"God Likes Music of All Kinds"

"Is it sinful for believers to sing Goodness of God?"

Since it was our third song this past Sunday morning, I certainly hope it isn't... =)

This is, in my mind, precisely the place to apply Rom 14. Who am I to sit in judgment of my brother because he is free to do this? If I believe he's wrong, I may try to convince him, but I should be very careful about how I think and speak about a fellow servant of Christ who is praising the Lord in sincerity of heart. And if he were not sincere, I would be unlikely to be able to tell, so I should assume he is unless he tells me otherwise, don't you think?

I agree with those who say that musical style is a matter of weakness/strength(Rom14). Someone might object for one of 2 very different reasons:

1. “It’s a matter of conscience because it’s impossible for any music style to be wrong for any reason.”
2. “It’s not a matter of conscience because some music styles are intrinsically, universally sinful.”

Considered in a spectrum:

AnythingGoes—1—Conscience—2—EvilMusic

You, Don, are concerned about #1. But this thread is about #2.

Rajesh,

I don't see Kauflin mention worship at all in the OP, so I don't think your comparison to animal sacrifices is valid (unless there's more in the context of the book that you did not share). The fact that God declared all that he had made "very good," does indeed imply that he takes pleasure in the richness of creation, even those things which are not acceptable as sacrifices.

I don't know Bob Kauflin, but I sincerely doubt that he believes any and all kinds of music are appropriate or acceptable in worship. That's certainly not in the brief quote above.

RajeshG,

If I were to adopt your view on music and what is and isn't acceptable to God to listen to or perform, I'd have to throw out classical music as no longer acceptable because of all the times its been associated with erotic and occultic practices in its history (especially recently due to latter interpretations due to post-modern, sexual-revolutionary, 3rd and 4th wave feminist and queer influences). To sum, contrary to some people believing that classical music is a dying genre of music, there has been a "queering" of classical music that has rejuvenated it throughout America during the 21st century. While the majority of current professional classical music composers, conductors, and musicians are not queer, there is a sizable minority that are and exert considerable influences in classical music spaces, especially in medium-size and large cities across America. Progressive elites fund them, which is why there have been an increase of feminist and queer interpretations of just about any classical music you could think of, whether it is the Boston's Gay Chorus, reinterpreting Handel's Messiah to celebrate "queer resilience" in their 2020 Pride concert, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra's In Unison program, which promotes LGBTQ diversity, including queer musicians and conductors, through concerts featuring works by LGBTQ+ composers like Copland and Bernstein with its 2021 Pride Concert highlighted queer narratives in classical music, and also several dozen blatenly sexualized interpretations of Rite of Spring, Carmen, Tristan und Isolde, and La Bohème by various famous Ballet companies and Opera Companies across America. By the way, there is a network of over 190 LGBTQ chorus groups (GALA Choruses) throughout America. That is 10X more local groups than BLM local groups throughout America.

I don't think that's the logic Rajesh is following, and quite honestly, it is disengenous to argue this way.

It is not the uses a piece of music is put to that are corrupt, but the message and purpose of the music as conceived.

The theory of those who oppose some styles of music is that they are conceived in a compromised or corrupt mind or for a corrupt purpose, and aren't legitimate for Christian use.

I will grant that the case is challenging to make, that's why we keep having these discussions.

But you aren't going to get anywhere by parading sophistry as logic.

It is not the uses a piece of music is put to that are corrupt, but the message and purpose of the music as conceived.

I don't think this represents what Rajesh has been saying at all. He asserts that the origin of a musical kind renders it either acceptable or offensive to God.

Of course, it would really be impossible for anyone to know with certainty if a particular song had been composed in cooperation with demons (aside from obviously demonic things like drums made from human skulls). And it's also difficult to know if a genre could be rendered completely and permanently out of bounds based solely on its original association.

If someone were totally unaware of a particular genre's association with false worship and wrote a song of that kind, would it still be offensive to God?

Rajesh,

Again I am compelled to ask how we are supposed to know with certainty the origin of each of the musical kinds that might be used in worship. If it has nothing at all to do with ongoing association with the occult, then how can we be certain that the hymns and gospel songs which have been accepted by churches in recent centuries are not part of those kinds that have evil origins and therefore are corrupt and devilish?

What liberty could anyone have to worship by any means? We don't even have record of the music used to sing the psalms, so we can't be sure we're even doing that right, if your view is correct. We are left to seek esoteric knowledge without which we cannot freely worship God at the risk of inadvertently dishonoring him.

There is no biblical basis to hold that such evil people are incapable of
inventing evil combinations of musical elements such that those kinds of
instrumental music are unchangeably unacceptable to God.

Where does the Bible tell us they are capable of this?

You’re not appealing to biblical authority in a consistent way. When you have assumed something and want to claim biblical backing for it, you ask “Where does the Bible say this is not so?” And when you want to challenge what someone else is claiming, you ask “Where does the Bible say this is so?”

You’ll be more effective if you decide what your standard for truth is. If your standard is that the Bible has to say it in order for it to be true, then that should be your standard all the time for all of your own assertions, not just other people’s.

But if your standard is, “It’s true unless the Bible says it is not,” then use that standard all the time, for other people’s assertions also and not just your own.

Otherwise, you’re doing a bait and switch all the time. Which doesn’t argue well for your views.

Rajesh, I wrote a reply to your last, but then I read Aaron’s.

You’ll be more effective if you decide what your standard for truth is. If your standard is that the Bible has to say it in order for it to be true, then that should be your standard all the time for all of your own assertions, not just other people’s.

You really need to understand what he said there.

It is not the uses a piece of music is put to that are corrupt, but the message and purpose of the music as conceived.

The theory of those who oppose some styles of music is that they are conceived in a compromised or corrupt mind or for a corrupt purpose, and aren't legitimate for Christian use.

If you hold to this, what is your view of Jubal in Genesis 4:21? He came from morally corrupt line of Cain. His father Lamech’s sins of polygamy, violence, pride reflect the deepening corruption in Cain’s lineage, contrasting with the hope offered in Seth’s line where they began calling on the name of the Lord. Yet among all these compromised and corrupt minds, It is Cains line where cultural achievements and advancements take place, including Jubal who "was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes." And the reason being is that Cain's line is imaging God, in their cultural achievements and advancements.

This is work of God's common grace, fulfilling the cultural mandate as God's image-bearers where the ungodly can create music that is not evil as part of a corrupt and demonic culture as was the line of Cain. Lets look at a more recent genre of music that was birthed a little over 50 years ago. Most Fundamentalists/conservative Christians have no idea of Hip-Hop/Rap's history and have created their own false revised history so that is why I am going the extra mile in sharing its historical origins. Hip-Hop/Rap started in the early 1970’s in the poorest sections of the Bronx as a positive alternative to the negativity of the gang-life in the streets. And it derives its influences from a number of other African-American and African music genres and cultural aspects, including jazz, ragtime, talking blues songs, Negro spirituals, Black gospel, R&B, West African Griots, and Jamaican “Toasting.” By 1990s corporations saw the $$$$$ potential and contributed to compromising the genre by marketing Gangsta’ and G-Funk rap from the west coast, which glorified street-life, violence, and sex. During this time East Coast Rap, including Hard Core Rap in the 1980s and even the beginning of the 1990s had been socially conscience rap, much more true to Hip-Hop's origins. While telling stories from the streets of the inner-city, it rejected the gangsta life, it was anti-violence, anti-drug dealing, pro-self-discipline, pro-education, pro-family, and also giving first hand accounts of systemic issues of poverty, housing, and racism. When West Coast Hip-Hop began dominating the markets becoming a billion $$$ industry (driven by white suburban youth, which were around 80% of its audience), East Coast began copying their successes and merged with the Gangsta and G-Funk rap, and by the mid 1990s, it had developed into the mainstream Hip-Hop/Rap that dominated the air waves of radio, MTV where the glorifying of street-life, violence and sex overshadowed the socially conscience hip-hop/rap which were its main origins.

Hip-Hop/Rap is also a work of God's common grace. It was conceived with good intentions as a stark alternative to the negativity of the streets. Even though its originators weren't Christians they were using black music elements that had its roots in Negro Spirituals. In fact, the foundational root of Hip-Hop/Rap are Negro Spirituals. It actually influenced all of the genres associated with Hip-Hop. The syncopation of Ragtime, the spiritual testimonial themes of Black Gospel, the improvisation of Jazz, the emotive expressions of R&B, and the storytelling of Talking Blues. What I find is that Fundamentalists/Conservative Christians who take the doctrine of separation beyond what the Scriptures say, functionally deny the doctrine of Common Grace and lack a robust view of what it means to image God in a fallen world.

You want to make a theology of music out of Jubal? As I recall, his line came to a watery end. That would seem to be God's view of it.

Seriously though, the reference to Jubal is too obscure to build much on it.

It is amazing the tortuous ends you take it to with the "image of God" nonsense in all the various genres you endorse

Put differently, many engage in special pleading by taking broad statements such as Romans 1:30 and asserting without any biblical basis that they do not apply to kinds of instrumental music.

So the ability to invent is comprehensive? They are able to invent anything unless the Bible tells us they are not?

Where does the Bible say that ability to invent is unlimited?

Where does the Bible say that ‘broad’ statements are comprehensive, with no exceptions whatsoever?

But let’s suppose for a moment that this ‘rule’ is a real rule. Then these inventors of evil things can also invent evil things that later can be used for good.

Where does the Bible say they are not capable of inventing such things?

The standard of truth problem remains, because you appeal to it arbitrarily, then set it aside when it doesn’t work for the point you want to make.

So… as I noted before:

You’re not appealing to biblical authority in a consistent way. When you have assumed something and want to claim biblical backing for it, you ask “Where does the Bible say this is not so?” And when you want to challenge what someone else is claiming, you ask “Where does the Bible say this is so?”

You want to make a theology of music out of Jubal? As I recall, his line came to a watery end. That would seem to be God's view of it.

Seriously though, the reference to Jubal is too obscure to build much on it.

It is amazing the tortuous ends you take it to with the "image of God" nonsense in all the various genres you endorse

Don, by dismissing my arguments as nonsense or sophistry without providing any substantive counterargument or evidence you are committing the informal logical fallacy of "Appealing to the Stone." It's a lazy way to avoid grappling with the argument's premises or reasoning. You are sidestepping the burden of proof and failing to address the substance, assuming the dismissal alone is sufficient. When it came to Classical Music, its more than just the uses of the pieces of music/interpretations that were corrupt when it came to Rite of Spring, Carmen, Tristan und Isolde, and La Bohème. The composers Stravinsky, Bizet, Wagner, and Puccini purposely wrote them to be sexually erotic at different levels and ended up shocking their audiences, even leading to a riot with Rite of Spring and moral outrage and controversy with the operas (although they've been taken to an entirely new level in the 21st century for the shock value and we've been desensitized to it).

When it comes to Hip-Hop/Rap and its historical origins, this has been a life-long study because of my missionary work in the inner-city. My masters in Intercultural studies and cultural anthropology classes prepared me for research and much of my research in the 1990s and the 2000s was among "Hip-Hop" culture and African-American culture. I've read about 20+ primary sources and about 60 or so secondary sources that corroborate what I just shared on SI. I also have a bachelor's degree in music at Cornerstone U and am classically trained. I spent my last two years in undergraduate studies in my early twenties focusing on ethnomusicology, as I expected to use music in whatever missionary field God would call me to, leading me to study Hip-Hop/Rap and the subculture that created it.

As for Jubal, I am not formulating a theology of music based on Jubal, but what i am doing a theology of culture, highlighting Common Grace which includes Genesis 4 and Jubal and music. I am building on what Calvin, Berkhof, Murray, Kuyper, Kline, and Sproul have already said over several centuries. In Calvin's commentary on Genesis, for example, "Calvin points to Jubal, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Genesis 4:21), as an example of God’s common grace. “Moses now relates that, with the evils which proceeded from the family of Cain, some good had been blended. For the invention of arts, and of other things which serve to the common use and convenience of life, is a gift of God by no means to be despised, and a faculty worthy of commendation”.

Don, by dismissing my arguments as nonsense or sophistry

Joel, I apologize for using the term sophistry. I looked up the term and realized it didn't mean what I intended to say. It implies, as I understand it, dishonesty. I don't think you are being dishonest.

When it came to Classical Music, its more than just the uses of the pieces of music/interpretations that were corrupt when it came to Rite of Spring, Carmen, Tristan und Isolde, and La Bohème. The composers Stravinsky, Bizet, Wagner, and Puccini purposely wrote them to be sexually erotic at different levels and ended up shocking their audiences, even leading to a riot with Rite of Spring and moral outrage and controversy with the operas

On this point, I haven't read many sources on these pieces. I don't think those who hold the position I hold would say that Christians should perform them. The objection, though, is mainly to the literature (the lyrics) and not the music, unless someone objects to dissonance in Stravinsky, for example.

I believe a lot of confusion in this argument has to do with the conjoining of literature and music in songs, operas, etc. They are two different kinds of art joined in one piece.

Finally, the basic argument continues because we are arguing, I think, from two different premises. My premise is that there can be dirty music, just like dirty literature, sculpture, visual arts, etc. Music is not exempt. The competing premise is that music is neutral and only becomes dirty through association or context.

That is the battleground, so it seems fruitless to think we can come to a resolution if the underlying premises remain at odds.

Scripture plainly and irrefutably reveals therefore that humans can and have made things that are unchangeably and intrinsically unacceptable to God.

It does not follow that, because God prohibited the Israelites from tooling stones to build altars, that all chiseled stone altars are and have been polluted "unchangeably and intrinsically."

Why did God prohibit tooling altar stones? I've not heard a convincing argument that wasn't merely speculative, because the Bible does not say.

Was a tooled stone altar prohibited for the patriarchs? Since there is no mention of this issue prior to the giving of the law to Israel at Sinai, I don't see how anyone could make that claim.

It seems to me that Ex 20:25 does not support the idea that things can be made intrinsically and unchangeably unacceptable to God. You need to find something else to support that concept.

I've mostly tried to stay out of this conversation because it seems people are pretty set in their ways and it just seems like a waste of time to try to convince anyone on here one way or the other.

However, I wanted to comment on this statement: "Hip-Hop/Rap is also a work of God's common grace"

I don't think Christians, even conservatives in music like me, have an issue with the idea of rap. The musical, The Music Man, has songs that are rap or rap-like -- "Ya Got Trouble" and "Rock Island" (the opening train scene). The cheers that campers do at the Wilds are often very rap-like. I don't see anything wrong with this sort of rhythmic chanting or rapping. It can be very wholesome and creative and in that sense, a true example of common grace. But when it becomes sexualized, and I'm pretty sure I would object to certain types of beats, that is when it becomes a problem. As far a church music goes, it don't think it is really appropriate, either, because it is a less serious (or more frivolous) form of music/art.

Andy E reminded me of the Easter Sunday I was at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (which emphasizes conservative congregational singing and never does "special music" or choirs). My wife and I were seated next to a young black man with dreads and jeans who was enthusiastically singing the bass line to And Can It Be and keeping me in tune. My culture was shocked when Mark Dever introduced him (Shai Linne) to the church and he performed "Jesus is Alive". I was stunned and blessed at the same time and talked with him at length after the service. I was working at IKEA at the time and one of my unsaved co-workers loved hip hop so I asked him to listen to Shai Linne's Lyrical Theology which is essentially a rap of the shorter catechism. The next day my friend said he liked it and surprised me by being able to give definitions of sin, justification, Grace, and other terms. It turned in to a number of excellent Gospel conversations. Shai's discussion with Scott Aniol about music is excellent.

Do you have any biblical basis for making this claim?

This is another example of what Aaron called your inconsistent appeal to biblical authority. Try again.

the necessity of accepting the truth...does not in any way change the validity of the divine revelation.

You are misrepresenting my objection, whether intentionally or not I can't be sure. At this point, you give little evidence of good faith in discussions at SI.

It should be obvious that such reasoning is completely untenable.

What is obvious is that the sins of witchcraft and bestiality are categorically different from the prohibition of tooling altar stones. The fact that you seem incapable of seeing this explains why you keep swinging and missing when you argue for your own worship preferences at SI.

Ok, so I tried to listen to Shai Linne's Lyrical Theology on YouTube. I picked the one on the Hypostatic Union. I couldn't stand listening for more than a minute or so. I felt dirty listening to that...for at least the reason that that style of rap is just so associated with wickedness in my mind that I can't get past it. I think, but can't prove, that there is a reason more intrinsic than just the association. But at the very least, it is like putting a playboy bunny emblem on the cover of a Bible.

I'm not a huge fan, but I don't have any particular problem listening to Shai Linne. I wonder how much of our reaction to it is conditioned rather than innate. It doesn't strike me as particularly wicked.

What does not follow is that the fact that God doesn’t accept something doesn’t mean that that thing is intrinsically wrong. See, e.g. God’s description in the prophets of not accepting sacrifices made with a wrong heart. The sacrifice itself was not wrong, it was the heart of the one offering it. The same was true when Saul tried to offer sacrifices that the priests were supposed to offer. Again, it wasn’t the sacrifice itself that was wrong, it was the person doing it.

Altars are certainly an interesting case. While God did prohibit using tools on stone altars, the same was manifestly not true with regard to the tabernacle and temple, both of which (including the altars) were made with tools and craftsmen. So we know that stone altars were acceptable without tools, and metal altars were acceptable with (and metal comes from the earth and has to be mined and smelted). I would argue that the use of tools on something didn’t make it intrinsically wrong. Stone was also crafted to build the temple, so use of the stones in worship was not wrong, even if cut — it’s just that cut stone couldn’t be used for altars.

So as far as I can see, the biblical evidence does not lead me to believe that stones cut with tools are intrinsically evil. God just didn’t want an altar made with such, and as has already been said, he didn’t tell us why that was so. If the stones themselves had been defiled, then using them to build the temple would also be wrong.

Ok, so I tried to listen to Shai Linne's Lyrical Theology on YouTube. I picked the one on the Hypostatic Union. I couldn't stand listening for more than a minute or so. I felt dirty listening to that...for at least the reason that that style of rap is just so associated with wickedness in my mind that I can't get past it. I think, but can't prove, that there is a reason more intrinsic than just the association. But at the very least, it is like putting a playboy bunny emblem on the cover of a Bible.

This is anecdotal but because so much of Hip-Hop/Rap comes from styles that were birthed in African-American communities (Negro Spirituals, Ragtime, Black Gospel, Jazz, R&B, and etc...), if it is so evil and sensual, you'd think that our conservative Christian black brothers and sisters in Christ who know Black culture better than anyone, would discern wickedness and sensuality in Hip-Hop/Rap the way that Andy is viewing it. But 95-99% of these conservative Black churches in America don't. The only ones that I know that do were trained by white Type A and few B's (using Joel's Tetreau's taxonomy) fundamentalists with their white fundamentalist cultural baggage who had no idea about black culture and music and were culturally conditioned to see so many of these styles such as Jazz, R&B, Rock, Hip-Hop/Rap as evil and sensual.

I'm not a huge fan, but I don't have any particular problem listening to Shai Linne. I wonder how much of our reaction to it is conditioned rather than innate. It doesn't strike me as particularly wicked.

Yes. We were conditioned to be cultural fundamentalists in regards to music.

Joel,

You yourself said, “By 1990s corporations saw the $$$$$ potential and contributed to compromising the genre by marketing Gangsta’ and G-Funk rap from the west coast, which glorified street-life, violence, and sex” and “East Coast began copying their successes and merged with the Gangsta and G-Funk rap, and by the mid 1990s, it had developed into the mainstream Hip-Hop/Rap that dominated the air waves of radio, MTV where the glorifying of street-life, violence and sex overshadowed the socially conscience hip-hop/rap which were its main origins.”

Since it is all glorifying of street-life, violence, and sex now, why am I dismissed as a racist white fundamentalist if that is what I hear when I listen to the hip-hop/rap styles of today? I truly don’t understand why any Christian would use such styles if they wanted to project Christlikeness. The swastika existed innocently before it took on the stigma it has today. Am I free to use that in my church messaging?

The swastika existed innocently before it took on the stigma it has today. Am I free to use that in my church messaging?

If you find yourself in a church that is blissfully unaware of the Nazi stigma (and if there’s not another evil stigma) then yes. But even then, I would warn them that that symbol represents something horrible in your culture and they need to be careful.

I agree with what Dan said and would say that we should also exercise caution with things like rap music. But caution about cultural associations does not equal condemnation. Unfortunately, I think that distinction has not always been maintained.

You yourself said, “By 1990s corporations saw the $$$$$ potential and contributed to compromising the genre by marketing Gangsta’ and G-Funk rap from the west coast, which glorified street-life, violence, and sex” and “East Coast began copying their successes and merged with the Gangsta and G-Funk rap, and by the mid 1990s, it had developed into the mainstream Hip-Hop/Rap that dominated the air waves of radio, MTV where the glorifying of street-life, violence and sex overshadowed the socially conscience hip-hop/rap which were its main origins.”

Since it is all glorifying of street-life, violence, and sex now, why am I dismissed as a racist white fundamentalist if that is what I hear when I listen to the hip-hop/rap styles of today? I truly don’t understand why any Christian would use such styles if they wanted to project Christlikeness. The swastika existed innocently before it took on the stigma it has today. Am I free to use that in my church messaging?

First of all, I never said or insinuated that all of Hip-Hop/Rap glorifies street-life, violence and sex. Just like any other music genre, it has a blend of the good, bad, and ugly. For instance, the most popular artist in the genre right now, Kendrick Lamar, showed the world at the past Superbowl that one doesn't need to glorify street life, violence and sex to make money and be famous. And even sometimes going after other artists for their sexual deviance like he did with Drake. Instead most (not all) of his music is reminiscent of the socially conscience roots of Hip-Hop/Rap. (there are songs of his that I don't approve of too) Even when the corporations got involved and corrupted Hip-Hop/Rap, there were stil a large segment of artists in the genre that didn't glorify street-life, violence and sex, including Christian Hip-Hop.

Also I never called you a racist, nor do I think you are a racist. I do think you and the small group of those on SI who outright oppose and dismiss Hip-Hop/Rap as a whole as intrinsically wicked, sensual, and worldly are culturally ignorant about African-American culture and as I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, haven't developed a robust theology of culture, especially when it comes to common grace. I do think that many white fundamentalists (type A some type B) have very limited interactions with their black conservative Christian brothers and sisters. The example of Ron Bean's interaction with Shai Linne is what is needed. In our inner-city ministry, over the years, we've used Shai Linne's music to teach theology and like Ron's friend, they had the same reaction because it spoke to their heart language.

What most people don't realize is because Hip-Hop/Rap is so word-centered-dominated, most people, especially among those 50 and under who grew around the genre or listening to the genre, aren't associating the beat/rhythm with sensuality unless the words are sensual. They are so in tuned with the words. Most of my students can quote the lyrics of hundreds of songs verbatim. Which is why Shai Linne's music is important as a teaching tool in our urban context. Its about the words.

What's sad is that the shrinking IFB slice of Fundamentalism that views Hip-Hop/Rap as you do come across as viewing an urban missionary like myself or my conservative black Christian brothers and sisters in Christ as spiritually inferior as if we are not pursuing Christ-likeness and Holiness.

Comparing Hip-Hop/Rap to a Nazi Swastika is quite the false analogy fallacy. A Swastika is a symbol tied to extreme ideology and historical atrocities of genocide while Hip-Hop is a cultural and artistic music genre.