I grew up in a contemporary church world with music played by guitars and four chords. I went to traditional services and hated every minute because they were 'boring.' As I've matured, I've realized that I disliked many of the hymns not because of their content (although a lot of the language no longer makes sense in today's context) but because the way we sang them was...painful. I've listened to countless arguments on why contemporary, modern music doesn't belong in worship context and I've expressed via this blog before that I think those arguing that are wrong. I've kind of looked down upon the organ as a legitimate instrument for much of my life. They were expensive (I once heard someone arguing for traditional music yell at me for my use of a Taylor guitar because it was 'lavish'), hard upkeep, and generally boring to listen to. I thought of them as the 'old way,' once used to decorate unnecessarily lavish sanctuaries and provide a huge sound, one that is getting closer and closer to being able to be replicated digitally. And, we can conquer their original purpose with audio amplification. They were cool I guess, but the church ladies never let me play it, so I had a bad taste in my mouth. You had to have the special shoes. Ugh. I guess I just thought they were antiquated. Duke's Divinity School is incredibly fortunate to have a stellar organist in David Arcus,and I've spent time in very traditional services at Duke enjoying his art.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygb-IQNUCJI&w=640&h=385]Don't miss his CBS (old) appearance either. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ApgF2s3LQ&w=640&h=385]-B
The KJV on Contemporary Music
Michael Pearl (whoever he is) on Contemporary Music in the Church.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCmY3HgZF7w&w=640&h=385]
It is obvious that he has shining opinions. It's also fairly obvious which side he is on.
I hear tons of arguments for and against "contemporary music" (whatever that means) in the Church very, very often. Many make good points. Others make points like our friend above.
It is, though, an interesting approach to be sure. All of his other videos seem to focus around the Bible for guidance in issues he drones on about(yeah, I watched more than one). This one, besides the trumpet point at the end, does none of that. Rather, he uses "science" (and to use that term is more than a large stretch) to talk about how a happy song can't have a "sad" melody or harmonic pattern. While most any human would agree with this notion at first glance, I doubt many are able to make the jump that our friend does here (we might also profit from thinking about how many other emotions are portrayed within music, especially outside of the realm of happy and sad). Somehow he went from that concept to...rap music glorifies violence and rape. While we all know that many songs on the radio do glorify violence, rarely (if at all) do they glorify rape. And, just because a rapist listens to rap music, doesn't mean that all music with the same rhythms or "beats" is intended for rape and violence. It's a boggling correlation that makes very, very little sense.
He remarks that music that glorifies God has to have four part harmonies and be the music of "Bach and Beethoven." He also says that that was when music was at its best, "it was at its most complex." I'm a fan of both noted composers, but music has become more and more complex since the time of Bach and Beethoven. It is only within the past 75 years or so that music has "simplified." Beethoven's works, in and of themselves, are good examples of the progression of complexity that continued through time. If one compared Beethoven's early works to his later works, one might not be even able to tell that they were written by the same man. Bach was incredibly talented and brilliantly minded to be sure, but complexity within music (specifically within harmonic studies) has become more and more developed since his time. It's what we like to call "progress" and it is both necessary and inevitable.
The part about the trumpet may have some truth to it (I haven't done any research) but he contradicts himself again when he speaks about how if the spirit of God tugs at you then it is Godly music. He assumes that all people feel the spirit of God in the music he does.
We all know what you do when you ass-u-me.
-B
NOTE: My choice of title for this post is intended to reflect the irony of our friend's lack of Biblical insight into this "issue" while also explaining to the reader who Michael Pearl is. He only uses the KJV Bible, and actively speaks negatively about all other translations, including the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. He prefers the Masoritic and Vulgate, which in translation were heavily influenced by church politics. Because when you want an accurate translation, politics are the first thing your need.
This post spends no time at all looking into what the KJV actually says about music (the trumpet parts appear in every text). If you're disappointed by this reality please accept my profuse, yet not that profuse, apologies.