The Issue Of Contemporary Christian Music In Worship

One of the largest repertories of Christian music developed in recent years is the genre known as Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). This music unites texts that express aspects of the Christian faith with a variety of popular musical styles, including rock. This article describes some philosophical perspectives relating to this genre and its use in worship.

Jesus Music, Gospel, and CCM as Terms: Style vs. Genre To attempt to categorize or describe the musical phenomenon in the church over the last half century or so by applying the term Contemporary Christian Music to it is imprecise at best, and also, as is often the case, misleading and oversimplified. The history of music in general, and sacred music in particular, is best viewed through the image of a long river: At times it moves slow and the current is fairly uniform; in other places the movement is swifter and marked by swirling, overlapping, and even crossing currents. The debate over the "content" of one kind of music very often overlooks the fluid nature of musical style and genre. Even worse, many cultural critics paint with broad brushes, invoking broad terms by which they seek to represent the many styles and forms of a certain genre. The danger is in confusing the terms genre or type with style. Let's consider these two points a bit further. First, those who criticize popular music, and particular derivatives such as folk, country, or gospel, often fail to take into account the overwhelming evidence throughout history of the mutual sharing of musical forms, materials, lyrics, melodies, and styles that occurs between these and the so-called "fine-art" types of music. To even try to argue for the exclusivity of one type of music from another is a lost cause. If the native folk music of the Hungarian people was worth incorporating into the compositions of such masters as Haydn, Liszt, and Bartok, or the often secular-based chorale tunes into the Passions and cantatas of Bach, then they must contain some enduring qualities. Nearly every acknowledged musical "master" from Machaut to Stravinsky has taken stock—in varying degrees—of the music of his or her surroundings, or of his or her homeland. The music of the common people in nearly every age and in every land is marked by characteristics of directness, genuine expression, and unashamed ethnicity, locality, or nationalism. It is also marked by spontaneity, simplicity, and lively improvisation. It is meant to be played or sung by nearly everyone in the village at almost any time or place, to communally express its various emotions, beliefs, rhythms, and sounds. It is out of such circumstances that spirituals and gospel music themselves were born. There is no generic style of popular music, no single formula. It is an amalgamated and cumulative genre passed from one generation of a culture to the next. There is certainly no inherent lack of goodness or artistry in it. Wherever it is found it generally possesses the positive qualities of artlessness: unaffected, honest, unselfconscious, straight-forward, and accessible. It can be poorly performed or masterfully and genuinely performed. Those who hear and participate in it can, despite the impression given by many critics, tell the difference keenly and quickly. If this seems hard to believe, watch "Live at the Apollo" once, or listen to a recording of The Chieftains playing live in Belfast, Ireland, or to Paul Simon playing with his ethnic band in South Africa. Why has the term popular music become essentially a pejorative term in the mouths of the cultural establishment? To hold that popular music, as such, needs to be redeemed, or refined, or even worse, silenced in favor of the high art forms, is highly pretentious. Such a "highbrow" attitude (a term never known before the turn of this century), only fosters the very contempt and subsequent backlash that began the relatively recent countercultural movement in the first place:

Whatever cogency and effectiveness rock and roll may have as an expression of political or social protest, it is certainly a powerful and profound expression of middle-class rebellion against the cultural authority of Western bastions of fine art and taste—and all the artifacts and privileges associated with them. Rock attempts more than anything else to break down the walls protecting "elite" culture from the savaging masses. It seeks not to build bridges, but to destroy barriers.… It was a fast music for fast times for youth caught in a staid and regimented society … [it] gave the youth of America an authoritative and distinctive voice with which to challenge the gatekeepers of the cultural establishment.

Rock and roll continues to challenge symphonic music, opera, art museums, Shakespeare and the literary canon, and even the pop music of the twenties, thirties, and forties. Although today's rock music is not so much feared as it is despised by the establishment, it is not loathed because of its [negatively viewed qualities]. Rather, it is despised because it subverts the authoritative hold that the middle and upper social classes supposedly have on mainstream American culture. In that sense, rock is protest that genuinely challenges society. (Quentin Schultze, et al., Dancing in the Dark: Youth, Popular Culture, and Electronic Media [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991], 173-74). This powerful analysis reveals that there may be more behind the heated debate over the place and legitimacy of popular music than an argument about aesthetic purity and value. The motives of popular musicians, particularly those who are Christian brothers and sisters, are no more or less suspect as a whole than the motives of those who tout the cause of the fine arts. Some humility and forbearance are thereby cautioned for any who would try to tame the awesome forces that are the currents of musical evolution. This leads to the second point: This culture war is fought too often through the use of sweeping terms that are more effective in stigmatizing and alienating a type of music and the people associated with it than they are at clearing up and resolving ignorance and confusion. Consider the term classical, for example, and how it is applied in music. The word is used to describe a whole genre of music that is alternately referred to by the somewhat more loaded term fine art. It is also used to describe an era in Western musical history that can somewhat loosely be thought of in terms of a "style". The composers and writers of that era—roughly the second half of the eighteenth century—themselves thought of yet another era described as "classical". At the sound of that word, they thought of ancient Greece and Rome, of the qualities of the art of that age: ordered, sharply delineated, structured, and created according to universal and enduring standards. It is ironic that the term classical has become so imprecise in application—the very antithesis of what the word inherently means. Almost anything that hangs onto the public consciousness for more than a decade or so can be referred to as "classical" or a "classic": a classic cola, a classic car, a classical argument, even classic rock music. Imprecision also adds to the confusion over a description like "Contemporary Christian Music." How will it be referred to a few decades from now? Classic Contemporary Christian Music as opposed to Contemporary Christian Music? This absurdity shows that anyone who uses the term CCM to lump together all of the music produced and performed by Christians over the last few decades knows little about its content, or does know and is deliberately trying to mislead others in some attempt to dismiss the whole genre. Christian rock as a term similarly fails to take into account the diversity of styles and types of music composed and played by Christians of all kinds. "Jesus Music" is more meaningful as a term, but it is used primarily to tag the music of the late 1960s and early 1970s that arose as the main vehicle of the Jesus Movement. Clearly, the music "contemporary" with that decade sounds different in style than the music being performed today. So, can that term be applied more generally to encompass the whole? Not without sacrificing some meaning and clarity, as has become the case with the word classical. Whatever terms we may use, we must begin to be more honest and clear in this debate about what the content of a "type" of music is and how it influences people either for good or ill. We need to realize that the terms we use to label music can be more divisive and confusing than clarifying and helpful. Popular music is simply a generic term for music of the people, or, more specifically and historically, the common people. Folk music is music of the common folk of a given culture. Country and blues are terms that refer to the popular music of a certain ethnicity or geographical location. Even a term like rock refers not to a style of music, but to an indigenous genre popular generally with the youth of America, and now the world, over the last forty years. Contemporary Christian Music, as it is presently called and however it may come to be called in the future, is likewise a broad genre of music that incorporates all the other musical genres—including classical—but it is created and mostly appreciated by yet another specific group of people: those who follow Jesus Christ as Lord. In the introduction to his book, Don Cusic makes the point clear as he poses and answers his own question: "What is Gospel Music?"

The twentieth century answer is that "there is no such thing as gospel music." There is such a thing as a gospel song, which depends primarily upon the lyric to express its Christian message. The song carries the gospel, or "good news" in music, which qualifies it as a gospel song. But the vehicle—the music itself—may be rock, country, r & b, folk, classical, jazz or any other kind of music. Because Christianity always seeks to be contemporary, it adapts its structure to the music of the day (today's being the music of popular culture) to carry its message.… This has been the history of music in religious revivals from Martin Luther's day to the Jesus Movement of the 1970s (Don Cusic, The Sound of Light [Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State Univ. Press, 1990]).

What makes music "Christian," in other words, is not a distinct technique or specific style; it is Christian mainly because it reflects the beliefs and worldview of those who create it. As Franky Schaeffer emphatically points out:

There is no particularly Christian style.… An imposed Christian style becomes stifling and rigid, which leads to redundance in the area of creativity. Creativity needs freedom.… [T]here is no secular or Christian world. There is only one world, the whole world as God has made it.… The terms "secular" and "Christian" are only words. Reality cannot be compartmentalized. If we Christians have lost our influence in part of the world's activities, we must reclaim it. (Franky Schaeffer, Addicted to Mediocrity: Twentieth Century Christians and the Arts [Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1985], 104-110)

The Substance of Contemporary Christian Music— Content and Critique The drive to "reclaim" the artistic activities of a misguidedly "secularized" culture is the fuel that has fanned the flames of so-called Christian music and arts in the last few decades. While the methods may be different, all truly committed Christians share the same goal: to know the Lord and to further the kingdom. In this quest, as always, there have been triumphs and pitfalls, greedy charlatans and those of true commitment. A particularly modern pitfall is that commercialism has unfortunately beset the movement to a degree that both stifles and formalizes some of its musical output. When a song or album is seen primarily as a product to be sold, and certain bands or individuals put themselves into hock to a point where they have to play it safe and maximize revenue, they write only what the majority of people want to hear—what is catchy or follows the fad of the day—rather than what has artistic merit. This is particularly the case with some of the large Christian record labels. The only way out of this or around it is for a musician to sign for a smaller company that has built itself on artistic risk-taking, to do it all himself, or to play the corporate game long enough to gain enough personal recognition and artistic clout to be able to do things more and more according to his own vision. To pretend, imply, or even flatly state that this is only a problem unique to the popular music industry is dead wrong. Just ask someone who plays in or conducts a municipal symphony or chorus. Attend a whole concert season and count how many new works are performed, how many risks of programming are taken. The most successful ones are those that strike that precarious balance between artistic integrity and adventurousness on the one hand, and fiscal responsibility along with realistic views of meeting basic life needs on the other. This is true of popular music, symphonic music, and Christian music equally in a modern world that is run by democracy and the free market rather than nobility and patronage. True musical artists of great artistic and spiritual integrity do exist, create, produce, and perform in the Christian music industry. As is stated above, these people share the same vision and goal, but their modus operandi vary as widely as the individuals themselves. One can view the activities of these people as through a spectrum: At one pole would be those who are musically talented and love to perform and entertain, but who also happen to be Christian or have been converted at some point in their careers. This will obviously affect what they do and say, what they write, or what they choose to sing about, but they still primarily consider themselves entertainers. Examples of groups and individual artists who fall at or near this end are U2, Allies, Bob Dylan, Kerry Livgren (formerly of the band Kansas), Bruce Cockburn, Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, and Take 6. At the other end are those who have a strong call to ministry, both to evangelize and to aid in shepherding the fold. Rather than writing books, lecturing, or going into pulpit ministry, they use music as a primary tool. Their format is often similar to a concert, but incorporated are aspects of a worship service: Scripture readings and quotations, testimonies and homilies, altar calls, sometimes even an offering for a chosen cause. These people see what they do as primarily music ministry through an entertainment medium. Musicians such as Steve Green, Carman, Sandi Patti, Bill Gaither, Michael Card, and Larnelle Harris are among the most respected and accomplished at this end of the spectrum. There are those who blend all these characteristics equally and stand near the middle: groups such as Whiteheart, Petra, 4 Him, and DeGarmo & Key: individuals such as Steven Curtis Chapman, Connie Scott, Margaret Becker, BeBe and CeCe Winans, Wayne Watson, and Charlie Peacock. The musical activities of any one artist or group often do encompass nearly the whole of this spectrum, however, including many of those mentioned above. Almost no one can be pigeonholed when one considers the entire output of his or her work. What places someone on a certain point in the spectrum, then, is essentially a matter of personal calling and relative amounts of gifts from the Holy Spirit. For instance, some have tremendous singing voices, and can speak effectively and persuasively to crowds, but write little or no music of their own. Others can't sing technically well and don't like to speak much at all, but their songwriting and instrumental proficiency is so great that the music speaks for itself. Other combinations occur as well in any given individual. As numerous as the gifts are the personal styles: some are versatile and relish eclecticism, while others work from a solid core. For example, the band U2 has a "sound" all its own both as a band, and in the distinctive voice of its lead singer, Bono. There is no "formula" to their writing, but their sound is unique and instantly recognizable to anyone even somewhat familiar with their music. Take 6, a newer group on the scene, uses no instruments at all, but just the six voices of its members to create a tremendous variety of acoustic effects and instrumental imitations mainly in a vocal jazz idiom. Their songs range from jazz arrangements to old gospel quartet tunes and spirituals to fresh, striking original compositions. Theirs is also a "core sound" with almost instant recognizability. Those who are more versatile and eclectic are found mainly in the music ministry sphere. Their versatility is often a tool to make themselves and their message relevant and accessible to a wide audience. Sandi Patti, for example, will switch from a rousing orchestral arrangement, to a beautiful, stirring ballad, to a pop song, to a children's song, to a hymn arrangement or medley, to gospel, to jazz, and even to some unique and fresh style of song written by someone with her voice in mind. She is the stature of singer, along with her colleagues and friends Steve Green and Larnelle Harris, that inspires some gifted and willing songwriters to tailor some of their work to suit their voices. What holds the concert or album together for this type of musician is usually not a personal style, but a theme or a purpose. Sandi Patti's latest album Le Voyage is a prime example, as is Steve Green's A Mighty Fortress. Bill Gaither, who pioneered this format and helped launch the ministry careers of the three singers just mentioned as well as Take 6 and many others, himself offers grand revival-type concerts that can last a whole weekend or more—officially called "Praise Gatherings." He uses singers, groups, instrumentalists, preachers, seminar speakers, and his own Vocal Band and Trio to offer Christians a workshop-type motivational and inspirational mass-media event. Gaither, however, does not presume to replace Sunday worship. In fact, the event culminates in a Saturday night concert gala so that those who are residents in the city of the given event, as well as those participating and performing, can get to their home parishes on Sunday. Michael W. Smith is an artist who began as a songwriter and performer for others, most notably Sandi Patti and Amy Grant, and gradually made a name for himself. He is an example of one whose musical endeavors run through the spectrum, but who is nearer the pole that describes those who consider themselves more as musicians and less as evangelizers or ministers. A typical Smith concert features almost nonstop music with little or no talking. The emphasis is on entertainment, albeit with a wholesome message and atmosphere. His is a unique style that thrives on rather arresting compound rhythms and complex harmonies, a natural gift for melody, all wedded to intriguing, challenging lyrics. His compositional skill is immense. One album of his can contain a wide range of ensembles and styles: from rap to the American Boy Choir, ballads to orchestral arrangements, countrified rock to Latin/jazz influenced styles. His brand of rock is all his own as well; he copies or follows no one in "secular" music. This versatility and originality have brought him respect from a wide field of musicians and critics. He has mustered the clout to cross over his distribution and airplay to the mainstream of popular music without sacrificing spiritual content (an incredible feat, considering the contemporary environment of hostility in the media towards anything Christian). Listen to his albums Eye 2 Eye, Go West Young Man, and his Christmas album to get a good representation of his recent, and most acclaimed, work. Another arena of fresh musical output is found in hymnody and psalmody. Again, many of the names already encountered offer some of the richest supply: Bill Gaither and his wife Gloria (who writes many of the lyrics) have written hundreds of hymns and praise songs. "Because He Lives" is perhaps the most widely known. Michael W. Smith and his wife, also a gifted poet, have contributed substantially to the pool of praise songs. Interest in original, contemporary music for the church has caused a wave of inspired composers to publish songs for choirs, soloists, and congregations. The praise song is usually in the form of a memorable refrain or chorus with corresponding verses, which are often optional or intended for a soloist/worship leader. It can be based on original texts, such as the song "Shine, Jesus, Shine", or quite often taken verbatim from Scripture. Psalms, Wisdom literature, the prophets, and pithy, musical verses from the New Testament are frequent sources. The melodies and chord structure are usually simple and repetitive, yet tuneful and moving when at their best. This allows the words, be they Scriptural or conceptual, to "hook" into the mind quickly and indelibly. These types of songs also foster wide participation in terms of congregational singing and instrumental accompaniment. Guitars, various rhythm instruments, and piano, each alone or in ensemble, are sufficient and appropriate to carry the song. They tend to be more intimate and personal in tone, even when they are most exuberant. The repetition and simplicity offer opportunity for spontaneity and improvisation. Some churches tend to overuse these songs in worship, all but replacing what are perceived by them as archaic and staid hymns. It is true that these praise songs offer some refreshing newness to the music of worship, but if they are accompanied by a negative reaction to traditional hymns and liturgical music, a house that is built upon a rock has been traded for one on shifting sand. Better to renovate and add on to a tried and true foundation than to fall headlong into the worldly sweep of a countercultural, anti-establishment current that would see all moorings destroyed. It is only right for the church to adapt itself to the times and the surroundings in which it finds itself to keep its message relevant. While the importance of passing on the accumulated knowledge and integrity of the church, especially its music, cannot be denied, contemporary believers must be wary of inhibiting the movement of the Holy Spirit and quenching the blaze of true revival. In our zealousness to further the Kingdom and spread the Good News, we must humbly allow for the grace and will of our Lord. Christ guaranteed that a bad tree could never bear good fruit, and that a good tree could not help but bear good fruit. Paul assures believers that God's ways are mysterious in that he demonstrates his power through the use of "earthen vessels." John lovingly encourages believers to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). Only that which is truly of God will endure; the rest, it can be certain, will be pruned away. The development of music has proven true to this axiom: the best survives and carries on. What is shallow and insubstantial passes into insignificance and even oblivion. Responses to Typical Criticisms of the Genre It is a testimony to the tremendous power of music that it engenders such controversy and divided feelings in all walks of life, particularly when it comes to the life of the church. Battles over the proper place and kind of music for worship have been around since the Old Testament days and have embroiled the Christian church from its inception. The early church fathers argued as fiercely over this issue as any theological heresy, and it was once considered out of place for any instrument to be used in the sanctuary but the human voice. Singing more than one line of music at a time was once thought of as cacophony. Psalm 150 was interpreted away as allegory instead of being considered literally as a call to loud and multiphonic musical praise. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation was likewise a period of intense struggle over, among other things, liturgical uses for music. Congregational singing of hymns was once unheard of, while Luther was ridiculed and condemned for his use of "worldly" tunes and vernacular language to inspire the collective voice of the laity to worship God from their own hearts. To this he replied, with his characteristically sardonic wit, "Why should the Devil have all the good tunes?" Also, organs were once literally being smashed apart by some Protestant zealots who considered them the "Devil's bagpipes." The fruit of these controversies has nevertheless become some of Christendom's most glorious and inspiring music. Vernacular worship, congregational singing, instruments, and organs are now staples for worshipers, even Catholics, who resisted these changes for centuries. Luther at first had to plant choir singers in the congregation to encourage them to engage in the strange new phenomenon of hymn singing. Today it has become fundamental to the life and worship of believers everywhere. How far we have come over the millennia, yet the struggles over music remain. The current battle in the church looks and sounds much like those in the past. Even the criticisms have a familiar ring. One of the lingering controversies regards music and worldliness. The argument of nonconformity to the world is as old as the Church. Perhaps no other issue has caused more division and denominational strife in Christendom than this one. Romans 12:2, "Do not conform any longer the pattern of this world" and 1 John 2:15, "Do not love the world or anything in the world" are often invoked when the relationship of Christianity to culture is discussed. The intermingling of the Gospel with "secular" music is seen as a clear trespass of these scriptural injunctions. Steve Miller, in his article "In Defense of Contemporary Christian Music" (CCM Magazine 15:10 [April 1993]: 32-38), boils the critics' arguments down to three main areas of contention: "Charges of Worldliness," "Bad Associations," and "Questionable Motives." Miller begins by insightfully juxtaposing John 3:16 with 1 John 2:15. In the former verse, we read, "God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son." Yet, in the latter verse, believers are admonished not to "love the world." The confusion lies in what "world" (kosmos in the original Greek) connotes according to these texts. As with many words, there are alternative meanings that can only be derived from the context. In the Pauline and Johannine epistles, kosmos takes on a distinctly moral tone, referring to things that are sinful and apart from God. Kosmos in the former sense, the kosmos God loves, is Creation: that which he declared "good" in Genesis, that kosmos which "groans" toward rebirth according to Paul in another context. Worldliness, then, is an attitude distinctly human. Inanimate objects cannot rightly be thought of as sinful or "worldly." Sinfulness is a condition of the heart of a moral agent. Worldliness is properly understood as a skewed attitude toward the things of the world, living in the world without recognition of its Creator, or believing falsely that there is a secular or neutral arena between God's activity and Satan's in which we act without moral consequence. Music, it is certain, is a powerful phenomenon in the world, but of itself cannot be bad or good in a moral sense. "After all, we need to ask ourselves, does a musical scale differentiate between a secular C and a spiritual C? Can we find at the piano both an evil C and a righteous C? Is there such a thing as a secular guitar and a Christian guitar?" (Dan Peters, et al., What About Christian Rock? [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1986], 41.) What is it, we might add, that makes syncopation evil when Madonna incorporates it, but glorious in the hands of Mozart and Beethoven? People are evil, not things or materials. A musical composition is the product of a creative human mind intended to communicate with other minds. Our ear drums do not distinguish between music conveyed for evil or good, nor do stereo speakers, microphones, or instruments. A discerning soul bears such responsibility, not the artifacts. Christian musicians are condemned for the tools that they use to ply their trade while other human endeavors are not held to the same standard. A Christian bricklayer does not use "Christian" bricks, nor does a Christian car mechanic use a "Christian" wrench. Why, then, is a Christian musician admonished to use only godly, Christian music in their trade, as if such a thing existed in distinction from others? Remember that Christian music is not a particular style, technique, or a certain arrangement of musical materials; the heart of the one writing or performing the music makes it so. Miller notes a similar charge to worldliness, that of "bad associations." It is said that nowadays one cannot distinguish a Christian musician from a secular one by their appearance or their style of playing. Once again, however, critics are selective in their judgment. Can one discern the Christians in an orchestra or choir, or a Christian businessman by the shade of gray suit that he wears? One must observe the individual in action within his or her environment to make such determinations. The argument that Christian musicians are indistinguishable from secular ones is one based either in ignorance, or a faulty, limited frame of reference. Even for those musicians who do not proselytize, but simply play their music, the difference between a concert of theirs and that of a typical rock band is quite striking. Besides the absolute contrast in the message conveyed, there is a distinct otherness to the environment in which the music is performed, the least of which is the absence of drugs and drunkenness. As Miller observes: "Transport any Motley Cruë groupie from a secular rock concert to a Petra concert, and he or she would immediately sense the contrast in both the performance and the atmosphere" ("In Defense of Contemporary Christian Music," 37). Critics also focus their judgment to the inward motivations of a Christian popular musician. Charges of charlatanism run rampant against any Christians who use modern media to convey their message. Certainly some do exist, and are justifiably chastised. Materialism, however, is a matter of attitude toward money, not a matter of how successful one becomes financially. Much of the money made by Christian musicians goes toward equipment and recording facilities. Total resources will remain scarce, despite the growing market for Christian performing venues, radio play, and recordings. It can be assured that most are not in Christian music to "make money," because it doesn't happen very easily, even when one achieves a certain amount of success. The market, while it has grown, is still too small, while the pool of talent overflows. For the most part, musicians in the Christian music industry must be quite frugal in order to maintain maximum quality production while avoiding financial trouble through overextending resources. Those who would make baseless or wildly generalized accusations of "questionable motives" among Christian artists must check their own, as well as checking out the facts. As Miller states: "We must be careful not to judge another … when we have no solid evidence of his or her fault" (1 Cor. 4:5). (Ibid.) By using the modern media, many Christians today hope to engage in what Lutheran theologian Martin Marty has called "cultural jujitsu": to use the force of opponents and their weapons against them by giving with them enough to return the impact of the blow back upon the source. One may argue against the method from a theological standpoint, or criticize the ability and technical mastery of a given individual, but the motivation is generally pure: to change the world for Christ, meeting the enemy where he is found. Christ was not above being found among sinners within their environment, and so it should be for us, think Christian musicians and radio/television broadcasters. Conclusion: Accepting the Cycles of Change Miller points out that the history of music in the church follows a cyclical pattern involving four stages. The first stage, which he calls separation, "finds the old forms of music firmly entrenched.… These styles communicate almost exclusively to those who have grown up in the church, alienating the uninitiated. What was once effective salt has lost its savor, and the stage is set for Phase 2: Integration." (Ibid.) He continues:

Bold innovators, convinced that outdated forms are stifling heartfelt worship, adopt the musical language (often the actual tunes) of the common person, much to the chagrin of diehard traditionalists. The guardians of the past counter, ushering in Phase 3: Conflict.

At this point, innovations are bitterly denounced as compromise with the world, sub-biblical, use of the devil's music … and a host of other concerns. Enter Phase 4: Renewal. Worship is again in the language of the people, and church music becomes an integral part of the believers' everyday lives as they carry their heartfelt songs outside the church walls into the factory and marketplace. Finally, what was once new and fresh becomes standard. What was once condemned as secular finds its way into the hymnbook and is considered sacred. At the same time, the popular style of the common person has continued to change so that there is once again a dichotomy between the traditional and the popular.… And so we find ourselves back at Phase 1, and history repeats itself (Ibid., 37–38). Especially when it comes to music, the innovations of one generation become the traditions of the next. This is Miller's driving point. In seeking to promote peace and avoid controversy, some insist that we cling to what has been well established and resist what is changing. However, must Christianity continue to lag behind culture, to be reactionary rather than revolutionary? It has not always been so. There have been relative glory days in the past when Christianity was the culture. In our offering our message to the world, ought we not call it to something rather than merely beckoning it back from somewhere, to ask it to join the journey toward the light instead of merely shouting at it to avoid the darkness? Music is a powerful medium for changing hearts and minds. Luther placed it next to theology and the Scriptures in importance and effectiveness as a means of persuasion, education, and edification. He believed music could reach to places in the human condition that the others could not. Music, to him, was a power to be respected, but not shackled. His was an attitude toward music that can be emulated to this day, for we still bask in the effects of the revolution he ushered in over five centuries ago. He emphasized and unleashed music's positive qualities, always humbly aware and out of the way of God's grace and activity in it. Nothing more or less can be asked of the church today.

Of all the joys upon this earth

None has for me a greater worth Than this I have from my singing, To set my voice sweetly ringing. There cannot be an evil mood Where good fellows sing, There is no envy, hate, or ire, Gone is through her all sorrow dire; Greed, care, and lonely heaviness: No more do they the heart oppress. Each man can in his mirth be free Since such joy no sin can be, But God in her more pleasure finds Than all the joys of earthly minds. Through her bright power the devil shirks His sinful, murderous, evil works … (Martin Luther, Frau Musica)