What is CCM? Part One - "Now"

I enjoy writing on the subject of a philosophy and theology of music and frequently this means addressing the current "triumph" of "Contemporary Christian Music" or "CCM." I hope to address why this topic is of interest and importance sometime, but for now I would like to address the identity and meaning of "CCM."

This is a difficult task and probably is impossible to do it with precision or in a way many people would be happy with. So it is with many important areas of life (e.g. - defining "freedom"). To understand the meaning of CCM one must focus on its philosophy (including its rational basis, purpose, motivation, and standards). Only secondarily can we “name” particular things (styles, artists, songs, concerts, festivals, corporations, churches, etc.)

The label "Contemporary Christian Music" was purposely championed by leaders of a movement in the late 60's through the early 80's as a less threatening, and more broadly acceptable, alternative to the original label "Christian Rock." That original label came from the music of "the Jesus People" who had come out of, and parallel to, the "flower people" and "hippies" of the 1960's social revolution. One of the main features of this group was the rock music styles they brought with them when they came to Christ. The label change to "CCM" was designed to indicate a broad range of musical styles and, more importantly, to avoid the strong negative connotations the term "Rock" had in Christian circles.

What does Contemporary Mean?
There are important indications of the meaning of CCM in its self-chosen label of "Contemporary." Remember that the people who define the terms win the debate (and vice versa). The term "contemporary" has played a strategic role in shaping and identifying the movement, not by a reference to style, but to a time period. "Contemporary" means "current," "now" or "of this age." But the term signifies much more than a time period. It is not entirely clear how certain current composers and artists are somehow not "contemporary." (We can guess the spouses and children of these "non-contemporary" people have opinions on this).

Whereas we identify other “eras” according to a labels referring to ideals (as even they often identified themselves). This label of "contemporary" tells us that it does not want to refer to ideals and standards (except the 'ideal' of 'now’ - which destroys the meaning of 'ideal').

Over the last 100 years people have been much more aware of, and interested in, "being new," and being identified as "new," than ever in history. This is related to the triumph of Darwinism's philosophy where there are no objective standards and design for reality, but only new things and current stages of mutation. This, in turn, has discouraged or destroyed the concepts of bad, good, better, best, perfection, etc (but has not destroyed egoism and elitism - one the great myths of our time is pop culture is NOT elitist, while clearly a few powerful people clearly pull the strings and rake in the money).

This doesn't mean that previous generations didn't aspire to new things. It does mean they were not nearly as impressed with something because it was new. In fact, old things were frequently deemed superior because they were old and endured the test of time. Modern people and movements have been obsessed with being "modern," "post-modern," and "contemporary."

One of the clues to the meaning of "contemporary" is that it is not very interested in seeking to achieve some standard or ideal, but to reflect, or become, “what is.” This, of course, leaves the philosophy of CCM without guiding standards. This is believed to be the strength of the movement. It does not want to be tied down to a philosophy of music. Many of us would like to argue that CCM IS guided by principles but just is ignorant of, or unwilling to admit, those principles. But that point will have to wait. What is admitted and claimed is that its “standards” are relative to time and place, but that there are no overarching purposes and standards that should guide music.

As a side issue, this brings up a criticism I have of many of the defenses of CCM that depend on history of music, and which have tended to be CCM's more persuasive arguments. CCM defenders point to changes in music in church history as supporting CCM as only the latest change just like many previous ones. What they fail to see is that, in (almost) every case in history, changes were argued to be superior because they more accurately reflected the nature of things. CCM uses these changes that were based on conviction about suitablity to accepted theology, improvement and superiority to defend its views of relativism and the assertion there is no "nature of things" to be concerned about.

The argument from church history fails due to lack of support from similar convictions through church history. The church rarely, if ever, supported relativism in music until fairly recent times. It is interesting that I have not yet found a CCM defender who has been willing to apply this same logic to the progress and change of theology through church history and who are willing to argue that theology is relative to time and place because it has changed through time.

At any rate, one of the powerful implications of the label "Contemporary" is that, if the label is accepted, it brandishes all competing musical expressions as "non-contemporary." There is something of a "power play" here that takes advantage of reigning powerful assumptions that makes it work for persuasion. It was a brilliant marketing move. To be "contemporary" means to be "with the times," "fresh," "current," "up to date," "new." All these sound compelling to most modern ears. On the other hand, to not "be contemporary" implies being "out of date," "archaic," "old fashioned," "not with the times," "not with it," etc. All these sound distasteful to modern ears. In this manner CCM has been able to co-opt the significant power of the zeitgeist ("world spirit" / "spirit of the age") for its marketability.

We might wonder why the equally valid meaning "passing away" for "contemporary" ("con" = "with" & 'temporary' = "passing away") does not impress people more than it does. This lack of impact is even more mysterious given that "contemporary" music does not even appear to aspire to time-honored, lasting forms, but rather focuses on what is "in" and "hot."

Even more mysterious is when and how so many Christians came to think of "being with the times" was such a wonderful and desirable thing, especially seeing that the one of the key themes of the New Testament is that Christians are not of "this age" (aion = "age"; "world"). That mystery will have to wait for another time.

In Sum:

The "Contemporary" in CCM indicates that in certain important respects the music is based on beliefs and practices reigning in our current time that are not justified because they are "better," but because they are reigning at the current time. In other words, CCM claims to not be based on any philosophy but only on pragmatic grounds. We might go as far as saying "the contemporary" emphasis indicates an "anti-philosophy." A positive denial that there are standards of goodness, truth and beauty that can and should guide musical form in all times and places. In other words, CCM means musical relativism. The next question is what does "musical relativism" mean for the current CCM movement that helps define it and its styles?

Concluding Note:
In defining CCM it is helpful to read the descriptions in the defenses of CCM. The two most compelling defenses of CCM that I have read are Steve Miller's The Comtemporary Christian Music Debate and Harold Best's Music Through the Eyes of Faith.

Also worth noting are a couple of critiques of CCM from within and outside the movement that point out some of problems within CCM that result from operating without a philosophy, but that are still largely supportive of the idea of CCM. These include Music at the Crossroads by Charlie Peacock and Apostles of Rock: The Splintered World of Contemporary Christian Music by Jay Howard and John Streck.

I should add that CCM hardly needs defending anymore since it is not only widely accepted among evangelical Christians (and Roman Catholics) it seems as natural as air and doubting it seems a lot like doubting that air is good for us. Surely if we deny CCM we will turn blue. The burden has been on musical conservatives to try to question the assumptions CCM has been built on. This has proven more than a little challenging since these assumptions are very deeply held even if not consciously held.