Recent Posts
A church appoints qualified pastors because, if not, false teachers will gladly take their place. [more]
Kevin T. Bauder For me, learning to read was like being initiated into the mysteries [more]
Living in a wicked world presents challenges for people attempting to walk the way of [more]
How do we decide between these competing definitions of beauty? As Christians, we would firstly [more]
Titus 1:6–9 is a key passage for determining who may or may not be a [more]

Two Roads Diverged

The dethroning of the Church by Reason and the creation of pop culture left the Church in an awkward position. Its cultural influence was non-existent. As the culture around it plunged into sanitized paganism, the Church’s traditional forms became foreign. The Church was in Babylon, yet it was free to worship as it pleased. So the question became, do we continue cultivating the Judeo-Christian tradition and become progressively more and more alienated from our surrounding culture, or do we “contextualize” and abandon our tradition for a new one that follows the lead of pop culture? The Church ultimately chose the latter path.

The leader to blaze the trail along that new path was 19th century Revivalist Charles G. Finney (1792—1875). Because Finney believed that conversion could be produced by human means,1 he sought to create certain experiences in his services that would lead people to accept the claims of Christianity. In his Revival Lectures, Finney insisted that “there must be excitement sufficient to wake up the dormant moral powers.”2 This desire for “excitement” was a significant break from Christian leaders before him.

Finney found pop music as the perfect tool for creating such experiences because it was immediate and it stimulated excitement. Finney urged those writing and leading music in his meetings to look to the advertisers of the day for inspiration. Those earliest forms of pop music may seem innocuous to contemporary ears, but that philosophy began a trend to use pop music to create emotional experiences in the Church that continues to this day.

At this stage making distinctions between kinds of sacred songs may be helpful. Up to this point I have been using “hymn” to describe any sacred song, yet we have already seen a need to distinguish between “psalms” and “hymns.” From now on, I will use the term “hymn” to describe only those sacred songs that were written within the Judeo-Christian tradition. The congregational songs written in this new tradition that followed the lead of pop culture are what have come to be called “gospel songs.”

The gospel song movement began with the camp meeting revivals of the early 1800s.3 These meetings used this genre of music to create excitement and interest in the meetings:

The tunes of camp-meeting songs were simple and folk-like in character. The improvisatory nature of these songs and the need for teaching them by rote demanded that the tunes be easy, singable, and instantly contagious. Under these circumstances, a popular, “catchy” repetitious refrain or chorus was invaluable.4

Soon thereafter, the Sunday School movement adopted these songs for use with children.5 As these children grew to adulthood, they carried these same songs into the worship service. Hustad goes on to explain how this naturally led to this genre’s use by adults as well:

The same style of music appeared with somewhat more adult, vernacular texts 20 years later and came to be known as “gospel hymns” or “gospel songs.” It is impossible to overestimate the influence of these simple experience songs written by theological and music amateurs and the grips they had on the general public.6

Because the initial purpose of these songs was to create excitement and interest for those who were physically and/or spiritually immature, the use of popular music in the development of the gospel song was invaluable, and pop music’s influence is unmistakable:

The new gospel songs picked up the style of the popular songs of the Civil War era. Simple major-mode melodies, with the ever-popular refrain, were added to the older, still-useful, camp-meeting texts. . . . Whereas the older songs were largely sung in unison, the gospel songs had simple harmonies and rhythms that could be sung by quartets and choirs. Later, the use of some ragtime and jazz rhythms added more interest for young people. Save for the words, popular sacred music was hard to distinguish from the secular.7

Finney’s influence was kept alive in the revivalist tradition in the years to come. D. L. Moody and his famous song leader, Ira Sankey, were widely known for their emotional, experience-oriented preaching and music and helped to further ingrain this kind of music into the church’s worship.8 “Moody and Sankey could be counted on to create those ‘feelings of spirituality.’”((Ibid.)) Moody said, “It makes no difference how you get a man to God, provided you get him there.” Their criteria for good music was that it produced results:

Dwight L. Moody was musically ignorant as far as theoretical knowledge is concerned, but he did recognize the value of music in evangelism that resulted in a stirred congregation. Any song that did not produce a response was not good music to Moody’s way of thinking.9

This idea of a “stirred congregation” spread further with the revivalists to come:

The two men [Billy Sunday and Homer Rodeheaver] brought a new level of secularism and entertainment to evangelistic crusades with crowd-pleasing and crowd-attracting mannerisms.10

This revivalist tradition slowly seeped into the churches, so that every service became an evangelistic revival meeting. This new way of thinking affected not only the content and style of worship and music, but it totally transformed the view of the church. This is not to say that nothing written in the gospel song tradition is good; some of it is. Yet the entire philosophy of hymnody shifted so that much of what comes out this tradition was a radical departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Instead of text-driven hymns, we now had hymns centered around a catchy refrain and tune. Instead of modest hymns, we now had hymns whose purpose was to create excitement and energy. And instead of hymns that were distinct from the pagan culture, pagan culture was supplying the musical forms.

Like Israel, the Church was now in Babylonian captivity; but unlike Israel, the Church was allowing the culture of Babylon to drive its worship forms.

At certain points along the way various groups believed that lines were being crossed with the newer music. Especially with Jazz and Rock, Fundamentalists rightly refused to follow the trend. We might insert a new designation here to describe sacred songs written with Rock forms: “Praise and Worship songs.” Praise and Worship music took the choruses of gospel songs, set them to more upbeat music, and developed a new form. But this left many Fundamentalists holding onto a tradition that was certainly better than the worse forms of pop culture, but yet was still far from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This leaves us with essentially three distinct Christian traditions: (1) The Judeo-Christian tradition that essentially halted with the Enlightenment, (2) the Fundamentalist tradition which split from the Judeo-Christian tradition with the rest of Evangelicalism but refused to go any further with Jazz, and (3) the New-Evangelical tradition which has progressively adopted virtually every form of pop music that has come along.

Series NavigationPreviousNext
Scott Aniol

About Scott Aniol

Scott Aniol is the founder and Executive Director of Religious Affections Ministries. He is Chair of the Worship Ministry Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he teaches courses in ministry, worship, hymnology, aesthetics, culture, and philosophy. He is the author of Worship in Song: A Biblical Approach to Music and Worship, Sound Worship: A Guide to Making Musical Choices in a Noisy World, and By the Waters of Babylon: Worship in a Post-Christian Culture, and speaks around the country in churches and conferences. He is an elder in his church in Fort Worth, TX where he resides with his wife and four children. Views posted here are his own and not necessarily those of his employer.

  1. “A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.” Revivals of Religion (CBN University Press, 1978), 4. []
  2. Charles Finney, Revival Lectures, (reprint, Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, n.d.), 4. []
  3. Carlton R. Young, “Gospel Song” in Key Words in Church Music (St. Louis: Concordia, 1978), p. 174. []
  4. William J. Reynolds, A Survey of Christian Hymnody (Carol Stream: Hope, 1999), p.104. []
  5. Hustad, pp. 455-456. []
  6. Ibid., p. 456. []
  7. Leonard Ellinwood, “Hymnody, American” in Key Words, p. 221. Emphasis mine. []
  8. Hustad, p. 138. []
  9. William Loyd Hooper, Church Music in Transition (Nashville: Broadman, 1963), p. 97. []
  10. Hustad, p. 250. []

7 Responses to Two Roads Diverged

  1. Just so you know, the irony of choosing a line from misanthropic poem written by a pagan as your title for this installment is not missed.

  2. Hi Scott,

    In general, I have liked the thrust of this series, but I think that too much weight is given to Finney as the "source of all evil" in the church. Not that I am defending Finney, I just think he is given more credit for elements of revivalism than he deserves. He wasn't operating as a pioneer but more of a first among equals in the revivalists of his day.

    Secondly, I wonder about using the terms 'pop' music and 'popular music' (of the Civil War era and earlier) as if they mean the same thing as 'pop music' means today. I realize you are dealing with a very broad topic, but perhaps this simplifies it too much?

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

    PS, I don't get what d4 is talking about at all…

  3. I was probably exaggerating. The poem was more cynical/satirical and Frost was likely just an atheist rather than a pagan.

  4. Also, re:

    ". . . the question became, do we continue cultivating the Judeo-Christian tradition and become progressively more and more alienated from our surrounding culture, or do we 'contextualize' and abandon our tradition for a new one that follows the lead of pop culture?"

    Someone might accuse you of false dilemma here. Although try as I might, I cannot come up with a third option. Maybe you excluded the middle while I wasn't looking?

  5. Sorry, guys. For some reason I wasn't notified of these most recent comments.

    Don, of course it is a bit simplistic to blame Finney entirely, but he is the most recognized and influential proponent of this new philosophy, and I do not believe his influence can be underestimated.

    By "pop" I am simply referring to commercial music, designed to immediately gratify. That characterizes everything from Victorian sentimentalism to Foster ballads, to Disney, to Broadway, to Jazz, to Rock, etc.

    d4, no, I don't think it is a false dilemma. As cultural became more secularized, Christianity became necessarily alienated. I think the Church should have just accepted that and moved forward, but they did not.

Leave a reply