Twelve Tone Music Is Making Me Crazy, Yet Smarter...

My stomach is in knots over this mess.  

I can't decide what I think about Schoenberg's twelve tone musical system.  He took everything that 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century composers did and threw it all out the window in an attempt to break free of the established musical forms.  Since there are twelve half notes in a scale, he made a system of composing music in which a person cannot reuse the same tone.  So you have to use all twelve tones in a series (any order, really).  You can transpose it, reverse it, invert it, make some chords out of it, but what you get is a piece with no tonal center and no functional harmony.  Here is an example of the results of using this system.  The piece is played with excellence.  Since it is so foreign to the ear and there's nothing to grab hold of, anyone attempting to play or sing this music has serious talent...  while sounding terrible at the same time.  Professionals making a profession out of sounding terrible with excellence...

So that's my explanation of it.

But it's making me crazy, and yet somehow... liberated?  Yes.  I do feel liberated.  At first I was determined to hate everything about it because the music itself sounds so foul to me.  It's like drinking a glass of straight-up apple cider vinegar; not quite painful, but not quite pleasant either.  Then I had this assignment in which I had to compose a twelve-tone piece, and I actually felt a new sensation...  like a tingling in my brain.  New pathways were being formed because I was hearing sounds that were totally unfamiliar to me.  I started playing with intervals and rhythms in a way that I had never considered.  It was so fun and freeing!

But now that I've moved forward with the actual writing, I think I'm going a little crazy.  My stomach is all twisted up because the music itself has no beauty and no resonance.  Is it really liberating, or is it just an illusion?  Has Schoenberg really just put chains around it and forced it into a system that goes against its nature?  It's like trying to force a square peg in a round hole.  It might fit in there, but it's not a great fit.

I'm just not convinced that this system is all that great, and I definitely have a difficult time enjoying it.  I suppose it's all relative, since I do know people who enjoy this stuff.  I was falling madly in love with everything that led up to this system, like Chopin and Debussy's works.  And then Schoenberg just crossed the line of insanity.  Everyone was dancing around it.  He straight up crossed it.  In fact a bunch of 20th century composers gave music a giant punch in the face.  Let's not mention John Cage, who was on to something with his "prepared piano" (sonata V here), but that was more percussive than melodic.  When I learned about his 4'33" orchestral piece (which is "four minutes, thirty three seconds", even though it looks like four feet thirty three inches) I almost passed out.  You'll have to Google that one.  I thought to myself, "Am I the only one who thinks this guy is crazy?"  I was angry, to be honest.  All these 20th century composers were on acid.

But in all honesty, I think there is a place for all this... and I'm trying to convince myself of it right now... seriously though... if Schoenberg's system has gotten me to expand my horizons musically, then I can definitely see the purpose in teaching it.  It actually does make me a better musician; you'll understand when you see what this girl has done with it (she's fun).  It has helped me to see outside the box, and for that I can appreciate it.

However, you won't find this twelve tone music in any of my everyday listening queues.  I really hate it.  I can't deny it.  Maybe someday I'll learn to appreciate it.

Side note:  I've been listening to several different varieties of John Cage's pieces the entire time I've been typing this, and I'm thoroughly convinced he had little to no musical skill to boot.  I don't know how he was truly recognized as a musician or an artist, except that he had the skill to notate.  (I mean, have you heard this stuff?!)  That's what my nephew sounds like when he bangs at the piano with his little hands.  Okay, fine, this piece has dynamics...  but seriously.  I suppose one might try to recreate it for the challenge of the atonality and lack of stable rhythm; to break out of the box. But this song is killing me...

Who Merits Eternal Life? Me or Christ?

I want to share a conversation that recently happened on Facebook between me and a friend of mine.  I love these long, well-thought-out written discussions.

This is what I posted on Facebook:

• "Some pastors pore over the injustice of preaching "hyper-grace"... But is there any other kind? Partial grace? Somewhat grace? "Only if" grace? Conditional grace? Give me grand, hyper, supercalifragilistic grace!!! Grace is scandalous because it is freely given at all times. People try to put conditions on it, like we can only have it if we try to clean up our act... There is nothing keeping you from God, not even that sin. And its not up to you to fix it. trust in Jesus to make you whole. Jesus died on the cross and it is Him who makes us holy, not our lifestyle. Our choices don't make us pure, Christ makes us pure. Our value systems don't make us righteous, HE is our righteousness. Our attitude doesn't bring us joy, HE is our joy. Our actions don't gain His love and approval, He already loves and accepts us. Cast your cares on Jesus. And trust in Him. He is your hope and your future. He is the light that shines in your darkness. He is your peace, and your joy. All other pursuits faded away. But He is everlasting, the ecstatic source of unimaginable bliss that never ends. He is the restorer of innocence and purity. And He believes in you, and knows the great things you are capable of. After all, He made you. Grace is unending, flowing from God to us an through us. Don't let anyone make you think you have to earn it."

Almost immediately I got a message from this very good friend.

• "Dear Susan, I saw your post about grace and my immediate inclination (for better or worse) was to respond, so here it is! I think I know where your pastors are coming from, and I think they have a valid point. I think all of the alternative to "hyper-grace" that you offered (partial, somewhat, "only if", conditional) are certainly all false ways to think about grace, and the pastors who hold that sort of conception need to be convinced of the complete, grand and supercalifragilistic nature of grace!! That being said, I think the problem lies not on the side of grace, but on the side of us. The overly complicated phrase that popped into my head that describes my dissatisfaction with what I perceive to be your understanding of grace is "Applied Neo-Monophysitism". Monophysitism was a heretical teaching on the nature of union of the human and the divine in Christ. It taught that the human nature was assumed by the divine in such a way that it was "engulfed" or completely assimilated into the divine, so that there was really only one nature in Christ--the divine. When this position was refuted, adherents still tried to construct a similar doctrine--the most popular one for awhile held that Christ had a true human nature, except in his will which was taken over by the divine will. Even these compromise positions were refuted and the true teaching of Christ was proclaimed--he is true God and true man, complete in two nature, united in one person. The reason why this was so important is that if the Son of God did not become man, we are not saved. If he took on only part of human nature, or if the result of the Incarnation is some new nature that is above (and therefore not identical with) that of ours, then we are not saved. So that's all background to the present tension. Just as the Monophysites upheld the divinity of Christ in such a way that his humanity was truncated, rather than sanctified, so this "hyper-grace" idea seems to overlook the reality of our humanity and rather than really sanctify it. Many of your statements are undisputable: Jesus makes us whole, we must trust in Him for all, and grace can accomplish all things. But at other times, this "hyper-grace" also seems like an exclusive grace. You say "our choices don't make us pure," I say they do if we make our choices in Christ. You say "our value systems don't make us righteous," I say they do if they are from Christ and lived in Christ. You say "our attitude doesn't bring us joy," but it does bring us joy if our attitude is from Christ. You say "our actions don't gain his love and approval," but our actions are those of Christ and indeed are worthy of all love and approval! You say that not even sin can keep us from God, but if that is absolutely true, then Christ died in vain. (And I don't think you hold that to be absolutely true--but it sounds that way.) So that's my understanding as it stands. (I'm sure I still have a ways to go.) I think you're right about how awesome grace. Perhaps it is even more awesome than that."

Here was my response:

•  "Yeah, I am definitely not a Neo-Monophysite. I firmly hold that Christ is both natures in one: fully God and fully man. Haha. What I was trying to say was that Christ is our righteousness. Our actions in Christ, our values in Christ, our lifestyle in Christ are all fruits of righteousness, but those things are not the source of our righteousness, nor do they cause us to be righteous because then we are saying that our actions can make us worthy of salvation, and are therefore saying we don't need Christ. It is Christ who makes us holy, and it is our trusting Him to live through us that enables us to manifest righteousness. I'm giving credit where it's due, pointing to the source. There is no true righteousness apart from Him. Though we do things IN Christ, the righteousness is still from Him. As is our joy. There is no true joy apart from Christ. And though things we do IN Christ bring us joy, the joy is coming from Christ himself. I am saying that BECAUSE (sorry for the caps, I want that to be in italics, lol) of Christ's death, our sin no longer separates us from God. I am saying that our actions don't earn his love and approval because He already loves us unconditionally.  If it is our actions that cause Him to love us, then his love isn't truly unconditional."

Then he said:

•  "Thank you for the response, Susan!!
  
  I agree with almost all of it, but I'm going to respond to the two sentences with which I partly disagree. "Our actions in Christ, our values in Christ, our lifestyle in Christ are all fruits of righteousness, but those things are not the source of our righteousness, nor do they cause us to be righteous because then we are saying that our actions can make us worthy of salvation, and are therefore saying we don't need Christ." The first half of this sentence is spot on, but I think there are problems with the last part. I think part of the disagreement will go away if I affirm that the first grace we receive is wholly and completely unmerited, in no way relying on our action or willing--pure gift. But then being established in righteousness through Christ, I say we can then perform actions that merit salvation.
  
  This should at least clarify against your last point, "and are therefore saying we don't need Christ." I am saying that we can only perform meritorious actions because of the grace we have already received from Christ. So to be entirely clear, without the righteousness that comes from Christ, it is impossible to perform an action that merits anything from God. We are impotent to earn God's grace apart from his grace.
  
  That being said, I still want to say that we merit or earn eternal life and receive it as a reward. Does that sound scandalous?? Perhaps, but grace works that way. Without grace, our actions won't get us far with God. With grace (for which we need Christ), our actions can merit eternal life. To show that this is possible at all, I want to point to Christ. Christ is the one who merited all the graces of God through his passion and death. This means that Christ merited according to his human nature, offering himself up with a perfect human will, entirely united to the divine. Thus it is possible for a man to merit. What stopped us from meriting then? Our broken humanity, wounded by sin. But in grace, our humanity is restored and made pleasing to God--by grace, we love as we ought and thereby earn a reward. We couldn't have loved him unless he loved us first (before any initiative of ours), but now in his grace we can love him and receive the reward. And some proof-texts: 2 Tim. 4:8 "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing." Col. 3:23-25 "Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." I know it may sound odd to say that we merit eternal life through grace, but these seem to be the alternatives:
  
  1. If a man cannot merit eternal life, then Christ cannot merit it for us. And we are not saved.
  2. If we cannot merit by grace from Christ, then our human nature is not fully restored by grace.
  
  And one more sentence from you: "If it is our actions that cause Him to love us, then his love isn't truly unconditional." True, it is not our actions that cause him to love us but his love that causes our actions. But that his love makes our actions worthy of his love--I believe his love extends even this far."

And this was my response:

• "I am with you on that last sentence. His grace is powerful enough to change me and enable me to live holy.
  
  I used to believe that actions can merit eternal life... But I no longer embrace that concept. I don't even side-hug it (haha).
  
  I have many reasons for rejecting this idea, in addition to a scriptural basis. In Philippians 3:1-9 Paul speaks about how the works of the flesh are garbage. Note he says "works of the flesh" and then lists off righteous acts. He also says that he does not have a righteousness of his own, but that of Christ through faith. Add to this Gal 2:20
  
  I believe grace enables us to be righteous, but the actual righteousness we are given is Christ Himself. No one can boast of their righteous acts. Those verses you listed do speak of a reward, but not necessarily eternal life itself. Aside from that, The joy and satisfaction we get from doing those holy things in which grace enables us to do is Christ himself. He is our reward. Relationship with Him is most rewarding and enjoyable. But He is the one by whom we merit eternal life.
  
  I cannot agree that our actions merit eternal life because that allows for boasting, which Paul clearly states is ridiculous. Even allowing for Christ's involvement by saying that "through grace we can do righteous acts that merit eternal life" is in my opinion not what Paul was trying to say. Paul considered his efforts rubbish. Not that they were of no good result, but that they did not earn him anything because it is grace through faith that justifies us. The concept that we can merit eternal life though righteous acts is the very thing I am saying is not valid. It also doesn't line up with Jesus' parable about the kingdom of God being like the employer who hired men in the morning, promising them a certain payment and throughout the day kept hiring more workers. At the end of the day he gives everyone the same amount of money and the men who came in the morning were upset because they worked more... I forget this scripture reference, but this speaks of our reward, and how it has little to do with our actual work. Aside from the scriptural basis, I can list for you a slew of results from believing in the ability to merit salvation by acts "through grace", and compare them with the results from believing that Christ IS our righteousness, and I can tell you that in my own life the latter has had far more rewarding results.
  
  Anyway, I have totally rejected that concept (meriting eternal life by acting righteously). In fact I feel a great deal of determination to shatter it in the minds of those who are willing to hear. I consider it to be a huge stumbling block to the church. That's how strongly I feel about it."
  
  
  
  
  This conversation is still going on and unfinished, but I really feel there is much to be gained from it thus far.