Should Christians listen to secular music?

I think I got this from Scott Aniol, but popular music as a term that means anything refers to the music that developed when technology allowed music to be heard far and wide, whereas the music of the past was far more limited in distribution and quantity. We have pop music, pop culture, etc, largely a 20th century phenomenon that is the result of electronic distribution of music.

Pop doesn’t just mean popular, as in what common people like. It refers to the music that developed along with pop culture.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Yes, but “pop culture” existed within smaller community groups since time began even if the term didn’t. The broadening of culture gave birth to the term, to be sure.

I don’t have a problem with your definition, but the term defies being an aphorism. When I wrote for music websites, the term was used, by myself and others, in a variety of ways. I learned that not everyone meant the same thing with it. The more musically geeky the person, the tighter the definition becomes.

Now, and steering it back to this thread, and regardless of how the term is used, I believe that pop music lacks transcendence and, as such, is probably inappropriate for the worship service. I think that’s something that you and I probably agree on, Don.

I was actually joking about Frank Garlock …

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Yes, I agree with John about pop music however you define it. And one problem with these conversations is that we don’t all mean the same thing by the terms we both use.

One more thing on the definition I think of with the term, again as I recall I think this is from Aniol. That is, pop culture/pop music came with the ability to widely commercialize the pop products. I realize styles and fashions come and go, that’s always been true. However, style changes were much slower when communication was slower. When the average distance of a day’s travel was about 20 miles or less, you just couldn’t find out what was the latest in Rome or Jerusalem or wherever overnight. The Industrial Revolution profoundly changed things. We have a little bit of an idea of that with the Computer Age we are in right now. But I think the Industrial Revolution changed things more profoundly than any of us can realize. So when Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, suddenly the common man could easily and cheaply bring music into his life. And thus pop music/culture was born.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

So was I. I gave up on Garlock when I discovered that listening to good music didn’t improve my eyesight and that Black Sabbath wouldn’t kill the weeds in my garden.

I’m at the point now where I’m finding some of the music debates a bit amusing.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

I’m wondering whether trying to define “pop” music really adds much when we’re talking about whether it’s suitable for the church. Is “least common denominator” inherently a bad thing? William Booth didn’t think so. Is the perceived velocity of change necessarily a bad thing? Those interacting with multiethnic (and Biblically orthodox) churches would beg to differ.

I’m no fan of pop music, especially if it’s “light rock” or (worse yet) the modern habit of pretty much using instrumentalists to fill empty space with no real melodies or harmonies (endemic in CCM these days), but I think the church has squandered a ton of chances to achieve some really great things with music by concentrating on perceived genre and instrumentation while ignoring the tools of music, poetry, and theology that can be applied to create works that truly do communicate the Word of God to the people of God in a winsome way—and as far as I can tell, that is precisely what is at stake in church music.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Having a concert of Hollywood musical standards would seem to conflict with the historic movie prohibition at BJU, no? Or am I reading Pensacola into Greenville?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Popular music as a term that means anything refers to the music that developed when technology allowed music to be heard far and wide, whereas the music of the past was far more limited in distribution and quantity.

I find this definition somewhat amusing. Music has been around since the first men walked the earth in Genesis 4:21, but because it wasn’t able to be heard “far and wide”, it doesn’t count as popular music? Really? In essence, there was no such thing as “pop” music before the existence of radio?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

existed long before the phonograph. It existed in sheet music (Stephen Foster anybody?), parlor pianos, and player pianos. If pianos were unavailable then folks picked up a violin\fiddle or a penny whistle.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

“Lowest common denominator” isn’t necessarily a bad thing (morally/function or aesthetically/form). But it is a thing, and it’s a thing that many Christians, much less people in general, consider.

Pop music existed long before the phonograph. It existed in sheet music (Stephen Foster anybody?), parlor pianos, and player pianos. If pianos were unavailable then folks picked up a violin\fiddle or a penny whistle.

I had a really, really hard time thinking that any barroom songs in the Wild West would be anything other than Pop music. I mean, Revolutionary and Civil War soldiers had their own ditties and songs to pass the time. So limiting the definition of pop music to the radio or the phonograph seems to be a little…disingenuous.

As for the Titanic musical at BJU - I’ve been wanting to see that for a LONG time, so I find it amusing that BJU, of all places, is the first place I know of that is actually showing it. The musical itself, I thought, was really well done and probably should have been a bigger hit on Broadway.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I agree with you that in a general sense pop music extends way past the time of the phonograph. But, to be fair to those who are using a different definition, I don’t think it’s disingenuous to use a more limited definition. There are legitimate definitions of the term that preclude pre-WWII music. Disagreement doesn’t necessarily indicate disingenuousness. Pop music is a nebulous term. My daughter and I disagree on what it means.

As far as musicals (and this correct opinion gets me in trouble in my own house with my musical loving wife and daughter) - musicals are the retchings from the dregs of the aesthetic barrel’s bottom.

[John E.]

“Lowest common denominator” isn’t necessarily a bad thing (morally/function or aesthetically/form). But it is a thing, and it’s a thing that many Christians, much less people in general, consider.

Agreed. My big quibble is to ask whether, as we try to determine what is acceptable or wise to either listen to and/or use in church, the use of that label actually gets us anywhere. I simply don’t think it does; we need to learn a bit about music and poetry instead, not to mention theology.

Same thing with the label of “pop” music. To me, it’s generally just a nice throwaway term used in well-intentioned, but misguided, polemics, and it tends to result in an almost deliberate vagueness that results in sad but hilarious comparisons of CCM and secular musicians.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.