A Lament for Pentecostal Scholarship in Contemporary Congregational Songs
Daniel Thornton – Nov, 2014
Abstract
Contemporary congregational songs (CCS) have long been associated with Pentecostal/charismatic churches. Although such associations have been progressively changing, many of the key CCS production centres and songwriters are still representative of Pentecostal/charismatic contexts and paradigms. Academic research in the field of contemporary congregational songs is still nascent, but even less developed among Pentecostal scholarship. This article uses the etic/emic research frameworks to explore the idea of a lament for the lack of Pentecostal scholarship in CCS. Particular focus is given to the extant research literature in and surrounding the CCS field and the relationship between researcher and the way they approach or conceive analysis and evaluations of CCS. Finally, I propose some opportunities for emic Pentecostal researchers to pursue in order to enhance this burgeoning field in the face of its profound and ongoing influence in Christian musical worship.
Introduction
The premise of a lament for Pentecostal scholarship in contemporary congregational songs (CCS[1]) is based on two hypotheses. Firstly, that Pentecostal scholarship is capable of differentiation from non-Pentecostal scholarship in regards to CCS; and secondly, that the lack of Pentecostal scholarship in CCS produces something worthy of a lament, that is to say, a discernible impoverishment of research in the field. This article explores these hypotheses through a discussion of the distinctives of Pentecostal theology, followed by a survey of research literature in CCS. It particularly draws on etic/emic frameworks for research to examine the veracity for a lament.
Establishing the nature and qualities of Pentecostal scholarship is a helpful starting point. Vondey and Mittelstadt[2] suggest that the new face of Pentecostal scholarship is shaped by the interpenetration of Pentecostal and scholarly commitments, this is, the deliberate relationship of scholarship and Pentecostalism by carrying out scholarship explicitly as Pentecostals.[3]
While they acknowledge that there are no normative methodologies or universal theoretical frameworks that mark this scholarship, a point Clark[4] also makes clear, they do propose four distinguishable elements. Firstly, they propose that Pentecostal scholarship is experiential, or as Warrington[5] defines it, a theology of encounter. Secondly, Pentecostal scholarship is embodied, in that it goes beyond “the mere intellectual pursuit of knowledge to include holistic modes of learning and being”.[6] Fourthly, they suggest Pentecostal scholarship is playful, which as they describe is “the radical consequence of a deliberate dependence on and openness to the divine freedom”.[7] This is not a rejection of critical reflection or logic, but rather a refusal to be subjugated to traditional academic hegemony. Finally, they argue that Pentecostal scholarship is analogical, that it functions through a “hermeneutic that acknowledges the tension between ‘this’ reality of the human life and ‘that’ reality of God by suggesting that this relationship can only be expressed as analogy”.[8]
There may well be other ways to approach Pentecostal scholarship, [TR1] however these paradigms provide a starting point for the discourse of differentiation between Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal scholarship. I will return to how these distinguishing features might impact CCS research in the conclusion. For now, let us approach this problem from an alternate vantage point; that is, from the origins and advocates of CCS themselves.
Contemporary congregational songs (CCS), elsewhere referred to as ‘praise and worship’ or contemporary worship music,[9] are those relatively recently written, popular music oriented songs that are intended to be sung (or otherwise engaged with) by Christians in gathered (for example, church services) and individual settings. They are particularly prominent throughout evangelical, Pentecostal and charismatic churches, although they have progressively infiltrated, or been appropriated by (at least western forms of) Christendom at large.[10] The original, and still highly influential, proliferators of CCS have undoubtedly been the Pentecostals/charismatics since the 1960s.[11] The history of these denominations, movements, churches, and their music are well documented,[12] though rarely by Pentecostal scholars,[13] or articulated another way, the prevailing research in this field has been etic – from the ‘outsider’.
Hawn,[14] for example, openly writes of his etic approach to Hillsong church’s worship, given his lack of roots in Pentecostalism. Hawn then proposes that his description of Hillsong worship is as objective as he is able to be, given his perspective.[15] Such explicit admission is both admirable and noteworthy, for this is the common, though often un-articulated, position of academic work on CCS. While there is much to be said for the ideally objective, rational, and potentially more validated nature of etic research, emic, or insider research has its own unique benefits. Rooney,[16] referencing Tedlock[17] and Teirney[18] suggests that “insiders have a wealth of knowledge which the outsider is not privy to” and that “interviewees may feel more comfortable and freer to talk openly if familiar with the researcher”. Rooney summarises; “From an anti-positivist perspective therefore, insider research has the potential to increase validity due to the added richness, honesty, fidelity and authenticity of the information acquired.” I would further like to nuance the emic term, for the purpose of this article, to refer to Pentecostal scholars who are deeply embedded in the cultural milieu of Pentecostal contexts featuring the production and promotion of CCS, without suggesting in any way that non-Pentecostal emic research in CCS is invalid or unattainable.
It is also important to state that this article was not written to demonize non-Pentecostal scholarship in CCS, nor reify the scant Pentecostal scholarship in CCS. Both produce valuable insights - as the well quoted statement from Merton[19] goes, “We no longer ask whether it is the Insider or the Outsider who has the monopolistic or privileged access to social truth; instead, we begin to consider their distinctive and interactive roles in the process of truth seeking”. Neither should we dichotomize Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal scholarship as ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’. As Rabe[20] notes “the status of the social researcher as ‘outsider’ or ‘insider’ is neither static nor one-dimensional”. Nevertheless, (Pentecostal) emic perspectives, as I have defined them above, are noticeably absent from current CCS literature, and thus that distinctive point of view and the research it gives rise to, are not playing their part in the “truth seeking” scholars such as Merton advocate for.
One of the reasons that might explain the lack of Pentecostal scholarship in CCS is that Pentecostalism has traditionally been suspicious of academia, or considered it unnecessary[21]. Even the current practice of ordination within the Pentecostal Australian Christian Churches movement (formally Assemblies of God Australia) reveals their attitudes towards study; prospective pastors do not require any formal theological or ministry training, but rather they must demonstrate their “call” to ministry through practical application and acknowledgement from other church leaders.[22] Within this cultural milieu, Pentecostal scholarship has been slow to gain momentum, although there are healthy signs of its established and growing authority and influence, among which is this very publication (Australasian Pentecostal studies) over .the last 15 years.
Despite this, overwhelmingly the scholarship on CCS to date has been from more traditional perspectives. Riches, one of the few Pentecostal scholars of contemporary worship, observes that for a long time “the authoritative books available to Pentecostal worship leaders on contemporary worship were “popularist” texts lining Christian bookshops”.[23] She further confirms, “while insiders intuitively understand the intricacies of participation within these communities, and learn to ignore wider messages recounted by the public, only outside perspectives are available in the literature”. Of course, background information on scholars of CCS is not always accessible, but often it is, and where it is not, the tone of writing as well as explicit statements can help to illuminate writers’ paradigms and perspectives. A recent article from Porter[24] traces scholarship in the broader field of Christian congregational music. While this is not specifically scholarship on contemporary congregational songs, nor is he a Pentecostal scholar, it does selectively survey the field and provides a starting point for this lament.
(Not so) popular music in church
Porter notes that Christian congregational music scholarship even in its broadest sense has historically “often been pushed towards the margins of the various disciplines that it inhabits”,[25] a truth that is only further marginalised when it comes to CCS. He goes on to explain that one of the issues has been that “the discipline of musicology has often privileged more-complex forms of art music traditions.” One CCS taxonomy places them as a sub-genre of Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) which is a genre under the broader banner of popular music. Popular music studies has long battled with elitist presuppositions of western art music superiority.[26] It is perhaps natural then, that the existing CCS scholarship is often tainted by accusations of inferiority and banality, compared to the hymns which maintain an affinity with western art music traditions.
CCS’ popular music roots inevitably draw criticism from many scholars, either on the basis of the moral character of the music itself, or on its associations. Seidel[27] postulates, “belief in [the] neutrality [of music] is the key that has opened the door to every style of music being fused with biblical thoughts and themes”. Seidel feels that while it may be possible to add biblical words to “secular” music, it does not equate to “biblical truth.” He also proposes, “society will accept anything as music if it has not been properly taught.” What being “properly taught” entails, Seidel avoids defining, but his accusation against CCS is clear. Bourn[28] and others[29] suggest that whether or not music is morally neutral, (and Bourn, Godwin, and Lucarini clearly think that it is not) those who compose it are not. Thereby, they argue that music continually associated with a certain context and values will inevitably possesses those values. Consequently, they propose that there is music, particularly popular music, which cannot and should not be adopted by the church. Of course, such an argument implies that ‘acceptable’ music must have been created in a cultural vacuum of sacred perfection.
Dawn[30] is equally zealous regarding ‘acceptable’ music and music’s moral capacity, revealing her Reformed heritage and accompanying musical preferences. She asks, “How will we teach Christianity's specialness if the music in our worship services imitates the superficiality and meaninglessness of the general world...?”[31] She later proposes, “shallow music forms shallow people”[32] and concludes, “we must also ask if certain kinds of musical style should not be used in worship because their associations would be disruptive to worship”.[33] Cleverly, without ever mentioning popular music directly, Dawn manages to demean and diminish popular music in a matter of sentences. However, a musical style of worship that no one has any negative associations with may rule out all styles.
Other non-Pentecostal scholars are quick to see the hypocrisy of such rhetoric. Redman[34] notes that many CCS critics, who affirm local cultural expressions of music in Non-Western cultures, equally condemn popular music adoption in western church worship.[35] Wren notes that,“critics, in their focus on 'high culture' versus 'low culture,' express a social-class elitism. By focussing on their general dislike of popular music styles, these critics miss entirely the standards of acceptable worship that Amos 5 articulates”.[36]
Nevertheless, Wren’s support of CCS is still from the outside, and he is ultimately only able to see CCS as an “evangelical opportunity and ... obligation”. He cannot conceive it as a ‘native’ musical language of a generation of believers, only of a secular generation. His lack of understanding of CCS is demonstrated most clearly in this comment: “The evangelical chorus's subjective focus on 'me and Jesus' tames the gospel by keeping it inside the small, safe world of the believer’s personal life and state of mind”.[37] While Wren does make many valuable observations, the weakness of his etic approach is evident throughout, not least of which is his choice of CCS to analyse. For a book published in 2000,[38] he chooses the Abingdon Chorus Book 1 (1996), a dated and conservative representation of CCS even for its time.
Another supposed advocate of the ‘new’ (given the title of his book), although clearly a greater advocate of the ‘old’, Webber[39] reveals his biases concluding that emotionally geared worship (read CCS) ultimately wears thin; that over time, people will tire of the “antics”.[40] Kallestad,[41] on the other hand, sarcastically observes,
...if people actually enjoy the presentations and if they respond to entertaining music, then the programs must be artistic sellouts; the audience is stupid, and the art critic knows what is best...[42]
Often, such emotionalism is connected to non-Western culture. African American scholar Abbington[43] touches on this issue of emotional worship (read CCS) as entertainment. It is unlikely that he is responding directly to Kallestad’s Entertainment Evangelism. However, he proposes that modern forms involving “ecstasy”, volume, musical style and bodily engagement (again, read CCS) quickly become entertainment. He suggests that this becomes a downward spiral where those who are not taught the nature and theology of worship ultimately choose entertainment in worship’s place. Yet he does not fully resonate with Webber either, stating that the attempt to blend musical styles in order to be relevant to all generations is not the answer, although he does not suggest an alternative.
Some of these debates are necessary, and helpful. However, they often become sidetracks and vortexes of scholarship on CCS when etic researchers attempt to engage the field. Although again not a Pentecostal scholar, a nuanced perspective of the tension in churches over popular music used for worship comes from Nekola:[44]
…what may appear to outsiders as a battle over musical style, or… [more broadly] a generational conflict over rock 'n' roll, is more deeply rooted in a system of fundamental tensions and hotly contested ideologies within American evangelicalism.[45]
Nekola effectively suggests that contested spiritual authority is at the centre of most academic discourses on musical style in worship. Notwithstanding that insight, music from Pentecostal sources is potentially suspicious to non-Pentecostal liturgists, and for more reasons than its musical content or associations.
Lyrically challenged
Scholars of CCS are invariably also concerned with lyrical content. Ong,[46] in identifying the differences between secular popular music and CCS states, “The words of the contemporary Christian songwriter are often vivid and passionate in religious expression. In other words, the sonic narrative expresses Christian theological beliefs in fashionable, popular jargon”.[47] It is this “fashionable popular jargon” that attracts the scrutiny of a significant number of ‘outsider’ researchers, and indeed a couple of ‘insider’ ones.[48]
Lutheran worship scholar, Erickson’s[49] recommendation is simply, “liturgical language should be like a clean window – you look through it, not at it”. Others are more direct in their critique. Dawn[50] declares, "no matter how musically wonderful, pieces must be rejected if the text is theologically inadequate".[51] This is a common strain, and Tucker[52] is one of those who resonates with it. She focuses on the text separate from musical style and instrumental accompaniment, demanding that the lyrical content be accurate to the Christian’s theological and doctrinal position. She postulates that historically Christian reform in song was related to the aligning of Christian doctrine to lyrical form. Given that a profoundly broad denominational acceptance of CCS exists,[53] either current lyrics are general enough not to arouse the wrath of denominational distinctives or alternatively, many at the grass-roots of local churches are less preoccupied with those distinctives. There are certainly some writers who are preoccupied with them, Parrett[54] among them; “Perhaps a new wind of theologically sensitive songs will blow some of the chaff out of our sanctuaries for good”. Again, Parrett unequivocally sees “chaff” as synonymous with CCS.
Such critique raises the question; do CCS lyrics need to represent a full spectrum of Christian theology and doctrine? Riches[55] does not think so. She makes the point that Pentecostal worship does not attempt a systematic theology in its lyrical endeavours, but rather addresses the particular worship context of the local church, encouraging and challenging believers in their relationship with God.[56] Liesch,[57] agrees with this argument, but further claims that contemporary songs are in fact incapable of articulating comprehensive doctrine. He believes “choruses” (yet another name for CCS) excel at celebration and intimacy but lack intellectual rigor. While he accuses CCS of lacking “a mature exposition of the broad range of biblical doctrines,” the implication is that he believes they should offer such an exposition. The idea that all biblical doctrines are required to be enshrined in congregational song is of course impractical and unnecessary. However, I willingly admit that is based on a personal paradigm of the nature of Pentecostal corporate worship. If the role of music in corporate worship is a catalyst for divine encounter, as Jennings suggests,[58] and not primarily for Christian education in doctrinal truths, then lyrics which facilitate this divine encounter are preferable. Quite apart from this, an oral culture may indeed require all knowledge to be passed on through song, but the Western world is a literate culture; overwhelmed with instructional material (written, recorded, broadcast) on Christian doctrine for those who seek it.
Whether CCS lyrics are doctrinally comprehensive or not, music’s power to validate poor lyrics cannot be overstated. Prince,[59] a veteran worship music publisher and writer notes, “songs can carry alarming heresies and still be cheerfully sung from one end of the land to the other, over and over again”.[60] Alongside of this, Abbington[61] observes that sometimes those who are making decisions about music used in a church context focus more on style than substance. Hence they may potentially be facilitating heretical congregational confessions. Indeed, often those making decisions about the use of specific contemporary songs in Pentecostal church life are not theologically trained. The advent of CCS brought with it a focus on competent musicians/singers functioning in the role of leading congregational worship, rather than trained clergy, although of course clergy remain present and can (and do) contribute to the discourse surrounding CCS lyrics.
Many scholars[62] wrestle with the appropriate matching of music to lyrics. Hughes[63] maintains, “the tune must support the meaning of the text. It is inevitable that a sentimental melody attached to a hortatory text will deflate the force of the text”.[64] The flaw of this argument is conspicuous; a “sentimental melody” can only be defined subjectively. Furthermore, no evidence is given that such a melody will beget inaction or indecision.
In his book, Discipling Music Ministry, Johansson[65] surmises that Christians who only sing “choruses” will end up as spiritually deep as the lyrical content of those songs. He asserts that the current content of CCS lyrics is simplistic, pleasure-oriented, emotionalistic, intellectually weak and undisciplined; finally stating that immaturity is the result of such a diet. The adjectives utilized by Johansson seem to reference musical style as much as lyrical content. The conflation in ‘style’ and ‘content’ debates are recognised by Ashton[66] who astutely notes:
One result of the power of music is that people become deeply wedded to their personal preferences and find it difficult to recognise that the style of music is almost always a matter of no intrinsic theological importance.[67]
Perhaps he should have gone further to say, musical style is always a matter of no intrinsic theological importance. Musical style is a human construction; arguably for the Christian it is an extension of the original Creator, but humans ascribe theology to musical style, musical style cannot connect itself to theology. Thus, musical style is only connected to theology through human attribution and agency. Ashton’s voice is one of the few.
Webber's[68] observations from his experience of CCS only continue to affirm many of the etic voices in the literature. He believes that the contemporary style of music often used in congregational song overshadows the text; and therefore the text ends up being a footnote to the music. In this way the text is no longer the unifying thread, reduced to, as he refers to it, the “sameness of the musical beat, the overwhelming noise of the band, and the similarity of the musical content”.[69] I believe Webber’s description of musical style here reveals both his musical preferences, and his Baptist heritage. Popular music scholars find a wealth of material to explore in instrumental textures and tone colours of bands; and to quantify popular music as having a “sameness of beat” is to simply demonstrate unfamiliarity with the repertoire and/or its purpose. Apart from which, the accusation of “sameness of beat” could equally be levelled at hymns. Faulkner[70] is more pragmatic , though not more Pentecostal, in his assessment of many Christians’ popular music preferences in worship. He declares scriptural and anthropological support for music in worship, admitting that Christians “have no particular reason to value elaborate art music in worship”.[71] The point of tracing these various arguments in CCS scholarship is simply to reinforce the observation that research questions, approaches, and conclusions of non-Pentecostal researchers are deeply influenced by underlying frames of reference.
I propose that although etic research approaches should ideally produce more objective and empirical observations of a field, the arena of music is so emotionally charged and deeply personal that much of the non-Pentecostal scholarship of CCS is grounded in limiting presuppositions and biases. These may include the rejection of popular music as an expression of ‘low culture’ compared with the ‘high culture’ of western art music traditions and by association sacred music arising from those traditions. They may include issues with the secular or profane associations of popular music with music utilized for worship. They include ideas of canonisation, whereby hymns have existed long enough to be ‘tested’ and prove themselves ‘worthy’, whereas CCS have not. Finally, they may include issues with Pentecostalism itself as emotion-based religion, expressing itself through emotionally manipulative or emotionally shallow CCS.
Standout performances
This article is a lament for what is missing in the literature, not for what exists in it. So, I reiterate that non-Pentecostal scholarship in CCS is not somehow fundamentally floored because of its underlying perspectives and presuppositions. Indeed, some excellent research, even if effectively still etic, has been published by a number of scholars in the field, some of which I have already noted, but to which we now turn our full attention.
Harold Best[72] was one of the first to engage with the church’s utilization of popular music styles, although this was not his sole focus. He promulgates musical pluralism and challenges those who argue for the morality of music apart from lyrics. He also challenges pre-conceptions of musical value judgements. He advocates the new, both musically and technologically. Perhaps the only weakness of this work is its inability to contribute to methodological approaches to CCS research. Corbitt’s The sound of harvest: music’s mission in church and culture,[73] on the other hand, provides potential methodological considerations for CCS. He ascribes three essential attributes to the effective congregational song; they should be singable, the music - danceable, and they should contain a meaningful message[74]. This ‘singable’ feature is a core quality of CCS. As Wagner[75] (paraphrasing King and Prior) states:
[CCS] commonly feature easily sung, memorable melodies and lyrics that are projected above the stage. Simply put, a participant whose head is buried in a book, trying to comprehend unfamiliar text, will be less likely to have the intellectual, emotional or physical freedom necessary to engage with worship in the manner needed to achieve transcendence. The fact that the music is easily remembered is important because familiarity with and the pleasure derived from listening to music are often linked (King and Prior 2013).[76]
Corbitt’s second quality resonates with much secular scholarship on the somatic nature of popular music,[77] as well as resonating with the statement in the introduction of this paper about Pentecostal scholarship being embodied. Many authors[78] have observed CCS’ “danceable” quality. Finally, exploring the “meaningful message” in lyrics rather than the message that ‘should’ be there, or the message that is absent, is a valuable goal for any analysis of CCS. Corbitt’s further conclusion is penetrating:
The meaning of music resides in people, not in sounds. In a general sense, our evaluation of music has more to do with the people who make it, perform it, and respond to it and the context in which it is performed than the music itself.
In this way, Corbitt resonates with many of his sociomusicological contemporaries. A laudable feature of Corbitt’s work is his ability to hold in tension these sociomusicological concerns with textual analysis and music psychology; having said that, his analytical approach is fairly narrow and limiting. His proposed analytical process for CCS is almost entirely focussed on the lyrical content. Even Corbitt’s comment that "because texts of music are written within cultural, historical, political, and even economic contexts, their meaning must first be discovered within that context"[79] which could have been rewardingly explored from a macro ‘musical event’ level, has a distinctly lyrical lens. The point to be made here is that while this is not emic research, the questions and methodologies resonate with possibilities of Pentecostal scholarship in the field. Corbitt’s work could provide a scholarly foundation on which Pentecostal scholarship of CCS could build. This could also be said of the work of Quantz.[80]
Quantz advocates more of a musicological focus, at least in the first three of the four ways in which he believes the congregational song can fulfil its mandate. Firstly, he promotes vocal music that adopts a limited range and tessitura. Secondly, he suggests the congregational song tends towards less rhythmic complexity than instrumental music. Thirdly, he suggests melodic contours in song generally favour smaller intervals, especially step movement. Finally, while not everyone can play a musical instrument, (he contends) all can sing, and thus meaningful participation can be engaged in by all gathered believers. While his notion of comparative rhythmic simplicity is interesting, Quantz does not define which instrumental music it should be compared with. Furthermore, the rhythmic complexity of congregational songs has clearly increased within the CCS genre over the past 40 years. Despite these weaknesses, and while not all of Quantz’s criteria can be empirically tested, his first and third points have potential for CCS research.
Arguably the best musicological scholarship on CCS to date has been that of Evans.[81] Although he is not a Pentecostal scholar per se, his study of the music of Hillsong throughout the 1990s and early 2000s was thorough, insightful, and to some degree represented ‘insider’ research at the time. Particularly, despite the contested terms for this musical genre, he argued convincingly for the term utilized here; contemporary congregational songs, recognising that all other terms have extensive semantic challenges. He also placed CCS within three overlapping fields of theomusicology, popular music studies, and vernacular music studies.[82] The significance of drawing on vernacular music studies cannot be underestimated. CCS are not simply a contemporary performance art, which popular music studies alone could do justice to. Rather CCS are the interactive, engaged expression of believers whereby participants are much more than an audience; the gap between producers and participants is closed, and the music itself therefore must accommodate a profound level of ordinariness.
Despite some of Evans’ lyrical categories revealing his more traditional denominational background as Riches notes,[83] his ability to analyse the ‘what is’, rather than the ‘what should be’, makes his writings a valuable starting point for Pentecostal scholarship in the field. In contrast, Witvliet,[84] while recognizing that liturgical art [inclusive of CCS] ... is functional, vernacular, and communal,[85] elsewhere proposes to “proceed with a critique of this movement on the basis of what might be called a distinctly ‘hymnological’ aesthetic”. [86] Similarly, for all of Hawn's[87] hat-tipping to various congregational musical styles, his affirmation for hymns as the preeminent vehicle for congregational song is clear. Dawn[88] is yet another scholar who while attempting to situate herself somewhere in the middle of these extremes, inevitably appeals to historical security, urging that hymns have already been assessed by the ultimate judge of time. Her assessment of our “increasingly narcissistic culture” effectively calls for us to be suspicious of all new songs.
Jennings[89] ethnographically explored music and Pentecostalism in a church in Western Australia, and his insights into music’s central role in ecstatic experience are valuable. He states that the “centre of the... service is the encounter, which is catalysed by music”.[90] Furthermore, he notes “that music is deliberately and intentionally utilised... to contain and convey the presence of the holy”.[91] He attributes this to a ‘sacramental’ view of music in many Pentecostal churches, whereby music is “an object that mediates the divine presence”.[92] Among his observations, Jennings proposes Pentecostals are ambivalent in their adoption of popular music for worship. He states “the church makes use of popular cultural forms at the same time as trying to distance themselves from the secular ethos of popular culture”.[93] For those inside Pentecostalism, ambivalence does not quite capture the practice. The current generation of Pentecostals producing CCS, grew up utilising musical styles they resonated with, believing not simply that all music could be redeemed for the purpose of worship, but that it wasn’t the ‘devil’s music’ in the first place, and therefore no redemption was necessary. Nevertheless, Jennings, along with the other scholars mentioned above, provide insights into the scholarly discourse of CCS that Pentecostal scholars could easily build upon, which is bittersweet, given that it only highlights the lack of Pentecostal scholarship in CCS, reinforcing the lament.
Other voices
CCS scholarship is necessarily cross-disciplinary. Musicology, theology, ecclesiology, biblical studies, sociology, cultural and historical studies, to name a few, all play a part in understanding CCS. The following section outlines some more non-Pentecostal, but valuable voices contributing to the broader terms of CCS scholarship.
Begbie’s[94] contribution is interesting in its attempt to create from Biblical text and history (particularly musical theologians and theological musicians) an approach involving “Christian ecology” which utilizes Creation as a framework. Rather than a theology of worship, Begbie works towards a theology of music, which does not attempt to promote or demote any particular musical style. In one sense then, it lacks a ‘position’ on music and the believer, except to spread a very wide interpretation of Creation and our position in the “Christian ecology”. Three notably relevant contentions he makes include; “… [that] pieces of music typically posses an aesthetic integrity, …they operate metaphorically, generating a surplus of meaning… [and that] music is very context friendly”.[95] There is a veiled warning here, as heard elsewhere, that analysis that purports positivist song meaning, will quickly reveal its inadequacies. There is also the insight that people easily reinterpret music based on the setting in which they experience it; DeNora[96] would concur. Begbie advocates thinking of music in a Christian ecology which is neither escapist nor imperialist. Others who have sought a far more inclusive look at Christian’s interaction with all popular music whether in consumption or creation include Faulkner,[97] Joseph,[98] Howard and Streck,[99] and Marsh and Roberts.[100]
Marsh and Roberts are of particular interest to potential CCS research. Their exploration of popular music through sacramental theology is certainly engaging, though clearly not Pentecostal. They argue that this is a spreading convergent theological approach to popular music; popular music can be a “channel of the self-revelation of God, or of the grace of God”.[101] Their attempt to align Christian perspectives of popular music with Daniel Levitin’s The world in six songs[102] is somewhat forced, given Levitin’s evolutionary and ultimately scientifically reductive perspective. However what is most compelling in their work is their creation of the ‘Magisteria-Ibiza Spectrum’(Figure 1) in order to describe ‘affective space’ in which we consume popular music, be it CCS or CCM or secular music. Marsh and Roberts describe ‘affective space’ as “any practice or activity that entails significant emotional engagement, through which a person can be shown to do more than just enjoying the moment”.[103] The spectrum allows for a high level of complexity and potentially overwhelming configurations in examining music consumption.
Figure 1 - The Magisteria-Ibiza Spectrum
They conclude that “For those to whom music is at all significant, then, music is part of the self-shaping process and a means of discovering and expressing who we believe ourselves to be. In a clear sense, we are our playlists”.[104] The relevance of this to CCS is not in musicological analysis, but rather in the analysis of music reception and meaning making.
With a backdrop of the theological study of the cultural significance of popular music, Marsh and Roberts list seven functions of music:
· Music orders and organizes time
· Music brings people together
· Music exercises the body
· Music expresses values
· Music enables participation
· Music provides a way of channelling emotion
· Music can be seen to shape life[105].
All of these are readily applied to Pentecostal utilization and exploration of CCS. Additionally, Marsh and Roberts’ offer four dominant themes in people’s use of popular music, including; transcendence, embodiment, connectedness, and ritual.[106]
As this section has demonstrated, there is valuable scholarship in the adjoining research fields to CCS, even if not from Pentecostal perspectives. However, the point to be made here is that there are many questions etic scholars of CCS tend not to ask that are actually central to understanding the genre. Here are some suggestions as to what those questions might investigate. How do those who grow up in a CCS-oriented worship environment perceive secular and sacred music? How do the lyrics of popular CCS affect the theology of those immersed in it on an ongoing basis? How do those who create CCS perceive their role musically, lyrically, and as influencers/leaders in religious communities? What are the defining characteristics of the CCS genre? How much does industry or other outside influences affect the propagation of new CCS? What can average western Pentecostal believers sing? What is their vocal range? What lyrics particularly resonate with them and why?
Besides Evans’ and Riches’ work, Woods and Walrath[107] approach the possibilities for research in this field, but none of the authors contributing to The Message in the Music: Studying Contemporary Praise and Worship overcome their denominational frameworks and heritage to understand CCS from within the cultural, spiritual, philosophical, pragmatic, and often Pentecostal contexts of its creation and promotion.
Conclusion
Returning to Porter, he states:
Aside from [scarce] studies within the academy, congregational music is an area that often attracts, on some level, the reflections of practitioners and lay-people… Such practitioners can often find themselves relatively alone in church settings where musical practice receives much greater emphasis than reflection and thought around music.[108]
This is precisely the reason that Pentecostals must engage critically and rigorously with the musical genre they have promoted, and furthermore, bring those reflections and observations to the plethora of practitioners within their field. Porter’s emphasis on ethnomusicology as a way forward in the study of congregational song is understandable given his background, but he also notes that many other disciplines are entering the dialogue. The clear missing component of CCS research from my perspective is that of the music itself. Ethnographic, phenomenological, sociological, and historical accounts abound, as Porter observes,[109] but CCS scholarship has yet to establish a foundational body of work on the songs themselves and the genre itself.[110] Much of the current work on CCS circumscribes central questions around the production and promotion of the genre, as Porter exemplifies in his use of Butler[111] and Rommen[112] as examples of key scholars in the field.
Returning to the distinctives of Pentecostal scholarship outlined in the introduction, if indeed Pentecostal scholarship is experiential, then as it is applied to CCS, it has the potential to investigate the way in which CCS contribute to this theology of encounter in both public and private settings. If Pentecostal scholarship is embodied, then it can explore CCS as embodiments of faith and holistic Christian practice and being. If Pentecostal scholarship is playful, then it can explore CCS outside the formal constraints of musicological (or any other disciplinary) hegemony, and perhaps propose unique and fresh perspectives on their ontology, purpose and function. Finally, if Pentecostal scholarship is analogical, it can understand the equally analogical nature of CCS lyrics, and expand the possibilities of meaning making in this genre.
While Riches may well “wonder about the usefulness of research for this community [the Pentecostal movement]”, which she rightfully summarises as “pragmatic and popularist”,[113] I believe it is essential and timely for Pentecostal scholars of CCS to engage with and advance this field of enquiry. If Pentecostal scholars fail to do so, the etic warp already in this bourgeoning tree of academic inquiry may dominate its future directions.