"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.