207 - Criticizing "Christian" Folk Music

Criticizing "Christian" Folk Music
By Donald M. Mackenzie, Jr.

BACK in 1970 when it became fashionable to have guitars and folk music in worship services, my colleague, Robert Jacks, and I formed a travelling road show to promote the liturgical virtues of this "music of the people." We were using music not necessarily written with Christian worship in mind but which, in our judgment, had something positive to offer in the worship experience. Our aim was not to replace traditional church music, but simply to show the value of "listening to the people," especially in the interpretive aspects of worship. We felt that our approach was tasteful and theologically sound. (I say "tasteful" with tongue in cheek only to illustrate how sure we were.) Our analysis may not have been grand, but our feelings and intuitions were strong indeed.

At that same time, some people also began writing folk music specifically for use in church. We were quite critical (at least privately) of many of these songs because they seemed poor imitations of a strong tradition. They were not, for the most part, evidence of "listening to the people," but rather texts with little poetic value attached to unimaginative echoes of folk music. We asked ourselves many times during those years why we didn't like those songs, but our articulation could rarely get beyond such phrases as "bad theology" and "the music doesn't seem to fit the words."

Recently, when the editors of THEOLOGY TODAY received some of this music, they asked me to write a review of it. Once again I found feelings when I needed a critical method. I have decided, therefore, instead of writing a specific review, to use this space to try to outline such a method, hoping that it will generate some critical response and shed some light on any future reviews.

Christian folk music needs to be judged not just theologically, but also aesthetically. The most important thing to say is that the relationship between theology and aesthetics is not merely a matter of alternating historical patterns of compatibility and incompatibility, but rather that there is an organic and natural bond linking those two streams of thought. Music is sound, and as Wilfrid Mellers has suggested, "For many so-called primitive peoples the origin of life is a sound: It is the voice of God-his laugh, hum, gibber, croak, or chuckle-that stirs creation within the void."¹ This is the heart of the matter. The first music was a human response to mystery and magic.

Donald M. Mackenzie, Jr., is Associate Director of Field Education at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of Macalester College and Princeton Theological Seminary and recently completed his doctoral work at New York University. In a subsequent article, he will address some of the emerging themes in current folk and rock music.

¹ Wilfrid Mellers, "Music, Europe, and Communication," The Malahat Review, October, 1976, 40, 77.

208 - Criticizing "Christian" Folk Music

All theological and aesthetic expression can claim this common heritage. Today when we speak aesthetically or theologically, the differences are ones based on perspective. The aesthetic experience describes experiences which are principally human while the theological experience is the experience of God. Nonetheless, the essential structures of these two experiences are similar; one does not exist without the other, and indeed one is always a reflection of the other. Everything we designate "theological" can bear an aesthetic critique, and everything "aesthetic" may be understood from a theological perspective.

The integration of these two streams must be broken down only for purposes o'critique and analysis, and here things may seem even muddier than before. Nonetheless, I want to propose three questions to be asked when judging "Christian Folk Music."

(1)Does the text of the song have poetic value? Does it show us something in a new way? If the essence of the text is disclosed or revealed in a new way, then it is making use of the metaphoric value of language. While this is basically an aesthetic judgment, the sense of revelation has theological implications.

(2)Does the music carry and amplify the text? In the best folk music, the music is not immediately discernible by itself, rather, the music and the text come together so well that the effect is perceived together as a whole rather than separately. This is in contrast to songs where the music does not seem to fit the text. The effect is dis-integration rather than integration.

(3)Does the song reflect in some way a Christian sensibility, that is, does it reflect an essential understanding of the meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ? This is a theological judgment, and it may be the most difficult because of the complex relationship between aesthetics and theology. The term "sensibility" refers to the ability to perceive the wisdom of Christianity in the broadest integrated sense. A well developed Christian sensibility can relate the meaning of the gospel to any aspect of experience. Some music, for example, indicates an understanding of commitment to the person, Jesus Christ, without an understanding of the pervasive relationship between Jesus as God's supreme revelation and human experience. This music lacks the sensibility which might make it important theologically and aesthetically.

These three indicators suggest some general observations.

First, one should be immediately suspicious of folk music that is called "Christian" or "religious." Music which has theological value not obscured by a negative aesthetic value either in terms of the text or the music will stand on its own without the unnecessary tag "Christian" or "religious." The tag is often, but not always, a cover for lack of aesthetic and/or theological value.

Second, songs which include religious language are not necessarily religious. Apart from the fact that much of our religious language has

209 - Criticizing "Christian" Folk Music

lost its poetic value through overuse, we should not assume that music which includes the name of Jesus or other important religious figures has any essential "religious" or "Christian" message.

Third, I have heard some composers and performers confess that their music is "throwaway music." This defense has come in the face of comments that their music seems to have little lasting value. Their attitude has been that as long as the music is rightly identified, why not enjoy it for what it is? I disagree. Our experience is already littered with throwaway culture from television programs to disposable lighters. It is hardly in keeping with the gospel for the church to contribute to this mess. After all, as Wilfrid Mellers has suggested, music provides us an opportunity to hear the voice of God. Music which does not provide some sort of revelation, either in the theological or aesthetic sense merely reflects a culture talking to itself. To hear the voice of God we must stop talking and listen. In the best (Christian) folk music, "listening to the music of the people" really means listening and waiting for the voice of God.