 |
| Words don't just mean things, they do things! |
Gut reaction - which do you choose?
To help you decide, I want to suggest here that the propositional content of songs (what the words mean when you add them all together) is not the be-all-and-end-all of a song (because it is not the be-all-and-end-all of Scripture, or indeed any act of communication).
Of course, my title is deliberately provocative. (Made you look!) I’m not for a moment suggesting that the lyrical content is unimportant. I’m not asking for heretical songs, I’m not asking for vacuous songs. This is my tenth year of training and blogging and trying to get people to pay more attention to music ministry as a Word ministry.
But in doing so I also want us to avoid a reductive approach to words, and avoid divorcing words from music in a song. Here are my two points:
- Words don’t just mean things, they also do things. They can do lots of different things. And I’m disturbed when I hear people assume that song lyrics can be reduced merely to true statements with a melody attached.
- A song is not just words put to music, it is a new creation which is more than the sum of its parts.
Words do stuff
A youth group leader complains about a line which says ‘I will say blessed be the name of the Lord’ because she’s not sure whether that is a true statement about a future action he will in fact undertake.A songleader changes the words of a popular song because it says ‘I’m dancing on this mountain top’ and he’s not sure that everyone in the church is, actually, dancing and even if they were the church is in a valley so mountain top dancing is probably inaccurate.
The problem with these examples is they treat words as if they can do only one thing. They either report a true fact, or a false one. But words can do other things, like encourage people to a future act, or bring a picture to mind which inspires a certain response.
This is a theological observation, not just something that applies to songs. It applies to the Bible. Kevin Vanhoozer is a brilliant evangelical writing on the issue of how to interpret the bible. His best observation is that communication is an action. God is speaking. He does thing with words. And he does different things with different words.
‘Because God does many things with words, our responses too will be varied: we must affirm the doctrine, obey the law, hold fast in hope to the promises, rejoice in the gospel.’ (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scriptures and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2002), 39)‘Do not steal’ is not true or false, it’s a command to be obeyed or disobeyed. ‘Do not take your Holy Spirit from me’ is not a comment on the perseverance of the Saints, it’s a prayer to be prayed. ‘Sing unto the Lord a New Song’ is not a command, it’s an invitation to sing with our eyes set on him.
Songs are more than the sum of their parts
A songwriter feels that there are not enough songs on the seriousness of judgment (which is true), so puts the phrase “everyone one of us deserves to die” (which is also true) to a boppy tune with large major chords and exciting off beat rhythm.A youth minister rewrites the words to a well known song about sexual healing to make it teach profound truths about ‘spiritual healing’
The problem is with both examples that what the words might mean in a different context is totally being undermined by a mismatch with what the music means.
The lyricist of the classic song ‘Over the Rainbow’ (picture Judy Garland singing in the opening scenes of Wizard of Oz!)‘ puts it like this:
“Words make you think. Music makes you feel. A song makes you feel a thought.” (E. Yip Harburg)
Here I go... out on a limb
Our songs are meant to do something. They are not simply meant to be true words.So what was my gut reaction to our big decision - simple truths joyfully sung, or theological firepower which nobody can standing singing?
Of course if songwriters are doing their jobs then you'll never have to choose between great lyrics and a great song. But hypothetically, I’d go for (I think I’m happy to say this … I know it’s going to irritate some people!) a song which joyfully inspires a congregation to sing a few simple truths about God together (‘Jesus loves me this I know...’) than a song which puts four volumes of the Church Dogmatics to to the tune of ‘Yankee Doodle’. There, I said it. Am I wrong? (Or am I just trying to make you think).
This is good theological thinking Mr. Judd. Amen to words being more than propositions (as important as propositions are); indeed words 'doing' more than proposing truth-statements.
ReplyDeleteIn our circles we do this quite often with the the categories of 'Promise' and 'Command.' Where Promise and Command are illocutionary acts which depend on locutionary acts such as 'God has made a promised for a people, place, blessing', 'do not commit adultery.' We use terms like 'Promise' and 'Command' as shorthand illocutionary acts for locutionary acts which often remain unspecified. And conversely, we are happy to refer to locutionary acts as their shorthand illocutionary acts ('the Promise', 'the Command of X'). You could also chase down the use of 'Warning' as a illocutionary act in the same way.
And thus, we ought to allow for words to do things in songs - since we do in everyday English, let alone everyday evangelicalism!
Again, thanks for thinking about some of these things!
Hey Mark - thanks for your comment :)
ReplyDeleteI always get lost in the different locutionaries!
Part of the problem also is I think we take the grammatical form too seriously, as if it's the last word on the subject. But obviously the imperative mood is not the only way of making someone do something. I think "Be fruitful and multiply" is a different speech act than "Be Still and Know", and "Take, Eat" is different again...
Nice to hear from you - miss you around College!
AJ
I don't see anything to object to here. There is the choice between a good song and a bad song. You choose the good song.
ReplyDeleteA song that says something good well is a good song.
A song that says something good badly is a bad song.
(A song that says something bad badly is a worse song. A song that says something bad well is the worst kind of song for church.)
If a song moves nobody, it a bad song.
But Andy, who is rooting for the 5 verse version of Church Dogmatics with the bad tune?
Could the issue be that people are moved by different things? For the Barthian 5 verser to have made it onto the church's playlist, someone must have liked it. Perhaps the minister needs lessons in choosing songs that have broader appeal.
Oh to write a simple and moving song! That is the holy grail!
Hi Simone!
DeleteI like your clear thinking. The Arian heresy was promoted by songs which said bad things well, if I remember my church history correctly.
I don't think anyone is really rooting for the 5 verse version of CD, but I the way I hear some people talk about songs (as if the melody is a necessary but incidental distraction from the lyrics) I thought some people might!
I think you've written some simple and moving songs in your time haven't you (if this is the Simone R I'm thinking of :)
If I had really achieved it, you'd see my name in the ccli top 10. Not yet.
DeleteOh man, this is insane, last Sunday I had an idea. I did an arrangement for "Jesus Loves Me" yesterday, for this Sunday. Whether the congregation will be joyful or not, I dunno, that's not up to me. What is up to me is that I am singing the truth and will be singing it joyfully.
ReplyDeleteTop read, although in the hypothetical situation, I'd probably question if we actually needed one more song. ;)
I hope the songs goes down well!
DeleteThere is a story that when the author of Church Dogmatics who was asked by a reporter to summarise what he had said in all those volumes, he thought for a moment and then replied 'Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so'!
And yes, as with all hypotheticals the right answer is to dispute the terms of the hypothetical!
Thanks Fraxyl :)
I like the heart of what you're saying, and believe that our job is to use our songs in the best way to move the congregation. I agree that we do need to challenge the notion that lyrics are all that matter, and agree that a song is more than just the sum of it's parts. But I believe that in practice it's difficult to act on what you've written. The practical application of this post is, I think, harder that it first appears.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just want to emphasise that the discussion started with a hypothetical, not with a real-life issue: I don't know any song that moves everyone, and there aren't that many songs that move no one. The subjective nature of music, even of the words, means that there are hardly any songs that move nobody. People are different. People have a variety of weird and wonderful aesthetics which influence their response in ways that are often impossible to predict.
Heck, people aren't the same even week-to-week. Sometimes we play an old favourite and the congregation mumbles the lyrics into their shoes, while on other occasions their singing of the very same song threatens the building's foundations.
If I had perfect knowledge about which songs each week would be joyfully sung and which would only promote the emotion of "here we go again", I would obviously pick the former with you. I don't have that knowledge. In fact, I don't believe that perfect knowledge exists, because there will always be people who just don't like the song.
In short my points are these:
(a) We almost always overestimate our week-to-week ability to choose the songs that will achieve our goal; it's good to have goals and act on them, but sometimes it's good to mix it up, reject our intuition and put in the song we don't think will succeed. We might be surprised.
(b) Even when we think we're getting it right, we are in danger of seeing the 85% of the congregation "getting into it" with us, and miss the 15% who are feeling more and more distant because what moves them is irrelevant to the majority - or more likely to us. Those people need to be served too, and, again, it's surprising how many times the song I don't like and thought wouldn't work is the one that encourages people the most.
Yep, you're right of course David. I guess the practical application is more to see songs as whole units, not just focus on the lyrics in isolation. But as you say it's a hard job even with that focus. I'm not sure I've got any answers except to be content with our imperfectly human wisdom, and humble enough to accept feedback from all corners when things don't go right. Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Andy: I think you've hit on some interesting stuff with the impact of speech-act theory (Vanhoozer's realm) for singing in church.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the direct implication is that a good song is one that successfully achieves the goal of the speech-act. To state it positively like that might open up a wider gamut of songs available to you rather than basing song choice off a dichotomy.
For example, an old hymn might successfully communicate the grandeur and holiness of God, where modern, less stately lryics fail. Conversely, the dated language of an old hymn might not communicate anything at all for some of us! The implication extends to the music as well. If we sing majestic words to R&B, or consistently sing 80's songs for a student congregation, we've failed in the communicative act.
Of course to work out if the song is successful in its speech-act you need to know what the purpose of the speech-act is. In church I take it the purpose is to sing the word to each other and thankfulness to God (Col 3:16). A good song will have lyrics that are edifying to the congregation or praising God (or both), and music that will enable that to happen.
I make the comment because the dichotomy you draw out has the potential to limit our song choice far too much. If a good song is one that achieves its speech-act, then we can be wide open on the form of our songs yet resolute on making sure they achieve their united purpose. Complex or simple, theologically brimming or a few simple truths, bring them all on, as long as their words and music work together to successfully build the church and praise God.
Yes thanks Sam - we absolutely don't want to base song choice on that dichotomy (but as a 'would you rather' hypothetical, though, do you think it serves as a diagnostic for what we really value in songs?)
DeleteCome to think of it, I probably should have put the speech act stuff in another post, because as you say I think the implications are bigger than just this issue of lyrics+melody.
Apologies for not replying earlier — there has been much on!
DeleteI think I'd have to say that the hypothetical doesn't actually help us with diagnostics, because it has two problems.
The first is that it is so narrow that it doesn't capture any of the nuance of song choice. What if you had the choice between a simple song with a few great lines about God's love verses a song with a soaring non-cheesy tune that has five verses of theological firepower? Then your choice is much harder.
The second problem is that this hypothetical situation is really a contest between a good tune and a bad tune, and the issue of simplicity vs. theological firepower (is that even a contrast?) has been smuggled in. The contest is won on the issue of the tune, and complexity is shot down by association, rather than there being any argument against complexity itself.
Another long answer :)
Eloquently put dear brother Sam!
ReplyDeleteI'll second that!
DeleteGreat blog. I have just found this place. I will be coming back for these thought provoking articles. In my experience you will never please everyone. In fact it's healthy for people to worship with songs they don't like from time to time. At the end of the day it's about giving the Lord praise. It's not about us. . . . Thanks
ReplyDelete