"God Likes Music of All Kinds"

The Bible does not state that God likes all kinds of music. True enough.

But it also does not state that God dislikes any form of music. Based on that one of these is true:

• God likes all kinds of music.
• God only likes certain kinds, but chose not to tell us about His preferences.

Since He tells us to use music in worship, not telling us about His preference, if He has one, seems unlikely. That makes the first "seem" very likely. So, with the "seems" caveat, I agree with Kauflin on this point.

I have a hard time believing that Satan can corrupt all sorts of communication but not music.

In line with Andy’s comment, I also find myself in the uncomfortable middle on the music issue. I also see no specific prohibitions in scripture, but am often considering how to determine in what ways music could be corrupted that could make it unusable, since it makes sense that it could be, and that Satan would certainly attempt it if it’s possible.

Like I suspect is true with most of you (at least those that don’t believe “anything goes”), in light of the fact of the Bible’s relative silence on this issue, I have over the years developed my own standards on what I believe is acceptable for both personal and church use. I have heard sermons, participated in discussions on this topic since at least high school, and I have read many works on this topic, both from the fundamental and conservative evangelical camps (not to mention some completely secular treatises on musical meaning), and I still struggle to see any hard and fast rules I can use. There is far too much “hand waving” in the arguments for me to easily accept them.

It would be much easier if the Bible were more exact on this topic, but clearly that wasn’t God’s intent. That does mean that my standards will not be the same as everyone else’s, and the criteria I use may seem inexact or unconvincing to others, but I have learned to live with that.

AndyE : I have a hard time believing that Satan can corrupt all sorts of communication but not music.

Do you mean that Satan corrupts a form of communication? Or that he uses a form of communication in a corrupt way?

IOW, is the medium itself corrupted by sinful use?

Dan, are you implying that music is a medium only, and cannot communicate anything on its own?

But the fact that music can communicate doesn't mean it itself is corrupted by the corrupt use of it.

The word "hate" means something. And it can be used in corrupt messages. But those uses don't keep it from still being usable for good messages.

As to what music communicates, Scott Aniol has said a lot about that here over the years. Those who study know what music to play when Darth Vader enters the room or when Frodo grasps the Ring. And if you play the wrong music for those scenes, it's not nearly as scary. So music clearly has meaning.

Just like good letters can be used to form a bad word, or like good words can be used to form bad sentences (false, hateful, blasphemous, etc), so good notes can be used to create bad music, i.e., music that is corrupt. That doesn't mean all music is corrupt but that it can be made to be corrupt.

Just like with words, I believe that music’s meaning is highly dependent on context.

Take, for example, the word “hell,” which we use to mean the final destination of the unrepentant. If we use it in English casually in a conversation, e.g. “It’s _____ outside,” we would rightly see that as profane or corrupt communication, but not when used in a sermon. However, in German, that word means “light,” so if I wrote “Es ist hell draußen” (i.e. “It’s light outside”), that word has a whole different meaning. And by the way, that word is pronounced the same, so the very sounds that could be profane when misused can be good in another context, in both languages.

I’ve yet to be convinced that music’s meaning is morally intrinsic in the sense that the sounds it makes can be somehow decisively and unambiguously tied to “good” or “evil” without any possibility of misinterpretation and apart from context.

Intrinsic meaning, of course, is an entirely different question than the one of conxtext, where music, due to our shared background, cultural upbringing, personal associations, etc., can certainly be wrong to the listener due to those factors. That’s what I meant when I said my standards would be seen as inexact by others, when they don’t share the exact same context that I have. Association and background are also different from appropriateness, which is another topic completely, but for me, at least, absolutely figures into the equation of what music to use in which circumstances, and is also affected by context.

I am still waiting for someone to provide an example of music that God doesn’t like that I can hear! The guilt by association doesn’t work. I was told God didn’t like How Great Thou Art because Billy Graham used it, Amazing Grace hit the bad list when sinful Judy Collins hit the top 40 with it, and Rock and Roll and Jazz were banned because they were rooted in the occult practices of Africans. #Backtomyseatinthestands

I agree with what Dave said there. "Hell" is a great example.

As an example of music that I would object to in music, imagine a 40 year old man wrote a song and asked to sing it in church. So we say, ok come in and sing if for us. And it's a silly-sounding song written and performed to the music from "Wheels on the Bus." He sounds like he's impersonating Elmo.

Would I let him sing it in the main gathering worship? No. I would tell him I was suspicious that he was mocking worship. But I would make it clear I'm not judging him. I would tell him that the vast majority of adults watching would assume he was trying to be funny and mock the worship of God.

Would I let him sing it in a Kindergarten Sunday School class? Maybe. It would depend on if I was impressed that he did not intend to mock God.

Corollary questions:

Is "Wheels on the Bus" corrupt? No.

Is it wrong to mock worship? YES.

Is a worship song to the tune of WotB corrupt? Not necessarily. Context matters. If it was my 5 year old son who wrote it and wanted me to sing his Jesus-worshipping version with him at bedtime, I would be delighted to do so.

Todd Wood, an old SI regular, used to say these things were heart-issues. And this example expresses why. But it is NOT simply the heart. The adult in the example might claim a honest heart of worship. That will not matter. If he sings it in the adult gathering, the majority will be very disturbed. Whether he intends it or not, he's communicating mockery.

Dave said:

Take, for example, the word “hell,” which we use to mean the final destination of the unrepentant. If we use it in English casually in a conversation, e.g. “It’s _____ outside,” we would rightly see that as profane or corrupt communication, but not when used in a sermon. However, in German, that word means “light,” so if I wrote “Es ist hell draußen” (i.e. “It’s light outside”), that word has a whole different meaning. And by the way, that word is pronounced the same, so the very sounds that could be profane when misused can be good in another context, in both languages.

Your argument, Dave, is really the old fallacy of playing one note on the piano and saying "what's inherently wrong with that?"

First the word "hell" in German and the word "hell" in English are not the same word. In essence it is a sound, that has different connotations in different languages. I sincerely doubt you can find any linguistic or etymological connection between the same sound in the two different languages.

Second, "hell" in English is only becomes profane by its connotation in certain contexts. I can talk about "hell" in a sermon and not be profaning anything. (Or I could be, if I'm using it expletively.)

I have a hard time saying an individual sound is moral or immoral in itself. It's just a sound. But when you put it in combination with other sounds, it can convey an immoral message (or a profane message, if you prefer that term).

The argument that is made about musical connotation is that certain combinations communicate a profane/immoral/worldly message.

Don, your contention that “hell” is a different word in the different languages is precisely my point. The meaning is externally given, not intrinsic, and even in the same language, it’s dependent on the context. But this isn’t just about one sound or note. That also applies to whole sentences, which are of course gibberish to those who don’t speak the language. I could listen to Chinese for hours and no matter what was said, I wouldn’t be able to classify something that was said as evil, no matter what it was. Tone and inflection might give some very minor help, but I would still have a hard time distinguishing much at all.

In the absence of prior experience with a genre of music, and associations of it, I think it’s impossible to determine any unambiguous meaning, and I’ve read and heard nothing that convinces me otherwise.

>>I have a hard time saying an individual sound is moral or immoral in itself. It’s just a sound. But when you put it in combination with other sounds, it can convey an immoral message (or a profane message, if you prefer that term).<<

This of course is the core of the whole argument. How many sounds in a row does it take to be intrinsically moral or immoral? I wouldn’t want to hear the music behind “We will, we will, rock you,” only 6 notes, used in a religious context, and since I upon hearing those 6 notes know where they came from, I’d not want to personally use them at all. And yet, could someone completely unfamiliar with western culture, and never having heard that song or having knowledge about the words be able to identify that music as evil, lacking external context? I claim the answer is no, and I have yet to have anyone take me up on trying to show me that those 6 notes are evil (if in fact they are, which I strongly doubt).

But OK, you might say, 6 notes is still not enough. Fine, what is the number, and how is it proven?

I absolutely believe music can convey an immoral message, yet I remain unconvinced that any such meaning (message) is intrinsic to the music itself and not provided by external context.

In the absence of prior experience with a genre of music, and associations of it, I think it’s impossible to determine any unambiguous meaning, and I’ve read and heard nothing that convinces me otherwise.

No, if you know the other language, you can know the meaning.

Is it not possible that some would know the language of music, say, better than you or I would (certainly for me!). Or does music as music (not talking the lyrics/poetry), have no meaning at all? Is it just meaningless sound?

Don, it’s not only possible that someone knows music far better than I, I’m pretty sure it’s certain! :)

However, if someone is claiming that music has a discernable language (I mean something more than a vague “this music speaks to me” declaration), that can absolutely speak in terms of good/evil or moral/immoral, then they ought to be able to show me (or anyone) exactly what it is saying and how it does so, just like someone would be able to do with explaining a Chinese word/phrase, and how it expresses those concepts. In other words, any declaration has to be testable if it is expected to be believed. If they can’t do that, I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Let just say that a “Listen to it! It’s obvious!” assertion would be insufficient (at least for me).

The reason I set my own music standards is precisely because I don’t believe that “anything goes.” Personally, I think asking whether God likes music of all kinds is the wrong question. As God has shown for us in the scriptures, some things right in some cases can be wrong in others. We definitely do need to take things written and apply them, and also draw conclusions (as Jesus showed his disciples). I won’t claim that anything not expressly forbidden in scripture is automatically right and usable in all situations, but like Luther, I would expect reason together with what is written to be able to convince me of something that is not expressly obvious from what is written there.

However, if someone is claiming that music has a discernable language (I mean something more than a vague “this music speaks to me” declaration), that can absolutely speak in terms of good/evil or moral/immoral, then they ought to be able to show me (or anyone) exactly what it is saying and how it does so, just like someone would be able to do with explaining a Chinese word/phrase, and how it expresses those concepts. In other words, any declaration has to be testable if it is expected to be believed. If they can’t do that, I reserve the right to be skeptical.

Let just say that a “Listen to it! It’s obvious!” assertion would be insufficient (at least for me).

I think it's very similar to facial expressions / body language. If I roll my eyes when you say something, that has meaning. How do we agree on what that meaning is? Are such meanings nature or nurture?

Here:

However, if someone is claiming that music has a discernable language (I mean something more than a vague “this music speaks to me” declaration), that can absolutely speak in terms of good/evil or moral/immoral, then they ought to be able to show me (or anyone) exactly what it is saying and how it does so, just like someone would be able to do with explaining a Chinese word/phrase, and how it expresses those concepts.

As I've read men on this, I think they have, but you may not agree.

My point, though, in interacting with you this time is your h-e-l-l argument is in error. The German word and the English word are basically one unit of sound. They can't have any meaning without a context (even though you could use the sound by itself, as a single expression, within the context of the language, it has a connotation).

That is very like the argument for "anything goes" when someone plays a single note and says, "What's immoral about that?"

>>My point, though, in interacting with you this time is your h-e-l-l argument is in error. The German word and the English word are basically one unit of sound. They can’t have any meaning without a context (even though you could use the sound by itself, as a single expression, within the context of the language, it has a connotation).<<

It’s certainly possible that my whole argument is in error. I see the word case as just the beginning of an argument, incomplete on its own, but demonstrating the principle. It appears that we mostly agree that one unit/syllable of sound has no meaning without context. I further pointed out that whole sentences and paragraphs (lots of sounds in a row) also are meaningless without the context (if you don’t understand the language, you don’t have the context). So is there any meaning in many sounds spoken in another language without the context? Do those sounds have any intrinsic value? I think how that is answered is important, though you may disagree.

Continuing, how do musical sounds speak any differently, particularly when comparing them with languages that are tonal, or sound more musical to us? I want to go past just playing one note and asking about it’s intrinsic morality, but it’s a starting point. If one sound has none (or its value is too small to be discernable), what makes a string of notes have moral value? And how many of them does it take? Again, I think this is an important question if we are trying to evaluate music as a Christian. It’s unacceptable to me to treat music in a gnostic fashion, where none of us can do any evaluation, and it would all have to be given to us by experts who are unable to explain what they know.

As to experts who think they can show meaning, what I would want to see is the same thing that two men translating a passage in Hebrew would have to show — that they come extremely close to the same meaning, understanding it won’t be exact, but it would still be very close if the meaning is intrinsic and can be discerned.

As to why my position doesn’t lead me to “anything goes,” I’ve already agreed that music can convey meaning. Believing, as I do, that music itself doesn’t contain the meaning, I concentrate on where I can see the conveyed meaning coming from — namely, lyrics, background, associations, appropriateness, etc. (like Dan did with his Wheels on the Bus evaluation). It is very easy for me to discard (or limit) using vast swaths of the worldwide musical library based on those criteria. I frankly do not think worship music should emulate rappers or Led Zeppelin (or Elmo), for example, as those bring up thoughts in my mind that are anything but worshipful (or in some cases, even musical). Based on what scripture says, I don’t want my Christianity (or my personal life for that matter) to take on any unholy attributes of the world we live in.

I’m open to changing my mind on music’s intrinsic value, if it can be shown to my satisfaction that it has such. In the meantime, I find I have plenty of ways to evaluate it that are actually explainable and much more usable.

Dave, I think you have some good points, and I think we are probably pretty close in application, though we get there in different ways. So a few comments on some of what you said:

Continuing, how do musical sounds speak any differently, particularly when comparing them with languages that are tonal, or sound more musical to us? I want to go past just playing one note and asking about it’s intrinsic morality, but it’s a starting point. If one sound has none (or its value is too small to be discernable), what makes a string of notes have moral value?

I think the tone has a lot to do with it. I have heard Amazing Grace, for example, performed in a way that seems to me to be a sensual sound. I don't think it is merely my cultural context or background that associates sensuality with that sound, rather the tone/style is in itself sensual, and I suspect that non-Western people might well be able to pick that up. In other words, I suspect the tone/style communicates widely, if not universally.

I concentrate on where I can see the conveyed meaning coming from — namely, lyrics, background, associations, appropriateness, etc. (like Dan did with his Wheels on the Bus evaluation). It is very easy for me to discard (or limit) using vast swaths of the worldwide musical library based on those criteria.

Meaning certainly comes from lyrics and context, no doubt about that. But in Dan's example of "wheels on the bus," it isn't the lyrics that makes the music inappropriate (as I understand his hypothetical). It is the music itself which I think has a non-cultural/associational connotation. I think a recent Christian immigrant from China or India, say, who spoke little to no English would react to such a performance with surprise and maybe even consternation -- because the sound is wrong. (Of course, if he's been conditioned by Evangelical/Charismatic influences, maybe not.)

Meaning certainly comes from lyrics and context, no doubt about that. But in Dan's example of "wheels on the bus," it isn't the lyrics that makes the music inappropriate (as I understand his hypothetical). It is the music itself which I think has a non-cultural/associational connotation. I think a recent Christian immigrant from China or India, say, who spoke little to no English would react to such a performance with surprise and maybe even consternation -- because the sound is wrong. (Of course, if he's been conditioned by Evangelical/Charismatic influences, maybe not.)

Wait a minute. Are you saying the sound itself is wrong for "wheels on a bus?" Would the song "fishers of men," which has the same sort of melody and repetitive pattern also be wrong?

Are you saying the sound itself is wrong for "wheels on a bus?"

In the sense that the sound would be inappropriate for a Christian worship song, it would be wrong. Would something like that be permissable for a children's Bible song? Maybe.

My point, though, is that the music means something, don't miss that.

In the sense that the sound would be inappropriate for a Christian worship song, it would be wrong. Would something like that be permissable for a children's Bible song? Maybe.

My point, though, is that the music means something, don't miss that.

And I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you think the music for "wheels on a bus" really means. You said, "But in Dan's example of "wheels on the bus," it isn't the lyrics that makes the music inappropriate (as I understand his hypothetical). It is the music itself which I think has a non-cultural/associational connotation."

I think you are misunderstanding Dan's example. I think Dan was saying that the listeners cultural understanding of the lyrics would make them associate the music with secular children's songs such as would be played on Sesame Street. I don't think he was saying that the music itself had associations apart from understanding the lyrics. It would be the same sort of association that would be present for the tunes of "Mary had a little lamb" and Twinkle twinkle little star." We immediately recognize those secular tunes because we've grown up with the lyrics.

You changed the illustration to "a recent Christian immigrant from China or India, say, who spoke little to no English." I assume you changed it so we would be sure to understand that the listener has no prior knowledge of the lyrics with which to associate the music. What exactly then would be the reason for that listener to "react to such a performance with surprise and maybe even consternation" at how inappropriate the sound is? Would such a listener even associate the sound with children's music in general? They might, even though their culture could have different characteristics for children's music. Even so, what is so terribly inappropriate about children's songs in the adult worship time?

I was somewhat skeptical even in Dan's original example when he said, "I would tell him that the vast majority of adults watching would assume he was trying to be funny and mock the worship of God." If such a thing happened in my church, the vast majority would think, "That man sure has a heart for reaching children" as they see all the children in the church perk up. Or they would think, "That man is displaying a child-like faith." Mockery would be the last think we would think is happening.

So Don, do you think children's songs are totally inappropriate for adult worship? Is there some other meaning (other than "children's song) that you feel is present in the playing of the music alone to "wheels on a bus" for someone who has no understanding of the original lyrics?

In previous discussions, you have dragged the conversation far off the topic. I’m not interested in following your rabbit trails. I’ll let what I’ve posted stand. If someone else wishes to engage I’ll be glad to respond

In previous discussions, you have dragged the conversation far off the topic. I’m not interested in following your rabbit trails. I’ll let what I’ve posted stand. If someone else wishes to engage I’ll be glad to respond

I'm really confused. What previous discussions? How am I heading off topic? Is it a "rabbit trail" to ask you about your modification of a previously given illustration in order to make a point of your own? Was Dan's illustration using the specific song "wheels on the bus" where the rabbit trail would have started?

I think the issue of language and meaning is very important. If music is a language akin to any other human language, then we should be able to expect the experts to be able to produce a music-English lexicon for the rest of us.

As far as the OP is concerned, I think it still is a problem to claim that an entire genre of music is evil. Of course one can point to instances of music that is blasphemous or unworthy of our holy God, but that does not necessarily extend to the entire genre. As someone already mentioned, we cannot assume the Satan is able to corrupt entire genres of music, simply because he is able to use a genre to blaspheme. The fact that there are blasphemous novels does not make the entire genre unacceptable for Christians.

For what it’s worth, I’ll clarify:

I intended the setting as adult only.

I would not judge the man as insincere. It is the anticipated perception of insincerity that would determine not letting him.

I’m not saying that childish songs are wrong. Only that in the wrong context they can communicate something wrong.

I would, by the way, in my faith, consider myself weak (unable) to use that song in that context.

>>I suspect the tone/style communicates widely, if not universally.<<

Of course, in my view, the difference between those two is critical. Anything less than universal would indicate context has the value, not anything intrinsic. But as I said, I would evaluate based on my other criteria, and something that sounded like it belonged in a cabaret (even if it’s Amazing Grace) rather than a church service would be something I would not want to use, regardless if it affects the foreign Christian in the same way. Like Dan, I would be the “unable” one in that situation.

Again, I believe the idea of God liking the kind of music is not the important part. God wanted sacrifices from the Israelites when done seriously and in recognition of their sinful condition before a holy God. However, in the prophets, God wrote that he hated their sacrifices when done insincerely. The sacrifice didn’t change, but context absolutely changed the meaning.

There is no such thing in Scripture as "genre." It is a man-made concept into which some seek to invest meaning and necessary characteristics without any biblical evidence to support their positions.

Rajesh, do you believe genres exist? (I only ask because of the above.)

You're visiting someone you know and trust. He tells your kids to go play in the field behind his house while he goes to town. The kids go out and play. While they are playing, a neighbor says, "Be careful where you play. There are landmines."

Your host didn't say there were landmines. He did say to go play. He has gone to town and you can't ask form more than he has already told you. He is trustworthy.

EDIT: He left a note. It says the kids should go play in the field. It says he loves it when kids play in the field. He wants the kids to play on the swing set he put up.

Are there landmines?

This is where the issue of genres or kinds of music comes into play. It is one thing to say that a demonic song is evil and must be avoided, but that does not necessarily apply to an entire musical kind (or if it does, you need to demonstrate how and why). As I see it, you'd have to go piece by piece to show that each composer and/or performer was intending their music to be occult or was sinfully influenced by demonic forces. A blanket condemnation will not do.

This analogy is not even remotely close to accurately representing what is true. God has emphatically warned us repeatedly of the evil deeds of wicked humans who engage in occult practices. He tells us not to have anything to do with them. He has intentionally not given us details about their wicked practices--in fact, He does not even define what those practices are, and yet He forbids those activities!

I understand what you’re saying. But God’s Word explains a lot of heathen worship practices and forbids those.

You didn’t answer the question about playing in the field.

It’s hard to argue with precision for or against the thesis “God likes all kinds of music” without defining what a kind is.

In context, Kauflin is clearly talking about styles, but this is a slippery concept as well. I mean, if you google a bit (or AI of choice), you find that there are a lot of varieties of ‘rock’ and several of them have sub-genres and probably sub-sub-genres by now. Same for jazz, rap, and others. Even classical and metal have a mashup they call symphonic metal.

(I don’t personally recommend it for congregational worship! 😀)

Looking at edge cases, it’s not easy to tell when one ‘style’ ends and another begins.

In any analysis of musical style’s ‘fitness for purpose,’ there are multiple axes to look at. A few…

• Singability
• Focus vs. distraction from what worship is
• Cultural messaging (‘conventional meaning’)
• Lyrics, obviously
• Historical affinity (how well does it connect us with our history as the Church?)
• Purpose: what are people usually trying to accomplish with the style?
• Aesthetic: in art, ugly has a legitimate place and a purpose. Often it’s to set us up for beauty. But in congregational singing… ‘how ugly is it?’ has a different set of criteria for evaluation.

I think the cultural messaging piece is often over looked in these debates, but overlooked in very different ways by the different sides.

• One extreme acts as though cultural messaging/conventional meaning doesn’t exist or matter at all, ignoring it in that way.
• The other extreme assumes the cultural messaging is exactly and only what their instincts are telling them, ignoring it in another way—not examining it.

Lots of other variants there.

But it’s a substantial factor. Anything in a culture that has a style, attaches some meaning to that style. The meaning is pretty messy and time-sensitive. It’s never 100% the same for people of all backgrounds and certainly not for all time. But at any given moment in a culture, there can be some styles that carry a pretty strong consensus in terms of what they are “about.”

So that baggage, if you will, has to be considered.

So some non-musical examples:

• Clothing: in most settings, it would be weird to wear a clown suit to a wedding. The style has meaning.
• Architecture: Brutalism is not what we do when we build churches. (Though we often seem content with pole-barn-ism… don’t get me started!) The architectural style has cultural meaning.
• Music: Most of us don’t feel like the concept of holiness, for example, works well with polka (I did say most! 😀). To me, waltzes seem pretty weird also, though my parents’ generation seems more comfortable with that. But I’m looking for a relatively obvious example. We don’t usually polka during communion…. aside from the ‘mood,’ there is messaging that feeds the mood and vice versa.

Anyway, I love music, making music, and thinking about music, so I could go on and on. I guess my point here is just that style is a complex thing and we should not expect there to be simple answers. …but let’s not assume style carries no meaning. It really does.