Beyond Apologetics and Monocultures: Fostering Stability and Growth through

Enriching Musical Variety in Worship

by Jetro Meira de Oliveira, DMA (UNASP, Campus Eng. Coelho)

Paper presented at the Music & Worship Conference (Andrews University, 2020)

The conventional discussion about music in the church has emphasized

apologetic views. Whether it is the defense of traditional musical practices, with their
benefits and superiority, or the defense of contemporary musical styles and their
sanctioning for church use, both positions result in the encouragement of musical
monocultures in the congregations and the distancing and polarization of groups which
defend one idea or the other. This limits our understanding of a very complex human
phenomenon and creates unfavorable states of staleness and attachment. The staleness
comes from the repetition of formulas that once worked well, but, that eventually
become static, losing their freshness. The attachment also results from the repetition of
formulas, which can become so loved and liked to the point that some people cannot
live without them, losing their ability to appreciate and understand different musical
styles and, thus, reducing the possibility of enriching musical-spiritual experiences.
Periods of equilibrium in congregations, denominated “spiritual homeostasis”,
are important for the establishment and maintenance of core beliefs. However, growth
can only occur when this state of equilibrium or spiritual homeostasis is broken. This
paper examines how extremist views are formed and lead to monocultures, and
proposes that both periods of spiritual homeostasis and periods when this equilibrium is
broken, are necessary for healthy congregations. Understanding that music plays a
prominent role in the nurturing of these periods of stasis or growth, the fostering of
carefully planned musical variety to attend human needs and to promote a sense of
belonging, inclusiveness, unity, and understanding of the other, is recommended.

Epistemic bubbles, echo chambers and extreme views

John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"
(KJV), has for long been a moto of Christians everywhere. We all know that the “truth”
is Jesus, “I’m the way and the truth and the life” (Jo 14:6), but, we frequently nurture
particular and peculiar religious truths of our own. With church music it is no different.
 I propose that the conventional extreme views about church music, i.e.
traditional vs. liberal, are in essence very similar, serving the same intent, as is the case
of opposing sides of the same coin. As such, these apparently opposing views produce
the same result: isolation of church groups materialized in the division of the body of
Christ.
I use the expression “peculiar truths” to represent beliefs resulting from the
feeling that a problem-solving activity satisfied a cognitive need. It is important to
distinguish belief from knowledge, as “knowledge and belief do not share the same
epistemic status: even a true belief is different from knowledge insofar as knowledge
presupposes the possibility of providing the statement with sufficient, relevant reasons”
(BERTOLOTTI, 2015, p. 231).
These “peculiar truths” are developed in social epistemic structures known as
epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. In epistemic bubbles the important contribution
of some are left out by omission, usually with no ill intent, in a process of social and
community selection. Frequently, these social and community structures also become a
“self-reinforcing epistemic filter, which leaves out contrary views and illegitimately
inflates our epistemic self-confidence” (NGUYEN, 2018, p. 2).
Echo chambers also play an important role in the development of “peculiar
truths”. Differently than epistemic bubbles, which are usually accidental, echo chambers
are created by the active discrediting of relevant voices. The modus operandi of echo
chambers is the systematic isolation of their members from all outside epistemic sources
(JAMIESON and CAPPELLA, 2008, p. 163-236).
The result of both of these processes is isolation and the inability to interact with
different ideas. This is very detrimental as any possibility of dialogue between different
parts is extinguished. Psychology calls it cognitive or epistemic immunization when our
beliefs become impenetrable to facts, even defying logic. Beliefs can become attached
to powerful emotions that further help anchor these beliefs, even to the point of
irrationality. Also, the immunization process of beliefs relies greatly on repetition of the
selected beliefs (SMITH, 2016). “This discrepancy could be described as the one
between knowing and simply feeling of knowing” (BERTOLOTTI, 2015, p. 230).
It is my aim that, by now, you are already putting the pieces together to
understand that the majority of us have to an extent or another been part of such
processes of isolation, which create attachment to our own particular truths. Bertolotti
(2015), discussing religious cognition and bubbles, highlights how important our
thinking of that we know about that which we actually do not know is fundamental to
many dimensions of human cognition (BERTOLOTTI, 2015, p. 229-240). And with
regards of the use of music in church there is still so much we actually do not know.

Epistemic filters at work

A great number of the arguments made for and against the use of this or that
type of music, or this or that type of musical instrument in church lack epistemological
coherence. Their acceptance by large numbers of people in church are possibly
understood through the optics of epistemic filters that form cognitive bias.
Let us first consider arguments which exemplify epistemic filters that I have
frequently observed being employed against the use of the drum set in church. Some
have argued that the drum set should not be used in church because in the service of the
Old Testament Temple the only percussion instrument present was a pair of small finger
cymbals. Or yet, the comparison of the two different lists of musical instruments in the
two attempts of King David to transport the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem (II
Sam 6; I Cro 13:8-14; I Cro 15). The first list contains drum like percussion
instruments, whilst the second one, after God’s instructions, only cymbals, from the
percussion family of instruments, are present. If these arguments could be used as
applicable principles, we would have to exclude all drum like percussion instruments
from contemporary church use, and utilize only cymbals. But, no one complains about
the use of symphonic percussion in church, such as the bass drum, snare drum or
timpani, but only about the use of the drum set. I do acknowledge that these biblical
observations are relevant, but also understand that they lack the necessary
epistemological coherence when applied contemporarily for the use of the drum set in
church.
On the other hand, an equally epistemological frailty is seen when the argument
is applied for the use of any musical instrument in church today, saying that in the past
the piano was a cabaret instrument which eventually became accepted as a church
instrument, implying that time is the only relevant point to be considered, thus,
eliminating from the discussion how the instrument is/was played and used. Or yet,
saying that Martin Luther borrowed “bar songs” and put religious lyrics to them, and as
such, we can use today any type of music as long as it contains religious lyrics. In the
case of Luther, it seems that there is just plain poor scholarship, as it has been clearly
demonstrated that Luther used “Barform” (i.e. AAB) in many of his hymns, and not
“bar songs” (BERTOGLIO, 2017, p. 257).
Functioning as epistemic filters, some of these affirmations are simply repeated
over and over again without any cognitive aspiration to confirm or truly understand
them. And even in the case of the contrafacta of both Catholic and Lutheran practices in
the XVI Century, there is a lack of epistemic foundation for an indiscriminate
contemporary application of this concept. We cannot simply repeat what we feel we
know about a historical practice without a profound and dynamic effort to understand it.
Another manifestation of an epistemic filter, and one which is very sensitive, has
to do with culture. Particularly in Brazil it became spread in Seventh-day environments
the notion that Classical music, as represented by the European Classic Viennese and
Romantic traditions, is the ideal of sacred music. This is an incredibly biased idea that
not only limits and excludes indiscriminately, but also brings to the table the notion of
cultural superiority.
A strong reaction against this notion of the superiority of Classical music for
church use, or simply put, cultural superiority, has produced a certain cultural socialism,
which claims that all cultures are equal, especially encouraging the embracing of native
characteristic cultural features in church music. Or yet, since there’s no such thing as
“sacred” musical elements, there can’t be no such thing as sacred music or that music is
morally neutral. The implication once again being that any type of music can be equally
used for church, in clear diametrical opposition to the former idea. If the first limits and
excludes indiscriminately, the second idea is indiscriminately all inclusive.
Even in secular society the complete lack of parameters for choice making in
music and culture is raising eyebrows. Ralph Lock emphasizes how even groups of
liberal inclination, such as feminists, have come to complain about the degradation and
their dislike of certain aspects of pop culture, specifically hoping that the reduction in
the level of violence in films and music will result in the reduction of violence and
sexual assault against women (LOCK, 2001, p. 525; MacKINNON, 1993).
Possibly, this tension between high and low culture as well as pop and Classical
music represents the greatest epistemological fallacy in the discussion of church music.
There is so much impoverishment when these extreme views are adopted. Among many
detrimental aspects, the acceptance of such extreme views frequently leads to cultural
idolatry. Kulturprotestantismus epitomizes idolatry of a high culture, in this case, of a
Christian culture. On the other hand, when it is stated that personal preference or taste
determines what is good church music, idolatry is also at work. The “I” becomes the
deciding subject of all decisions, leaving little or no room for the discussion of
principles and aesthetics. In both cases culture becomes the religion (CALVANI, 1998,
p. 44).
It is important in church life to have periods of stability in which core beliefs are
established and sedimented, what may be called “spiritual homeostasis”. We must not
confuse periods of spiritual homeostasis with epistemic filters. They simply are not the
same, as epistemic filters are in the majority of situations responsible for extreme views.
But, in both cases, if we are to move further in the study and discussion about church
music, we need to learn to grow out from our epistemic filters and periods of stasis.

Spiritual homeostasis and spiritual growth

The word homeostasis has its origin in biology, meaning basically that the body
aims at equilibrium through its different physiological processes. Naturally, body
growth occurs at the cost of homeostasis, and it is also true that no one can sustain
continuous periods of growth.
The term homeostasis has for long been applied to fields other than biology. As
such, I also apply it to spirituality. Conversion experiences can be generally regarded as
moments of cognitive openness (JARVINEN, 2016) in which growth and discovery
take place and the person accepts a new set of beliefs. After conversion, there comes
normally a period when core beliefs are established. These periods can be called
“spiritual homeostasis”. For most people, it is during the periods of stasis that the new
set of beliefs are brought to further understanding, meaning that a rooting process takes
place. Considering church life/experience as a social system, a living organism, both
periods of homeostasis and periods of growth are very important.
Periods of spiritual homeostasis are essential, but remaining in such state for
long periods of time can become a problem all of itself. Long periods of social/cultural
homeostasis tend towards monoculture, in the specific case at hand, of a religious social
system with its peculiar musical repertories and the propensity to reject that which is
musically new or different.
On the other hand, it is also prejudicial to live constantly in a state of growth or
cognitive openness, experiencing a myriad of musical stimulus with new and different
repertories introduced almost on a weekly basis at church services. Growth is
characterized by the lack of stability, and as such, frequently in this stage there is no
deepening of beliefs.

Understanding human nature and needs

One of the most damaging consequences of extreme views on church music
developed in monocultures or mediated by epistemic filters is the distancing between
church members. This goes against the very essence of the gospel: “A new
commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one
another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another”
(John 13:34-35, NIV).
Loving one another requires an understanding and knowledge of the other’s
needs, ideas, frustrations and aspirations. Loving implies a dialogue with she or he who
does things differently than I do. Loving also demands putting oneself in the other’s
shoes. This can be summarized in Talbert’s expression “second-person epistemology”.
In this concept, “knowledge arises from repeated interactions with another person”
(TALBERT, 2014, p. 1). To know someone requires spending time with that person,
repeated times.
The quality of human interactions depends on shared experiences. As people
progressively share similar or joint memories it can be said that they are in a process of
knowing each other. There are distinctions in the depth and breadth of this shared
world, as well as of feelings and understanding about the themes shared. Superficial
interactions are not sufficient for knowing someone. It takes a history of significant
experiences in which deeper cognitive and/or emotional content is shared to know
someone (TALBERT, 2014, p. 10-11). “[. . .] knowing another person is necessarily the
product of an active engagement with the other, not a mere passive recognition of
features we are hard-wired to perceive or that we could come to understand through
mere observation” (TALBERT, 2014, p. 15).
Christians believe that the human being is a physical, emotional, intellectual and
spiritual entity. Intrinsically, it also means that humans have physical, emotional,
intellectual and spiritual needs (JAARSMA, 1961, p. 40-51). The implication is that
people bring and manifest needs in these 4 areas in their church interactions and
experiences. Romans 12:1, 2 indicate that true worship is an organic offering of these 4
areas to God: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to
offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and
proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—
his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
Let us first examine some basic needs of young people which frequently cross
with music activities. All human beings have a need to feel they belong, a need long
recognized by Abraham H. Maslow (MASLOW, 1943, 1954, 1969). This is true
especially of young people. Singing in a choir can serve the purpose of creating a sense
of belonging and it also can generate significant interactions. Working for more than 30
years with choirs, I have observed that especially youth enjoy taking part in a choir
mainly because of the sense of belonging and identity that it brings. Young people want
to sing in a choir not primarily because of music itself, but because of the social
interactions and a sense of family that it brings. This phenomenon among youth groups
is often referred to as neo-tribalism. The implication is that there is a strong bonding
between the members of a particular group to the point where patterns of behavior are
observable, be it in dress codes or music repertories (FEIXA-PAMPOLS, 2005;
MAFFESOLI, 1998, 2007; MARCON, 2013).
Quite often youth choirs have focused on a particular repertory. This is a
manifestation of the nurturing of a monoculture, no matter the repertory chosen. In this
case, it doesn’t really matter if the repertory is Michael W. Smith or Johann Sebastian
Bach. The limited cultural/musical diet fed over a period of time to anyone, but
especially to youth, will also predispose to the rejection of anything different from what
is known and practiced. Though detrimental, this particular scenario doesn’t necessarily
have only negative aspects. The potentially stable environment of such religious-
musical monoculture may be an invaluable time of spiritual homeostasis. It may be a
unique opportunity for the establishment and deepening of core beliefs and values. Even
though, it is necessary to grow not only spiritually, but also culturally. So, from time to
time it is vital to introduce something new and/or different in the musical diet of this
choir.
Consider now congregational singing, the single most important musical
manifestation of any church. Luther stimulated congregational singing with the main
purpose of promoting access to biblical content to a group which was largely
uneducated. The literacy rates were only 5% in general and climbed up to 30% in urban
areas of Luther’s Germany (LINDBERG, 1996, p. 36).
 At any rate, congregational singing serves the paramount purpose for the unison
affirmation of beliefs. I would like to think that the literacy rates today are much better
than those in the time of Luther. But, independently from what people individually
extract and retain from Bible reading, the beliefs sung congregationally appear to have a
deeper impact and to carve its imprint in the memory of each individual with much
more ease than reading/studying the Bible. The strong bonding of music to memory
functions can easily explain why this is so (JÄNCKE, 2008).
Because congregational singing can be such an important medium for the
affirmation of beliefs, the question of repertory choice comes to the forefront. In some
situations, there is a readiness to consider programing a musical diversity of styles. But,
in this case, I would like to underline the need for variety of content, and not only
musical diversity. Variety of content has both micro and macro aspects, it contemplates
both the lyrics and the music. When we acknowledge the quadri-dimensional nature of
human beings and its implications for the satisfaction of needs, we can begin to fathom
the possibilities of educated musical choices for worship services.
Note, that I am not making the case for an anthropocentric worship. I am simply
acknowledging the fact that different people may learn about and experience God in
different ways, be it intellectually, physically, emotionally or spiritually. Thus, in our
attempt to understand the other and nurture enriching worship services we need to take
this into consideration. My presupposition is that we should introduce musical variety to
our congregations bearing in mind a perception of what single characteristic or
characteristics predominate in each individual congregation. Hence, in a congregation
where the intellectual is the most noticeable characteristic, it will represent their
spiritual homeostasis state. The encouragement of cognitive openness for this
congregation, materialized in the introduction of something musically new and different
in both content and form, will demand careful and sensitive planning. Otherwise, the
plain shock of the new will cause a reverse effect, producing rejection. Unfortunately,
this is frequently observed as the use of this or that musical style is based almost
exclusively on personal preference, without any perception of people’s needs or without
a plan to introduce the new or different.

Closing remarks
Church unity is one of the most formidable contemporary challenges.
Regrettably, the discussion about music and its use in church has fueled much of the
division we experience today. It has been my aim to introduce a less conventional
approach to phenomena we observe and experience about this hot topic. My approach is
purposefully multidisciplinary placing human interactions with music in the forefront.
An insight on how epistemic filters work contribute to an understanding of how
extreme views are formed and cultivated, leading to monocultures which operate as
closed bubbles. Congregations need both periods of spiritual homeostasis as well as
moments of cognitive openness so they may continue to grow. No healthy congregation
can exist only in a state of stasis or a state of continuous growth.
Though I by no means advocate or promote an anthropocentric worship, we
need to understand that worship services are made by and for people. Thus, we need to
take into consideration the very quadri-nature of human beings, involving their physical,
emotional, intellectual and spiritual dimensions. The proposition I make is to bear in
mind how this affects the way people learn about and experience God. This may be an
important contribution to govern our choices when planning worship services. And
because most congregations today are less uniform in their characteristics, resulting
from their heterogeneous make up, the careful planning of musical variety in both
content and form, can become an important factor for building cognitive bridges within
congregations, breaking away from staleness and thus, resulting in the developing of a
rich worship experience.

REFERENCES

BERTOGLIO, Chiara. Reforming Music. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.

BERTOLOTTI, Tommaso. Patterns of rationality: recurring interferences in science,

social cognition and religious thinking. New York: Springer, 2015.

CALVANI, Carlos Eduardo B. Teologia e MPB. São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 1998.

FEIXA-PAMPOLS, C. “A construção histórica da juventude”. In: CACCIABAVA, A.,

FEIXA-PAMPOLS, C. e CANGAS, Y. Jovens na América Latina. São Paulo:
Escrituras, 2004.

JAARSMA, Cornelius. Human Development, Learning and Teaching: A Christian

Approach to Educational Psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961.
JAMIESON, Kathleen Hall and Joseph N. CAPPELLA. Echo Chamber: Rush
Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.

JÄNCKE, Lutz. Music, Memory, and Emotion. Journal of Biology 2008, 7:21
(doi:10.1186/jbiol82). Available in:
<http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/jbiol82.pdf> Access in 14/4/2014.

JARVINEN, Mathew J.; Thomas B. PAULUS. Attachment and cognitive openness:

Emotional underpinnings of intellectual humility. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
2016.

LINDBERG, Carter. The European Reformation. Cambridge: Blackwell Pub., 1996.

LOCK, Ralph. “Musicology and/as social concern”. In: COOK, Nicholas & EVERIST,
Mark. Rethinking Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

MAFFESOLI, Michel. O Tempo das Tribos: o declínio do individualismo nas

sociedades de massa. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 1998.

MAFFESOLI, Michel. Trad. José Ivo Follmann. Tribalismo pós-moderno: Da

identidade às identificações. Ciências Sociais Unisinos 43(1):97-102, janeiro/abril
2007.

MARCON, Carla Simone Corrêa e BORTOLAZZO, Sandro. Ser ou pertencer?

Comportamento e cultura juvenil. Textura, Canoas, n. 29, p. 32-42, set./dez. 2013.

MASLOW, Abraham H. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,

370–396, 1943.

MASLOW, Abraham H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954.

MASLOW, Abraham H. The farther reaches of human nature. Journal of Transpersonal

Psychology, 1(1), 1–9, 1969.

MacKINNON, Catherine A. Just Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

1993.

NGUYEN, C. Thi. Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme: Sep 2018.

SMITH, Aaron C. T. 5 reasons why people stick to their beliefs, no matter what.
Psychology Today, 28 Mar 2016. < https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/true-
believers/201603/5-reasons-why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what> access on
January 22, 2020.

TALBERT, Bonnie M. Knowing other people: a second-person framework. Wiley

online library: https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12059, first published 18 April 2014.
WOODS, John. “Epistemic bubbles”. In: Artemov S., Barringer H., Garcez A., Lamb
L., Woods J. (eds.) We will show them: essays in honour of Dov Gabbay (volume II).
London: College Publications, p. 731–774, 2005.