Improvisational Faith

Teaching Music: a Metaphor

There are two basic ways to teach or learn music: by rote and by theory.

The rote method teaches the music student to repeat exactly the notes written on the page. These notes were (allegedly) written by a master musician. By repeating the notes exactly the student is making music. Later the music student is instructed in how to 'artfully' repeat the notes, with subtle shades of color (tempo, dynamics, etc.), to get the 'feel' of the piece. Only master musicians ever think of reinterpreting a piece of music, giving it their own 'feel.' Even fewer actually compose anything 'meaningful.'

The theory method starts with the concepts of chords, scales, time and key signatures. From some rudimentary basics, like the major I, IV, V7 (1, 4, 5seventh) chord pattern for a song, the pattern is first replicated in different keys, eventually adding the IVm (6minor), along with the rest of the basics of chord theory. Then perhaps the minor patters: Im, IVm, V7 (1minor, 4minor, 5seventh), with their variations. In scales one finds that the relative minor of a major scale, plays the same notes, but from a different starting point (as in the keys of C major and A minor). Further exploration of scales discovers the other more common of the less common scales: Dorian and Mixolydian. More complex aspects of music theory can be introduced, and built upon as the student continues to grow.

The first method prepares students to reproduce what someone else as created. The second prepares to the student to improvise with what someone else has created, and better prepares students to compose their own music.

Which of the two methods above (obviously oversimplified for the sake of illustration) is more like living the Christian life?

Repeat After Me

In my limited experience most religious training, most discipleship training, most Sunday school lessons, most sermons, most theological training, are patterned after the first type of musical training. It takes it's cue from the phrase "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). With the emphasis on "once for all." "The faith" is basically something that doesn't change and isn't subject to change.

Despite the limitations I'll point out below, there are some tremendous advantages to this approach. First of all, it's much simpler! You may have noticed the difference in length between the two paragraphs on teaching music. That's reflective of the complexity of the second approach as compared to the first. A simpler approach is an easier way to get started, and certainly easier for the amateur teacher/discipler to follow.

And certainly there are unchanging, basic truths of the faith we must all know! These things must be at our finger-tips! Things like the truths summarized in the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places.
[Okay, there's one more issue here, Jesus didn't "descend into hell" after He died. He was in paradise with one of the thieves, as he promised (Luke 23:43). This is to be understood as a summary of his sufferings, not the next thing that happened after being buried.]

Like kids learning memorizing the "times tables," memorizing some basics is a great way to master important, unchanging truths, that don't require knowing all the theology behind it to live successfully in our daily lives. Believing in "the forgiveness of sins" for example, is essential to the Christian life: both that we are forgiven through Jesus, and we are supposed to forgive others.

The problem with this approach, is that it doesn't handle the unexpected very well. This approach can have a Christianity that works on paper, or within the confines of a church building, but life can throw some real curve balls, social trends and fly off in crazy ways, advances in medicine have created complex ethical dilemmas we have yet to fully solve. Simply asserting old answers doesn't fully address the new questions. But if all we have is 'rote' learning, all we have are memorized answers. In other words, the rote learning method doesn't teach us how to improvise (adjust to a changing world) within the boundaries of the Truth, and anything that isn't simple repetition can feel like a threat to "the faith...once for all entrusted to the saints."

I think that in many ways Evangelicals are having no impact on changing social trends because our "answers" are to questions no one is asking. Saying the same answers in a louder voice, just doesn't help, and makes us look like we are as out of touch as we often are.

Just Make it Up as We Go

On the far, flip side, and perhaps in reaction to the rote method is a bit of Christian craziness that tries to live without anything as settled and with nothing established "once for all." These folks jump on an out of context phrase of Scripture like a pack of hyenas on a stray sheep. They create entire theological structures out of something that was meant to say something completely different.

Two shining examples:
One uses this argument to suggest we don't need Bible study at all: "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2Cor. 3:6). Therefore, since we have the Spirit, we don't need the Scriptures. The word Scripture comes from "scribe" which means to write using letters. But the Bible says, "The letter kills," so we need to stay away from the Bible, and focus on the Spirit.

Here's another example, I heard from folks who were actually taught this at some point: If you don't speak in tongues, you're not saved. "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Rom.8:9). Since the initial sign of having the Spirit is speaking in tongues (insert various 'proof texts' here), then if you don't speak in tongues, you don't have the Spirit and therefore do not belong to Christ.

The contrivances of such an approach become sometimes comical, sometimes pathetic and sometimes spiritually dangerous. Some of the extremes of Adventism (e.g. David Koresh) show some of what can happen, along with the bizarre case of Jim Jones, and some other lesser known, self-appointed apostles, prophets, etc. If you really want to read about something weird, check out the Adamites. I wonder if there are limits to the strange things people will do and still believe they're following Jesus.

There has been a lot of weirdness done in the name of "freedom in the Spirit." And let's face it, the Pentecostal movement has resulted in a great deal of weirdness (not to dismiss it's tremendous contributions). Some third-world Pentecostalism can hardly be called Christianity, and has in many places been just as susceptible to syncretism (blending of Christianity with 'traditional' religions), as some branches of Catholicism (Haiti, with which I have some acquaintance, comes to the foreground of my mind here).

I'm reminded of this quote, and would apply it to the Christian life in its entirety (not just the moral aspect of it): "Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere." - G.K. Chesterton. "Total freedom in the Spirit" is sometimes just another term for being stupid.

Improvisational Faith

If we put the freedom in the Spirit together with radical submission to the Word (the Bible), we have either a paradox, or a symbiosis. Those who hold tightly to the rote side of the equation are suspicious of improvisation and tend to consider it second-rate music. Those who hold to a freer approach to music, tend to view the accomplishments of 'rote-style' musicians as boring and uncreative.

It's my belief and experience that the coming together of these non-fraternal, but twin concepts is what will give a greater and fuller expression of what the Christian life is supposed to look like than either of them apart from each other. Imagine a church radically devoted to the Word, in-depth study of the Bible, wrestling carefully with a Biblical theology, at the same time completely devoted to following the guidance of the Spirit and ministering in His power in every moment--not willy-nilly, but in complete harmony with those Scriptures. 

This is like musical improvisation. The skills required for improvisation require a great deal of the knowledge and application of music theory. To create sounds that engage not only fellow musicians, but non-musicians requires a mastery that goes beyond mere rote learning. It's actually a higher standard, in my opinion (though I don't consider myself a master musician in either camp!).

When Jesus told the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the one person in the parable that gets thrown "into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 25:30), is the one that gave back to the master exactly what he had been given. He took what was entrusted to him and carefully protected it, not risking it. He did so out of fear--specifically a fear of the Master. It was an act of utter faithlessness (actually it was belief in a god that doesn't exist!).

What we have been given "once for all" is supposed to be invested, used, put to work in this world. Doing so means risk, it requires creativity, and though it's not mentioned in the parable, the investment plan would benefit greatly under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Gal.5:25--living by and keeping in step with the Spirit). The talents (truths) entrusted to us are many, not few, and should be invested, not hidden, stored, or locked away in thick, dusty books.

In music the confluence of a solid understanding of music theory, together with an inspiration in the moment can create something wonderful and amazing. In the Christian life, a solid understanding of Scriptures properly understood (good theology), together with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can also create something wonderful and amazing. A well-trained musician doesn't think about the theory as he/she is improvising, it just comes out naturally because the theory has become a part of his/her musical self. In the same way, a person steeped in Scripture and Biblical theology, doesn't need to run through a check-list in the moment; these things have become a part of his/her ministering self.

Word and Spirit were always meant to be together. The Spirit that inspired the words of Scripture to be written, is the same Spirit that heals the sick, inspires prophetic words, gives dreams and vision, transforms lives, and more! To divide one from the other suggests a schizophrenia in the Spirit that does not exist, except in our minds. The fullness of the Spirit includes and embraces both parts of His ministry: the faith once for all entrusted to us  in His Word (Jude 3), and being led by the Spirit and keeping in step with Him today (Gal. 5:18, 25).

Both, my friends. Both.