Whether or not one thinks the term "morality" necessarily applies to all music (I don't), I would hope that we could all agree that music is a communication medium for meaningful messages. As such, our choices in this realm demand biblically guided thinking and application. The difficulty is often discerning precisely what those messages are.
I've been encouraged in recent years by some who are working to rebuild the discussion of music and meaning out of the ruins of many horrendously bad arguments. In this interview conducted at the recent New Attitude conference, Mohler discusses how we need to be thinking about how not only the words, but also the tune, rhythm, and underlying worldview carry a great deal of meaning. He certainly doesn't provide all the answers, but it seems to me like a pretty useful place to start. In particular, it's accessible to younger people who aren't equipped to handle deep, technical cultural arguments.
9 comments:
so what does the background music in this video clip communicate?
"Mohler discusses how we need to be thinking about how not only the words, but also the tune, rhythm, and underlying worldview carry a great deal of meaning. He certainly doesn't provide all the answers, but it seems to me like a pretty useful place to start. In particular, it's accessible to younger people who aren't equipped to handle deep, technical cultural arguments."
If you agree (which apparently you do) with Mohler that "we need to be thinking about how" the tune, rhythm, etc are meaningful in music, how are you supposed to do this without getting into the more technical questions? How is this any "less deep"? I am not aware of any "simple" discussion of how music means, and I have never seen those bent on justifying a particular music position ever be willing to accept any argument, no matter how simple or self-evident. How are "younger people" going to accept this any more quickly than any other argument? Because it's Mohler and not a fundamentalist? In other words, I agree with Mohler (though the camera work and background "music" on that piece is really distracting), but I disagree that this is the silver bullet. The only difference is that now it's an evangelical instead of a fundamentalist.
Ryan,
I think your key point is that some folks are bent on justifying a particular position. That statement points to the underlying heart issues. One who's not willing to consider whether his position could be flawed has a serious problem, and it's not merely intellectual. And by the way, I think that unhelpful bent toward justifying a particular position can be either "traditional" or "contemporary," as we are both well aware.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments you and those like-minded are making, and I'm pretty sure I've posted to that effect before. I just don't think those arguments are accessible to ordinary young people. That doesn't make them bad arguments.
I don't think that the arguments ordinary young people are hearing from fundamentalist pulpits are generally biblical, defensible, or effective. I do think this is a reasonable place to start--to teach young people that they shouldn't be mindless consumers, but by helping them to be motivated by a desire to honor and please God rather than by imposing a new law upon them.
Now, you have an audience you're targeting, even if you haven't sat down and thought about who you're targeting. That's well and good. It's an audience that needs to be targeted, and it's a message that is worthy of being heard. Mohler is obviously targeting a different audience, and I think he's right to adapt the density of the message to that audience.
Now, there are obviously two things going on here. One is that Mohler is taking a different approach from what has preceded. The other is that he is not considered to be a fundamentalists. I think it's worth pointing out both the approach AND that it's not just fundamentalists saying it.
Ah . . . I was not aware of the New Attitude conference (not keenly aware, anyway--I think I've heard of it before), and I am beginning to sense here that this is a conference for youth. This obviously is a bit a knowledge gap for me, and it seems to be a relevant part of your argument.
"I don't think that the arguments ordinary young people are hearing from fundamentalist pulpits are generally biblical, defensible, or effective. I do think this is a reasonable place to start--to teach
young people that they shouldn't be mindless consumers, but by helping them to be motivated by a desire to honor and please God rather than by imposing a new law upon them."
Agreed. I believe that conservative music is most in line with the revelation we have in Scripture, or else I would not advocate it.
I am glad you pointed to the video. I think it is helpful to the cause (though I know you don't necessary consider yourself aligned with any particular cause).
I may have not seen the direction you were headed with it. But I want to make sure my original point is not lost here, and I do not believe that I articulated it as carefully as I could have. it is all well and good for Mohler to say "we need to be thinking about how not only the words, but also the tune, rhythm, and underlying worldview." This immediately raises the question of how. In other words, you can only take Mohler so far. I am not advocating a "new law." I believe this issue is not an issue of "scientific certainty," and tends toward a kind of ambiguity by its very nature (that is not to say that this ambiguity means that I give a blessing of any kind on my of evangelical worship today...just thought I'd throw that in here). In other words, once you say music means (through these different phenomena), that immediately opens the question how it accomplishes that and how you determine what that music means. Which seems to imply, at least on some level, that we need to become students (in the humanist sense, not in the Garlockian sense) of music.
Agreed. Completely. Like I said, Mohler is only offering a place to start. I just hope someone can find a way to communicate to those who need to hear without going over their heads or making their decisions for them. Perhaps the better approach is to address more basic heart issues first.
I just finished "Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the phenomenon of Christian Rock" and I think it speaks to this exactly. The book is written by an unbeliever, a journalist with Spin Magazine. He gives an outsider's perspective and has the unique position to hear what artists really think about the biz, instead of trying to be all PC with a Christian magazine. I walked away from the book disgusted with a lot of artists, and my faith in some renewed. There is good and bad in the market.
But my point from all of that is this: I think Mohler wants our generation (maybe he's talking to the next - I'm getting old) to use discernment when making musical choices, not because there is something inheritantly sinful about notes put together, but because even the "Christian" artists have something to say behind the lyrics of their songs and using discernment to understand their message is necessary. We can't just lump them all into the "Christian so it's ok" catagory. I really don't think his message is as surface as "conservative music good, CCM bad."
And as for the background music, it is only distracting if you don't like it. I didn't even notice it until others started to comment.
Donette,
I agree with you that he isn't trying to make that kind of cut-and-dry argument. I do think he is going beyond merely evaluating lyrics. The message of a piece of music is shaped by both its textual and musical elements.
When I saw the headline, I salivated a little with anticipation. I watched it and was left with "what did he even say?" He said essentially, "We really need to have discernment in our culture. We really do." Wow! And young people will like that better? I understand. It steps on almost zero toes. It leaves the door almost wide open for anything. I can see young people liking it for its style, which really should be an insult to their intelligence---different camera angles, him sitting casually but with a very thoughtful pose, pitch black background, so very contrived.
It was even less than the Wells interview that I read on the link over at Religious Affection. Wells said, "The medium does have a message. It does." That went a centimeter farther than Mohler.
I'm glad these guys are saying something, but here's the thing. I believe both of them are really intelligent men that are practicing what they believe is body life. They KNOW like other intelligent people that we aren't supposed to judge just the words, but also the style. That's where "culture" comes in. But they give zero basis for discernment. None. How does that make them more intelligent and more helpful? I see it as a lot less courageous. The Holy Spirit manifests himself in boldness.
A recent poll was taken amoung "younger people" on this comment, and the research says it is less popular.
Kent,
I wouldn't discount the possibility that you're correct, but I think it's more likely 1) that people like Mohler see other issues as more foundational, so that's where they invest the primary force of their message, and 2) that they realize today's young people (and this goes for fundamentalist young people as well) are so quick to tune out dogmatism or even moderate confrontation on lifestyle issues that the leaders don't want to bite off more than their audience will be able to chew.
Post a Comment