catapult magazine

I had an interesting conversation with a musician friend of mine at JPUSA. He plays flamenco guitar and considers Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon one of his favourite albums. He is also a trained Freudian Psychoanalysist and an ordained Pentacostal Pastor who speaks in tongues and believes in charismatic outpourings of the Holy Spirit.

He asked me if I had heard Keith Green. I told him I had but really disliked it. He said, "anybody can write a song but only the Holy Spirit can give testimony". He then explained that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is what he experiences when he listens to Keith Green.

Is it possible that God works through tacky, cheesy music? Maybe we who interact with popular culture regularly require music to have more armor. Music that comes out of sheltered communities sounds weak to me. It sounds defenseless. It lacks the strength of Johnny Cash or Kanye/Common collaborations. Is it possible though, that music from a Christian community that focuses on praying, reading the Bible, and fellowship more than reading The New York Times, watching MTV2, and hanging out at a bar, could be more full of the Holy Spirit than the ‘great’ artists that we all like?

Hoo boy, we’re going to get lost in the various issues really fast if we don’t stick to the original problem. Of course we run into lots of issues when we expect peoples of different cultures to understand music from a totally different cultural context. And we can get off topic pretty fast when we bring academic vs. non-academic differences into this as well. Such topics require an agreed definition of culture (i.e. Is a person part of an academic culture in the same way that a Christian shares a Christian "culture"?; How then do ethnic "cultures" fit in to these other kinds of "cultures"?) and an exploration of the contours of musical interpretation from various cultural standpoints. We can do all this, but I don’t want to lose sight of what seems to me the original question of this discussion:

Why do people who are united by Christ differ so much on what they consider "Christian" music?

This is an important issue for Christians, as it should be for others who claim some kind of communal identity. If Christians claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, how do we make sense of the various interpretations of this supposedly unifying Spirit? And what kind of "unity" do we Christians have that seems to break down when it comes to something as community-defining as music?

I’m not as ready as Dan to consider this issue of little importance. I’m actually a bit surprised that someone who is an educator would not also feel the relevance of this issue. When my 4th generation Dutch Reformed middle-class graduates of "Christian" education living mostly in white suburban neighborhoods come to my classroom, I can feel the negative effects of their lack of exposure to many kinds of cultural expressions (and even often their own). I don’t expect them to be able to read all the nuances of Plato, but for many of them their sense of wonder has been stifled at an early age by our education system or their family or society (as presented by radio, tv, internet etc). They consider anything outside their narrow experiences to be weird and therefore don’t understand the inherent value of exploring something new or mysterious. Their range of musical and artistic taste is very narrow and seems to go with their ability to be open to new ideas.

Their musical taste is reflective of their over-all lifestyle, to be sure. But it also works the other way, because often all I have to do is put something in front of them, a film about an artist or a song they’d never heard, and their world expands. They start to reflect on the break-through and on why they hadn’t seen things like that before. It’s kind of like Plato’s captives in the cave! Music definitely has ramifications for their lives, for their ability to see outside society’s prescribed path for how to live. It was important that Bob Dylan challenged American middle class values in the 60’s. It changed people’s lives. Music of that generation helped open up the way people understood themselves and the world they were living in.

Bad, unimaginative, uninspiring, unchallenging music can harm people, yes biologically as well as spiritually (for historical evidence, check out the connection between Hitler and the German music of the early 1900’s which inspired the dictator’s vision for his nation in a recent book called "The Rest is Noise"). Communities are greatly affected by music. So I stand by the value of my food-music example if only to protest the reduction of the idea of "harm" to [i:5c73665adf]what causes an individual to suffer biological death[/i:5c73665adf]. Though I am willing to argue that music indeed does have biological effects as well (scientists are currently discovering some interesting things in the field of music therapy and music cognition), we should not limit our understanding of harm to such a concept.

so you think it actually hurts people to listen to celine dion? that her fans are becoming severely injured as time goes by? sam gassanov is going to be a very angry man when he hears about this, not to mention, on his deathbed :)

i didn’t mean to make it sound like music isn’t important—i’m afraid i overstated my position to make a point. i was sensing that you have a fairly narrow view of what kind of music could be the genuine vehicle for the holy spirit, and that this narrow view does not honour the experience of millions of ordinary people who experience rapture listening to and playing music that for you is kitsch. of course some of those people can have their eyes and ears opened to new depths and breadths of music, but most won’t. Musicians and music-educators should do what they can, but you have to admit that pop music always wins the greatest number of people. I don’t think that is necessarily bad.

As an educator myself, in history, I do wish that everyone had a better understanding of history and i do what I can to get people interested, but the majority of people just don’t care much and I think that’s normal and ok. I’ll spend my time with those who want to learn, and the school system will teach children nationalist histories that don’t do much to satisfy curiosity, but do encourage their loyalty to the state and the present state of things as the logical conclusion of history. The worst, and often the most popular music also tends to encourage acceptance of the way things are — most people don’t want their world turned upside down, certainly don’t want to be part of any kind of revolt against the status quo. Good music asks questions, challenges, mourns what is wrong, or celebrates what is good and right — not unlike good history (in my opinion). But what to me might be the worst sort of popular history book might be challenging or upsetting to someone who had very little background to begin with. We have to meet people where they are, not where we want them to be, and so does the holy spirit, doesn’t she?

I’ll reiterate my belief that the Spirit can work in all kinds of music. And there are certainly different functions for music just as there are for history books. But just like those working in the field of history, musical artists will also continue to try to find ways to show all that music can do for societal life. There are definitely different spirits and spiritual perspectives behind music just as there are in written historical text books, no matter what the intention or function of the work is (for general study or more specialized academic research). I was enjoying Justin Timberlake alongside M.I.A. and Kanye West the other night. They are all trying (and have succeeded) to reach huge audiences, but they all come from very different spiritual traditions. Embedded in the intended use of the music, whether it’s for younger people, older folks, college trained or not, are particular spiritual characteristics. This is where history and music are similar, both are trying to articulate the spirit that moves a people.

alright, it’s true that there is an intentionality behind created things (people are agents), but the other side of the coin is that things, including songs and albums, can become more or less than the maker intended. The maker does not possess full agency. What the maker wants is not necessarily what he ends up with. He may want to articulate something and end up communicating something different to people. This is where cultural divides are important. Whereas Marvin Gaye was apparently trying to articulate how much he loved his partner in "aint no mountain high enough", people like my parents will understand this song as promiscuous and over-sexed. Musicians have some agency, but they lose control once they put the song out there and people hear it. That’s when the spirit enters in isn’t it? My parents are going to need someone like STEVE Green so they can hear the spirit, cause even Keith Green is too frivolous and sensual for them.

Yes, I absolutely agree that we ought to take more than an artist’s intention into account when we judge the quality of an art work’s spirit. Here is Wolterstorff from "Art in Action":

"It seems to be a matter of linguistic practice for critics and others to speak only of ‘states of consciousness’, and even more narrowly, only of feelings and emotions, as being what objects are expressive of…But what must then be observed is that the aesthetic character of a work of art may bear relations of fittingness not only to states of consciousness, but to a wide variety of other qualities as well. Some of such fittingness is there by intent on the part of the artist, some not. But in either case, we have here a second way, closely related to the first , in which the artist is a worker in fittingness."

I like Wolterstorff’s way of talking about art in terms of fittingness. You can even apply this to taste. Dan’s parents prefer Keith Green to Marvin Gaye because it fits with their own experiences and outlook on the world. Perhaps what is called "spirit" is also a kind of communal fittingness.

I think it is important to be careful not to make statements that absolutize that a certain kind of music is filled with the Holy Spirit. I’ve been guilty of this. The Holy Spirit can work in the darkest of places.

I’ve become interested in how God defines himself in Exodus 19:5,6 "Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.‘"
I’d be interested in what this means to a theologian. What is the difference between the "whole earth" and the "holy nation". It seem like being holy allows you to come closer in the presence of The Lord.

I like the ‘communal fittingness’ idea. I haven’t read Woltersdorf but I wonder how he explains this in relation to God.

I was just reading the catholic interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12 and it struck me as interesting the way the different expressions of one Spirit is explained.

"To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit;
to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues.
But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes. "

I think this can be applied to any gift. Within music its important to recognize that there is one Spirit but it expresses itself through many different kinds ofcommunities and individuals.

Earlier in the passage Paul says: "Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God says, "Jesus be accursed." And no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the holy Spirit."

I think a fundamentalist might get scared at this passage. No wonder they want to take this literally. Its much safer to only sing ‘Jesus is Lord’. That way you know you’re of the holy Spirit. But perhaps they’re faking it and therefore taking The Lord’s name in vain. If all you’re allowed to sing is ‘Jesus is Lord’ I don’t know how you can’t fake it. Not that there’s anything wrong with singing ‘Jesus is Lord’.

I wonder if we might be surprised at what musicians are singing ‘Jesus is Lord’ in their hearts without knowing the Christian articulation of ‘Jesus is Lord’.

I don’t think we have to conclude that they’re "faking it". The problem is that they’re not practicing "discipleship of the mind", as James Sire calls it. We’re not just disciples of Jesus’ moral teachings. As a Christian community, we have to follow up on the logical conclusions (that’s what discipleship of the mind means for Sire) of saying something like "Jesus is Lord". We can’t merely be happy with the emotional fervor of singing such a phrase. The phrase only has meaning in the context of how we act in all areas of life, as thinkers too.

This question of Christ’s lordship is also related to your question about God’s calling of Israel to be a representative nation, holy, set apart from other nations so that all nations may be blessed, doesn’t it? It’s the mystery of how God can work out God’s plan for all the world through particular nations, even particular people (Jesus). This is a very biblical concept, from Adam and Eve’s representation of all humanity to the responsibility given to Isreal’s judges and kings when sin has spread throughout the nation.