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.
- 21 views
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
Discussion