Singing and Making Music | Paul Jones
Paul S. Jones. Singing and Making Music: Issues in Church Music Today. P&R, 2006. 315 pp.
Criteria for Good Church Music
Many people are on the lookout for a short list of acceptable pieces or composers of church music. Some authors have penned articles or books in which they attempt to guide others with such a list. These are compiled with the best of intentions, no doubt, but are not adequate because of their subjectivity. So other questions arise. What composers write well for the modern church? What pieces from previous generations are still valid for our services? What publishing companies should we trust? What is good church music? Who should decide?
The two difficulties in providing answers to these questions are: (1) doing so objectively, and (2) doing so knowledgeably. Music is a very personal matter to most people. In fact, it has been said, “When it comes to music, everybody’s an expert.” Naturally, this is not the case; but each individual will know what he or she likes. Liking a piece or style of music, however, does not mean that it is appropriate music for church. Sacred text alone does not make a piece of music worthy of use, either. When an attempt is made to please everyone by doing a little of this and that, or by trying to select music enjoyed by all, we of necessity degenerate toward the lowest commonality. Yet biblically we are called to give our best in worship, and this requires effort and choice. Change for the better does not come easily, but education assists in achieving positive results. So let us consider some criteria to help discern what is good church music.
Textual Considerations
Considering a text is a first avenue of critique. It almost goes without saying that any text sung in worship should harmonize with biblical principles. I say “almost” because this basic principle is increasingly being forgotten or missed. Pastors should be involved at this point if the church’s musicians lack sufficient theological training to select appropriate texts or if they have questions. This consideration does not apply to new music alone. Some hymns, anthems, and solo songs, particularly those with sentimental texts, may distort or contradict basic doctrines of the faith. Everything sung in worship should be examined in light of Scripture, and only what passes the test should be employed.
When a song quotes the Bible, the setting should take contextual meaning into account. In other words, Scripture should not be taken out of context in music any more than in a sermon or in prayer. This is an issue with many modern worship songs. It is fine to praise God and to say that we are praising God, but the example from the psalms and biblical canticles is to say why one is praising God—always for his acts or attributes. Songs in the Bible about the acts of God continually strike two main themes: his acts of creation and his acts of redemption. His attributes (holiness, justice, mercy, love, faithfulness, omnipotence, etc.) are many and make wonderful subject matter for worship music.
Worshipers should always be pointed to God, who is both the subject and the object of worship. Songs or hymns of encouragement that relate personal experiences are fine to include in worship, as long as they can be considered the common experience of the general body of believers. The testimony of John Newton’s “Amazing Grace,” for example, is true for every Christian. Songs or hymns of personal experience should always point one to Christ. Sentimental Christian folk narratives that describe someone’s Sunday-school teacher, old stringed instruments, or some other human-interest story should be kept out of worship services. Their place is elsewhere.
Appropriateness is another textual test. One must determine whether the text is appropriate to the service itself, to a particular place in the service, and to the congregation. Finally, the text must be able to be understood in terms of both language and delivery. . . .
Musical Considerations
Musical considerations include level of difficulty, melody, harmony, rhythm, form, and required forces. The acceptable level of difficulty will vary according to who will sing or play. A choir will be capable of singing more challenging music than the congregation. In this vein, it is preferable to sing something simple well rather than to attempt a complex work with poor results. At the same time, congregations, choirs, and other ensembles need to grow and to be stretched. In general, melodies for a congregation should be singable and memorable without being monotonous or overly predictable. Harmony should be interesting and should follow rules of good counterpoint and voice-leading. These are perhaps the most commonly missing elements of much new church music. Rhythm should match the text, placing strong syllables on strong beats, and should invigorate the singing. None of these musical features can be permitted to obscure the meaning of the text. In the case of contrapuntal music with multiple layers of text, printing words in the bulletin will help the listener follow the message.
Many of these basic musical features are found wanting in much Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Melodies tend to be monotonous or to move in extreme ranges. Harmony often is simplistic and consists of repeated standard chords that have little direction or contrapuntal logic. Rhythm, especially, is often much different in “performance practice” from the way it is notated. And since the congregation will rarely have access to printed music or know how to read it (much less follow the particular rendition by the praise team of the morning), the soloistic nature and rhythmic complexity of most CCM pieces will elude the congregation, rendering successful unison singing difficult. Many “gospel hymns” (which should really be called “gospel songs” because they do not regularly manifest the characteristics of hymns) also exhibit trite harmony and melody and repetitive rhythm. Inclusion in a hymnal does not make a piece a hymn, nor does it make it worthy of use.
The fourth musical parameter by which music is judged is form. A piece of music, like any other type of art or literature, must have form. Form determines the overall structure, and phrasing defines the inner structure. Some pieces have lovely melodic/harmonic elements or a strong rhythm, but they lack good form. Judgments about musical parameters such as these require the insight of trained musicians. There is not one ideal form: many types are acceptable. But the ideal is for the musical form always to be well wedded to the text, so that what it communicates will reinforce, rather than contradict, the message of the text. Form, like melody, harmony, and rhythm, communicates musical meaning.
The performing forces available to present the music also factor in to determining its usage. If the necessary instruments, solo singers, or choral musicians are not available, certain music should be avoided. Aesthetic considerations are significant, although we will not discuss them here. Variety comes into play, as does association as an including or excluding parameter. For instance, if certain music is associated with the shopping mall, a baseball game, or a nightclub, its appropriateness for the church service should be questioned even though there may be nothing intrinsically wrong with the music in and of itself. Music that predisposes one to lightheartedness, frivolity, rebellion, or sensuality does not befit the worship of our great and holy God. . . .
Association and appropriateness to the text/occasion are factors that will help to determine how fitting a certain style may be. The corporate worship of God should be somehow set apart from the mundane tasks of everyday life (though it should be a regular activity). Thus, one may conclude that music used to worship God should be meaningful and other than ordinary (in other words, extraordinary). May the Spirit help us to write it, find it, rehearse it, and offer it for the glory of God.
Three Principles That Would Change Church Music Today
Although this book has espoused ideas that may differ from modern practice in many evangelical churches, none are more significant or powerful than the three concepts that will be reiterated here. These three ideas, examined in light of Scripture, found to be biblical (as I submit they are), and adopted as the philosophical and practical underpinning of ecclesiastical music-making and musical worship, would transform the church. This is not an overstatement, because that is precisely what happens when worship is accomplished according to Scripture.
We must measure our worship practices by the Word of God.
Scriptural principles should inform all our thinking, traditions, and practices in worship. Evaluating our actions and thinking by the Bible implies several things. First, we must believe that the Bible delivers God’s will to us and that it is authoritative. Second, there must be the desire to live according to God’s will through the work of the Holy Spirit. Third, knowing God’s will and doing it are different things—but obviously one cannot do it without knowing it, and will be judged for knowing it but not doing it. Therefore, when we discover that our practices are in conflict with biblical teaching and principles, we must change. Change can be difficult. As creatures of habit we do not like it; yet we need to explain it to our congregations and embrace it even when doing so is costly. Such decisions may cost us personally, corporately, and financially. We may need to release certain things that we like or to which we have grown accustomed; but we will also gain the blessing of God. God blesses those who honor his Word.
We need to comprehend the pastoral nature of music ministry.
Music is not in competition with pastoral work. It is pastoral work in the sense that it can provide many of the same kinds of spiritual care and leadership that pastoral ministry provides. Music can comfort, encourage, exhort, teach, proclaim the gospel, and reach the spirit. Musical ministry also requires the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when and where there are parallels, the parameters that one applies to ministerial staff should be applied to church musical staff, and those applied to sermons and prayers should be applied to church music. Pastoral musicians, irrespective of title, should be qualified, trained, spiritual, mature, humble, accountable, and aware of their role. They should be afforded honor, respect, authority, and sufficient, even generous, remuneration. The music presented in worship should be excellent, the best the congregation can offer, spiritual, joyful, thoughtful, intelligible, fitting, God-honoring, theocentric, properly rehearsed, live, instructive, functional, and artistic. Musicians other than the director should be skilled, devoted, prepared, service-oriented, and aware of their roles. What a difference it would make if every person involved—congregation, musicians, pastors—came to think about church music this way.
We should ensure that budgets and practices are informed by these truths.
Music in worship cannot be truly conformed to biblical standards and examples of excellence unless it is actively supported by the church leadership in word and deed and is adequately funded. Church musicians, too, like pastors, need this support in a world where there are no more Levitical cities to care for ministerial staff. Priorities in our churches need to demonstrate our care for people, even when a temporary focus may be placed on programs or buildings. Our practices and priorities need to be informed by our knowledge of what God has revealed to be important—rather than by the status quo, common opinion, or “the way it has always been.” Our evaluation of what is good and appropriate in worship must be conformed to scriptural principle, not to popular taste or acceptance of unsubstantiated practice by assumption. We must ask three questions:
- “Why do we do what we do in the way that we do it?”
- “How should we be doing it according to Scripture?” and
- “What will it take to make it so?”
See Ryan Martin’s review at PastorBookshelf Reviews.
Reprinted from Singing and Making Music by Paul S. Jones, © 2006 by Paul S. Jones. Used by permission of P & R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ. All rights reserved.
Like this post? Subscribe to our feed 
.
