Why Certain Types of Music Make Our Brains Sing, and Others Don’t

Interesting. We like music in the style with which we are familiar, but with a few surprises in between the predictable. Similarity with only a moderate amount of variety. Good formula.

Since this is a secular study, it doesn’t account for changes in likes/dislikes produced by the Holy Spirit after trusting Christ as Savior. Before I was saved I listened to and liked the Beatles and many other similar groups and styles. Today I do not listen to nor like that music and do not have any desire/interest for it.

[WallyMorris]

Since this is a secular study, it doesn’t account for changes in likes/dislikes produced by the Holy Spirit after trusting Christ as Savior. Before I was saved I listened to and liked the Beatles and many other similar groups and styles. Today I do not listen to nor like that music and do not have any desire/interest for it.

That’s an interesting observation. I also listen to almost no “popular”-type music any longer, but not because every single bit of it is musically uninteresting to me, or because I believe the music itself is wrong or problematic. It’s pretty much because the lyrics/associations/etc. of most of that music is opposed to what is laid out in God’s word, and I avoid it on that basis.

[WallyMorris]

Since this is a secular study, it doesn’t account for changes in likes/dislikes produced by the Holy Spirit after trusting Christ as Savior. Before I was saved I listened to and liked the Beatles and many other similar groups and styles. Today I do not listen to nor like that music and do not have any desire/interest for it.

….the music used in the study is the joik of the Sami, a people that were mostly shamanistic when these genre were created (many still are). So if we believe that pagan origins of music prevent its use today, precisely what are we going to be able to learn from this study other than that certain features of “pagan” music are preferred and noted by non-members of the group?

For my part, I remember that guilt by association is a fallacy that ought to have no place whatsoever in our discourse. Everything has guilty associations, especially music (there are no traditions without a pagan association that anyone who knows music can figure), and hence applying GBA arguments necessarily becomes an exercise in pointing fingers at the bete noire du jour, be that jazz, blues, rock & roll, rap , or whatever.

I grew up enjoying all types of music. I was saved in my late 20’s and I was taught by the music “experts” of the time ( Garlock, Larson, etc.) that practically all types of music were sinful. (Except for hymns, most classical music, and some opera) I came to realize that what I was taught had no solid biblical basis but was based heavily on GBA fallacies, fictional illustrations, misapplication of Scripture, and falsehoods. Music, like art and food, that gives me pleasure is something I can thank God for! (And of course I don’t listen to music with profane, blasphemous, or vulgar lyrics.)

I’ll grant that association doesn’t necessarily make something wrong, per se. And I agree that past associations are not always (or even usually) indicative of current ones. However, if, in my mind, music I hear consistently brings up images or thoughts of something sinful, that causes me to avoid that music because of association. Call that what you will.

Avoiding something myself for my own sanctification/benefit is hardly committing a GBA fallacy. If you want to call that a Romans 14 “weak” conscience, I’m quite OK with that. Each of us is sometimes the strong or the weak depending on the situation, and each of us has to answer to his own master.

[Bert Perry]

Everything has guilty associations, especially music (there are no traditions without a pagan association that anyone who knows music can figure)

The claim that “everything has guilty associations” is false. Things that God Himself has made cannot legitimately be rejected because of their supposedly having “guilty associations.”
The claim that all kinds of music have pagan associations is also false and begs the question of the origin of all kinds of music as being pagan.

If all of our music is created by people, and it is, Romans 3:23 applies. Yes, Rajesh, everything has guilty associations. This is pretty much fundamental. You cannot have music composed and performed by sinners without any association with sin.

And this is why we don’t want to apply GBA fallacies. Given that we know we must have some music in the church, using GBA becomes an exercise in deciding which associations with sin we’re going to act on, and which ones we’re going to ignore. Long and short of it is that it tends to become a decision made on the basis of personal bias, which generally makes these things an exercise not of discernment, but to various degrees of bigotry.

First, discussions about music are not merely about guilt by association. Second, guilt by association is a real guilt at times.

Lastly, unless Bert or Rajesh are going to say something new that you haven’t said in the past multiple long discussions is this, then don’t comment. Let’s not continue the nonsense we have had one the past.

[Larry]

First, discussions about music are not merely about guilt by association. Second, guilt by association is a real guilt at times.

Lastly, unless Bert or Rajesh are going to say something new that you haven’t said in the past multiple long discussions is this, then don’t comment. Let’s not continue the nonsense we have had one the past.

Larry, if we narrow the question to arguments that particular kinds of music are sinful, we have two basic categories:

1. Sinful lyrics. I’m not aware of anyone who actually says we ought to have sinful lyrics in church, so something of a moot point. People debate what constitutes that, but the principle is accepted by all parties.

2. Allegedly sinful instrumentation/genre/techniques/rhythms/etc.. This is where the bulk of the actual debate is.

Regarding that second category, it’s instructive that the Bible does not name any instrument, meter, time signature, melody, harmony, or other musical category as sinful. What is done—as Rajesh and Garlock do—is almost always that the music has some connection with some kind of sinful, pagan religion.

In other words, guilt by association. And since we have no Biblical record of what is and is not acceptable, that’s really the only argument that you can make.

It is also a very selective and “creative” GBA, as again, joik’s a pagan art form, so if there’s guilt to be had by association, there you go. And in that light, it’s very instructive that Rajesh uses a study of pagan music to argue, really, for his preference for the music predominantly of western European protestants as filtered by those such as Majesty Music. I may as well use a study on harp adaptations of the music of Metallica to justify my love of Gregorian chant or the toccatas of Bach or Widor.

Regarding that second category, it’s instructive that the Bible does not name any instrument, meter, time signature, melody, harmony, or other musical category as sinful. What is done—as Rajesh and Garlock do—is almost always that the music has some connection with some kind of sinful, pagan religion.

In other words, guilt by association. And since we have no Biblical record of what is and is not acceptable, that’s really the only argument that you can make.

No, it’s not instructive, it’s not the typical argument, it’s not necessarily guilt by association, and it’s not the only kind of argument you can make.

First you are treating the Bible like a catalog or index, which is isn’t. The Bible does not set out to identify every single sin by explicit reference. It would make no sense.

Second, the argument that is typically made is not that the music is merely associated with something sinful (though biblically that might be enough to help if we actually accept the Bible). It is about the inherent thing that music does. And it is not a fundamentalist Christian argument. It has been made by many who are not Christians. We can debate whether that is correct, but at least understand the argument that is being made.

For instance, the Bible says to build one another up with words. But the Bible doesn’t define what those words are. It expects you to know something about words, about language, about communication, about the person, and about the culture in which you are speaking. We probably agree that using the “F” word towards someone is sinful. Yet there is no verse that identifies that word as sinful. We don’t need it.

Most parents have, at one time or another, corrected their children on their tone of voice: “Don’t speak to me in that tone of voice.” So what would we say if the child says, “God never defines a voice tone that is disrespectful. Therefore, I can speak to you in any tone I want”? No parent would accept that, nor should they. We know something about culture and something about how to apply Scripture to life. Or at least we should know.

Bottom line for me, Bert, is that for all your talking, you don’t seem to understand that actual arguments and issues.

Having said all that, you have hammered this in multiple threads. There is no need to rehash it all here. Move ahead with some new argument. Or frankly, it is completely okay to not comment. Let Rajesh say what he wants. No need to get involved in it.

The notion that everything made by humans “has guilty associations” that are relevant because of Romans 3:23 is a faulty notion. Consider what Scripture taught about something that certain humans were to make:
Exodus 30:25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

God commanded certain humans to make this holy anointing oil. All the humans that ever obeyed this command had “sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Nonetheless, God commanded them to make an oil that God declared was holy. In obedience to God, many people in Israel’s history made this holy oil.
Asserting that this holy anointing oil had “guilty associations” because of Romans 3:23 because those who made it were sinners does not establish anything of relevance or significance concerning divine acceptance of the legitimate human making of that oil and of the legitimate human use of that oil for the purposes for which God commanded that it would be used in His service.

From the standpoint of Romans 3:23, both Cain and Abel were humans who had “sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

God, however, accepted Abel and his sacrifice, but did not accept Cain and his sacrifice:

Gen. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Clearly, the notion that everything “has guilty associations” because of Romans 3:23 is a faulty and irrelevant notion for explaining God’s differing responses to the worship offerings and activities of these two sinful humans.