A Matter of Taste (pt 1)

Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life by Frank Burch Brown is a book I have been working through.  I picked this volume up some time ago and set in on the shelf for later.  Our recent talk on the Christian and culture caused me to take up and read. I'll just give a brief synopsis of each chapter's content with a few comments.  Here is an introduction.

The Author: Frank Burch Brown is the Director of the Master of Arts in Church Music program and the Frederick Doyle Kershner Professor of Religion and the Arts at Christian Theological Seminary. His professional achievements include composing several commissioned works and serving as a visiting fellow and scholar for the faculty of divinity at Cambridge University.  He earned his PhD in religion and literature from the University of Chicago.  Here is an article on recent trends in church music by Brown.  Here is a lecture he gave on the differences between sacred and secular music.  Here is an interesting reading list on the broader topic of theology and the arts.

Prologue (Religious Taste):  Burch begins the prologue with the obvious, though in our day controversial premise, that taste is intimately tied to matters of morality and religion.  Taste enables us to experience the sublime or the terrible; it makes religious experience tangible, whether we are considering a painting of the Transfiguration or reading Dante's Inferno. Though philosophers have tended to limit taste to the ability to make judgments about whether something is beautiful (Kant), Burch sees essentially three aspects to taste:  1) perceiving (apperception), 2) enjoying (appreciation), and 3) judging (appraisal).  So taste "has to do with the various elements of aesthetic discernment and response."  Though we immerse ourselves in the first two activities (especially as Americans), we tend to ignore the third.

We think of aesthetics in terms of experiencing something for the pure enjoyment.  It is rewarding to study the intricate design and detail of a snowflake.  We take delight in the harmony, order, geometry and fragility without associating it with religion or morality.  However, when the organist on Sunday chooses to play a slow version of “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” instead of a piece by Bach during communion, we become aware that aesthetics goes beyond experience and enjoyment.  In a narrower realm, aesthetics requires a taste that is morally and religiously (even liturgically) informed.  So aesthetic response comes in varying degrees of complexity.

Burch argues for an aesthetic taste that is neither elitist nor indiscriminately relativistic; however, he acknowledges there is such a thing as bad taste.  And since aesthetic taste has such a critical bearing on matters of corporate religion and personal spirituality, contributing to much of what unites and divides Christian communities, he pursues a critical pluralism that nurtures an aesthetic taste that is diverse and discriminating.   It is essential for a believer to develop this taste since it “can contribute to spiritual and moral virtues central to Christian life, including the capacity to love the neighbor, to enjoy God, and to love and worship imaginatively.” 

Here are some of the questions Burch attempts to address in the book:  What, if anything, makes one style of art secular, another sacred?  What are the values and limitations of popular styles as compared with classical or traditional, whether in church or in secular culture?  What is wrong (or right?) with importing into a house of worship various kinds of music and media that are “worldly” in origin?  By what criteria can one make a judgment?  How can conflicting values—religious, moral, and aesthetic—be addressed by churches in a pluralistic context?  Are certain kinds of spirituality, and of spiritual taste, more mature than others?  Does the mature Christian need to have mature taste?  Etc. 

Here are the chapter headings:  Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste; Art in Christian Traditions; From the Love of Religion to the Love of Art; The Taste for Art and the Thirst for God; Kitsch, Sacred, and Profane: The Question of Quality; Ecumenical Taste: The Case for Music; Making Sacred Places, and Making Places Sacred; Styles and Stages of Faith.

Comments

[Donald C S Johnson]

Jon, I have a book by Frank E. Gaebelein entitled "The Christian, The Arts, And Truth". I am wondering if Brown refers to this work at all. The subject seems similar, although Gaebelein's book is one that I have only partially made it through! I think I'll pick it up again!

I also think I'll order this one by Brown, if I can find it cheap enough. Amazon wants $45 USD new... A little too rich for me!

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[jon]

Don, Brown does not mention Gaebelein, but I will try to pick his book up as well. I paid $21 for my copy of "Good Taste..." at Barnes & Noble--don't know why Amazon wants so much. Be sure and read the articles I linked to by Brown. That will give you a sense of his reference points.

[Donald C S Johnson]

Hi Jon,

I found a hardcover on abebooks.com for $22.50. It's on its way from Atlanta to here.

Thanks for this, the subject is of course quite current for us in the defining of fundamentalism. I think there is much more that could be said here in the kind of standards we want to keep, but from a philosophical or theological approach rather than a musicological approach. I appreciate Garlock, Fisher, et al, but sometimes their approach makes one have the sense that you must be a musical expert in order to take an authoritative position on the subject.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Doug]

Don, our church has a book service room where anyone can get just about any book at a very reasonable cost. Our book service room director has several book distributors that vie for our book service business. I am not sure who happens to be those distributors, but if you want, I can ask the book service at my church to give me the info, and maybe I can pass it along to you. I try not to shop at any book store until I can see what price I can get through CBC. Most of the time, I can get the book cheaper through CBC than on-line, or at a local book store.

Jon, does New Hope have a similar book service room? That may be something both of you may want to consider for your respective churches. Good books through the church at reasonable rates help out the congregation, especially if the book to which you are referring is available that day/night after the service!

These books sound like books I would enjoy reading. Now that I have the titles of these books, I am going to ask CBC book service to compare prices before I purchase. If CBC cannot match the price, then I will go to Barnes & Noble, Waldens, or Borders to see if they carry the book. I will also do on-line comparison of the costs.

[songstress7]

Sounds interesting, Jon... shall I presume that you will be discussing this further? I'll be watching the discussion with interest.

[Scott M]

When I saw that there were 5 comments on this post, I got all excited, thinking a big discussion was underway. But I guess so far we're just trying to figure out where we can all get a deal on a book. :-)

Well, then I'll be the first to comment on the subject. I started reading Brown's article entitled "A Matter of Taste" and got lost in the tedium about half way through. I know he's probably a very well-thought out guy, but man... get to the point! (I know... I know... I'm the pot calling the kettle black). Anyway, I just have a few observations from some recent personal experiences I've had visiting another local church. This particular church has both a traditional and contemporary service. In my visits, I've attended the early traditional service and then stayed around for the first half of the contemporary service. Here are some observations...

1) In this particular church, the attendence in the traditional service is much higher than the contemporary one (I'd say at least 1/3 more people), even though the traditional service starts at 9 am and the contemporary service doesn't start until 10:45. I found this fact surprising.

2) The traditional service might seem contemporary by most of our standards. The hymns are traditional and well-known favorites (the same stuff we all grew up singing in fundamentalist churches), but the songs are accompanied by an orchestra that includes percussion and strings, including guitar. The choir numbers are also orchestrated and are very professionally done. The word "excellent" came to mind as I sat there listening. I was not at all put off by the use of percussion to drive the dynamics of the songs (everything from timpani and cymbals to a trap set, complete with a kick drum). All I can say is that my heart was drawn closer to God as I listened to and participated in the music. Before the sermon, there is usually some sort of dramatic monologue that transitions from the music part of the service to the preaching. I found this very effective and not in the least bit "cheesy". The mood throughout the service is reverent, but accessible. The preaching is solid, biblical, and direct.

3) While the preaching in both services is identical, the music in the contemporary service is much different. Instead of an orchestra, the music is accompanied by a band. In the two weeks I've visited, the band has been different each service. The first week, it was more electric (what we usually think of as CCM)... the second week it was accoustic (a cross between James Taylor and Dave Matthews). I preferred week 2. It seems to me that the style of music was selected to complement the subject of the message (week one was on the importance of youth being mentored and helped to grow into leaders, the second week was on Galatians 5 and the importance of being spirit controlled). Week two's music was appropriately more quiet and introspective. Generally speaking, the music begins with something quiet, transitions from song to song seemlessly, interspersed with prayer (with quiet orchestration behind the prayers)... crescendos into more jubilant songs... then finishes with songs that are quiet and worshipful. While I'll admit the overall style was initially a little outside my comfort zone... I did not find it offensive.

4) The thing that I like least about the contemporary service is that the congregation doesn't really participate much. Sure there are people like me here and there throughout the room who are singing out... but as a rule, people observe more than they participate. I'm not sure if this indicates a flaw in the worship style... or the fact that the songs are less familiar... or that the people in the service are either seekers or newer Christians (or carnal ones... I'll throw that in there for the separatists among us).

5) I have been impressed with what seems to be a singularity of focus among the staff and congregants. The preaching is the same between the two services... I think that's important. Also, the worship leader leads both services. In the traditional service he dons a suit and tie and leads the choir, orchestra and congregational singing. In the contemporary service, he plays lead guitar, organ, and leads the band and the singing. Though the styles are different, the focus is identical... glorifying, praising and worshiping God.

6) This one is for Joel and Abram. The hymns are projected on screens for both services (although hymnals are also provided)... and I felt this allowed me to sing more freely and expressively. :-)

This of course was just my anecdotal experience in one church. But I thought it might prompt some questions or comments from you all.

[Abram]

Scott, what is the average age in the contemporary service compared to the traditional service (just curious)?

Where the hymns themselves projected or was it just the words? I'm all for projecting the complete hymns!

I think it is unhealthy to allow youth to use inappropriate music for the worship service they play in. If they are to be leaders, they must learn to use a style of music that compliments the message of the lyrics.

Does the worship leader keep his coat and tie on for both services?

One final question: If there was no instrumentation or choir at all, simply congregants singing, would your heart still have been drawn closer to God? I got the sense that you were saying because you preferred the music, you were drawn closer. Is this the right focus to have?

[jon]

What would compel church leaders to divide their congregation into two styles of worship?

[Joel]

Maybe each person of the Trinity has different preferences?

[Jim]

"Maybe each person of the Trinity has different preferences?"

Is that why many churches have three services each week?

[Scott M]

Good questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can...

The average age for the traditional service seems to be older than the contemporary service, although there are young and old people in both.

Only the words are projected on the screens, but the worship leader also gives out the hymn number in case anyone wants to look at the music.

From what I can tell, many of the same musicians play in both services. In other words, there aren't old people playing in the orchestra, and young people playing in the band. The same pastors, worship leader, and many of the same musicians lead both services. I think this enables both services to have singularity of purpose, regardless of the style. Again, we return to how you define "inappropriate" music. I would not say that the music in either service is inappropriate... just different.

No. The worship leader does not keep his coat and tie on for both services. He dresses more casually for the second service. (Maybe it's harder to play guitar with a jacket on... I've never really tried). I'm sure the reason he changes is to convey a different mood and atmosphere. Before everyone gets all huffy and starts talking about worshiping God for his glory instead of making man comfortable... ask yourself one question. Is it worse for a person to dress up because he feels obligated to continue the traditions of older Christians, or to dress down to accomodate the traditions of younger Christians? I'm not sure God really cares whether you wear a tie or not. Just my two-cents. I'd rather see the worship leader wear a pair of khakis and a button down for both services rather than playing up to the traditions of both groups. The pastor does keep his coat and tie on for both services, though... which clearly illustrates his superior spirituality. :-)

Good music in general draws my heart to worship. If I hear off-key, poorly performed, or ugly music, it does not aid my worship... it distracts from it. This is true of acapella music, classical hymnology, praise music, and some forms of CCM. I'm simply saying that as I listened and participated in the music at this church, my heart was drawn into a place of worship. Yes, I think this is the whole point of worship music (in any style)... to create a vehicle for man to communicate to God from our hearts, bodies, minds and emotions. And yes, I think that is the right focus. Again... just my opinion.

What would compel a church to divide the congregation into two styles of worship? That's a good question... and by far the hardest to answer. I can only speculate. My guess is that the church leadership feels that in the area of music and worship style, there is no one right way of doing things. Therefore, offering two different services with two different styles allows people to choose the style that they prefer while still sitting under sound biblical teaching and ministry. This may not be the reason at all... or there may be other reasons that I haven't thought of. I don't know.

"Maybe each person of the Trinity has different preferences?" Well... I'm guessing no, since they're all the same God. But since we don't know exactly what God's preferences are... your guess is as good as mine. Right? If there can be variance between two separate churches, why not have variance between two services at the same church? To me, it's just more opportunity to reach a greater number of people and a more diverse congregation. I'm sure some of you will say that God does have a specific worship style in mind. Well, if you can prove that, I'll run right out and burn my Jars of Clay, Caedmon's Call, Bebo Norman and various other so-called "CCM" CD's today. But you're going to have to prove it to me from the Bible.

By the way... I'm not necessarily giving a blanket endorsement or declaring my allegience to this church I've been visiting. I'm just not willing to dismiss it or condemn it out of hand because it's different than what I grew up with. There are many good godly people that worship there... and I don't really believe they are all wrong and we're all right.

[abram]

With me it all boils down to one question: Why are we doing all of the various things we do in our worship service? Why do we/Why should we include what we do in our worship service?

[jaamac]

Ok, I'm officially joining blogdom. A part of me hates myself for this.

Abram, good question. Why are we doing these things? Is it because it's always been done and that's what we're comfortable with? Is it out of a certain tradition? Is it something that we want because we didn't have it before and it appeals to us? Is it specified in the Bible? There are many ways to try and answer this question. The trick is to determine who's right, and I don't think we can come to an absolute conclusion. I may have a different opinion or interpretation of why we do something than you might have. Trainer might have a different opinon than Scott. And we all have personal preferences in style that aids our spiritual worship.

The word "presupposition" has become a favorite of mine, because in my personal reevaluation of faith I have discovered that we all come to our faith with presuppositions, many times because that's what has been pounded into our heads from a young age. I think many of us have presuppositions about worship style based on the culture and denominations in which we have been raised.

[Joel]

If a particular 'worship' style were demonstrated to be flippant, irreverent, sentimental, or erotic, do you think that we could then say that God might care?

Do you think that we might not need to guess about worship style if we understood what things mean the way God might understand things to mean and that he might actually have given us access to that not in special but in general revelation?

And could you admit (at least in theory) the possibility that tradition is more than a preference really insecure people came up with (can you tell that one annoys me?) but actually the sorting out over a long time of what things mean and how things should be done accordingly by godlier and more careful and maybe even more thoughtful (in theory) people than ourselves?

[DF]

It seems to me that this discussion boils down to subjectivism vs. objectivism in aesthetics. The objectivist believes that there is an objective standard by which one can judge what is beautiful.
Since Plato, and including Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine (especially Augustine), and really until the Enlightment, the opinion was that beauty corresponded to good form. In other words, some forms were good or beautiful, and depending on how much your work of art corresponded to these forms, it was more or less beautiful. I think all of these philosophers would be labeled "objectivists."
Hume and others proposed "subjectivism" (i.e., beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and thus, their conclusion was that no one person can judge another's taste.
[For this discussion, see the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol.1 under "Aesthetics."]
If we apply this debate to forms of worship, I think we cannot conclude that worship forms are purely a matter of taste, because there is such a thing as bad taste, and thus, bad forms of worship.
I do believe that God determines what is beautiful and what is not. For example, when Christ referred to the lillies of the fields and their beauty, he was implying that they are beautiful. By the same token, when he was referring to Gehenna, he was implying that it was ugly. Thus, there must be an objective standard for beauty and ugliness, defined by God.
The problem is that it may be difficult for us to know that standard all the time, but I do think that if we understand good form, we will be able to judge what is bad form.
Does anyone believe that bad form should ever be used for worshipping the God of beauty and order? [I mean, if we choose to use bad form knowingly.]

[Joel]

What an ugly way to put it DF - beauty as something objective. I think it is a matter of taste, and that there is good and bad taste, and that it is not scientifically determined, but subjectively - because there are less limitations on what you have to determine with.
I like the idea of corresponding, but how about the idea of agreement instead? Something with more subjectivity.

[Hildegard]

If beauty is not objective, how can anyone say something is beautiful? It seems pretty postmodern to me to say that it's not objective.
Whether we appreciate it objectively or not, that is a totally different question, because as human beings, nothing we do is objective. So the act of appreciating beauty I would say is subjective, very subjective (which is why we have such different perceptions).
Agreement is not a bad term, but again, it implies reality, objectivity.

[jaamac]

And how do you determine what is flippant, irreverent, sentimental or erotic? Is that God's opinion or man's opinion? This is the problem with fundamentalists. Their opinions are always right because they hold some strict standard that they think somehow makes them closer to God and anyone who questions their opinions are labeled as liberals or weak or 'insecure' Christians.

[Joel]

Hildergard, it only seems postmodern. I'd like to think it is pre-modern. And I'd also like to think your view is modern.

[Donald C S Johnson]

Joel, I have to agree with Hildegard on this one, as to beauty being objective. Maybe his view is 'modern' in a sense, but he cited some pretty old dudes who held it.

Jaamac, nice straw man. Pound away.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Scott M]

I think we have a couple of kettles here who have spraypainted themselves gold so they can talk about how black the pots are. Let's not talk about strawman arguments until the fundamentalists and traditionalists among us admit that they stereotype and condenscendingly disregard any style of worship conceived after the early twentieth century (some of you disregard anything conceived since the 17th century). It's easy to set up a strawman that is "flippant, irreverent, sentimental and erotic" and then pummel it. But unless I'm mistaken, we were not discussing a church that worships flippantly, irreverantly or erotically. Sentimentality (the expression of sentiment or emotion) is not inerrently bad, so I won't even put it in the same list. However, if by sentimentality, you mean excessive or "put on" sentiment... then I would say that I'd prefer that to "put on" or false piety.

None of us are saying that God does not have an objective opinion on worship. But I will argue till I'm blue in the face that he has not revealed to us specifically what that opinion is. And so, we as mortal men are left to make value judgments based on what we do know... and beyond that, we are to conduct ourselves according to other principles (love your neighbor as yourself, edify one another, do not become a stumbling block, etc). This is not an issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity. The only thing we have is subjectivity. There is no way for us to view things from a God's eye view (beyond what he has revealed to us)... we can only try our best to be discerning from our subjective point of view.

It's interesting that in Romans 14 the mature Christian is actually the one who understands that eating the meat offered to idols is not in itself sinful... (ie. the mature believer has the "looser" standard). The "weak" or immature Christian holds to the "higher" or stricter standard of not eating the meat. Who then among us is the strong group and who is the weak group, by the Romans 14 definition? And what are our responsibilities to each other? Because unless you can show me biblically where God defines correct worship (I've asked this about 10 times now, and all I've seen are a bunch of comments parroting other men's opinions), then what we're dealing with here is a gray area. And unless I'm mistaken, Romans 14 is the key passage for understanding how to deal with gray areas. So I suppose if going to a service with a worship band is offensive to a fellow believer, then we ought to either get rid of the band or else have a service that allows the weaker (stricter) Christian brothers and sisters to worship without being offended or caused to stumble. Now where could I find a church that allows for Christian liberty, but also takes precaution to reach out to weaker brothers who might be offended by that liberty? Hmmm... I think I just described one in my last several posts.

[jon]

"This is the problem with fundamentalists. Their opinions are always right because they hold some strict standard that they think somehow makes them closer to God and anyone who questions their opinions are labeled as liberals or weak or 'insecure' Christians."

This is clearly a straw man and does not advance the conversation, which should be about ideas, not stereotypes. No doubt these kind of people exist, but I don't think you'll find them here. Let's not out-fundamental the fundamentalists; or let's admit we have met the enemy and he is us.

If you read Pt. 3 of my summary on taste you will see that at the end a case is made for an ecumenical understanding (at the least) regarding differences in taste...this strikes at the heart of elitism, but not at the objectivity of truth. No one here has said anything about a particular time period, though there is a preference for ideas and thinking that have stood the test of time.

This: "And how do you determine what is flippant, irreverent, sentimental or erotic? Is that God's opinion or man's opinion?" is a good question, and one worth answering. Our whole discussion about taste has everything to do with that.

If you read Bauder's piece on the idea of fundamentalism, he goes on at length regarding a seriousness about meaning. Dress and music styles convey meaning. What kinds of meaning do we want to convey in the worship of God? For scripture does say that we are to worship in the beauty of holiness. I am not talking about a standard or rule imposed from without, but of an embrace of holiness for the sake of God's glory.

If I have a service for weaker brethren and a service for stronger brethren, shouldn't it be my goal to move my weaker brethren toward maturity? And if that is my goal, am I not saying that I have a preference for the style of worship embraced by the stronger brethren? Surely this is not the reason for two services. There must be some other reason....

[jaamac]

It's not a straw man. It's a fact. Or I just guess that my past church life experiences were out of the norm of fundamentalism.

And I guess it's ok to use a condescending tone to cut down the arguments of some, but when the tables are turned it becomes a personal attack rather than a debate of issues?

[jon]

I can't speak to your past church experiences, Jaamac, though I think I could give it a shot. However, I don't believe they (your comments) represent the idea we are all talking about, and want to embrace. Somehow we have to stand outside where we have come from and hold it up to rational scrutiny...grab hold of the truth and let the error slip away.

It's not ok to be condescending. I think I know the comment to which you refer and I believe it to be a challenging series of questions...not nicely couched, but nicely thought out and direct. I'll let the author speak to his attitude and tone.

We must give one another some space in this format--it allows for careful thought between replies, but minus facial and voice inflections. One can read some posts in a monotone and come away unscathed, but others, even in monotone, are callous. Practice reading the posts to yourself in monotone...it makes for more even replies.

[Donald C S Johnson]

Jon, thank you for the comments. My point to Jaamac was that he is painting all of fundamentalism with one brush. Perhaps he does not have as wide an experience of the various "fundamentalisms", but there are hardly two churches that are exactly the same.

That is not to say that fundamentalists who have published their opinions on worship/music, etc, should not be required to stand up to scrutiny and criticism. It is just to say that it is incorrect to say that all of fundamentalism is a certain way.

I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues and I appreciate very much the reference to Brown's book. I read the two articles you cited (yes, one was extremely wordy!) and found them quite challenging. I think he is discerning a central point concerning beauty and glory in worship, although I doubt I would agree with his application entirely. In fact, I would be willing to bet that my personal application is probably more conservative than most who are discussing here.

What is curious to me is the utter vehemence with which folks who want a looser application debate their points. We are all accountable to God, we have a duty to proclaim what we understand of God's revelation and godly wisdom. If you don't agree with the conservatives, fine. But why the vehemence?

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3