The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music

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/


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

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18


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-



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,



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



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



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-



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-



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,



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



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.



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



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.



15/18


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



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

Documents

The Splintered Art World of Contemporary Christian Music