Loving God with All Your...Music?
Determining what music is or is not appropriate for the Christian is a hard nut to crack. We’ve all heard of the “Worship Wars” that have been going on for decades (and, it could be argued, even going back to the Reformation), and the rise of fundamentalism this past century has really escalated the issue.
In separating from the world, fundamentalists have taken measures to build a defense of their music standards, but sometimes that defense comes across as somewhat abrasive. Instead of shooting other sheep in the flock, is it possible to reach a level of cordiality among Christians of different backgrounds? Here are a few principles that I believe can help us determine what kind of music is appropriate for the personal lives of Christians.
1. Be committed to whatever the Bible requires
If all of our thoughts are to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), then there’s not a square inch of real estate in our lives that is available for rent. Even in our private lives, we need to be concerned about what God wants in worship, because every act is to be an act of glorifying God (1 Cor. 10:31). There’s no time that is truly “me time” during which we can unplug ourselves from our dedication to Christ.
Having made that somewhat obvious point, I have a hard time deriving many specifics from the Bible regarding musical choices. I hate to rain on the I-get-my-personal-music-standards-from-the-Bible parade, but the truth is that the Bible has more than 600 vague references to music, and none at all to musical styles. We know that some music can refresh our spirits (1 Sam. 16), and maybe the case can be made that some music can make sounds similar to that of war (Ex. 32). But does any of that information give us guidance for particular styles? I would say no, though there are several other points that can guide our thinking on this issue.
2. Recognize music’s ambivalence
A professor at the University of Bordeaux, France, once wrote about the ambivalence of technology. Technology is not neutral or amoral, he said, for it is always used for good or bad. In and of itself, it is ambivalent—it can go either way. He used a knife analogy to say that a knife could peel an apple or kill a person.
Similarly, music is not neutral or amoral, but it is ambivalent. No one can jot down an inherently evil rhythm or play a sinful chord progression, though many artists have combined musical elements (including lyrics and video) that feed sinful desires. There is no question that God’s gifts can be perverted. However, just because certain rhythms, etc., can be physical, they are not necessarily wrong. An upbeat, driving piece of music played before a basketball game can be an appropriate way to provide an athletic, physical atmosphere, just as a composition with heavy, predominant percussion can set the tone for a battle scene in a movie.
Christian leaders have made an honest attempt to protect young people from worldliness, but in doing so, some of those leaders have unfortunately alienated young people by preaching against styles of music that are intrinsically ambivalent.
3. Don’t add to the Bible
Christians must give each other a large degree of latitude when it comes to defending a biblical position on music. Some Christians take the “ready, fire, aim” approach—blast anyone who’s not like them, and then figure out a semi-plausible case. But Christian leaders would do well to remember that unbiblically binding the consciences of other Christians is a sin (1 Tim. 4:1-5). If music is a gift to be enjoyed, then every restriction on that gift needs to have an airtight argument. The Bible says much about music in general, but nothing about style specifically, and Paul, in 1 Timothy 4, is remarkably hostile to the idea that someone would dare to legislate morality on an issue about which God has been largely silent.
One passage that is sometimes used in an attempt to justify extra-biblical prohibitions is Acts 15. Verses 20 and 29 include restrictions that don’t seem related to the moral law, and Paul’s response to dietary (and other) restrictions is that such restrictions are demonic (1 Tim. 4:1-5) and a sign of worldliness (Col. 2:18-23). It appears that whatever the Jerusalem Council did in Acts 15 is not appropriate now, and perhaps wasn’t appropriate then either.
The two familiar passages on Christian liberty—Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8—provide pictures of interaction between Christians who disagree on non-doctrinal issues, and the picture is vastly different than the picture in Galatians 1. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 talk about living peaceably with Christians who differ in interpretation. Paul’s cursing the wolves that are destroying the foundations of the gospel (Gal. 1:8-9) is perfectly legitimate, but our cursing of sheep that bleat differently from us must certainly grieve the Holy Spirit.
An oft-quoted statement attributed to Augustine goes like this: “In essentials, unity; in things indifferent, liberty; in all things, charity.” Maybe it would be nice to have every Christian be as conservative as we are, but if God’s Word has not put specific boundaries around music styles, we are epitomizing legalism—not to mention adding to Scripture—in our attempts to be devout.1
4. Use a food analogy
One of the most helpful things for my thinking on music has been to compare music choices to food choices. Before anyone cries “Foul!” because music is an act of worship and food is just food, remember 1 Corinthians 10:31—even our food choices should glorify God.
Some food is healthier than other food, and some food may have no health benefit whatsoever—it just tastes good. John Piper has done the body of Christ a lot of good in reminding us that the pursuit of pleasure—far from being inherently sinful—can be a very biblical endeavor. One of the most recognized statements from Desiring God is that “God is most glorified in me when I am most satisfied in Him.”2 Smart young people hear the argument that “certain music caters to the flesh” and translate it into “if you like something, it’s bad.” But is it really a moral lapse to like something because it makes me feel good? Greasy food may harm the temple of the Holy Spirit to some degree, but how far should we go in saying that greasy food is sinful? Sometimes I just want a cheeseburger.
Some music might be healthier (there’s more artistic quality to it), but the other stuff isn’t necessarily sinful. And if children are trained to appreciate “finer” music, they just might end up choosing healthier music because they recognize its higher quality (and not just because they’ve been brow-beaten into feeling guilty any time a drum kicks in).
5. Cultivate your musical taste
Speaking of food, Christians should develop a taste for high quality music. Just as some foods do better things for the body than others, so too does some music do better things for the mind. Just as great books reward careful reading and other books are nothing but entertainment, so too is great music something that can be studied and appreciated on an intellectual and artistic level.
I don’t have anything against “fun music,” just as I have nothing against cheeseburgers, but children need to learn how to eat good things, read good things, and listen to good things too. Many young people, having been reared on a strict diet of only fundamentalist-sanctioned music (and having been taught that “fun music is bad music”), are reaching the age where they can make their own decisions, and when that door of freedom cracks open, they kick it down and leave the old music in the remaining rubble.
Some music is definitely harmful (because of its emphasis on rebellion, illicit relationships, or other sins), but one of the biggest ways to make sure that our families are not swept away by the draw of harmful music is by inculcating an appreciation for fine music at an early age. If possible, children should take music lessons and be involved in solos and ensembles with instruments and voice, and we should play classical music in our homes.
I have a broader appreciation of music because of the priority my parents, church, high school, and university put on it. I still listen to music from SoundForth and The Wilds from time to time, and often I’d rather listen to Rutter’s Gloria than something by Josh Groban. During the Christmas season, I’d much rather hear Handel’s Messiah any day of the week over the goofy stuff on popular radio stations.
Conclusion
Of course, other intelligent Christians may disagree with me. My degree was not in music, but I’ve been heavily involved with music my entire life, including the privilege of singing for several seasons with a community chorus—not to mention substantial involvement in quality high school, collegiate, and church music programs.
A clear and present danger is that our looks of scorn towards those who are less musically conservative (“those worldly Christians”) might be noticed by our children, and when they start making their own choices, they might cast those same looks back at us and all the rest of the people who “still believe that stuff.” However, if we relax the white-knuckled grip on our children’s music choices, maybe, just maybe, they’ll start making wise choices on their own and love God with all of their heart, soul, mind, strength, and music. (Uh oh. Did I just add to the Bible?)
Certainly, just as rules alone won’t stop people from making bad choices, neither will a relaxing of rules necessarily promote good choices. But as more decades pass, I think that we will find that we were much like the medieval geocentric Christians—we were well-meaning in our attempt to be devout, but over time, we’ve come to discover that the heliocentric Christians weren’t as worldly as we thought.
Notes
1 For much more mature and well-written pieces on differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, see Kevin Bauder’s timely posts—”Now, About Those Differences“—here at SharperIron.org.
2 Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1986.
Jeremy Larson Bio2
Jeremy Larson earned a BA in creative writing (English minor) and an MA in English, both at Bob Jones University. He has taught high school and college English for several years, and he and his wife and daughter recently moved to Waco, TX, where he will begin PhD studies in English at Baylor University (with a dual concentration in religion and literature). He blogs occasionally at The Mundane Muse.
And I share Jeremy’s interest in developing deeper and higher musical awareness in kids. Last year I was greatly encouraged recently to see our local high school choir sing something in Latin at the Baccalaureate. It was the first evidence I’d ever seen that the school was making students aware that music actually existed before the 20th century.
(About the Jerusalem council, though… Ac 15.28 seems pretty clear that the council did do the right thing at the time.)
I appreciate the point about ambivalence. Not sure I’d reason to all the same conclusions, but the “is music amoral?” debate is one that should have died a long time ago. Music is always used and nothing is amoral in use. I’d also argue that the suitability of certain styles for particular uses also tilts the ambivalence one way or another—often heavily.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jeremy Larson]Hey Jeremy, sorry I’m not discussing your actual piece more, but I couldn’t pass up this opportunity to let people know that the quote above is not, in fact, by Augustine.
An oft-quoted statement attributed to Augustine goes like this: “In essentials, unity; in things indifferent, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Here’s a brief link on its history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_necessariis_unitas,_in_dubiis_libertas,…
Here’s a more substantial one: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/quote.html
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I have a broader appreciation of music because of the priority my parents, church, high school, and university put on it. I still listen to music from SoundForth and The Wilds from time to time, and often I’d rather listen to Rutter’s Gloria than something by Josh Groban.I think I agree to a point. I also think this is where things break down. The author states that he appreciates better music because it was emphasized to him, but that he doesn’t think it needs to be emphasized so strongly in the future.
How many families are content to eat junk food? By saying that it is OK once in a while, it just seems to be opening the door a lot wider.
I think the ambivalence analogy is closer than the old moral/amoral view of the past, though.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
It is true that music is language. How clear that language is, and what it communicates is the topic of much discussion. I wonder though, if the morality of music (and the message it communicates) is more determined by the culture than anything. I remember when the Beatles came to the USA in the early 60’s and many a preacher (and college professor) preached passionately about that “hellish” music. Forty years later the music (without text) is considered relatively benign, and even imitated by some of our most conservitive music arrangers.
Additionally, I think Jeremy has made a valid point about the Bible’s lack of reference to music style. That gives us great liberty in determining what is best (and God-glorifying) for ourselves, and our individual churches, as it should be.
mkbennett
A clear and present danger is that our looks of scorn towards those who are less musically conservativeIt’s not just the choices that we make about things like music, clothing, entertainment, etc… but our attitude towards those who’ve made different choices- or maybe haven’t really made any choices yet because they are still growing in grace and knowledge and they are continuing their previous behaviors by default rather than ‘on purpose’. We often grow in knowledge but not in grace- hence the scornfulness instead of humility and compassion.
We have to realize that it is well night impossible to be consistent about some things. I remember when my dad would not shop at any store that sold alcohol and/or cigarettes (probably because before he got saved he was a bar-hopping chain-smoker). If he were living today, he’d have to forsake that practice. It was an unsustainable conviction.
I think music is like that too, because even if you believe rock music is from the pits-of-Hell, you can’t listen to talk radio without hearing bumper music, or shop in a store that doesn’t play Top 40 or the Best of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, or watch television.
Which reminds me- one of my kids was singing some song from ‘my time’, and I was wondering why on earth they’d be singing “Major Tom(Coming Home)”- but they’d heard a commercial using that song, and like me, they are sponges when it comes to music.
I’m definitely on the band wagon of impressing quality music on my kids so that they don’t develop a taste for ‘junk’ music.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Don’t numbers 2 and 4 contradict each other? If something has no intrinsic value, how can one example be better or worse than another?I think it goes back to use and fitness for use. But there even to that aspect than I think many realize.
A thought experiment…
Suppose you have this hypothetical piece of music in an opaque and sound proof box where it’s playing itself… it also composed itself. This is music no human being was involved in producing and no human is involved in hearing. Put another box next to it with “different” music in it (yes, I know, we’d never know it was different… try to overlook that). We could probably emphatically say that one is just as good as the other—or rather, that they are equally morally neutral.
But in the real world music is always
- produced by somebody who had motives, ideas, affections, goals, responses, etc.
- heard by somebody who has all of the above
The consequence is that while it’s “ambivalent” (a better word is probably needed but it’s a huge improvement over “amoral”!), it always goes one way or the other morally when it’s made in the first place and, thereafter, whenever it’s heard. So the music never exists in the insulated box that would be required to call it amoral.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Chip Van Emmerik] Don’t numbers 2 and 4 contradict each other? If something has no intrinsic value, how can one example be better or worse than another?Chip, oh, Chip…don’t you know what happens when you emphasize beats two and four? :)
(But to make sure we’re taken very seriously when we disapprove, we call it “gyrating”)
This may be of some help on the “ambivalence” question…
[Webster] ambivalence 1 : simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or actionhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambivalent
2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow
#2a sort of works
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
1. How much does God care about our ability to differentiate musical whole grains from white bread from
“witches’ brew” (apologies for the alliteration)? Does Phil. 1:9-11 speak to this?
2. Can the music itself affect our decision, or—given the lack of references to musical style—must we reserve our examination to texts?
I know my own answers, and I think I know Jeremy’s. But is there consensus?
Todd Jones
Aaron, so am I missing something or not. I understand ambivalent music to be music without inherent goodness or badness (amoral though we are trying not to use that word). That would seem to indicate a position that says music does not communicate in and of itself, but rather only in association with previous experiences.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Great article. I’m sure Mr. W is about to throw his electronic baton at you :-)
The comparison to food is really interesting. The comparisons really work in my mind. Both have been controversial in church history. It’s a part of every day life, and the Bible isn’t clear on exactly what the people of God post-cross are supposed to eat, or listen to. We’re supposed to flex our conscience muscles and reason from scripture what is BEST in a given situation.
I did a sermon for my church on a theology of food. One passage that stuck out to me was 1 Cor 10 just before the WILDS passage, “If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.”
The issue of meat offered to idols is really complex, but there seems to be a way that we can give credit to our non-Christian friends in this area of conscience by in some way partaking in a controversial/weaker brother issue that can help evangelistic interaction with that friend. But there is a line: if he suggests that you are partaking in sin with him.
He goes on to say… “But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—”
(1 Corinthians 10:27-28 ESV)
Great work. Keep it coming.
Shayne
[Aaron Blumer]According to quantum mechanics there’s no guarantee there even *is* music playing until you open the box, and even then up until that point the music can be said to be both moral and immoral. We’ll call it “Blumer’s Musicbox” and move on. :D (Though I do have good reason to go there.)[Chip Van Emmerik] Don’t numbers 2 and 4 contradict each other? If something has no intrinsic value, how can one example be better or worse than another?I think it goes back to use and fitness for use. But there even to that aspect than I think many realize.
A thought experiment…
Suppose you have this hypothetical piece of music in an opaque and sound proof box where it’s playing itself… it also composed itself. This is music no human being was involved in producing and no human is involved in hearing. Put another box next to it with “different” music in it (yes, I know, we’d never know it was different… try to overlook that). We could probably emphatically say that one is just as good as the other—or rather, that they are equally morally neutral.
But in the real world music is always
- produced by somebody who had motives, ideas, affections, goals, responses, etc.
- heard by somebody who has all of the above
The consequence is that while it’s “ambivalent” (a better word is probably needed but it’s a huge improvement over “amoral”!), it always goes one way or the other morally when it’s made in the first place and, thereafter, whenever it’s heard. So the music never exists in the insulated box that would be required to call it amoral.
Whether or not music is a moral or amoral agent isn’t really the point. Music, as Aaron so deftly pointed out, never exists in a vacuum. For it to be music, one must combine different sounds in some way and then communicate those sounds, even if only in the mind’s ear. At the point where those separate sounds are communicated as one sound by a performer to a listener, music becomes communicative, and the end result of that communication upon the listener is where the whole “morality” spiel comes into play. Depending on the cultural context of all parties involved - composer, performer, and listener (and one person could fill all three roles simultaneously) - that communication may nudge someone towards a particular state of mind or to act on a feeling; but the communication itself should never be to blame.
Take the English letter “D.” By itself, it may be said to be amoral, uncommunicative. But “D” never exists in a vacuum. Even if it stands alone (at the top of a term paper, for instance), it communicates meaning. By adding three more letters, say “a,” “m,” and “n,” behind “D” I can make a word that is either offensive to some, or a staple word in the English language that carries a great weight of meaning in the Bible…and precisely because of that “ambivalence” we still cannot pass moral judgment on the word I formed. But even if there were no ambivalence in English, we still cannot past judgment. If I were to travel to China and write that word (or a different, everyone-who-speaks-English-agrees “bad word”) on a large sign and stick that sign in the ground in a remote province, I’m even farther removed from the “morality” argument because perhaps no one there knows the Roman alphabet, never mind what word I wrote or what different meanings it has in different contexts to people from a vastly different culture separated by thousands of miles. Even if my original intention was to offend every Chinese man, woman, and child who sees that sign, to them the characters they see do not communicate in any meaningful way.
Which brings us to the “higher quality” argument. If you want to be pedantic, you can safely judge something to be “higher quality” only if you have a disclaimer that it is comparatively higher than something else given the social and cultural values of a distinct and necessarily small sampling of the target population, and that it is “higher quality” only because it is more effective at communicating an intended payload than something else. This is why the “higher quality” argument works so well in uniformly bland churches - virtually everyone there shares the same educational background, upbringing experiences, and cultural heritage, or they have artificially claimed those similarities for the sake of fitting in. But in a true multi-cultural environment, with people whose personal “cultures” are all over the place, how can you judge X style of music, with all its complexities, to be of a demonstrably “higher quality” than Y style of music, with all *its* complexities?
And there lies my biggest complaint with this article. As I read it, I see some instances where Jeremy argues much the same as I would; and yet after reading it I feel like it lands in the “pizza is great but not every day” type of argument. Even the second-to-last paragraph seems duplicitous: just before an admonishment to let kids make their own choices (yay!), you read about people who are “less musically conservative (boo!).” If you think I’m way off-base I can provide other examples of statements that left me feeling confused about the direction this article wanted to take - right now I have to drive downtown, probably while listening to Rachmaninoff, to rehearse Chris Tomlin songs for Sunday afternoon worship. Just call me a man of many cultures. :)
Music is always used and nothing is amoral in use.I agree. Something that God creates, like music, is neutral. It only becomes moral (or immoral) when it is used. Anything a moral human agent does is either good or bad. There are no neutral actions performed by man. So man’s use of music is what determines its morality.
So we have two categories: (a) a God-created object (or idea), and (b) a use of that object by man. Category (a) is neutral (or, actually, it is inherently good since God created it), and category (b) is not neutral (it is either good or evil).
So in which category does a song fit? Well, since a song is the human use of God-given principles of music, songs fit into the use category. Even before a song is sung in some context, it is already in the use category; music has been used to create something by a human. Songs with similar defining characteristics are then grouped into what we call forms or styles. These, too, are still in the use category since they are products of human creation.
Again, no product of human creation is ever amoral.
So, in reality, everything we call “music” in our discussions fits into the moral use category, not the amoral (or “ambivalent”) object category. God never wrote a song (that we have, anyway). Any songs or styles under consideration are human products.
And every product of human creation must be judged as to whether it is good or evil. To deny this is to stray very close to Pelagianism.
Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist
We might actually be pretty close that sort of consensus here at least.
A good goal (from a “music wars” standpoint) then would be to gain a consensus that determining what the morality is is where the rub is.
I can dream can’t I? Seems like arriving at a point where a majority recognizes that would be really good place for the various viewpoints to help each other toward understanding.
(I’m on some cold meds so if I sound delusional blame it on that.. I’ll get over it in a day or two)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I suppose you will say that both choices are “moral” because the scripture does not condemn either choice. All that is being suggested by Larson’s article is that the scripture doesn’t condemn particular musical styles either.
RonP
[Aaron Blumer] Suppose we have a consensus that whenever music is used (which is to say, all the time), it’s moral, but the morality is flexible based on a whole lot of factors.I don’t know that I’d go quite that far, though I think you’re in the neighborhood. I would say that whenever music is used (which is to say, all the time), it causes a moral activity on the part of the listener, but the morality is flexible based on a whole lot of factors. I’m not convinced music is ever moral or immoral. Let me flesh that out a bit.
We might actually be pretty close that sort of consensus here at least.
A good goal (from a “music wars” standpoint) then would be to gain a consensus that determining what the morality is is where the rub is.
I can dream can’t I? Seems like arriving at a point where a majority recognizes that would be really good place for the various viewpoints to help each other toward understanding.
(I’m on some cold meds so if I sound delusional blame it on that.. I’ll get over it in a day or two)
Music is a language. Like any language, it is made up of discreet parts that are combined in different ways, written down, recorded, spoken, and interpreted by the listener according to a host of learned behaviors. And like any language, there exists a certain amount of ambiguity. In our linguistic context, we learn to discern most of those ambiguities but recognize at some level that the ambiguity is not the fault of the word but rather its use. So while the word “hell” can be used as an invective, it also has perfectly justifiable uses as well and we cannot categorically declare the word “hell” as moral or immoral based upon its (mis)use. One can (and I think should) argue that no word is moral or immoral, or even that it magically acquires its own morality with use. To be moral or immoral implies that a choice was made and that choice is being judged against a specific context. Actions, therefore, have morality. People have morality (based upon their actions or a pattern of actions). Abstract concepts do not and cannot have morality, and anytime you think you have a concept that is immoral (“genocide”) you’ll find out that at the core, it is really the act of engaging in that concept that is immoral. In those cases, however, the concept is so closely tied to the actual action that they are well nigh inseparable.
Anywho, with that background, music is a language. Like language, music is only abstract until it is performed (and by extension, heard). It may cause an emotional reaction in a hearer, and the hearer’s response can be said to have morality, but it is not the music itself that caused that morality, because someone in a completely different context might have the exact morally opposite response. If music has an absolute morality to it, it would be impossible to cause opposite moral responses. Similarly, if music has intrinsic morality, how then could we explain music that causes no moral response on a hearer? The actions involved in responding to music take on the moral qualities of the hearer, but the music itself neither takes nor imparts moral direction.
So what about songs emphasizing what we would classify as immoral actions like fornication? Understand that now there are two languages to be judged. The language of music is one, and the language of the lyric is another language. Again, we judge each language based upon the actions taken by the hearer. If the spoken language causes the hearer to glorify fornication as a good lifestyle, the hearer is engaging in immoral activity. But are the words themselves immoral? While a lot of people would jump up and say “Yes!”, I would argue that they’re just words. Speaking those same words to someone who doesn’t speak English will not cause them to entertain thoughts of immoral activity. If the actual words were truly the moral agent, they would communicate their morality regardless of the context in which they were being employed.
Let’s not underestimate the communicative power of music. Music can be crafted in such a way as to play upon the faculties of those who hear it - that much is undeniable. The act of creating music designed to inspire immoral activity can be said to be immoral. The activity a person engages in upon hearing that music can be said to be immoral. But is the music itself immoral? I don’t think I’m willing to go that far.
I don’t understand how the following fits in:
If possible, children should take music lessons and be involved in solos and ensembles with instruments and voice, and we should play classical music in our homes.Why exactly should we do this again? Does Scripture encourage us to be professional musicians? Of the classical variety? We need this to be able to “sing songs and hymns and spiritual songs” and “(make) melody in our hearts”? Really?
And who is saying which music is higher quality, anyway? Is it only music created by white Europeans in countries where God blessed them for their stand on Scripture (which was basically stated by someone disagreeing with me on my blog one time)?
And then Scot’s statement seems strange too:
“Anything a moral human agent does is either good or bad.”
Tying my shoes comes to mind. How can I do that in a good or bad way?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Really? Everything man does is either moral or immoral?Yes, it’s just that factors other than the deed itself affect morality/immorality. To eat unto the Lord is moral, but to eat without faith or to eat and cause offense (especially knowingly) is not.
What the Bible condemns are certain lifestyle choices that musical styles can (I say) reflect. That reflection is not inherent in the chord or instrument itself. It may not be eternal or universal, but it is no less real for being culturally bound.
Perhaps we mean different things by “moral.”
I have read about idol hymns like the “Homeric Hymn To The Son of Cronus,” written in the 7th Century B.C. I also read about the Cleanthes “Hymn to Zeus” in written the 3rd century B.C.
If hymns were used to sing to idols before the church began, was there controversy in the church when God’s people started singing hymns to the Lord like is recorded in the book of Acts?
Objects (neutral):
meat
shoe
gun
facial expression
middle C
Uses (not neutral):
eating meat in faith (moral)
eating meat without faith (immoral)
tying your shoe (moral)
shooting your neighbor (immoral)
shooting a terrorist (moral)
a facial expression that communicates joy (moral)
a facial expression that communicates rage (immoral)
a song that communicates noble values musically (moral)
a song that communicates debase values musically (immoral)
combining a noble musical form with a sinful text (immoral)
combining a debase musical form with a moral text (immoral)
I say again, once a song has been written, it has already entered the category of use. No song is neutral.
So, in other words, it is invalid to say, “A song (or style) is like meat.” That is a category error. It is correct to say, “A note is like meat,” or “A song is like eating meat at dinner,” or “A song is like eating meat as part of pagan worship.”
Songs are uses, not objects.
Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist
3. Don’t add to the Bible
Christians must give each other a large degree of latitude when it comes to defending a biblical position on music. Some Christians take the “ready, fire, aim” approach—blast anyone who’s not like them, and then figure out a semi-plausible case. But Christian leaders would do well to remember that unbiblically binding the consciences of other Christians is a sin (1 Tim. 4:1-5). If music is a gift to be enjoyed, then every restriction on that gift needs to have an airtight argument. The Bible says much about music in general, but nothing about style specifically, and Paul, in 1 Timothy 4, is remarkably hostile to the idea that someone would dare to legislate morality on an issue about which God has been largely silent.
:bigsmile: We need a smiley face that jumps up and down and dances. I would put it here.
[Scott Aniol] We’re still mixing categories. Let me be more explicit:How is tying a shoe moral?
Objects (neutral):
meat
shoe
gun
facial expression
middle C
Uses (not neutral):
eating meat in faith (moral)
eating meat without faith (immoral)
tying your shoe (moral)
shooting your neighbor (immoral)
shooting a terrorist (moral)
a facial expression that communicates joy (moral)
a facial expression that communicates rage (immoral)
a song that communicates noble values musically (moral)
a song that communicates debase values musically (immoral)
combining a noble musical form with a sinful text (immoral)
combining a debase musical form with a moral text (immoral)
I say again, once a song has been written, it has already entered the category of use. No song is neutral.
So, in other words, it is invalid to say, “A song (or style) is like meat.” That is a category error. It is correct to say, “A note is like meat,” or “A song is like eating meat at dinner,” or “A song is like eating meat as part of pagan worship.”
Songs are uses, not objects.
Can a facial expression that communicates rage be moral (Jesus cleansing the temple)?
How can a song communicate noble values musically?
How can a song communicate debase (debased?) values musically?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I really appreciated your article Jeremy. Especially this part:Scott, I hesitate to even ask this question, because I am sure you are a godly man of Character….
3. Don’t add to the Bible
Christians must give each other a large degree of latitude when it comes to defending a biblical position on music. Some Christians take the “ready, fire, aim” approach—blast anyone who’s not like them, and then figure out a semi-plausible case. But Christian leaders would do well to remember that unbiblically binding the consciences of other Christians is a sin (1 Tim. 4:1-5). If music is a gift to be enjoyed, then every restriction on that gift needs to have an airtight argument. The Bible says much about music in general, but nothing about style specifically, and Paul, in 1 Timothy 4, is remarkably hostile to the idea that someone would dare to legislate morality on an issue about which God has been largely silent.
Big smile We need a smiley face that jumps up and down and dances. I would put it here.
How would you defend your position (and ministry) in light of I Tim. 4:1-5?
It is also interesting the shift in arguments from previous decades. No one here (except in facetious ways) has called a pox down on anapestic beats or trap sets. The morality of musical elements (styles, rhythms, etc.) is ambivalent. Lyrics certainly change things, but I’m waiting for specifics on why certain styles are inherently wicked. Any comments on my examples of driving beats in athletic songs and/or battle scenes in movies? A physical response to a song isn’t sin.
I’d go further and suggest that a sexual response to a song doesn’t have to be wrong. In fact, it’s interesting that Shayne would invoke the name of “Mr. W.” I will never forget a conversation with him about his wife’s singing Karen Carpenter songs to him. A light bulb went on, and I asked him if certain music could be inappropriate at some times (e.g., for singles) and could become appropriate in other circumstances (e.g., for married people). I appreciated his honest answer: Dunno.
I may attempt to defend my “higher quality” comments later. Until then, I may join Tom in listening to some Rach music.
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!" ~Abraham Kuyper
[Jeremy Larson]Emphasis mine
I may attempt to defend my “higher quality” comments later. Until then, I may join Tom in listening to some Rach music.
Is “Rach” music the same as “rock for classical music lovers,” or maybe “classical for rock music lovers?” :) (I know you mean Rachmaninoff, but your abbreviation struck me as funny for some reason!)
Dave Barnhart
And is shooting your neighbor immoral if he’s trying to rape your wife? (I speak as a fool - the OT makes the self defense case pretty clear. But doesn’t that indicate that the morality of particular actions can depend on circumstances [as Scott’s example on eating meat seems to imply as well]?)
I agree that it’s all too easy to fall prey to category errors, but the list Scott chose as absolutes is based on his earlier assertions that ALL human actions are either moral or immoral in and of themselves, i.e. intrinsically. But that doesn’t appear to be truly supportable from scripture. From what I read, the heart attitude will affect the action’s moral character, and I can’t see how that wouldn’t affect music as well, since it doesn’t communicate so clearly.
A person could write a song intended for an immoral purpose, and that would be an immoral action. But a person hearing that song and not knowing the purpose for which the song was written, could have a heart reaction to it that is not immoral. One could say that that song wasn’t well done if it didn’t accomplish it’s true purpose, but it seems much of music is like that — without tying music to immoral lyrics, it’s not all that easy to clearly communicate immorality with the music itself. The associations of the listener always come into play, and might even completely overshadow the intent of the writer.
Dave Barnhart
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
A song is an object just like meat is an object. Both have uses.
Or further, meat is a physical artifact, while a song is a social artifact. And both are socially constructed. Butchering is something of an art: we don’t make cuts of meat like all the ancients. Same with songs.
So both can be regarded as artifacts.
Let me ofer as an example something removed from the Rock n Roll beat so strong feelings on that score don’t get in the way of our thinking.
My example: David Rose’s music “The Stripper” written for the film Gypsy. It has become associated with sleazy strippers, but, you know, it actually sounds like sleazy stripping. It sounds like it in a way that Mendelsohn’s Reformation Symphony does not. It is hard to imagine it as music for any decent use. I think I heard it in a shaving commercial once years ago, but even there it was meant to convey stripping as a kind of joke. One secular source says that it “featured especially prominent trombone lines, giving the tune its lascivious signature…” It is all music. No words. But it is recognized as “Lascivious.”
Putting Christian lyrics to it doesn’t help…still sleazy.
My only purpose in bringing this up is that music, in and of itself, does seem capable of taking us to places we shouldn’t go.
I am not comfortable telling other people exactly which music they shoudn’t listen to, but I do think it is wise to say that music in and of itself influences our feelings and thinking in ways that may have destructive ends. If that is true, it probably does say that in some important way, style does matter in worship as well as in life.
Just food for thought.
HAHAHAHAHA
Best,
Shayne
PS
I also appreciated how our teacher repeatedly debunked the argument against rock music that it’s somehow easy (and therefore lower quality). That was an argument he new he couldn’t win, and disabused of it. He taught us to respect jazz musicians (even if you thought their music was wrong) because many of them are technically incredible.
1: simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action
2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite); b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow
I don’t think that’s how the OP was using it. More later.
As far as the shoelace question. I think the OP asserted that all of life is worship. From what I’ve read from Bob H and Greg L, I think they’d agree with that.
So that has to include the tying of shoes, no?
I understand we’re down in the minutiae here, but that’s where reductio ad absurdum questions probably end up getting answered.
Anyway, the inference that I’ve always taken from the “all of life is worship” assertion is that we must then do everything to a certain level of properness and quality and with a certain amount of care. You know, heartily, as unto the Lord. So the question becomes: is a careless approach to something that ought to be worshipful a moral issue?
And as far as the scenarios involving shooting of people with guns, how about this one—
You want to go squirell hunting. You have a trusty shotgun (the only gun you’ve ever used), but want to try out the new .22 rifle you were just given. You go out to your 5 acre woodlot and find a squirrell, take aim and shoot. You miss. The projectile leaves the woodlot, falls through the window of a neighboring farmhouse, and injures a woman in the kitchen.
Is there a morality involved here? You intended somthing good. You accomplished something bad due to ignorance of or carelessness about the difference between what the two firearms do. Is your use a moral issue?
By the way, the Bible is absolutely silent on the fact that a .22 will far outrange a shotgun.
gdwightlarson "You can be my brother without being my twin."
“Anything a moral human agent does is either good or bad.”Several are confusing the ability to see the morality of act with the reality of its morality. God is pleased or displeased. He is glorified directly or He isn’t (i.e., glorified only ultimately as He works all to an ultimately good end).
Tying my shoes comes to mind. How can I do that in a good or bad way?
But our ability to identify the moral significance of act is a separate problem.
In no way does the inability to identify the morality with certainty alter the fact that it’s there.
To use a rough analogy: you can’t see atoms either (usually). Nonetheless they are there.
As for the morality of things. I can accept that no “thing” is moral in a box by itself. But no “things” are experienced that way so… there’s just no relevance to that. The neutrality of isolated things isn’t a useful information in any effort to figure out the morality of uses.
About Romans 14: also a case where folks often confuse the difficulty of discerning right from wrong as a case where there is no right or wrong. This is not the message of the passage.
The message is that there are matters about which we lack sufficient revelation—or sufficiently clear application—to identify with total certainty what’s right.
But an option is still right and one (or several) is still wrong (or perhaps “better” and “inferior,” but that’s really a more nuanced way of saying the same thing).
That doesn’t rule out the possibility that the same behavior can be right for one person and wrong for another or right under some conditions and wrong under others, etc. It can be complex. But we need to accept first that there is a right answer before we can claim we’re doing due diligence to discern it.
Rom.14 refers repeatedly to conscience and faith, meaning that the kinds of questions it addresses are supposed to be taken seriously. That would be a waste of time if they were simply “neutral.”
There are many behaviors that are morally unclear. There are none that are neutral.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Motivation. Everybody seems to get that if you do something with evil intent, it isn’t right.
Effect. What an act does to others and to the doer is obviously a factor. Since lots of acts involve trade-offs (good for you in some ways, not so good in other ways) the balance can be hard to identify. But—to use Rom.14 again—what causes another to be harmed is identified as something to avoid.
Meaning. This one is very controversial because where we are in the flow of cultural history happens to be a place where folks have stopped thinking about meaning for quite a few decades. So often folks are making aesthetic judgments based on meaning and finding that their hearers are dumbfounded. What they are hearing doesn’t make any sense to them. But it’s still there. Artistic styles have meaning for many reasons, but one is that they develop in an ideological framework. There is reaction to philosophy that was accepted at the time and the art expresses new philosophical directions and values. That kind of conventional meaning (meaning based on shared understanding) doesn’t last forever but it is there.
Wayne’s example above is an excellent case in point:
My example: David Rose’s music “The Stripper” written for the film Gypsy. It has become associated with sleazy strippers, but, you know, it actually sounds like sleazy stripping. It sounds like it in a way that Mendelsohn’s Reformation Symphony does not. It is hard to imagine it as music for any decent use. I think I heard it in a shaving commercial once years ago, but even there it was meant to convey stripping as a kind of joke. One secular source says that it “featured especially prominent trombone lines, giving the tune its lascivious signature…” It is all music. No words. But it is recognized as “Lascivious.”The sleaziness was widely understood by a kind of conventional meaning (but you also have effect mixed in with—maybe as a result of—the meaning). Trombones used that way conveyed a tawdriness—probably not because the sound has that inherent meaning but because it has that conventional meaning, based on a history of some sort shared by a majority in our culture.
Putting Christian lyrics to it doesn’t help…still sleazy.
It would be a fascinating experiment, but I’ll bet even children today could be asked to listen to some of it and tell whether it sounds like music that goes with doing something good or like it goes with doing something bad, a majority would say bad. Could be wrong. Eventually, it would no longer work.
In some parts of the world, there has probably never been a time when that kind of trombone sound would convey any naughtiness.
But styles always happen in cultural contexts where they have meaning. This is why Kevin Bauder talks about the shifts from the middle ages to other ways of thinking—value and meaning systems—eventually going to romanticism, enlightenment, jazz age… and counterculture.
You have lots of casual music makers. But Artists are always trying to say something with the stylistic elements they use, something independent of words.
Sorry for the long ramble. The subject interests me a great deal.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My example: David Rose’s music “The Stripper” written for the film Gypsy. It has become associated with sleazy strippers, but, you know, it actually sounds like sleazy stripping. It sounds like it in a way that Mendelsohn’s Reformation Symphony does not. It is hard to imagine it as music for any decent use. I think I heard it in a shaving commercial once years ago, but even there it was meant to convey stripping as a kind of joke. One secular source says that it “featured especially prominent trombone lines, giving the tune its lascivious signature…” It is all music. No words. But it is recognized as “Lascivious.”One of my friends who grew up on the mission field in Pakistan gave an illustration about cultural associations with music. Music played slow and in a minor key with certain instruments in that culture was considered sensual, so the Christians in Pakistan utilized music that was more upbeat with lots of drums. When he came back from the mission field to America, the upbeat music with lots of drums was considered sensual and worldly by the church, while slow songs played in a minor key played in the church that seemed similar to the sensual and worldly music in Pakistan (think of the tune O Come, O Come Emmanuel)was considered worshipful here in America.
Putting Christian lyrics to it doesn’t help…still sleazy.
[Joel Shaffer]This is a great example that demonstrates just *how* much even what we can imagine is affected by our culture, history, and how we grew up. It’s really easy to pronounce that a particular type of music is sensual, sleazy, worshipful, or whatever, and that it will *always* be such when we just grew up way differently from some others who don’t see what we are talking about at all.
One of my friends who grew up on the mission field in Pakistan gave an illustration about cultural associations with music. Music played slow and in a minor key with certain instruments in that culture was considered sensual, so the Christians in Pakistan utilized music that was more upbeat with lots of drums. When he came back from the mission field to America, the upbeat music with lots of drums was considered sensual and worldly by the church, while slow songs played in a minor key played in the church that seemed similar to the sensual and worldly music in Pakistan (think of the tune O Come, O Come Emmanuel)was considered worshipful here in America.
Dave Barnhart
Yes, cultural backgrounds of writers and listeners are factors. Yes, music has (usually) a connotation that can be good or bad or neutral-almost universally so. I don’t know how to explain my love for classical music. No family background or history. Never played anything except the guitar—once it became safe for Christians to play them. Ha. And as a pastor, as I began to use it in church—there was a definite period of adjustment by my congregation even to that. Again, ha.
I made the comment earlier/above about Romans 14 and 15. As I’ve studied it and applied it to those things on which Christians differed, I’ve pointed out that (1) they are things that are unclear in scripture, (2) believers are supposed to seek the Lord’s guidance for themselves personally, and (3) no believer ought to ever judge or look down upon another brother who may come to a different personal conviction in these issues . I’m amazed at how many times we may have been “right” on the issue and terribly “wrong” in our spirit c. the issue. There’s much more-and this is not the place to exegete the entire passage-but I’ve been heartened to observe more practice of Romans 14:1 and 15:1 in fundamentalist circles. Such humility and grace is long overdue.
gdwightlarson "You can be my brother without being my twin."
I do think that use of music styles belongs in this category. However, there is a complication that is not directly spoken to in Rom.14 and that is the matter of leadership responsibility and how that factors in.
For example, there are many matters of conscience (that is, the Rom14 category if issues) that I as a husband and father decide for our entire family. And several I do not. Why do I decide any at all? Because within the “matters of conscience” category, not all questions are equally unclear or equally inconsequential. Nor is my conscience persuaded to an equal degree in every case.
So there are matters of judgment a leader—with legitimate biblical responsibility—must carry out for those under his care.
There are analogous expressions in pastoral leadership. The result is that when it comes to the music we use for worship at church, the congregation is free to collectively decide where it would like to draw lines, but I am not free as a pastor to support every possibility.
So the way it works out is that there are some matters that must work a certain way as long as I’m in leadership. People are not required to agree, but are expected to cooperate. It’s not a matter of exerting my will but of doing what my conscience requires. There are worship options I am not free to participate in even though I recognize that my conclusions are not absolutely the only way to understand the principles involved.
So my point is that there ways that conscience intersects with different kinds of responsibility so Rom.14 has to be harmonized with other passages and carried out with that complexity in mind.
Sometimes leaders seem to be “adding to Scripture,” when they are really just leading. But unfortunately, there are many cases as well where they either don’t recognize the true nature of the issue or use unfortunate language to express their convictions.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.” We won’t all agree on even this test, i.e. whether what our brother does is to the glory of God or not. But each one must be persuaded in his own mind (guided and controlled by Scripture) that whatever he does meets that test. He will want to take into account how his activity affects himself, his brother in Christ, the local church, and the testimony of the Body of Christ. Where there is diagreement, the test of the “weaker brother” must come into play. Music, along with many other things, must comply with the high goal of “glorifying God” not merely satisfying man. Above and beyond the gratification that we might ourselves get from the music, there is the greater objective of pleasing God, worshiping God, and reflecting our submission to His Lordship. Whenever we have the choice, we might congregate with those whose taste and convictions in music meet our own perception of what is best.
Discussion