Plato, Aristotle, and Christian Music

Plato, Aristotle, and Modern Church Music

In this paper, my overall purpose will be the examination the modern musical habits in the church in light of Plato and Aristotle’s philosophical understandings of the role of art within the human, and more precisely, Christian experience. I want to use Plato and Aristotle to consider the subtle, yet unimaginably significant and dangerous effects of our practices as they distort and suppress our understanding of the Good. I will argue that our musical practices do not benefit the Christian life. I will go about achieving this by first laying down the foundational concepts upon which Plato and Aristotle agree, and then develop their contrasting ways of thinking about art. Plato first. Aristotle second. I will then present a brief explanation of overall goal of the Christian life as the pursuit of love in order to provide a lens through which to analyze the place of modern church music as an art form within the Christian life.

Plato and Aristotle agree with the concept of a closed cosmos, meaning, they come to the same philosophical conclusion that there are intelligible, governing principles that structure the physical universe. Consequently, they both think that the world can be arranged in a hierarchy, with these principles, or patterns, that make the world go being the highest approximation of reality, and with all other things being a lesser degree of what is real. It is from this notion that Plato’s famous analogy of the divided line is born, as it explains the four degrees of existence, or reality. These four degrees are then broken down into the visible (“shadows“ and things that do not really exist, and physical or sensible things) and the intelligible (scientific things such as abstract mathematical objects, and Forms - especially the Form of the Good). #

Plato then explains the overall goal of the human endeavor as the upward movement along the divided line, from the lowest approximations of reality (the visible) to the highest (the intelligible). He expands upon this notion via his cave analogy which can be most simply understood as the turning of the soul to love the right things; that is, the Forms. # In order to fully grasp what this means, one must understand Plato’s conception of the soul in three parts - the appetitive, the honor loving, and the rational. # With this in mind, it then follows that in order for a soul to love the right things it is necessary that it be ruled by the reason of the mind and not the appetites in order to result in the achievement of true honor and satisfaction. It is upon these understandings of the soul and reality that Plato and Aristotle formulate their opposing ways of thinking about art.

However, before we explore their differences, let it be said that Plato and Aristotle both see art, that is, all forms of entertainment, as mimesis. In other words, they view art as the representation of what is real, that is, the Forms. Where they part ways is an issue of epistemological disagreement, as they do not see eye to eye on the role of art in the human experience in regards to how we go about accessing these ultimate principles governing reality (The Form of the Good).

From Plato’s point of view, matter is dependant upon the Forms. That is to say that the Forms transcend the physical world, leaving the senses behind. Therefore he claims that we must stay rational and not get distracted in art, because art, he says, of necessity, originates from the imagination and consequently works at levels of reality three and four times removed from true reality as it wallows in the perceptible - the lowest degrees of what is real.# Because of this, art, Plato claims, is unbeneficial to the human condition since its overall affect is to leave us in an emotional state which is not desirable because if you are sentimental and nostalgic, you cannot think clearly and therefore cannot achieve the good as it is dependant on ones rational capacity.

Aristotle, on the other hand, views the Forms as dependant on matter. That is to say that from his point of view, everything we see is a complex of matter (tangible and visible), and form (has a specific identity by its structure). The significance of this is that it allows for the Forms to imminently reside within the world, which is complete opposition to the Platonic view previously discussed. One way of looking at Aristotle’s spin on Plato’s view of art is to say that he tilts Plato’s divided line on its side, bringing Plato’s mystical and abstract world of the Forms from outside of this world to within it, thus allow the form of the good to be revealed and investigated through the senses and by material states of affairs. This changes everything since, what he refers to as good art now has the potential to represent universal patterns and not simply the particulars. In light of this Aristotelian way of thinking on art, good art belongs in the category of philosophy as it has the capacity to lead us into a better understanding of what it means to be human by representing the Good and forcing us not only to philosophize this Good as we critically analyze why it is that we desire such, but also by its capacity to teach us how feel the right kind of things in a given situation. Aristotle refers to this process of learning how to feel the right kind of things as catharsis.

It is with the ultimate goal of bringing the entire soul to work in harmony in order to achieve a balanced life, which is said to be marked by the mind controlling one‘s being, that Plato and Aristotle develop their opinions of the place of art. This pursuit of the Good, that is those things that do not change, is in essence the same basic message of Christianity if we only spell Good with one less “o”. Moreover, I would like to suggest that it is rightful to further define this fundamental pursuit of the Christian life as not only the pursuit of God, but in particular, the pursuit of His love.

In his book Wishful Thinking, Frederich Buechner says:

In the Christian sense, love is not primarily an emotion, but an act of the will. When Jesus tells us to love our neighbors, he is not telling us to love them in the sense of responding to them with a cozy emotional feeling. You can as easily produce a cozy emotional feeling on demand as you can a yawn or a sneeze. On the contrary, he is telling us to love our neighbors in the sense of being willing to work for their well being even if it means sacrificing our own well being to that end . . . Thus in Jesus’ terms, we can love our neighbors without necessarily liking them. In fact liking them may stand in the way of loving them by making us overprotective sentimentalists instead of reasonably honest friends. #

In light of these words, the overall goal of the Christian life, that is the pursuit of love, is primarily a matter of action. However, it is my fear that modern church music is distorting our conception of love to be something different. I intentionally call it church music because I’m afraid calling our music “worship” is terribly dangerous as it is unintentionally causing people think that singing “worship” music isn’t true worship.

To worship God means to serve him and basically there are two ways to do it. One way is to do things for him that he needs to have done – run errands for him, carry messages for him, fight on his side, feed his lambs, and so on. This is true, essential worship. The other way is to do things for him that you need to do – sing songs for him, create beautiful things for him, give things up for him, tell him what’s on your mind and in your heart, in general rejoice in him and make a fool of yourself for him the way lovers have always made fools of themselves for the one they love. This kind of worship which wallows in the senses is only necessary in as much as it translates into the first category of worship and it is this category under which musical worship is found.

With these understandings of the Christian life and the place of musical worship within it, we can now get down to analyzing our modern musical practices through the lens of Aristotle and Plato’s conception of art. My first claim is that our modern church music is bad art in an Aristotelian sense. My reasoning for this is two fold. First, it is my belief that, in general, the music does not force us to philosophize the Forms. This is because the majority of the lyrics are lacking in theological and void of most any philosophical notions. Instead, the lyrics are highly emotive, which is embellished by a musical form that manipulatively draw out intense emotion through dramatic builds and repetition. This is an issue in the minds of Aristotle and Plato alike because this music keeps us within the sense experience, the lowest approximations of reality, rather than acting as a stepping stone up the “line” to true reality.

The second half of my reasoning lies in the other negative implications the music upon the soul from the perspective of Aristotle’s idea of catharsis, since the music is not teaching us to feel the right things. What I mean by this is that people listen to the music and go to their favorite “worship” bands show (which is sadly just that), or sing the same songs in church service (which can also be just that), where they are hit with an emotional high within a super-spiritualized atmosphere. People enjoy this, and thus continue to seek it out, especially because of the great importance the American church puts on singing these worship songs in a way teaches us to do so. However there is great danger in this and I think C.S. Lewis states it best, “God will set us off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to us, with emotional sweetness…But sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from our conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves us to stand up on our own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish.”

These things said, my purpose in this is not to deny the place of music within the church, the simple inclusion of the book of Psalms within the Biblical cannon, not to mention the numerous texts expressing that it is good to sing unto the Lord, seem to make such an argument rather difficult; nor is my purpose to deny that God, or the Forms, can be found in it (art) and thus argue Plato or Aristotle to be the distinctly Christian perspective. Rather, my purpose has been the examination our modern musical habits in the church in light of these two philosophical understandings of the role of art within the human, and more precisely, Christian experience; recognizing that there are no black and white answer here, and in that tension seriously consider the subtle, yet unimaginably significant and dangerous effects of our practices as they distort and suppress our understanding of love to the lowest approximations of reality and are thus completely unbeneficial to the goal of the Christian life - and to be conformed to the likeness of the Good (God).

It is in his book, Confessions, that St. Augustine seems to echo very similar opinion that offers a rather fantastic summation and conclusion for my thoughts:

The pleasures of the ear had a more tenacious hold on me, and had subjugated me; but you set me free and liberated me. As things now stand, I confess that I have some sense of restful contentment in sounds whose soul is your words, when they are sung a pleasant and well-trained voice. Not that I am riveted by them, for I can rise up and go when I wish. Nevertheless, on being combined with the thoughts which give them life, they demand in my heart some position of honour, and I have difficulty in finding what is appropriate to offer them. Sometimes I seem to myself to give them more honour than is fitting. I feel that when the sacred words are chanted well, our souls are moved and are more religiously and with a warmer devotion kindled to piety than if they are not so sung. All the diverse emotions of our spirit have their various modes in voice and chant appropriate in each case, and are stirred by a mysterious inner kinship. But my physical delight, which has to be checked from enervating the mind, often deceives me when the perception of the senses is unaccompanied by reason, and is not patiently content to be in a subordinate place. It tries to be first and to be in the leading role, though it deserves to be allowed only as secondary reason. So in these matters I sin unawares, and only afterwards become aware of it.#

leadership core values

It’s not at all uncommon today for a business or organization to print “Our Core Values” on handouts, or to even have them engraved on a plaque to adorn their walls. In fact, I find them every Sunday on the backside of the bulletin at the church I attend in South Pasadena. Some would suggest, and without much effort, that such increasing popularity of core values is in many, if not most, cases a fad that has diminished their relevance and importance. Nevertheless, the principle behind the emergence of core-values as a mainstay in various organizational arenas during the mid-seventies remains - to define and thus form the culture of an organization by helping to guide behavior and decision making (Kaufman, 2010).

Such a value driven mentality is not only considered useful, but often even pertinent and necessary to all kinds of leadership positions. In light of this, the overall purpose of this essay is four fold. The first being to determine my personal core values in regards to leadership at large - they are: compassion, meaningful risk/challenge, and simplicity. The second being the process of defining these values. The third being an explanation of their importance. And the fourth, the exploration of their implications on my leadership. What follows is just that.

For the purpose of this paper, I will define compassion as the willingness to further the well-being of others even if it means sacrificing your own to that end (Graham, 1997, p. 66). From my understanding of the Scriptures, this is, in a Christian sense, the primary understanding of love. That is, when Jesus says to love our neighbors, he is not telling us to love them in the sense of responding to them with a cozy emotional feeling. You can as easily produce a cozy emotional feeling on demand as you can a yawn or sneeze. Instead he is telling that to love is an act of the will. This is why I have chosen the term compassion, meaning “co-suffering” in Latin, since it is this specific dimension of love that I desire to engage.

So why, why engage it? It seems to me like the importance of love goes for the most part without saying. I mean, it is something we all recognize is good and something of which we never cease to desire. In the words of Dave Matthews and the Beatles alike, “all we need is love.” Without much thought, it is pretty clear that love is fundamental to human existence, any major religious text will text you this. Likewise, with much thought, love is the one things that most every sane philosopher finds at the crux of life. Whether we like it or not, love is the law - “He who does not love remains in death” (1 John 3:14); and one can test it just as you might test the law of gravity by stepping off of a ten story building.

Considering love’s fundamental relationship to life, explicitly embracing it within my leadership only makes sense, as it would not only benefit others, but also myself. The first example I would like to consider is the way in which liking follows on the heels of loving. By the definition given, we can love someone without necessarily liking them. In fact, liking them may stand in the way of loving them by making us overprotective sentimentalists instead of reasonably honest friends. However, although liking does not have to be part of loving, that does not mean it cannot. In fact, it is my belief that sometimes, and maybe more often than not, liking follows on the heels of loving. Raynolds and Chatfield (2007) at Outward Bound seem to agree with this, stating it is terribly hard to “ignite the highest dynamics of the human soul by providing for others needs very long without coming in the end to rather like them too” (p. 29).

This is important because often times, leadership involves getting one abrasive person to work with another and throughout my soccer career, I found myself in this kind of situation more than once. Playing for a highly respected club, our team attracted the best of the best. And with that came the biggest of the biggest heads, so to say. “Pre-Madonna’s,” as my coach referred to them. With this came the difficult task of uniting these big heads under one crest, and on the field that meant an instated compassion that looks out for the well being of your teammates.

Although it took a significant amount of time for any real transformation to take place, my coach got the idea that the outworking of the co-suffering kind of love I am discussing would change things. So he preached it to us, over and over, pointing out that we would never achieve our full potential as a team until we realized that the law of the game is love - a willingness to exit the immediate sense stream of self and look toward the needs of others.

As a leader I will embrace these principles of love by strategically developing situations in which such co-suffering is highly probably, if not unavoidable. One potential opportunity that comes to mind would be the redistribution of a persons gear who is having a difficult time keeping pace, onto the backs of others. For in the words of the Raynold and Chatfield (1997):

When people throw themselves into working for the common good, serving their group or community, and showing compassion for their fellow human beings, their strongest, most admirable selves come forth. Even though their initial inclination might be just to look out for their own needs - particularly in challenging or difficult situations - people usually find that by helping others, they discover strength that they didn’t even know they had. (p. 28)

Over the years, Outward Bound has developed a uniquely successful reputation for putting people in challenging situations. Their reasoning for doing so rests in the words of American mountaineer Willi Unsoeld who once said that “Risk is at the heart of all education” (Raynold and Chatfield, 1997, p. 90). As a Christian leader, education, which, as far as I am concerned, is not only limited to factual inquiry, but also includes personal growth and character development, is of utmost importance. It is because of this importance of education, accompanied by my shared belief with Willi Unsoeld that profound personal and spiritual growth depends upon an element of risk, that I determine my second core value of leadership to be just that - risk/challenge.

I backslash challenge behind risk for two reasons. The first comes out of my point of view as a leader, since “leadership and challenge are inextricably linked” (Kouzes, 2002, p. 164 ). A statement which can only be fully understood when leadership is defined as “a dance - a delicate balancing act involving the potential hazards and rewards of risk taking and the apparent safety and security of the status quo” (Raynold and Chatfield, 1997, p. 85). The second reason is because the “stretch zone”, the area outside of one’s comfort and inside their “panic zone”, is a place that many people visit occasionally and a few people enter frequently (Raynold and Chatfield, 1997, 104). Thus, the act of taking risks is a challenge in itself. The two are intimately connected.

If asked, I would place myself in the category of people who more frequently enter the “stretch zone.” Looking back at my childhood, the infatuation with action sports and the broken bones that comes with, it is apparent that my affinity for risks is part of my DNA. But I also cannot help but believe that my need to leave the comfort zone for the edge is something that has been further developed over the past years. I credit this to my increased understanding of the possibility of reward - that is, the feeling of accomplishment when you do something you previously never thought possible. I acknowledge the athletics as the main imparting source of this wisdom. I also credit my relatively new found conviction that considers risk to be a central element of the Christian faith.

Let me explain. You have probably heard it said, and maybe even said it yourself, “I just want to be comfortable.” It is my belief that that sentence is the one sentence that no Christian should ever say. That sentence, is the kiss of death. You will hear it no place from genesis to revelation. No place at all. Jesus did not say on the cross, “My God! My God! … I just want to be comfortable.” Nor did he say in the garden, “Oh Lord, not my will but Yours … just as long as I can be a little bit comfortable.” He did not say to the rich man, “sell everything you have and give it to the poor … well, just as long as you are comfortable, and then, go and follow me!” He did not say it to the disciples. And as far as I am aware, it is no where in Paul’s letters. “I just want to be comfortable” is a euphemistic way of saying, “I just want to be lukewarm.” It is a substitution of an agreeable and inoffensive expression for one that offends and suggests something unpleasant.

There is this quote I have come to live by that says, “God comforts the disturbed, and disturbs the comfortable” (anonymous). Experience has taught me this to be true. This is partly because every time I find myself comfortable in the faith, I stop growing; and partly because I have found a life of vitality and courage and fullness in the discomfort, that is, in the risk, in the challenge. You see, I am not sure God knows what to do with those who do not take risks and simmer in their comfort. I mean, you can die comfortable and never be redeemed. That’s the problem with comfort. It’s like a long, slow, euthanasia. It’s a good slow death. And you die long before you hit the grave. And that is why risk/challenge are part of my core values.

The implications of such on my leadership are vast. All of which converge upon the goal of getting “the ships” of my followers out of the safe harbor, and out on the open seas because it is for that what they are built. In order for this to be done, and to be done well, a friendly, welcome environment must be developed to put participants at ease in order to inspire their confidence in me as a leader, as well as “foster openness, trust, and support amongst themselves in order to set the stage for future intimacy and strong group cohesion” (Raynolds and Chatfield, 1997, p. 75 ).

My followers confidence in me as their leader is critical because in order for me to be able to push them, whether it be in action or thought, they must trust my judgment, my skills, and my concern for their well-being (Raynolds and Chatfield, 1997, p. 88). Furthermore, they are trusting in my ability to distinguish between recklessness and adventurousness, as well as the ability to distinguish and present the adequate challenge for their individual self since too great of a challenge will likely end in failure, and too little of a challenge is the death blow to a vibrant learning environment (Raynolds and Chatfield, 1997, p. 173).

The implications of this upon my leadership do not necessarily mean putting my followers through more dangerous scenarios than usual, however that is not to exclude its potential to do so. So when it comes to deciding whether to take the gnarly mountain pass or whether to cruise the mellow and boring trail, the first line of thought is safety. The following line of thought judges how beneficial the action will be increasing ones willingness to step out of comfort. In my mind, reasonably risky actions are essential to the way out of the harbor, however experiences of this like only come to fruition in regards to the connection with the Christian faith through conversation. As a result, my leadership position will cause me to not only seek the embodiment of a reasonably risky and vibrant life, but to also seek the development of my ability to captivatingly articulate the reasons why.

Simplicity is the third of my core values. Yvon Chouenard (2010) once said that “It is so easy to make things more complex. The hardest thing to do is simplify you life,” (Malloy) and I could not agree more. Nonetheless, he implies that the pursuit of simplicity is worthwhile. Bannis (1989), on the other hand, expresses a much more fatalistic outlook on the principle of simplicity in his book On Becoming a Leader:

“Life has never been simple and is growing more complex all the time, yet we persist in attempting to reduce it to bumper sticker dimensions. The advocates of simplicity see reality as mechanical, static, segmented, and rational, when it is, in fact, organic, dynamic, whole, and ambiguous. They see relationships as liner, sequential and serial, discrete, singular and independent, when they are, in fact, parallel and simultaneously connected, murky, multiple and interdependent. They are determinists, believers in cause-and-effect, when, in fact, probability is the rule and the inevitable hardly ever happens. They wear square hats, when they should try sombreros” (p. 93)

In response to Bannis, I would like to suggest that simplicity is not a denial of the complexity of reality to something irrational and non-sensical. By simplicity I do not mean to evoke a notion of sun-drenched, bumblebee dreaming hippies. Rather I mean to evoke the kind of simplicity that Richard J. Foster (2007) speaks of, when he says that “Simplicity is freedom. Duplicity is bondage. Simplicity brings joy and balance. Duplicity brings anxiety and fear. The preacher of Ecclesiastes observes that ‘God made man simple; man’s complex problems are of his own devising’ (Eccles. 7:30)… many of us are experiencing the liberation God brings through simplicity” (Foster, p. 79).

Christian simplicity is an inward reality that results in an outward life. Both are essential. We deceive ourselves if we believe we can posses the inward reality without it having an effect on how we live, just as much as we deceive ourselves if we believe we can have an outward life-style of simplicity without the inward reality. Either combination is deadly.

Kierkegaard seems to capture the essence of this inner reality in his book title, Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing (1948). It is not a call to ignorance, nor is it a call to “wear square hats” when we should try “sombreros” (Bannis, 1989, p. 93). It is a call to sanity; a return to our divine center.

Culture lacks both the inward and outward realities of simplicity. Resultantly, we are held captive by our lust for status and position, extravagance and possessions (Foster, 2007, p. 80). The importance of simplicity is that it liberates us from the insanity of these pursuits that never seem to satisfy, in order to “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). This is the central point and importance of simplicity. To keep the kingdom of God as our number one priority of our lives is to live in simplicity (Foster, 2007, p. 95). And herein lies the value of practicing simplicity in regards to my leadership as it allows me to have a greater focus on the deeper things of life.

It is these values of compassion, risk/challenge, and simplicity that I desire to have guide my behavior and decision making as a leader. However, to write about them only does so much. For, as Antony Jay points out, “The only real training for leadership, is leadership.” In other words, it is a give and take process, and it is my desire that the foundation these three principles provide will function as my initial gift to leadership, in hope of receiving what it has to give in return.