The Great Schism in Christian Music (That People Don’t See)?

In studying the history of Christian music, I’ve come to learn of a great schism, and it’s not what you think. It’s not organ-and-hymnal vs. electric-guitar-and-PowerPoint. It’s not acapella vs. accompanied. Here’s another shocker: as a pastor and composer, I’m at least a little happy this schism exists.

I don’t think we can pinpoint the exact time when this schism happened, but it’s best seen in the convicting words of John Wycliffe. During the Middle Ages, the Church’s spiritual health was poor and in decline, but its music was truly flourishing and innovative, having explored polyphony in original and amazing ways and creating historical-landmark choral works. Enter Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation, who wrote:

“In the old days, men sang songs of mourning when they were in prison, in order to teach the Gospel, to put away idleness, and to be occupied in a useful way for the time. But those songs and ours do not agree, for ours invite jollity and pride, and theirs lead to mourning and to dwelling longer on God’s Law. A short time later vain tricks began to be employed - discant, contre notes, organum and hoquetus . . . which stimulate vain men more to dancing than to mourning . . . When there are forty or fifty in a choir [sic!], three or four proud lecherous rascals perform the most devout service with flourishes so that no one can hear the words, and all the others are dumb and watch them like fools.”

It’s an extremely long spectrum, but Wycliffe is likely comparing the ornate, melismatic and Latin masses with the simple, popular and God-honoring folk songs of lament for prisoners. Just as Wycliffe believes the Bible should be readable by the common man, so should the Church’s music be sing-able by the common man. This controversial challenge to the Church brought into question the role of high-art music in the Church, and it caused many schisms that many churches still struggle with today.

I would argue that the two most urgent (and common) purposes that music serves in the church are:

1. edify the church’s congregants with Scriptural Truth through corporative musical participation
2. celebrate the Beauty and Creator-hood of God through artistic creativity and excellence

It’s the balance of these two purposes in your worship department’s mission statement that has caused splits (e.g. Wycliffe rightfully noticed that some churches were exercising the latter and disregarding the former). It’s not just a schism of the style of church music that we regularly deal with, but the purpose. 

Some only care about #1 and are discarded as artistically anti-intellectual. Others care only about #2, doctrinally dwindle and suffer an embarrassing defeat in a rat race of creativity. Still, others are under the impression that they can successfully edify the laymen and impress the wayward music connoisseur with the same music. (That’s been tried for centuries with little-to-no success). Limiting music to only certain functions within the church can hinder it, and sometimes only schisms can set it free to serve God in multiple ways at once. 

On top of that, failure to realize this schism has entangled the term “Christian music” in countless and unfortunate connotations and caricatures. What does one mean when they say “Christian music” is and how it should be “better”? 

First, are they referring to just the mostly-derivative contemporary music from modern evangelical subculture? Music meant for corporate worship in contemporary services (which is its own genre now)? Hymns of the eighteenth century? Choral works of the middle ages or in current universities? Modern ethnomusicological works?

Second, do they mean “better” by more excellence in instrumental technical skills, vocal tone/pitch and recording quality? Or by more complex, “original” (which is almost impossible today as so few truly original musical innovations are pleasing to tonal ears) and/or unpredictable in their composition? And how is “better” Christian music measured? By record sales, YouTube views, copy reports, congregational (or other) engagement and/or the subjective opinion of a certain lauded musician?

(They warned me studying philosophy of the arts would just make me ask more questions). The truth is that music, and even “Christian music” is more broad, deep and complex of a topic that can’t be talked about with cliches.

How do we, in church music, both foster an environment of Scriptural edification and intimate worship and corporately celebrate God’s beauty through artistic excellence and creativity? It’s a proverbial million-dollar question, but it needs to be asked more often, rather than to be continually brushed with assumptions and cliches. We shouldn't be talking shallowly about style, but deeply about purpose.  

Music is universal, diverse and powerful enough to serve in such a multi-faceted capacity. That’s one of the reasons I love it, studied it and now work full-time ministering with it. But its diversity has also, naturally, caused division.