“Music's only purpose should be the glory of God and the recreation of the human spirit.”
-J.S. Bach
« Synesis | Home | The Scientific Revolution and the Reformation »
« Synesis | Home | The Scientific Revolution and the Reformation »
“Music's only purpose should be the glory of God and the recreation of the human spirit.”
Comments
So what does "recreation of the human spirit" mean?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, November 12, 2005
Given he used "purpose" in the singular, he must believe that the glory of God is the recreation of the human spirit.
Or was that an example of synesis?
Posted by: Jeremy Stein on Monday, November 14, 2005
My favorite dish at that restaurant is fish and chips. Maybe he thought you cannot give glory to God without recreating the human spirit - the two could be intertwined rather than equivalent.
I suppose a knowledge of German and the original context of the quote would be useful here. Here is another translation: "The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul."
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, November 14, 2005
Well, someone had to bring it up. Does the music of, um, Louis Armstrong do one or both of those? Or are the views quoted on this site not necessarily those of costellofamily.org and its associates?
Posted by: Tara Stein on Monday, November 14, 2005
"I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world
I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world"
Sounds like praise of creation to me!
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, November 14, 2005
Now for a serious answer...
How does music bring glory to God? Does it require lyrics about God? Is it the intent of the composer or the performer? From your question, I would guess that you prefer a hard boundary between sacred and secular. I don't believe an explicit mention of God is required to give glory to God.
This is not limited to music. Consider the first question from the Westminster Catechism: What is the chief end of man? A. Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.
So did Louis Armstrong play his music to the glory of God? From what I know of him, probably not. Whether or not someone can listen to his music to the glory of God is a different question. Any thoughts on that?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, November 14, 2005
hmm. i first read recreation as, re-creation, or, re-make, re-construct. this was shattered of course by your alternate translation. but, assuming that it was re "construct," then this would certainly account for music that praise as well as music that debase.
Posted by: irrational on Thursday, November 17, 2005
Hm. I guess I have a lot of thoughts but, firstly, Bach's quote doesn't seem to leave room for compartmentalizing. Would he think it enough for you, the listener, to be glorifying God while Louis isn't? That is, what does the "final end" mean?
Posted by: Tara Stein on Thursday, November 17, 2005
I think it is reasonable to assume that Bach was only thinking about composing and maybe performing music when he wrote what he did (the above quote). Whatever the proper translation, it does seem that he intended to communicate the way things ought to be.
Is it possible for someone to glorify God without that being the person's intent?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Friday, November 18, 2005
Certainly Louis Armstrong did not write music to bring glory to God (though he is a phenomenal trumpeter and vocalist), and although he did write What a Wonderful World (the tune of which I happen to like), it does not, in my opinion, glorify God. Why not? Think about the lyrics. He says that creation is wonderful, yet he does not recognize the One who created it. Besides, I don't think God agrees with Louis that this is a "wonderful world," though this is a warm and fuzzy notion to the heart. The world in all its fullness hates God, wants nothing to do with God, is at enmity with God, and thus does not glorify Him. (It crucified His Son.)
To answer CJ's question, I suppose it is possible for someone to glorify God without intending to do it, but I would say that much more in this world does not glorify God:
"...though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man..." (Rom. 1). I think we try our hardest sometimes to make situations or songs or persons that are essentially *ungodly* into something that glorifies Him. Ah, now I'm sure I will get CJ and Tara to respond! What does it mean to *glorify* God (Biblically)?
Posted by: David on Saturday, November 19, 2005
In his response to my What a Wonderful World comment, David seems to be implying that we cannot glorify God in song without explicit mention of God. I think a song that wonders about God's creation without mentioning God can be glorifying to God - depending on the attitudes of those involved.
It is possible to read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as great secular fantasy. It does not mention God or religion of any kind, and yet Tolkien called it "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." I think Tolkien was seeking to glorify God with it. We can also examine the example of Bach. He wrote music that was not explicitly sacred, but still considered it done to the glory of God.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, November 19, 2005
Just curious...How do you think the song glorifies God?
Posted by: David on Saturday, November 19, 2005
The original What a Wonderful World comment was not meant as a serious one so do not take this as support for the song. I don't mind analyzing this a little though. I think that if the intent of the song was to express wonder at God's creation, a much better song could have been written. I also would be uncomfortable with the song being used in church (I don't know how much that is related to the previous statement.).
Certainly the song expresses delight in trees, roses, rainbows, and so on. Those are all part of God's creation. The song does give you a choice. You could ascribe the beauty of the flowers to Mother Nature or the earth goddess or the person who planted them or to God.
For the most part, I interpret "the world" as meaning the natural world. The last two verses are more focused on the world of mankind - though on smiles, friends, and babies. Within the context of the Vietnam War and the race problems of the 60s, the song did focus on what is good about the natural world and about man. A complete, accurate picture of world? Absolutely not.
And in conclusion, the Gaithers included it on one of their albums.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, November 19, 2005
I think you understand where I'm coming from--I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's one thing to recognize the greatness of creation, but quite another to attribute it to the one true God.
Posted by: David on Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Yes, I understand, but I also think it is possible to perform a song that explicitly glorifies God in its lyrics and not glorify him because of the attitudes of the performer and listeners. Likewise, a song that does not explicitly glorify God could be used to glorify God depending on the attitudes of the performer and listeners. I'm not sure if you would agree with this second statement.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, November 22, 2005
I agree with the first statement...that you can have a great worship song that totally lifts God up, but then not glorify Him by your actions...(I've seen it happen...). The second statement COULD be true...if it is not very secular and can have some spiritual meaning...
Posted by: Mich on Wednesday, December 28, 2005
A few questions about music....
If Louis Armstrong's song could give honor to God when a Christian listens to it, even if Louis didn't intend it that way, couldn't we then bring any song into church and turn it into something spiritual? (In other words, where do we draw the line between Christian and secular?)
And secondly, (I know this question is unrelated), but does the Bible say anything about the definition of music (what God calls 'music')? At what point does a conglomeration of sounds become "music"?
(If you can, please include any Scripture to support answers.)
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Wednesday, September 6, 2006
I like the questions. I'll look at the second one first since I have to leave soon.
I am not aware of any definition of music in the Bible. There are plenty of examples of both vocal and instrumental music in the OT. I cannot think of any music being performed by Israelites that was not done as a part of worship. Musical ability was clearly identified as a gift of God in the OT (can't recall the reference right now).
I would argue that a large factor in determining what is music to God has to do with the heart of the performer. If we think of the song as a type of offering, we can look at what Malachi says about sacrifices. That speaks to both the quality of the sacrifice and the attitude of the person offering the sacrifice. The challenge is applying that to music.
At various times throughout the history of the church, there have been very different ideas about church music. Before the Reformation, only professionals were allowed to create music in the church. Luther quickly changed that. There have been some churches that only allow singing in unison with the idea of preserving the "unity" of the church. Others have strongly encouraged singing in parts.
I'll have to wait on the second question. Another good question: What are the requirements for music to be glorifying to God?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Thanks, and if you could answer my first question, too, when you get a chance, that would be great. But I'm still struggling with the actual concept of what music is. I know that music today is known as basically a bunch of notes put together to create a melody, but how does that glorify God? You mentioned in the above conversations that even though Bach did intend to write some of his music with any spiritual significance, it can be performed to glorify God. How does that happen? How does a melody alone praise God? Was the music in the Bible all about expressing feelings, like it is today?
Sorry for asking so many questions, but I've been trying to research this stuff for a thesis paper I'm writing. It helps to know the original purpose of music and what God intended it to be.
Concerning the requirements for music to be glorifying to God, that really depends on a person's view of whether you can turn any music into something that glorifies God. I believe that there are definately limits in what you can change and what you can't. For an example, songs about lust and adultery CANNOT be "fixed" to glorify God. Music that glorifies God is music that in some way acknowledges him and praises him. Like I said before, I still am not clear on how a melody alone can do that.
But then this brings up the question of the difference between actual worship music and other Christian music. Obviously, not all Christian music is appropriate for worship, so what music is and what isn't? Is church music (hymns, gospel, etc.) called "church" music because of being "set apart" for specific worship to the Lord?
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Alison, it looks like you can ask questions faster than I can respond. I see the larger question as one of what does it mean to glorify God and how do we do it. Then music is a subset of that question.
I believe we exist to glorify God. The picture of heaven that we get in Isaiah and Revelation is one where the focus is on praising and glorifying God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says that we should glorify God in everything that we do including something as routine as eating and drinking.
It is easy to understand explicit glorifying of God. Consider the beginning of Psalm 34:
David says that he is praising God and he does this by telling us about some of the great things that God does like answering us when we call or saving us in times of trouble.It is much harder to understand how we glorify God through something like eating or mowing the lawn. I think glorifying God through what we do has both internal and external requirements. God has given us abilities. Are we using those properly and to their fullest as we live? Do we see our actions as glorifying to God? How does that affect the way we think and act?
Before I take this away from your specific questions, let me try to recover here. God has told us certain ways that he wants to be glorified. Psalm 117 as quoted in Romans 9 tells us to praise the Lord and sing praises to him. Singing is definitely an approved way to glorify God. He tells us that sacrificing children is a detestable practice and not to be used to glorify him (unlike other gods mentioned in the OT).
As I mentioned, there is no way to glorify God without the proper heart (see Malachi). The words and melody of a song could be great but if the people are not focused on glorifying God, they aren't doing it. I would also argue that we should try to do it well. If that means practicing the songs ahead of time, we should do that. We should give God our best (this is also in Malachi).
Bach composed a lot of instrumental music. He felt he was doing it to the glory of God. He even tried to write it in a particular way with certain types of harmony and chords that would be glorify to God. I'd recommend reading about him.
There are certainly limitations on whether lyrics are glorifying to God. You said as much in your comment. God has revealed things about himself to us and has done things for us. I think the most glorifying lyrics repeat back to God what he has told us and done for us. The psalms are a great pattern that way.
This comment is already too long so I'll stop here. I never did get to your second question or many of the new ones you asked.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Thanks. I'll let you answer them now. :)
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Your first question had to do with intentions. Louis Armstrong did not intend to glorify God through that song. This leads to two questions: 1. Can someone bring glory to God even against their intentions? and 2. Can Christians reuse something that was created for a different purpose?
I answer yes to both questions. Consider Pharaoh. He was certainly not seeking to glorify God, but God used him for that purpose anyway. Take a look at Exodus 9:16. I can say more here given time.
The second question has been discussed by Christians for centuries. The question was originally asked as "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?" meaning what learning can be properly borrowed from the surrounding pagan culture. We can certainly expand that question to music. What styles of music should the Church borrow from culture? In the 4th century, Augustine answered this by saying it is like the Israelites plundering the Egyptians when Moses led them out. The application is that we should take what is valuable to us and use it and ignore the rest. Jerome (also in the 4th century) said this is like Israel bringing back women captives in war. Israel was commanded to shave their heads and trim their nails (see Deuteronomy 21). Jerome meant that as we adopt or borrow things from the culture we must be sure to remake them as sacred not leaving behind anything that will attract us to the world.
To continue this discussion on intentions, consider the hymn Faith of Our Fathers. The first verse goes like this:
It was written and used by Catholics in England to remember the lives of previous Catholics who were persecuted and martyred by Protestants (during the reign of Henry VIII). It is now commonly sung in Protestant churches.All this to say that intentions do not necessarily determine how a song can be used. I do think that in church, songs that are explicitly glorifying God should be used. That would remove What a Wonderful World from consideration. That is not to say that you cannot glorify God while listening to the song by realizing that God is behind what is wonderful in this world.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, September 7, 2006
Hi, again.
My thesis paper about music is coming along fine. I have a pretty clear understanding of music, Christian vs. secular definitions etc., but I have yet to refute John Cage and his theories about music. What is your opinion on his worldview?
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Thursday, September 28, 2006
I think you have the answer in your question. Everything we do is influenced by our view of the world. A world that is only chaos and disorder produces music that reflects this randomness. If we believe that God has created the world and that there is meaning to life, our music will be affected by that belief. Sacred music is speaking (or rather singing) back to God what he has told us about himself and what he has done for us. To do so in words but yet over a melody that is chaotic would appear to be contradictory to me for God is not a god of disorder.
Do I get a copy of this thesis?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, September 28, 2006
Haha, sorry but my paper is supposed to be 50 pages and I wouldn't exactly be able to copy and paste it. It's for my (high school) senior thesis paper next year, but I'm getting a head start.
I agree that Cage's "music" reflects his world view of chaos, but what I'm trying to get at is what can we call music? I guess this brings us right back to my original question of what music is. So far, I've come up with two, but possibly two more qualifications that I think define music.
1. It must be an ordered series of sounds (ie: not random, headed in a direction, a theme etc.)
2. It must express an idea or the composer’s emotions,
and I'm not sure if I will include the other two, but
3. It must be aesthetically pleasing
4. It must glorify God.
I'm really debating if the fourth is a valid qualification because, of course, not all 'music' glorifies God, as we've said previously, but original music did nothing else except glorify God at the beginning of time, and that was the only reason for which it was created, like every other part of creation. God says that whatever we do is supposed to be for the glory of God and was created specifically for the glory of God, so whatever is not done for God's glory is a perversion of the true thing. In other words, man later changed music to suit his own lusts and so took away that attribute of true music. So my dilemma is whether I would be able to go so far as to argue that since glorifying God was the only purpose of music in the beginning, music that does not glorify God is not "true music", even though it may appear to take a musical form. I’m not saying that music not honoring God isn’t music at all, I’m just saying that any music that doesn’t glorify God is a perversion of true music. Basically, I'm wondering if I can argue that God-dishonoring music is not "true" music. I realize I could be blowing this out of proportion, so just tell me if this would be too specific too argue, but my overall goal is to argue that Cage’s (and the like composers') wacky "music" is not true music, and by doing that I have to define it.
My thesis paper is on how music disproves evolution, and the hardest part so far has been trying to biblically define music.
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Thursday, September 28, 2006
Sounds like you attend an impressive high school (and that you are doing impressive work there). :)
Your #3 is fairly subjective, isn't it?
Posted by: Tara on Thursday, September 28, 2006
What do you mean when you say that God created music? Are you saying that he created man with the potential to create music or do you mean something else?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Friday, September 29, 2006
Like I said before, my #3 and #4 are still in the air, so to speak. Yes, the third is more subjective, mainly because it's based mostly on opinion, but music still needs to have some kind of tonal quality. I will most likely end up excluding that one.
I think that God not only created the potential to create music, but that he actually created the thing itself. Revelation talks about 'singing a new song' that only God knows right now, and therefore must have been composed by Him.
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Friday, September 29, 2006
When we say that God created trees, we mean he not only created trees at some point in time but that the current trees on this planet are his creations. This is regardless of the fact that the current trees grew from seeds that came from trees in the past - a seemingly naturalistic process.
Now if we say that God created music in an abstract sense and that he created some music in a specific sense (such as your Revelation reference), what does that mean about all the music that has been created on earth from the beginning of time? What role does God play in that since he has created our auditory system, musical abilities, and so on? I think you can draw an analogy back to trees here also. We can use trees to build idols which is not glorifying to God. How is that different or the same with respect to music being used in ways that is not glorifying God?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Friday, September 29, 2006
You're right, it's not really different. So I guess that's an invalid argument.
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Saturday, September 30, 2006
I wouldn't give up on points 3 and 4 too easily. Here's the quote from Bach again: "Music's only purpose should be the glory of God and the recreation of the human spirit." He's saying that music ought to glorify God but not that it has to do that. Man ought to glorify God, but he often does not.
Also, are there any universal standards for art, for music, for beauty? It is possible for a piece of music to be beautiful or do I just feel it is beautiful? C.S. Lewis talks about this in The Abolition of Man if you're interested.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, September 30, 2006
I believe that the definition of "good music" should include my last two points, but perhaps I should not include them for the general definition of music.
Bach's quote says what music's purpose should be, but he doesn't give that as the actual definition of music, (good or bad).
I actually believe I have read that book, but it was awhile ago and I'd have to refresh my memory.
Posted by: Alison Sailer on Saturday, September 30, 2006