the splintered art world of contemporary christian music
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
1/18
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Popular Music.
http://www.jstor.org
The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian MusicAuthor(s): Jay R. Howard and John M. Streck
Source: Popular Music, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 37-53Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/931203Accessed: 21-12-2015 17:01 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/931203http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/931203http://www.jstor.org/publisher/cuphttp://www.jstor.org/ -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
2/18
Popular
Music
(1996)
Volume 15/1.
Copyright
1996
Cambridge
University
ress
The
splintered
rtworld
of
Contemporary hristianMusic
JAY
R.
HOWARD
and
JOHN
M.
STRECK
For
many,
art is a
product:
the
painting
to be observed and
contemplated,
the
concertto be heard and enjoyed. There is, however,anotherconceptionof art-
art as
activity
and
it is
in this
context hatHoward Becker
1984)
develops
his
concept
of art worlds. Art
worlds,
Becker
argues,
include
more
than the
artists
who
create the
work
which the
public commonly
defines
as
art.
Any given
art
world
will
consist of
the
networkof
people
whose
co-operative
ctivity
roduces
that art
world's certain
type
of
artistic
product
(Becker
1984,
p.
x).
Organised
according
o
their
knowledge
of
the art
world's
goals
and
conventionsfor
chieving
those
goals,
the art
world includes
five
basic
categories
of
people:
the artists
who
actually
create and
produce
the
art;
the
producers
who
provide
the
funds
and
support
for
the
production
of
the
art;
the distributors
who
bring
the art
to the
audience;
the
audience
who
purchases
and
collects
the
art;
and
finally,
he
critics,
aestheticians nd
philosophers
who create and maintainthe rationales
according
to
which all
these
other activities
make sense and have
value. These
rationales,
however,
are
not
merely descriptive
but
prescriptive.
For
despite
the
efforts f
those who
would
keep
an art
world static
n
its
products
and
function,
rt
worlds
are
dynamic.
Changes
in
the
art
world
are oftenmade
in
response
to
changes
in
the
rationales
-
i.e.,
the
philosophical
ustifications
or
n
art
world's
art
-
which
identify
he art
world's
product
as
'good'
art and
explain
how that art fills
a
particular
need
for
people
and
society
Becker
1984,
p.
4).
Changes
in
rationales
can
also be driven
by changes
in
the
surrounding
ocial
setting e.g., changes
in
the
economy)
in
which
the art
world
exists. While new
rationales can
move an
entire rtworld in new directions, heycan also result n thesplintering f an art
world
into
subgroups
with
divergent
assumptions
and
divergent
conventions.
Contemporary
Christian
Music
(CCM)
is
one such
splintered
rt
world.
The
social,
cultural,economic,
and,
in
this
case,
religious
formations f art
worlds
associated
with
particular
ubcultures
can,
and
often
do,
allow
members
to
define
themselves as
somehow
separate
from
he wider
culture,
lthough
not
unproblematically
o
(Kruse
1993,
p.
33).
To
misquote
Kruse
(1993,
p.
34),
parti-
cipation
n
the
Christianmusic art
world
merely
llows
Warner-Alliance
Warner's
new CCM
label)
to sell
you
Steve
Taylor,
nstead
ofWarner
elling you
Madonna.
As with the
alternative
music scene that
Kruse
(1993)
studied,
there s
nothing
about theeconomic and social organisationof the CCM artworld thatnecessarily
seeks
to subvert
the mainstream
music
establishment
nd
its
white,
patriarchal,
37
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
3/18
-
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
4/18
Contemporary
hristian
usic
39
of
this
controversy
CCM
was
born,
has taken
shape,
and continues
to
evolve
(Cusic
1990,
p.
197).
Consequently,
out of the
necessity
to
respond
to the
suspi-
cions
of the church
as
well
as the
pressures
of the rockmusic
industry),
he
CCM
art
world has been
forced to
develop
rationales
for
the
acceptance
of
the
rock
idiom as a means for ommunicating Christianmessage. Whileyoungfanshave
had
to
find
rationales to
justify
heirmusical
preferences
o
parents, pastors,
and
friends,
t
s
the
artist
who has been
most often
xpected
to
articulate
hese
ration-
ales.
In
addition
to
defending
themselves
from
heattacks
oftheir
Rock
music
is
inherently
vil'
opponents,
artists
lso
must
justify
heir
product
to their
record
buying
audience.
John
Styll
1993),
editor of
Contemporary
hristian
Music
maga-
zine,
argues
that t
has
been the
audience
which,
from
he
beginning,
has
resisted
the
artists'
attempts
to
expand
their
range
of
subject
matter
beyond
the
gospel
itself
p.
42).
Hence,
the artist
must
play
the
role
of
critic,
s
well as
artist,
n
the CCM
art
world.
Therefore,
n
our
examination
of the
splintered
art
world
of
ContemporaryChristianMusic we pay particular ttention o the rationales
developed
by
artists,
s
well as
those
of
the
pure'
critic.
Music and
religious
revivals
Despite
the
claims of
novelty
by
some
writers
e.g.,
Flake
1984)
critical
f CCM's
adoption
of
secular
music,
the
controversial
doption
of
popular
musical
styles
by
religious
groups
dates
back
to
the
early years
of
the
Christian
hurch
Ellsworth
1979,
p.
21).
Such
borrowing
f
secular
music
for
religious
purposes
was
common
in
the
Middle
Ages
(Ellsworth
1979,
p.
21).
In
Luther's
time t
was
customary
o
change
secular
songs
into
religious
songs
by
altering
he text
and
retaining
he
originalmelody (Cusic 1990, p. 16; Ellsworth1979, p. 49). In eighteenth-century
New
England,
a
number
of
popular
tunes
were
commonly
used with
religious
verses
inserted
despite
Puritan
eaders
who
denounced
the
new
'ballad
singing
and
filthy
ongs'
(Cusic
1990,
p.
40).
William
Booth,
founder
of the
Salvation
Army,
regularly
nsisted
that
well-known
secular
tunes
be used
with
Christian
lyrics
Cusic
1990,
p.
57).
Booth
s
further
redited
with
the
statement,
Why
should
the
devil
have all
the
best
tunes?'
-
a
statement
which
Larry
Norman
turned
nto
the
first
nthem
of
Christian
rock,
Why
Should
the
Devil
Have All
the
Good
Music?'
(1978).
Not
surprisingly
Norman,
considered
by
many
to
be
the
'Father
of
Christian
ock',
n
an
early
attempt
y
an
artist
o
develop
a
rationale
justifying
the genre,citedtheprecedentsofLuther,Watts,and Booth on therecordsleeve
of
his
1976
album
In
Another
and.
Cusic
(1990)
suggests
that
music
accompanying
Christian
evival
movements
generally
omes
from
ecular
culture
s
revivalists
eek
popular
styles
of
music
to
attract
ew
converts
nd
to add
new
life
to
traditional
religion.
The
music
begins
in
controversy,
ut
as
the
revival
becomes a
movement,
nd then
an
accepted
part
of
Christianity,
he new
music
forms
re
also
adopted by
the
church.
n
the
words
of
Billy
RayHearn,
founder nd
President
of
Sparrow
Records,
When
something
new
comes
along the,
the
church
usually
rejects t;
then
they
tolerate
t;
then
it
becomes
acceptable; and,
finally,
t
becomes
traditional'
quoted
in
Romanowski
1990a, p.
1).
However,
somewhere in
this
progression
a
metamorphosis
occurs:
themusic turns nward,addressingthebelieverrather han
seeking
toconvert
he
non-believer.
At
this
point,
then,
the
church
shuts its
doors to
other
styles
of
music and
incorporates
he
newly
accepted
musical
style
nto
ts
tradition.
ventu-
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
5/18
40
Howard nd Streck
ally
when
this new
tradition
oo
has
grown
stale,
a new
revival will
begin
and
alter
the
music of
the
church
once
again:
'This
has
been
the
history
f music
in
religious
revivals
fromMartin
Luther's
day
to
the
Jesus
Movement
of the
1970s'
(Cusic
1990,
p.
i).
Miller (1993) has developed a similarmodel of musical transitions n the
church.
The
process begins
with
Separation',
in
which believers find
that the
old
forms f
music,
firmly
ntrenched
n the traditions
fthe
church,
have
little
ear-
ing
on
their
daily
ives. At the same
time,
these
styles
communicate
lmost exclus-
ively
to
those who have been
socialised
in
a
particular
eligious
subculture,
hus
alienating
the uninitiated.
This, then,
eads
to
Integration',
s
church
nnovators,
believing
that he
old
forms
f
music
stifle
worship
and
to the
dismay
of
traditional-
ists,
adopt
popular
music
styles, nfusing
hem with
Christian
yrics
ppropriate
for
the
worship
experience.
The
resulting
Conflict'
s
these
musical
innovations
are
denounced
as
being
anything
from
non-traditional o a
compromise
with
the
world to Satanic is the thirdphase in the progression.Ultimately, owever, the
conflict
asses
and
the
churchenters state
of
Renewal'
in which
worship
music
is
once
again
presented
in
the
musical
langauge
of the
day
-
at
least
until
what
was
once new and fresh
becomes
standard and
the
cycle begins
anew.
According
to Miller's
(1993)
model,
CCM is in
the final
phase,
'Renewal'.
The
arguments
n
the
Evangelical
community
over whether
rock
music can
be
Christian are
largely
settled.
However,
despite
numerous books
which
argued
rock and
roll to be a
morally
neutral and
value-free
medium that
could be
used
forthe
good
of
spreading
the
gospel
(Lawhead
1981;
Key
and
Rabey
1989;
Miller
1993),
the
victory
f CCM's
defenderswas
neither
he
product
of
rrefutable
ogic
nor
(necessarily)
the
privilege
of
being right,
orwhile the
personal
and
financial
crisesof the medium's leading criticse.g., Jimmywaggart)divertedtheir tten-
tion
from
Christian
rock,
the
industry's
burgeoning
success
quickly
entrenched
CCM in
the
Evangelical
subculture.
Arguments
oncerning
he
propriety
f
con-
temporary
music
formsbecame
largely
moot.
As
of
1987,
CCM
was
generating
yearly
evenues
of
over
$300
million
Klatt
1987,
p.
122);
in
1994,
they
rose
beyond
$500
million
O'Donnell
& Eskind
1994,
p.
62).
CCM is
available
in
Christian
ook-
stores
throughout
he
USA and
Canada,
accounting
formore than
25
per
cent
of
bookstore
sales as
early
as 1984
(Romanowski
1990b,
p.
158).
At the
same
time,
one
can
frequently
ear
music
written
y
contemporary
rtists
n
Sunday
worship
services t
Evangelical
churches,
long
with
the
many praise
choruses'
that
origin-
ated with the earlyContemporaryChristianMusic recordcompany Maranatha
Music in
the
mid-to-late
970s. It is
difficult
o
argue
with
this
kind
of
success.
While
the debates
concerning
he evils
of rock
have been
more or
less
put
to
rest and
CCM has been
embraced
by
the
Evangelical
community,
he
industry
s
still
plintered
by
controversy.
A
new
debate is
beginning
s
some have
begun
to
worry
that
contemporary
Christianity
its
music in
particular
has
been
swal-
lowed
up by
popular
culture.
Among
those who
hold
this view
are
two
of
the
earliest
CCM
artists,
John
Fischer
who
now writes
regular
olumn n
Contempor-
ary
Christian
usic
magazine)
and Pat
Terry.
ischer
1993)
argues
how
Christianity
has so
identified
with
mainstream
ulture hat thas
'rolled
overand
died'
(p.
86)
with
respect
to the
radical,
confronting
ature
of
faith
nd
the
cross.
Terry 1992)claimsthat n the
early years
ofChristian
rock,
the
trappings
of an
industry
were
missing:
communication
was more
honest and
touching.
According
to
Terry,
s
the
industry
matured
t
forgot
tsroots.
These views
are echoed
by
another
critic,
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
6/18
Contemporary
hristian
usic
41
journalist
Dwight
Ozard
(1994a),
who sees
'Fleeing
the Cross' as one
of the
Seven
Deadly
Sins
of
CCM'.
'We
have
sought,'
states
Ozard,
'in
our sheltered
Christian
experience,
to flee
suffering
nd
demanded
that our
art do likewise. We
have
sought
a
painless
redemption,
both of our souls
and our world.
And so
our
redemptionhas been incomplete,our art neffectual . .' (1994a, 34). Hence, just
as the
Evangelical community
t
large
is
accepting
CCM,
many
who
have
been
immersed
in the
industry
for
a
long
time
are
beginning
to
question
its
spiritual
health.
The
question
to
ask, however,
s whether hese
symptoms
re
in
fact
igns
of
spiritual
disease' or ratherdis-ease
on the
part
of one
subgenre
of CCM
with
regards
to the rationales
driving
nother.
Christ, culture,
and
CCM
The
CCM
art
world
by
virtue
of
bridging
he
evangelical
subculture
nd
the
rock
music ofpopular culture, inds tself nderunusual pressuretodevelop rationales
to
justify
ts existence nd
to define
what
is
'good
art'.
In
order
to
find
cceptance
in
the
evangelical
community,
CCM
critics, rtists,
nd audience alike are
forced
to
develop,
maintain,
nd
articulate ationales
ustifying
CM's
existence
n
terms
of
evangelical
values.
Sociologically,
these
rationales can be seen as the
product
of the
perception
of
the
relationship
etween Christon the
one
hand and
Culture
on the other.
Niebuhr
(1951)
argues
that
Christians
n
all
ages
must answer the
question,
'How
can
one be
in
the
world,
but
not of
it?'
Biblically
nstructed,
Do
not love the
world or
anything
n
the
world
..
.'
(1
John
:15
NIV),
and
yet
at
the
same
time
existing
n
a
given
time,
at
a
given
place,
and within
a
given
culture,
Christiansmust
reconcile heir
faith
n
Christwith
the
beliefsof their
urrounding
culture. Niebuhr (1951) suggests thatwithinChristendom therehave been five
primaryways
of
resolving
his
dilemma:
Christ
gainst
Culture,
Christ
f
Culture,
Christ s the
Reconciler f
Culture,
Christ
Above
Culture,
nd
Christ nd
Culture
in
Paradox.
In
the
Christ
Against
Culture
approach,
Christ's
admonition
s
interpreted
as a
call
to
abandon the
world,
to come
out from
mong
non-believers
nd be
separate.
Christ
s seen
as
opposed
to the
customs and
achievements
of
society
and
confronts
umans with
an
'either-or'
ecision:
follow n evil
society
or
follow
Him.
Consequently,
there s
a clear
dichotomy
between the
sacred and
the
pro-
fane;
there s the
fellowship
of
believers and
there
s a
hostile,
evil
secular
world.
In the Christof Cultureview, however,Christ s viewed as thefulfilmentf
the
highest
aspirations
of
culture.
Christ
helps
to
guide
civilisation
o
its
proper
goal.
Emphasis
is
given
to
the
aspects
of
Christ's
teaching
hat seem
to
agree
with
the
values
and
standards
of
society
hus
harmonising
Christ
nd
culture.
Although
culture s
occasionally
side-tracked
nd
may
lose
its
proper
focus,
t s
assumed
to
be
good.
Between
these
two poles, fall
the
otherthree
views.
Niebuhr (1951)
argues
that the
Christ
Above
Culture,
Christ and
Culture
n
Paradox,
and Christ
as the
Reconciler
f
Culture
perspectives
ll
agree
with each
other n
seeking
tomaintain
the
great
differences
etween
Christ
and
culture,
yet
attempting
o
hold them
n
some
unity p.
41).
The
Christ
Above
Culture
perspective
understands Christ's
relationto culturesomewhat as does the Christof Culture
approach.
Both see
Christ s the
fulfilmentf
cultural
spirations.
The
ChristAbove
Culture
perspec-
tive sees
Christ
ntering
human
lifewith
gifts
humans cannot
envision
nor attain
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
7/18
42
Howard nd
Streck
unless He relates men to a
supernatural
ociety
and a new value-centre
Niebuhr
1951,
p.
42).
Christ s
a
Christ
of
Culture,
but
He
is
also above
Culture,
He
neither
arises
out of
culturenor contributes
irectly
o
it.
The Christ
and Culture
in
Paradox
viewpoint
considers
humans
subject
to
two moralities hat are discontinuousand largelyopposed. Christians re subject
both to
the
authority
f
Christ nd the
authority
fculture.This view is similar
o
the Christ
Against
Culture
perspective,
ut differsn the conviction hat
obedience
to God
requires
obedience
to
the nstitutions f
society.
Life must be lived
precari-
ously
and
sinfully
n the
hope
of a
justification
which will
only
occur at the
end
of
history
Niebuhr
1951,
p.
43).
In
the Christ
as the
Reconciler
of Culture
perspective
Christ
s
seen as
con-
vertinghumanity
within
culture,
not
apart
from
t,
and
thus,
while this
viewpoint
maintains
radical
distinction etween
God's
work
n
Christ nd
humanity's
work
in
culture,
t
does not
propose
people
isolate
themselves
from
ociety
s
does the
'ChristagainstCulture' viewpoint.Instead, Christ redeems a fallenor corrupted
order: culture
was
good,
but
has
been
perverted
nd mustbe
restored.
Christ
s
the
agent
of
that
restoration.
Admittedly,
hese resolutionsto the
Christian's
dilemma
of
walking
n
two
worlds'
(Keaggy
1988)
(to
borrow
a
phrase
from Christian
ongwriter)
re,
as
Niebuhr
(1951,
p.
43)
himself
ecognises,
somewhat
synthetic.
However,
despite
the artificial
lement,
Niebuhr's
categorisation
oes
identify
he
enduring
motifs
which
have defined Christians'
truggle
o reconcile
Christ
nd culture:
eparation
versus
integration
or assimilation),
ntegration
ersus transformation.hese
same
motifs,
moreover,
arise
with
regard
to
the
development
of rationales
within
the
CCM art world. CCM can be divided
conceptually
nto
three
specific ubgenres:
Separational, a central core of 'integratedprofessionals', and two 'maverick'
groups
(Becker
1984,
p.
233),
Integrational
nd
Transformational,
ach
based on a
particular onception
of
the nature and
function f rock music and a
particular
perspective regarding
the
proper
relationship
between
Christianity
nd
culture.
These
competing
views can
largely
be
categorised
and described
by
Niebuhr's
model.
Specifics
within a
subgenre
may
change,
and
the
subgenres may
move
closer
together
r further
part,
but
fundamentally hey
exist and
operate
accord-
ing
to
the
assumptions
of
the Christ
gainst
Culture,
Christ
of
Culture,
and
Christ
as
Reconciler
of Culture views that Niebuhr
1951)
identified.1
While founded
on the
assumption
that
popular
music
could be
a
tool for
prose-
lytisingAmerica'snon-Christian outh, hangesinthe music and theenvironment
in
which
thatmusic
was
produced
and
existeddemanded new
rationales
egitimat-
ing
Christian
rock
within
the
Evangelical
subculture.
For
some,
CCM
became a
tool not for
vangelism
but
edification
nd
worship;
for thers
t
was
a
wholesome
alternative,
ommunicating ositive
messages
to the music
istener;
or
till
others,
it was a
means
of ndividual
expression
an
artistic
tatement.Given
these
ration-
ales CCM can
be
seen as a
musical
genre
with
three distinct
rientations:
epara-
tional,
ntegrational,
nd
Transformational. nd
ultimately,
hese
orientations
an
be
traced
to Niebuhr's
(1951)
view
of
the
possible relationships
between Christ
and
culture.
Separational
CCM
Within
he
framework f Niebuhr's
(1951)
typology, eparational
artists
re those
who tend to see
Christ
against
Culture. In
this
either-or'
onfrontation,
ne is
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
8/18
Contemporary
hristian usic
43
either
foror
against
Christ:there s no middle
ground.
The
emphasis,
then,
s
on
salvation,
evangelisation
of
non-believers,
nd
the
separateness
of the
faithful.
These concerns
are reflectedn therationales utilised
n
Separational
CCM:
evan-
gelism,
exhortation
of the believer to
a
more dedicated
life,
and facilitation
f
worship.
Cusic's contention hat
for he Christian
rtist hereare two distinct
ypes
of
music,
that which deals
lyrically
with
Jesus
Christ
(gospel
music)
and all
else
(secular music) (1990,
p.
219),
reflects
he
Separational
view that
CCM existsas
a
tool for
vangelism.
Eddie
DeGarmo,
of
the
band DeGarmo &
Key
- one of
Chris-
tian
music's
best
selling
acts
-
exemplified
his attitude
when asked
about
the
possibility
f
his band
'crossing
over' to the
pop
charts:
I think
heterm s
a
misnomer. he
Bible s
very
pecific
bout heworldnot
iking
esus.
So
being
crossover
and,
you
find hat t
s
very
ifficulto
actually
take
hecross
ver'
...
To record
or Christianabel
.
. is a
censorship
ssue
..
because
only]
Christian
labelswould allow
us
to
sing
the
ongs
that
we
wanted
o
sing. Songs]
which
happen
to
talk boutChrist. ecular abelswould not. DeGarmo ndKey1993)
DeGarmo's statement
eveals a
redefinition f
crossover
music'
in
the
eyes
of
Separational
CCM
artists.
Technically,
crossover refers
o
music
that
appears
on more than
one
of
the
music charts
e.g.,
Adult
Contemporary, ountry,
R&B,
etc.)
simultaneously
nd
yet
DeGarmo
reinterprets
he
phrase
to
suggest
taking
the cross
(i.e.,
the
message
of
Jesus
Christ)
over
into the secular
market-place
or
the
purpose
of
evangelism.
The
term
s a
'misnomer'
because
DeGarmo
has
rede-
fined
t,
giving
t
a
religious
meaning
t
was not
originally
ntended
to
carry.
This,
however,
is
consistent with
DeGarmo
and
Key's
stated
desire to maintain
the
explicitgospel
content
f their
yrics.
Music
that
reaches both
CCM charts
nd,
for
example,theTop Forty hartswhilesurrenderingyricalntegritys not crossover'
according
to
DeGarmo and
Key.
This view
clearly
reflects he
separational
view
that the
music has
value
only
as a
means
to
an
end:
evangelism.
This
does
not
imply
that
evangelism
is
the
sole
purpose
for
Separational
CCM. If
that
were the
case then
separational
bands
like
DeGarmo &
Key
who
place
a
significant
rice
tag
on
their
products
CDs
currently
etail
t
$14.98,
and
concert
ickets
range
from
5
for
performance
y
an
unsigned
band
playing
at a
local
church
to
more than
$35
for
integrational
rtists
playing
coliseums and
stadiums)
would
be
placed
in
the
evangelically
ndefensible
position
of
charging
for he
gospel.
However,
as
DeGarmo's
partner
Dana
Key
has
written,
the
gospel
must always be free;entertainments not' (Key and Rabey 1989, p. 146). While
they may
in
fact
present
an
entertaining
package,
for
Separational
bands like
DeGarmo &
Key
evangelism
or
edification s the
first nd
foremost
goal,
and
'everything
lse is
external'
(Key
and
Rabey
1989,
p. 146).2
Musically,
DeGarmo &
Key
are
known
for
producing
both
blistering
lues-
tinged
guitar
rock
and
adult
contemporary op
(depending
on
the
album),
but
theseare
not the
onlystyles
represented
by
Separational
CCM.
Focused
on evan-
gelism,
it is
necessary
for
separational
artists
o
produce
music that
corresponds
to all
of
the
current
popular
styles.
As a
result,
Separational
CCM
presents
an
image
of
yesterday's
popular
music,
staying
one
step
behind
the
cutting dge
of
rock.
Thus,
besides
the
adult
contemporary
ounds
thatdefine
mostof what
is on
religiousradio, there s also Christian
heavy
metal, Christian
grunge,
Christian
industrial,
Christian
rave,
Christian
rap
and so
on.
Despite
the
musical
diversity,
owever,
there
s
tremendous
yrical
omogen-
eity
within
Separational
CCM.
Lyrics
present
clear
and
explicit heological
state-
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
9/18
44
Howard nd Streck
ments,
reminding
he listener
of
God's
love,
concern
and
proximity
r
the
need
for
personal
salvation: God
good,
Devil
bad',
sing
DeGarmo &
Key
(1993);
'You
can
trust
n
God',
proclaim
the Allies
(1989);
'Make
it
right',
urges
Kenny
Marks
(1987),
Fall
in
love
with
Jesus
tonight'.
Moreover,
where
artists
eviate
from
uch
statementst is to exhort he listener o adhere to certain tandards ofbehaviour;
to
be,
in
the words of one
singer,
black
and white n a
gray
world'
(Phillips
1985).
These musicians define themselves as
'ministers'
or
'missionaries'
(for
example,
see
Donaldson
1983)
and their music reflects hat
orientation;
he music
is
the
platform
ortheir
ministry.
Moreover,
n the
effort o insure
the
perception
that
their
music
has
a
clear
religious
message,
the
Separational
artists
have relied
more
and
more
heavily
on
the
religiousterminology
f
the
Evangelical
church.
Evangel-
ical
Christians
understood
the
meaning
behind
religious
double-talk
ike
'if
you
die
before
you
die then when
you
die
you
won't die':
non-Christians
did
not.
This, then,
served to further
ntrenchCCM
in
the
Evangelical
subculture.
Beyond
the music as
evangelismdebate, Separational
CCM
has
also been
defined
and
limited)
by
Christianity's ngoing
debate
over
the
details of
ortho-
doxy,
for
with
a
denominationally
diverse Christian udience
one
is
guaranteed
to offend
omeone,
regardless
of
the
view
presented,
hould
one
stray
oo far
from
the
universally accepted,
and often
meaningless, religious
cliches. Cusic
(1990)
suggests,
therefore,
hat
this
predicament
has
forced
gospel
artists
r,
more accur-
ately, Separational
artists
o choose safe
topics
for heir
ongs (p.
227):
the
conver-
sion
experience,
he
requirement
f a
personal
relationship
with
Jesus,
nd
repack-
aging
the
gospel
story
in
a
contemporary
nd
commercial
fashion are
safe
alternatives.
Consequently,
as the
industry eveloped,
the
lyrics
ame to
revolve
almost
exclusively
round these
generic theological
themes
Ozard
1994a,
p.
18),
and artistswho stuckto the religiouscliches- who mentioned the name 'Jesus'
as
often s
possible
-
found the
greatest
evel of
Evangelical
acceptance,
and
hence,
the
greatest
measure
of commercial uccess.
The
lyrics
f
Separational
CCM are
not without
heir
ritics,
articularly
hose
operating
on the
assumptions
of
the
Transformational
enre
who claim
that
Sep-
arational CCM
is
too much
'cotton
candy'
and
fails to
represent
he real
world.
As
early
as
1982,
Glenn Kaiser
of Resurrection and
(now
Rez)
claimed,
I
think
the
Christians
have created
a musical
sub-culture hat
doesn't
really
relate
o unbe-
lievers'
(Newcomb-Smith
1982,
p.
13).
At the
same
time,
the
long-time
voice of
the
Transformational
enre,
ournalist
Brian
Quincy
Newcomb,
argues
that
t is
not only impossibleto consolidate an entire heological dea intofourwords that
will
make a
catchy slogan,
but
also
that it
is
wrong
to do so
(1994,
pp.
6-8).
Separational
artists
present
a clear and
simple
answer
-
Jesus
Christ but
fail
to
recognise
the
questions.
'We
have
to
communicate the
basic
truths,'
tates
one
artist.
We
don't
have a
lot of
time,
at a
concert
or
high
school
assembly,
to be
subtle'
(Wittenburg
oor
1984,
p.
24).
Never an
end
unto
itself,
eparational
CCM
lacks value
apart
from ts
proselytising
unction nd
thus the
Separational
artist
breaksno new
ground
musically
or
lyrically
Cusic
1990,
p.
227);
they
become a
'Spiritual
Salesman'
promoting
bumper
sticker
heology'.
Ironically,
while the
Separational
artistswere
advocating separation
from he
world,
and
viewing
Christ
gainst
Culture,
as
Romanowski
1992)
points
out,
the
Christianmusic ndustrywas beingdrawninto thatveryculture.Withthesuccess
of Christian
music artistswithin
the
Evangelical
subculture
some
Separational
artists ell
morethan one
million
copies
of their lbums
through
Christian
book-
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
10/18
Contemporary
hristian
usic
45
stores
alone)
and
polls
which
pointed
to vast numbers
ofAmerican
Evangelicals
who
nevervisited
the Christian
bookstores,
the music
industry
t
large began
to
take
an interest
n Christian
music.
At the
same
time,
moreover,
the
Christian
music
industry
became
interested
n
the
opportunities hey
believed the
secular
industryheld forthem,and thus since the 1970sties between thetwo have been
developed
and
maintained.
Each
of the
'big
three'
CCM
record
companies
has
changed
ownership.
Word was
bought
by
ABC
(later
Capital
Cities/ABC)
n
1974
and
held
for
ighteen
years
until t
was
sold to
Thomas
Nelson
Publishers;
parrow
was
recently
old
to
EMI; Benson,
too,
was
recently
old.
Moving
in
the
other
direction,
the
major
labels
have
also
frequently ttempted
to
capitalise
on
the
Evangelical
audience,
the
most recent
effort
eing
Warner
Brothers'
formation
f
Warner-Alliance n
1992.
Beyond
the
connections of
ownership
and
new
labels,
moreover,
re the
plethora
of
oint
distribution
greements
uch
as that
of
Myrrh
(a
subsidiary
of
Word)
and
A&M. CCM
is not as
separate
as
some
would like
to
believe ittobe, and thus Separationalmusic oftenfinds tselfbeingpropelled out
of the
safe haven
it
has
created.
Those who
embrace
the
change
-
often t
risk
to
their
areers n
the
Separational
subgenre
-
become
CCM's
Integrational
rtists.
Integrational
CCM
In
Niebuhr's
(1951)
typology,
ntegrational
CCM
most
closely
reflects he
Christ
of
Culture
option
wherein
Christ
s
seen
as the
culmination
f
the
best
of culture.
Integrational
rtists
eek
to
place
themselves
squarely
within
the
confines
of the
secular
rock art
world
-
Amy
Grant
albums
sitting
right
next
to
GratefulDead
albums
on the
shelves
of
the
record
store
chains.
As
most
have
found,
however,
thisgoal oftenrequiresalteration fthe artwork tself,
articularly
or hosewho
formerly
perated
as
part
of
Separational
CCM
(for
example,
see
Romanowski
1992,
1993).
Quebedeaux
(1978)
argues
Evangelicals
often
enter
the
world'
in
order
to
change
it,
thus
affirming
he
Christ
who
transforms
ulture
p.
13).
Yet,
in
order
to
gain
the
world's attention,
vangelicals
must
become
respectable
by
the
world's
standards. n
the
process
of
obtaining
hat
respectability
vangelicals
can
lose their
distinctiveness.
The
great
evangelical
fear,
then,
is
that
the
world
will
transform
Evangelicals
before
Evangelicals
can
transform
he
world.
This
has
been
the
case
with
Integrational
CM,
their
music
transformed
rom
blatantly
vangelical
mess-
ages to 'positive pop' which, for themost part,addresses thevalue of the indi-
vidual
and
the
mportance
f
ove.
Thus,
Amy
Grant
moves
from
Sing
your
praise
to the
Lord'
(1982)
to
'you
could
be
so
good
for
me'
(1991);3
Kim
Hill
from
I
will
wait
on
the
Lord'
(1991)
to a
country
ditty
bout
a
wife
who
leaves
her
abusive
husband
called
'Janie's
Gone
Fishin'
(1994).
Thus,
biographer
Bob
Millard's
com-
ments
about
the
lyrical
ontent
of
Amy
Grant's
music
is
reflective
f the
themes
found
more
generally
n
Integrational
CM:
'The
message
is
usually
simple:
Resist
temptation,
ife
gets
tough
but
God
is
only
a
prayer
way,
love
your
spouse,
get
religion
nvolved
in
your
everyday
ife,
forgive
yourself,
nd
have
a
good
time'
(Millard
1986,
p.
12).
These
'love
your
spouse'
(particularly
when
the
song
does
not
clearly
define
the
loved
one as
the
spouse)
and
'have
fun'
themes
are
often
viewed
by
those in
Separational
CCM
as
compromising
he
evangelical
message
which
gives
the
music
purpose.
For
those
like
Amy
Grant
nd
Michael
W.
Smith,
who are
successful
n
their
crossover
bids,
such
criticism
ardly
matters.
Others,
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
11/18
46
Howard
nd
Streck
who find
the effort
more
daunting,
oftenfollow
up
their
failed crossover
albums
with
more
explicit
statements of faith
that will
placate
the ruffled
vangelical
audience.4
The transformation
f
evangelical
Separational
CCM
into
the
'positive pop'
of the ntegrationalrtists eflects enisoff's 1972)insights bout Protestmusic' -
music which stresses
the
lyric
r intellectual
spect
of
song
by attempting
o
con-
vince the listener hat
something
s
wrong
and in need
of alteration
p.
x).
Protest
music,
like
CCM,
is defined
by
its
yrical
ontent,
ather han
by
its
musical
style.
It s
designed
to
convert'
he
istener o
a
new
perspective
hat
alls
for
response.
Denisoff
oncluded
that
s the
folk-styled
ong
of
persuasion gained
public accept-
ance,
the
harsh,
confrontational
yrics
became
softer
nd
smoother.
Sparse
music
was
replaced by
additional
guitars,
drums,
and
even
string
ections which
helped
temper
he
severity
f the
yrics.
The
commercialisation
rocess
made the
political
messages
of
the
protest
ongs
impotent
to
the extent hat
many
listenersfailed
to recognisethe songs as expressinga political message. The same process is at
work
n
Integrational
CM. The
more
commercially
uccessful
he
crossover
ong,
the
less
distinguishable
t
is from standard
Top Forty
fare.
Crossover success
depends,
to some
extent,
on
the
audience's
inability
o
determine
hat either
the
song
or
the
artist re
'CCM'.5
Hence,
Romanowski's
(1992)
conclusion
that
the
industry
has been
co-opted.
Not
surprisingly,
ntegrational
rtists
efended this
assimilation nto
popular
music
through
the
development
of
new
rationales.
They argue
that their
music,
by
integrating
with the
mainstream,
presents
a
wholesome
alternative
to the
hedonism
inherent
n
most rock. Michael W.
Smith,
for
example,
sees
himself
impacting
ulture
by
presenting
himself
s a
positive
role
model
(Hefner
1993,
p.
14), his message to kids withpoor self-esteem eing, 'Hey, you're all
right
..
You're
very
mportant
o
God'
(McCall
1986,
p.
19).
Amy
Grant
uggests,
There
are a
lot of
songs
that
just
write nd
the
only
differentiation
etween them
and
secular
pop
music that
would
say
is that
they
are an
observation f
everyday
ife
from
Christian
perspective'
Millard
1986,
p.
155).
It is
enough
for
Grant,
and
there
are
many
like
her,
to
simply present
a
Christian
perspective
on life
n
the
mainstream
media
without the
trappings
of
explicit
theology
or
evangelism.
At
the
same time
these
artists,
ike the
Transformational
rtists,
uestion
the
verity
of
the
explicit
messages
found
n
Separational
CCM.
Grant,
for
example,
laments
the
'regimented
dea
of what
Christianity
s'
which
Separational
music
demands
(Millard1986,p. 107). More stringently,eslie Phillips,once theheir-apparent o
the
gospel queen
throne
recording
five
CCM
albums
(three
of
which were
quite
successful
by
CCM
standards)
before
leaving
the
Christian
music
industry
to
record
for
Virgin
Records
under the
name
Sam
Phillips,
xplained
her
departure
by
saying,
The
audience
was
demanding
propaganda
...
People
would
say
you're
a
heretic
f
you
asked
questions,
and
didn't
give
themthe
fundamentalistine'
(Giles
1994, p. 60).
This
need and
desire
to
ask
hard
questions without
offering
asy
answers
animates
CCM's
other
maverick
ubgenre,
Transformational.
Transformational
CCM
Transformational CM
corresponds
to Niebuhr's
(1951)
category
of Christ as
Reconcilerof
Culture.
Thus,
despite
Cusic's
(1990)
functionalist
uggestion
that
Christian
art
must
pose
the Great
Answer instead of
asking
the
great questions
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
12/18
Contemporary
hristian
usic
47
(p.
iii),
theTransformational
rtist
s in factmore concerned
with those
questions.
They
tend to
see their
music as
art,
consider
art
to be valuable
in its own
right
apart
from
ny
utilitarian
unction,
nd have thus
developed
new rationales
for
CCM.
Again, while Transformationalrtists end to represent he progressiveend
of
the
musical
spectrum,
he
styles
re nevertheless
diverse
and
the music
is
most
clearly
defined
by
its
yrical
ontent.The Transformational
usicians
tend
to
think
of themselves
as 'artists'
ratherthan
as
'ministers'.
They
view
their music
as
a
reflection f the creativeDivine
Image
of God found n all
humans,
and
as
such,
inherently
aluable
regardless
of
its
utility
or
evangelism
or exhortation.
Thus,
while
Cusic
(1990)
argues,
reflecting
he
assumptions
of
Separational
CCM,
that
gospel
music
loses
its
purpose
(evangelism)
when it
becomes
'art
for
art's
sake'
(p.
iv),
for those
operating
under the
assumptions
of
the
Transformational
subgenre,
art
for
art's
sake' is a
perfectly
if
not
the
only)
acceptable
rationale.
There is, moreover,historicalprecedentfor hisview.
Despite
the
assumptions
of
Separational
CCM,
sacred music has
not
always
been
legitimised
by
evangelism,
exhortation,
nd
worship
facilitation.
pencer
(1990),
for
example,
claims
early spirituals
constituted
he
'archetype
of
protest'
which ater
manifested
tself n
antislavery,
ocial
gospel,
and
civil
rights
hymnody
(p.
vii).
He
also
suggests
that
early
blues was a
music
of
rebellion,
radical
affront
to the
hypocrisy
of the church
and
the
advocates
of
slavery p.
viii).
Similarly,
Transformational
rtists ften
egitimise
heir rt n
these terms.
Their
music s
not
only
a
reflection f their
struggle
with
the
shortcomings
f secular
society,
but
also
a
critique
of the
church
Howard
1992).
Based on
the
assumptions
of Christ
as
Transformer
f
Culture,
conversion is
linked with
public
discipleship.
Faith
must be taken into the market-place nd used in the perpetual struggle gainst
the
corrupted
tructures f
society
Quebedeaux
1978,
p.
18).
In
the
view
of
many
Transformational
rtists,
one
must
answer
the
Bible's
call for
social
justice,
in
addition to that
of
personal
morality
an
idea
which
challenges
the
personal
theology
of
many
Evangelicals.
While
the
Evangelicals'
belief
system
often
suggests
to
the believer
that
they
are
somehow
privy
to
'the
truth',
Quebedeaux
(1978)
contends that
this
belief
s,
in
fact,
non-biblical,
or
no
one is
promised
to
know
the
entiretruth n
this
life;
as
humans,
we see
'through
glass,
darkly'
I
Corinthians13:12
KJV).
This,
more-
over,
is a
common
theme in
the
Transformational
subgenre.
While
Separational
CCM presentsstraightforward,fpotentially lichefilled, tatementsconcerning
the
nature
of
God
(e.g.,
'Our
God
is
an
awesome
God'),
Transformational
ands
usually
take a
more
enigmatic
pproach.
With
the
1987
Daniel
Amos
release
Darn
Floor
-
Big
Bite',
for
xample,
humanity's
bility
o
understand
the
nature
of God
was
compared
to
Koko's
(the
gorilla
who was
taught
to use
sign
language)
ability
to
understand
n
earthquake.
After
watching
videotaped
footage
of an
earthquake,
Koko
had
signed,
darn
floor
big
bite',
and
Daniel
Amos's
writer,
erry
Taylor,
seemed
to feel
this
was an
appropriate
metaphor
for
man's
experience
with
God
and
thus
shaped
his
song
and
album
of the
same title
round that
dea.
However,
as David
Edwards
(1983),
another
Transformational
rtist,
rgues,
most
Christian
audiences
prefer
piety
however
artificial)
o
honesty,
and
thus Darn
Floor
-
BigBite', despite critical cclaim, sold
very
few
copies.
Daniel
Amos is
not the
only
band
to
see
poor
sales as a
result
of
dealing
publicly
withthe
struggle
of
taking
the
Christian
faith
beyond
John
3:16
and
making
t
relevantto
the
realworld.
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
13/18
48
Howard
nd
Streck
Beyond
this
questioning
the
Transformational
rtists
have also
proven
them-
selves
willing
to
admit their
frequent
ailures
n
the effort
o be faithful o
Christ.
Moreover,
unlike
Separational
CCM
(and
the bulk of the
Evangelical
subculture)
where
failings
re
presented
as
past
obstacles
that have
been
overcome
with
the
help ofChrist,formost of those operatingwithin the realmof Transformational
CCM,
failure s a
current
nd
ubiquitous
condition.
Thus,
when
Mike Roe of
the
77s
sings,
'The
lust,
the
flesh,
the
eyes,
and the
pride
of
life/Drain
he life
right
out
of
me'
(1987),
he is not
speaking
in
the
past
tense: it is a
current
truggle.
Similarly,
s
Steve
Hindalong
(drummer
nd
lyricist
orThe
Choir)
puts
it,
We're
just
not
always
that
happy'
and
thus his music is
designed
to communicate
the
tension
that s
[the]
reality
f
any
human
being'
(Porter
1993,
p.
21).
Tension
and
struggle,
however,
are
somewhat anathema
to
religious
liches,
nd
thus the
yrics
of
Transformational rtists often ack clear
religious
references.
Noting
that
an
abundance
of
religious
terminology
oes not
necessarily
make
lyrics
any
more
substantial nd can indeed mislead the listener ntobelievingtheChristian ife s
a
uniformly ositive
experience,
Transformational
rtists
urn the
metaphors
of
'darn
floor,
big
bite' rather han
God
good,
Devil
bad'
theology.
While
admitting
their own
struggles
and
personal
failures,
t
is
also not
uncommon for
Transformational rtists
o offer
critique
of both
society
and
the
Church.
According
to CCM critic
Dwight
Ozard
(1994a),
the true
Christian
rtist
is
not
the
one
who
functionally
ubmits
his
or
her art
to the task of
evangelism,
but rather he
one
whose
art s
revolutionary
nd
subversive
p.
34).
Believing
the
true
Christian artist
to be
a
challenge
and a threat
to the church and
society,
Transformational
rtists s
a
whole
have
presented
a raw
and
often
painful
ook
at the
world,
addressing
in
their
music such issues
as
apartheid
n
South
Africa,
churchbigotry nd self-satisfaction, aterialism nd the plightof the innercity
poor.6
At
least,
in
part,
the
goal
of the
Transformational rtist s
to
present
an
honest
commentary
n
lifefrom he
experience
of
one
struggling
o be
faithful
n
a
broken
and
hurting
world.
However,
the tensions
between
an
audience and
industry
hat
demand
music filledwith
religious
truisms nd artists
who
hope
to
fashion
an
honest
reflection
f ife's
struggles
eaves
most
Transformational
rtists
struggling
o
find
a
niche
in
the
highly ensoring
world
of the
Church,
Christian
radio,
and
the retail
world.
Most,
therefore,
esigned
themselves to the
fact
hat,
for
them,
music
would
never be
more
than a
hobby,
and
are forced
to
support
themselves
through
other means
(Newcomb
1992).
As
'ministers',
Separational
musicianscould reasonablyexpectto supportthemselveson sales to theEvangel-
ical
audience;
as
'entertainers',
uccessful
ntegrational
musicians could
quite
pos-
sibly expect
to
get
rich;
as
'artists',
the
Transformational
musicians
followed
the
historical
precedent:
they
starved.
Spencer
(1990)
suggests
that n
the
Niebuhrian Christ
and
Culture
typology
the
entire
history
f
gospel
music is an
anti-cultural
movement
p.
207).
Gospel
music
has
traditionally resented
Christ
s
'Everything'
Friend,
Protector, iber-
ator
-
but not as
Reconciler
p.
222).
Transformational
CM,
on
the other
hand,
sees
itself nd culture
as
in
need
ofreconciliation.
Christians
hare
many
of the
same
failures,
uestions,
and
doubts
found
in
culture.
From this
position,
Trans-
formational
rtistsare able
to see
the
shortcomings
nd
strengths
f both the
religioussubculture nd thewider culture nd develop a critique hatoffers
ope
for
mprovement
n
both as
they
truggle
o work out
their alvation'
Philippians
2:12
NIV).
Transformationalrtistshave
been able to createa
niche
for hemselves
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
14/18
Contemporary
hristian
usic
49
withinthe
industry.They
tend
to sell fewerrecordsthan
their
eparational
coun-
terparts,
ut
they
sell
enough
to remain viable.
Some,
however,
have found
the
constraints
f the
industry
too
restrictive
nd become members
of the
'Secular
Christian' music scene.
'Secular Christian'
music
According
to Becker
1984),
art
worlds
spend
much effort
etermining
what
is
art,
what is
our
art,
and
who are our artists
p.
36).
With
regard
to
CCM,
moreover,
the
determinations
have
largely
revolved around a form
of
music
which
is
not
necessarily
Christian
music
and
yet
has much
in
common
with
the
genre:
the
popular
music
of
the mainstream
ock
ndustry
roduced by
artists
who
(usually
as individuals ratherthan
artists)
claim the
label 'Christian'. These artists
U2,
Bob
Dylan,
The
Call,
Vigilantes
of
Love,
T
Bone
Burnett,
Van
Morrison,
King's
X
and MidnightOil are notable examples - are not consideredto be CCM, and yet
their
music is often
mbraced
by
Christian
music fans
who
find
Christian
view-
point presented
n
their
yrics.
Despite
the fact hat
these artists
arely
iew
them-
selves as
ministers,
hey
often
find
their ives and faith
crutinised
more
closely
than
those artists
constituting CM-proper.
While Christian
rock fans are
often
anxious
to embrace
these artists
s 'one of
ours'
(thus
expecting
the
mandated
religious
contentof
CCM),
the
artists
hemselves
usually
take
great pains
to
dis-
tance
themselves
from he
stereotypes
f
the
evangelical
subculture.
While
usually explaining
themselves as
artists
who
happen
to be
Christian,
examples
of
all
three
formsof CCM
can be
found
manifesting
tself
n
the
work
of these mainstreamrock artists. n some cases, as with B.J.Thomas, Deniece
Williams,
and
Phillip
Bailey,
the
artist
ttempts
o maintain
two
parallel
careers:
one
in
mainstream
ock,
making
music
without
explicit
eference o the Christian
faith,
nd
the
other within
the
confines
of Christian
music as a
gospel
musician
singingSeparational
CCM.
Others,
however,
while
working
olely
within
he
con-
fines
of the
mainstream
music
industry,
nevertheless
produce
music
consistent
with
the
'positive
pop'
entertainment f
Integrational
CCM.
Particularly
within
the
country
music
genre,
where
the
Christianfaith
s
often
ncluded
in
the down-
home
image
the artists
convey,
numerous
singers
who
are
Christians'
as
opposed
to
Christian
ingers')
create
music
consistent
with a
Christian
world
view and
yet
not
explicitly
vangelical.7
Finally,
however,
the bulk
of Christian
rtists
operating
in the mainstreamindustryproduce music consistentwiththe Transformational
view.
When
asked
about
the
role of
the
Christian
rtist
n
effecting
ocial
change,
Bruce
Cockburn
responded:
I
see
myself
s
telling
he
ruth s
I
understand
t,
n
themost
reative
ay
can.
And
that
is
about
t
...
the
responsibility
f
promoting
he
good things
n
ife ver
hebad .
.
stops
at
telling
he
truth
telling
t
as
accurately
nd
meaningfully
s I
can.
Ozard
1994b,
.
25)
Christian rtist
T
Bone
Burnett
imilarly
xplained
his view
by
stating
I
learned
arly
n
that f
you
believe
Jesus
s
the
Light
fthe
World
here
re twokinds f
songsyou
can
write
you
can
write
ongs
bout he
Light,
r
about
what
you
see
by
the
Light.Flanagan 986, . 52)
Most
Christians
working
n
the
mainstream
ndustry
like
the
Transformational
CCM
artists
chose
thelatter
pproach.
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
15/18
-
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
16/18
Contemporary
hristian
usic
51
the same
thing
ll the
time,
because
that's
what
made
them
happy
when
they
first
got
saved.
But,
you
know,
I'm different
ow.
I'm
thirty-one ears
old and
I'm
going
through
different
hings'
Heyn
1992,
p.
17).
Marriage,
divorce,birth,
eath,
high
sales,
low sales - the
significant
ventsof life
and career
can
clearly hange
an artist's utlook.Atthe same time, ome artists ttempt o exist n each ofthese
subgenres
at
once,
some
songs
or
albums
catering
to the demands
of
religious
radio and the
Evangelical
subculture,
thers
being
designed
to
attract he
attention
of secular
radio,
and
stillothers
being
attributable
o
an 'artistic
ision'.
The
Choir
presents
a
case
in
point.
Most
of their
recordings
all under
the
Transformational
category.
However,
Derri
Daughtery
and
Steve
Hindalong,
the
two
principal
fig-
ures
in the
band,
recentlyproduced
and
recorded
an album
of
worship
music
titled,
At the
Foot
of
the
Cross
1992)
which
temporarily laced
them within
the
Separational
genre.
The band
followed
that
effort ith
Kissers
nd
Killers
1993),
a
collection
of
songs
without
explicit
religious
reference,
which
was first
sed as
a
demo
in
efforts
o obtain
a
recordingcontract with a mainstreamrock label
(Integrational
CCM)
before
being
repackaged
and
released
on a
Christian
abel.
Despite
these
limitations,
however,
this
three
part
typology
does
point
to
the
difficulty
ssociated
with
making
categorical
tatements
concerning
Contemporary
Christian
Music
(that
which
applies
to one
orientation oes
not
necessarily
pply
to
the
others),
and
further
resents
itself
s a
more
useful
framework
n
which
analysis
of
the
Christian
music
industry,
nd
perhaps
even
the
Evangelical
subcul-
ture at
large,
can
be
done.
Endnotes
1. For
the
purpose
of
this
paper
the
last
three
views
(Christ
Above
Culture,
Christ and
Cul-
ture n
Paradox,
and
Christ s
the
Transformer
of
Culture)
will
be
considered
as one
due
to
their
common
attempts
o
recognise
the
great
distinctions
etween
Christ nd
Culture,
while
simultaneously
trying
to
find a
measure
of
unity
between
them.
Each
of
these
three
approaches
is
an
attempt
o
avoid
the
extremes
of the
Christ
Against
Culture nd
Christ f
Cul-
ture
perspectives.
The
title
Christ
s the
Trans-
former fCulture'was chosenbecause itmost
accurately
represents
the
rationales of
the
Transformational
maverick
subgenre
of
CCM.
2.
DeGarmo
&
Key
made
this
explicit
with
their
1987
release
D&K
which,
in
the
initial
run
of
the
cassette
version,
ncluded
two
copies
of
the
album
(at
the
same
price
of
a
standard
CCM
cassette)
and
instructions
o the
buyer
to
give
away
one
copy
to a
non-Christian
riend.
3.
The
'you'
is
printed
with
a
lower-case
y'
on
the
lyric
heet.
4.
For
example
compare
the
albums
Back
to the
Street1986) and ThisMeans War 1987) bythe
band
Petra
which
followed
Beat
the
System
(1984),
their
attempt
t
crossing
over.
Another
example,
is
Amy
Grant's
Lead
Me
On
(1988)
which
followed
her nitial
uccessful
crossover
relase
Unguarded
1985).
5.
This
need
to hide
an
artist's
CCM
roots
has
extended
to business
practices
as well.
The
Prayer
Chain, for
example,
are
a
Christian
grunge
band
signed
to
Reunion
Records.
Their
album
Shawl
1993)
was released
not
only
on
the
Reunion
label but
also the Rode
Dog
label.
Rode
Dog,
however,
was
a label created
by
Reunion
solely
for
the
purpose
of
marketing
The
Prayer
Chain
in mainstream
ecord
stores
by
down-playing
the band's
ties
to CCM
(see
Newcomb
1993).
6.
Admittedly,
here
s
a
certain
mount
of
ension
here between
the
message
of theseartists
nd
themedium
through
which
they
hoose
to
com-
municate
t.The
effectiveness
f
Christian
ock
star
limbing
n
stage
to criticise
he
tar
mental-
ity
or
gross
commercialism
eems
questionable.
Similarly,
when
infront
f
thousands
of
people
Steve
Taylor
ings
songs
which
criticise
ociety
and the church
for
being
smug
('Smug',
1993)
one cannot
help
but feel
a certain
twinge
of
hypocrisy.As is the case withmainstream ock,
the rebellion
of
Transformational
CCM
can
begin
to seem artificial
n
the face
of
the
consumer
pressures
which
drive
the
This content downloaded from 200.16.89.152 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:01:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/24/2019 The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music
17/18
52
Howard nd
Streck
industry.
Based on
this some
would
argue
that
CCM
has
simply
immersed
the
Evangelical
youth
n
a
religious
versionof
consumer
ulture
(see
Romanowski
1992).
This,
however,
seems
to give too littlecreditto the message in the
music,
particularly
as
in
the
case of Rez
Band
whose
members ive
communally
s
part
of
the
Jesus
People
USA
and
serve
the
poor
of nner-
city
Chicago
-
where the
message
is
combined
with a
significant
istinction f
ifestyle.
here
is
no doubt a
sense of
contradiction
n
the mess-
age
of
Transformational
CM;
but
contradic-
tion
does not
necessarily
imply co-optation.
7. Because
country
music
and CCM share
a
great
deal in common
- to
stereotype:
elief
n
God,
conservative
politics,
and a business
base
in
Nashville, Tennessee - some postulate that
country
will
be the location
of the next
big
crossover
campaign
in CCM
(O'Donnell &
Eskind,
1994).
Already,
Christian
artists
ike
DeGarmo
&
Key
and Kim Hill
are
receiving
airplay
on TNN
and
numerous
C