ABSTRACT
Daniel Chua describes music as “the Mouthpiece of Theology” and criticizes science for bequeathing modern musicology methodologies intrinsically prejudicial toward music theology. Yet by criticizing science Chua throws the scientific baby out with the theological bathwater. Like many musicologists Chua presumes that the methodologies of science and theology are oppositional, yet today many theologians and scientists argue the opposite. Ian Barbour describes science and religion through conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration; Michael Hanby asks whether science can actually exist without God. Modern musicology may deprecate music theology for its methodology, but congregational music studies, as an active partner in music theology, problematizes Chua’s thesis because it uses scientific method to arrive at its theological conclusions; see, for example, “Embodied Sonic Theologies” in Congregational Music-Making and Community in a Mediated Age. Music may be the mouthpiece of theology but music theology is the mouthpiece of science, and congregational music studies proves it. This chapter explores congregational music studies as music theology, and music theology as science, using a structure replicating the sequence of scientific method, including (1) observation; (2) hypothesis; (3) experiment; (4) analysis; and (5) findings. Section 1, “Observation,” explores theology as science; section 2, “Hypothesis,” music theology as science; section 3, “Experiment,” congregational music studies as music theology; section 4, “Analysis,” congregational studies as science; and lastly section 5, “Findings” concludes with reflections on the methodological import of congregational studies for both theology and science.
