Some
Thoughts on Controversies between CCM Advocates and Traditionalists

Try a critical-thinking exercise
over a contemporary song.

In virtual unison with other cultural voices belittling and bewailing folk and rock music of the 1960s and '70s, many Christian traditionalists across the high- and low-church spectrum attacked early CCM as "mere pop" that dangerously imitated "the world."  CCM advocates passionately pointed to its evangelistic potential and welcomed rock-style instruments into churches and onto concert stages.

What's the Problem?  The Music?  The Words?  Both?

Might itself does not make right, of course, for either party, but it is arguable that attacks on the musical characteristics of CCM (which have had the most press) have been much less effective than well-focused attacks on lyrical characteristics might have been. To this day, although CCM has some fine examples of good writing from scriptural bases, traditionalists working from the rich history of sacred song-texts may easily point out the relative poverty of many contemporary song-lyrics. In some cases, the scriptural foundation is weak or invisible; in many, the literary power is slight enough to be embarrassing.

But CCM is unlikely to disappear anytime soon; the free market will see to that. Traditionalists have, therefore, a difficult decision to make: either to lend and apply their sophistication to the improvement of contemporary songwriting or to become mere curmudgeons watching in horror as the CCM juggernaut rolls on, bruising their sensibilities further. If they were to choose the former, they would eventually recognize two high-potential areas for their involvement: that of broadening the scriptural basis for songwriting and that of improving the literary strength of song-lyrics. And one of the most-needed scriptural emphases in our Western materialist culture is Jesus’s "Second Great Commandment" challenge to love one’s neighbor as oneself--the underlying theme, as He knew, of prophets such as Amos and Micah.

Prophets?  Or Profits?

Interestingly, one of the most noticeable early voices in Christian folk and rock of the sixties, Larry Norman’s, was raised almost from the beginning in challenge to Christian social complacency. His proclivity for satire, in fact, produced material far too strong for the tastes of many listeners reared on the inoffensiveness of gospel songs, choruses, and classic hymns; and Norman, not as mass-marketable as Barry McGuire, another socially concerned singer-songwriter, fell more or less into obscurity by the mid-seventies. The CCM river swelled, predictably, with themes of less controversial aspect: personal testimony, personal holiness, evangelism, and praise--all good themes, but by no means the full story of godly living.

From time to time, a distinctly prophetic brand of poetry surfaced that called Christians to observe the ancient commandments to show mercy and promote social justice ("horizontal" matters); but commercial success has generally followed artists who have produced less politically troublesome lyrics, usually about relationship with God--or triumphalist posture toward the Devil, as exemplified by songs from Keith Green ("Dear John Letter to the Devil") and Carman ("Satan, Bite the Dust!"). Published in astonishing numbers, these "vertical" lyrics have both mirrored and motivated an enormous church-cultural shift from the topically wide breadth of hymnal-aided corporate song to the relatively narrow range of chorus-driven music programs.

The last twenty-five years have seen such exponential growth in the "worship-music" industry that it is quite possible for some believers to think great hymns of the church and songs of social challenge only marginally Christian. And because so many of the worship choruses preferred in churches today are linguistically simple and short--as well, sometimes, as grammatically incorrect--it is also likely that some believers have come to associate topical challenge, linguistic maturity, and lengthy required attention span (characteristics of the hymn) with distraction from the intent to "worship."  Many traditionalists, of course, remain aghast at the musical simplicity and redundancy of many choruses.

We may not be able to (nor should we necessarily) tame or naturalize Larry Normans enough to make them mass-marketable; but we can and probably should take tips from them--particularly about important topics for song lyrics.  Ironically, some of CCM's most irritating prophet-figures may be more topically in tune with traditionalists than either group would immediately recognize.

Can We Talk?

Popular music has always been with us, and since it will continue to be with us, we do less well to rail against it in general than to encourage its more elegant and legitimately powerful expressions.  Professor Steven Garber, a member of the Capitol Hill faculty of the American Studies Program of the Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), has recently used heavy interview research to support the idea that shared awareness and analysis of social phenomena--including pop-song lyrics--is a major component of an ideal relationship between maturely believing adults and students (The Fabric of Faithfulness: Weaving Together Belief and Behavior During the University Years [InterVarsity, 1997]).  Remaining unflappable and respectful while turning an incisive gaze on the poetic (lyrical) history of CCM will probably gain more audience for reformers than will wild-eyed denunciation or old-fashioned garment-rending.  Accordingly, The AMOS Project addresses these prominent needs:

1.  the use of common courtesy and civil
     language toward the CCM culture;

2.  the extension of generous benefit of
     doubt in evaluating lyrics produced by
     apparently well-meaning CCM artists;

3.  the recognition and encouragement of 
     songwriters and performers whose work
deals clearly with the "Second Great
Commandment" and employs literarily
sophisticated and powerful language to
do so; and

4.  the development of a clearinghouse or
     forum for research into and discussion
of such work.

Back to top

© Nathan H. Nelson and licensors, 1999.  All rights reserved.