Dear Arthur and Sandra:

Dear Arthur, I hope you're doing well. Anyhow, these past couple of months . I've been thinking about worship at our church. But I just read an amazing essay, "On Church Music," by C.S. Lewis from his work, "Christian Reflections," and I think that we should open a forum to discuss the issues through e-mail.

Well here are C.S. Lewis' ideas and let me know what you think: 1) Everything done in church should glorify or edify God; 2) Quality Church music (such as well-rehearsed choir hymns or instrumentals) glorify God in the same way that birds and flowers glorify God 3) HOWEVER, even the shouting songs of the unmusical can possibly glorify God (heck, the Bible says that even eating can glorify God) 4) Yet, just because the choir is amazing singing a hymn, or if the congregation is singing a popular chorus enthusiastically, that is NOT A SIGN THAT ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IS GOING ON 5) THERE ARE ONLY TWO SITUATIONS where we can be confident that God's blessing rests: a) When a talented organist or hymn leader SACRIFICES his OWN MUSICAL TASTES and gives the people a coarser, humbler fare than he would wish; or b) When the stupid, unmusical layman LISTENS TO MUSIC WHICH HE CANNOT FULLY APPRECIATE. Thus Church Music "will have been a means of grace, not the music they have liked, but the music they have DISLIKED."

The problem of trained hymns vs. shouting choruses, according to Lewis, isn't musical, but rather jealousy, arrogance, and suspicion (the sad side of conservatism). Lewis also believes that if the music itself glorifies God because it is keen or exhibits amazing skills (such as a talented choir piece), then it would be on the same level as wicked actions, in so far as that also exhibits our skills and strength.

Interesting perspective huh?

Lewis closes his argument by saying, what really matters is not the music, but rather the intention.

Lewis leaves a great analogy in closing: "We must beware of the naïve idea that our music can 'please' God as it would please a cultivated human hearer. That is like thinking, under the old Law, that He really needed the blood of bulls and goats. To which an answer came, 'Mine are the cattle upon a thousand hills', and 'if I am hungry, I will not tell THEE.' (Psalm 50). If God (in that sense) wanted music, He would not tell US. For all our offerings, whether of music or martyrdom, are like the intrinsically worthless present of a child, which a father values indeed, but values only for the intention."

Thanks for your email. My time to write email is always limited since we're quite busy here at home but I'm usually able to respond to questions within a week. I'll give you my two cents. Anyway, it's past 1 a.m. now, so I'll make my thoughts regarding your email brief but hopefully clear. I cannot respond to Lewis' essay without reading it myself but I can respond to your thoughts as you've given them to me:

With respect to point #1, I totally agree. In fact, the only legitimate reason for church is to glorify God. Period.

Points 2-4 are fine as well. I don't agree fully with point # 5 in that these are the only two situations we can be certain God's blessings rest (I'd have to read this part myself) - there are more but these two are certainly included:

a) In our generation, we need to be especially careful of this. For many young people, the music itself is what drives the vibrancy of their worship and not the lyrical text, which is the real offering.

b) I am a living example of this truth. You may look at me and think I was born liking songs of antiquity. Not so. I'm not that old! In fact, as a young Christian in college, I wasn't particularly fond of hymns and the like. But as I continued to mature, my understanding and appreciation for them grew because they were songs that could accommodate my growth. Not that contemporary songs can't. They can, but I believe we need to wade through more of them before we get to a song that can do that.

Amazing skills by themselves don't glorify God but selfless intent and humble use of these skills can glorify God quite well and edify His church.

I would agree with the paragraph on intention but would add to it since intention or sincerity alone doesn't suffice, though it is certainly a pre-requisite. As a father, I have been on the receiving end MANY a time of that intrinsically worthless present of a child. Let me tell you, how much I value the present depends also on how the child's intention played itself out. That is, did he really have ME in mind when he made the gift (my affinities, etc.) or did he merely have my approval in mind to make him feel good? Did he do it a certain way because he knows I like it that way or did he do it with "good intent" but within the way he wants to do it. As you well know, many people can be sincere about God but be sincerely wrong.

Let me just say that music is very intentional and is not neutral. That is why we don't play funeral music at weddings and wedding music at funerals. When composers want to convey a certain emotion or elicit a certain reaction or response from the listener, they create music conducive to fulfilling their intent (i.e. music of suspense or mystery vs. music of intimacy vs. music of serenity vs. music of celebration, etc.). Yes, the music itself doesn't define whether a song is good or bad but when matched against its goal, then can we make a determination of its merit which is why I made the comment to you [before] that not all music is compatible with worship - NOT that it's bad music. It may be very good music and appropriate music for other functions for which it was created. But certainly, certain music is compatible with its intent and goal. Now, I believe, that among appropriate worship service music, there is much latitude and diversity in style just as there are many diverse but appropriate styles of preaching. But again, not all styles of speech are appropriate for preaching either. In both cases, substance must precede style.

I'd better stop now. If you can get me a copy of the essay, I'd love to read it. God bless.

Arthur