"If we reject a form of music out of hand because it is not the form of music we prefer, then we are trying to kick against the variegated world that the triune God created"

[Steve Newman]
1. We can’t really divorce the music from the words, thus to me it is kind of a false dichotomy. How can I compare different works that glorify sin and give them degrees of right or wrong? I understand the author is saying “divorce the words from the music”, but I don’t really think you can. The words are part of the composer’s “original intent”, should we be so quick to dismiss it?

Well, when it comes to listening, which is really the intent of Wilson’s post, I would generally agree with your point here. However, when it comes to analyzing the music itself, then I would argue the words *have* to be divorced from the music. Of course, we are often really doing one, when we claim to be doing the other.

If you are trying to judge the author’s intent, I would agree that intent is one valid data point, and should not be tossed out without consideration. However, if we are actually attempting to judge the music itself properly, it would be just as interesting to talk about how well (or poorly), or for that matter, if, the music actually accomplishes what the author intended, or if it only furthers the intent to the extent that it has come to be associated with it by long use.

So, from my point of view, I think Wilson mostly ignored the most interesting/usable point about judging music — how we associate it. Whenever anyone is attempting to judge music, and can’t give exact points about what is wrong with the notes, chords, melodies, harmonies, rhythms, etc., but says “I need to hear it,” then they are not judging on the intrinsic good/evil attributes of the music (if indeed such attributes exist), but judging it associatively. I would argue that’s how everyone except musicologists judge any music, and even from them, I’ve never heard any solid evidence that would lead me to believe such elements are truly knowable, even if they do exist. (And yes, I understand that music, like anything else, is affected by the fall and the curse, but the Bible makes it clear it is our hearts and what they imagine that are wicked, not elements of the physical world, like sounds.)

So if we get back to association (which I think goes along well with your second point):

2. While I can have a respect for the artist’s creativity and technical skill, and even understand the message that they are conveying and be able to “sanitize” it and “filter” it and reject the wrong values of the words, and the wrong feelings and emotions it may create in me, is it really helping me? Does it help me with the things I should think about (Phil. 4:8)? How does it help me?
We only have so much time in this world, and if we want to make it count for God, we can do better.

For me, this is where the rubber meets the road. Apart from whether the music is intrinsically good or evil, which better than 99% of us are not equipped to judge (and I’m not sure about the others), why would we really want to use music that is too closely associated to the world/world system? Further, association is something that most mature Christians can easily judge, or at a minimum, it will get much easier as one grows in discernment. A big part (maybe the main meaning) of holiness is to be “set apart.” Why wouldn’t we want a clear delineation between our music and what the world chooses to use, especially in sacred, but even in secular settings? As long as we associate it with something wrong, it’s going to set our thinking on those things, rather than what is of “good report,” regardless of the quality of the music itself.

Music has to be evaluated based on melody, harmony, time signitures, composition, arrangement, performance style, performance skill, cultural expression, text, appropriateness, and association. It’s complex! Musical evaluation necessitates skill in music theory, music history, cultural understanding, poetical refinement, and “theology”. It would be nice to simply boil down all musical choices to three simplistic rubrics, but I think that is just wishful thinking.

Sometimes we use “culture” as a synonym for the worldliness of a particular “aiwn” (age). Othertimes we simply mean a people-group’s “shared understanding made manifest in act and artifact” (Carson, “Christ and Culture”, p. 2) or culture that is apart from and/or opposed to Christ (Carson, p. 12). There is danger in adopting a relativistic view of culture or simply allowing our expressions to be completely determined by our current culture. Since cultures are a mixed bag of good and evil, all cultural expressions have to be examined according to the Scriptures (Phil 4:8). On account of human depravity sin has affected cultural expressions to various degrees. What man does with God’s creation is not morally neutral. It can be good or bad on an incremental level. In common grace God both restrains human depravity and enables cultural good. Furthermore, the gospel has affected some societies more than others leaving a cultural footprint behind.