upon what we are not (or what we don't do), we inevitably end up departing from true, Christ-centered Christianity.