"God Likes Music of All Kinds"
In his chapter God, My Heart, and Music in the book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, Bob Kauflin writes,
Actually, it seems that God likes music of all kinds. No one style can sufficiently capture his glory or even begin to reflect the vastness of his wisdom, creativity, beauty, and order. That doesn't mean some kinds of music aren't more complex or beautiful than others. It just means no single genre of music is better than the rest in every way.
Tellingly, Kauflin offers no biblical support of his own for these statements.
I believe that wrong claims such as these (by Kauflin and others) about God and His supposedly liking "music of all kinds" is one of the chief reasons that we have the debacle that we have musically in the Church in our day.
[Joel Shaffer said:]Your reliance on Deuteronomy 12:30–31 to argue all ANE musical practices were “wicked” misapplies the text, which prohibits idolatry (e.g., child sacrifice), not neutral forms like lyres and other instruments used in processions or poetry set to music.
You misinterpret what the passage says. God did not just prohibit idolatry; He prohibited what they did in their idolatry. That prohibition included inquiring about the musical aspects of their idolatry.
[Joel Shaffer said:]Your use of Achan (Joshua 7) is irrelevant, as his sin involved taking devoted items (Joshua 6:18–19), not cultural exchange. Solomon’s trade with Hiram (1 Kings 5) and Ophir (1 Kings 10), blessed by God (1 Kings 3:13), supplied instrument materials, corroborated by archaeology like Hazor cymbals (Braun). Dismissing this as “nonsense” isolates your view from biblical and scholarly credibility.
Divine revelation about under-the-ban cities/peoples is not irrelevant at all.
The Israelites had been in Egypt for more than 400 years. The nations whom God put under the ban were very far away. When Israel would come into the land, God prohibited all interaction with those people. There was no cultural exchange between Israel and those under-the-ban peoples such that Israel borrowed any of their kinds of music, least of all any of their kinds of occult music.
Without any evidence of any interaction with those under-the-ban nations in Scripture, you merely assume to be true what you want to be true.
As for the "trade" passages, they do not prove anything about Israel's adopting occult kinds of Canaanite music for the worship of Yahweh. According to your reasoning, we should find Israel importing instruments from the surrounding wicked nations--not the materials that were used to make musical instruments.
Furthermore, we should read of Israel's seeking out the finest pagan makers of occult instruments and bringing them to Israel to teach Israel how to make such occult instruments that please God. We, however, read of no such "cultural exchange."
In addition, it is telling that when all the nations that came to hear and learn from Solomon's God-given wisdom brought gifts to king Solomon, there is not even the slightest hint of anyone bringing their excelling occult musical instruments to him as gifts.
Any notions that the nations all around Israel had excelling occult musical instruments and kinds of music that were acceptable to God for use in worship are baseless notions.
Aaron: ...But Don’s got a point for sure, too, because, as modern music shows, you can do a very wide variety of “styles” on the same instruments.
What mitigates in this case, though, is that music hadn’t been around as long and the means of preserving musical memory weren’t so advanced. There were no recordings, little or no musical notation systems, no published works. The result is that “styles” would have been a much simpler concept and much more scoped by the instruments themselves.
This, too, I think we need to subject to the standard of sufficiency. IF certain musical styles are hated by God (beyond the semiotic and associational difficulties we have mentioned), then He could have led His people to notate musical style in a way that served to warn us of those dangers.
So the lack of a notation system pretty strongly suggests that it wasn't deemed necessary. The Word of God is sufficient without including a music notation system and without including warning about styles.
So the lack of a notation system pretty strongly suggests that it wasn’t deemed necessary. The Word of God is sufficient without including a music notation system and without including warning about styles.
I’m not sure sufficiency can argue that way. But maybe…?
Someone could counter argue that, God having chosen to limit the Bible to 66 books completed millennia ago, there’s a lot we have to derive from a broad sufficiency. It ends up being a question of categories, maybe. Can we generalize that if Scripture doesn’t instruct us about a whole category of things, those things are not important, or we shouldn’t build an ethic based in inferences? I think that would not hold up.
To me, it’s a stronger argument to just face the fact that we do not have information in Scripture about _______ (fill in the blank) and so we have to carefully derive anything we try to establish from Scripture on that, and assign our work an appropriate level of certainty (the more complex the deriving, the lower the certainty.)
Furthermore, we should read of Israel’s seeking out the finest pagan makers of occult instruments and bringing them to Israel to teach Israel how to make such occult instruments that please God. We, however, read of no such “cultural exchange.”
In addition, it is telling that when all the nations that came to hear and learn from Solomon’s God-given wisdom brought gifts to king Solomon, there is not even the slightest hint of anyone bringing their excelling occult musical instruments to him as gifts.
Rajesh, you’re continuing to vacillate between two standards. When there’s a point you want to establish as true, biblical silence is enough for you, but if someone else wants to make a contrary point, they are required to have more than silence and must produce chapter and verse. So is the standard that Scripture has to say something or is it that it doesn’t have to say something?
(For my part, the correct answer is that “it depends,” and we’re talking about reasoning in valid ways both from what it says and what it does not. So valid reasoning becomes increasingly important when the case for a view is complex.)
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.
You claim that you are not using the appeal to authority fallacy and only using their evidence. Later, you say that there are no scholars that "have come to a different conclusion . . . You won't find them. They don't exist."
By talking about the uniform conclusion that you assert that all the scholars have reached, it is clear that you are appealing to their authority (in arriving at that uniform conclusion) and not just their evidence. In addition, you are using the argument from consensus fallacy when you say that there are no scholars that disagree.
I hate to point this out to you, but you are putting your own spin on the appeal to (argument from) authority fallacy. It's not a fallacy to appeal to authority when the authority is relevant, there is a unanimous consensus, and there is strong (archeological) evidence to support the claim. The fallacy occurs when people rely on a weak or unrelated authority or ignore evidence in favor of the authority's status. When experts in a field completely agree, they are citing the evidence itself because the experts reflect the collective findings of their field.
Let me give you another example of why your “anything goes” view of Appeal to Authority is problematic. If your spin on the argument from authority fallacy is true, then flat-earthers could argue that round Earth proponents are appealing to authority when they make the claim that the earth is round based, even though every expert/scientist in their relevant fields agrees with the mounds of evidence that demonstrates the earth is round. If everything is "appeal to authority" than nothing is.
I suspect that all the scholars that Joel cites above presuppose that instrumental music is inherently either neutral, amoral, or good. Having such a presupposition certainly affects how one reads whatever data or evidence one claims to be evaluating in a scholarly fashion. I and many others hold that presupposition to be entirely untenable.
Presuppositions matter if they distort evidence, but scholarly work is judged by data, not assumptions. Braun’s “Levantine musical koine” is based on primary sources (KTU 1.108, Hazor cymbals), not philosophical bias. Ugaritic texts, trade, archaeology stand regardless of scholars’ views on music’s morality, as they document historical practices, not ethical claims.
You misinterpret what the passage says. God did not just prohibit idolatry; He prohibited what they did in their idolatry. That prohibition included inquiring about the musical aspects of their idolatry.
No, you are arguing from silence and ignoring the overwhelming archeological and historical evidence. ANE cultures, whether it was in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, had similar instruments. As Aaron has pointed out, and the surviving Ugaritic texts confirm, ANE music styles were instrument-driven, limited by the instruments themselves. For instance, certain lyres/harp, ancient Israel’s kinnor (1 Chronicles 15:16), and the Canannite Ugaritic knr (KTU 1.108), likely had 5–7 strings, tuned for pentatonic scales, per Burgh. The music was so similar because the instruments were so similar. The poetry set to music was similar. The only difference was that Israel's similar music style that was driven by the same instruments used by the pagan ANE nations, were used to worship Yahweh with them.
No, you are arguing from silence and ignoring the overwhelming archeological and historical evidence. ANE cultures, whether it was in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, had similar instruments. As Aaron has pointed out, and the surviving Ugaritic texts confirm, ANE music styles were instrument-driven, limited by the instruments themselves. For instance, certain lyres/harp, ancient Israel’s kinnor (1 Chronicles 15:16), and the Canannite Ugaritic knr (KTU 1.108), likely had 5–7 strings, tuned for pentatonic scales, per Burgh. The music was so similar because the instruments were so similar. The poetry set to music was similar. The only difference was that Israel's similar music style that was driven by the same instruments used by the pagan ANE nations, were used to worship Yahweh with them.
Wrong. You appear to falsely believe that archaeology provides us with comprehensive and totally unbiased information about all the musical practices of the wicked peoples around Israel. You have no factual basis for holding that belief.
The Bible explicitly speaks of the wicked occult practices (not idolatry) of the evil peoples who lived around Israel. You argue by silence that since the Bible does not say anything about unacceptable kinds of music as an aspect of those occult practices, that there were no unacceptable kinds of music that they used in their occult activities.
You also in effect argue by silence when you hold that the kinds of instrumental music of even the idolatry of the peoples around Israel were all acceptable to God since God does not specify in passages such as Deut. 12 that the musical aspects of the idolatry of the evil peoples were evil.
Moreover, you seem to be completely unmindful of the demonic aspects of idolatry and the occult. Demons can and have influenced wicked humans to make unacceptable musical instruments and play them in evil ways that are not acceptable to God. No amount of argumentation from ANE information, unbiblical claims about trade, etc. establishes anything about any divine acceptance of the demonic aspects of the wicked kinds of occult music and musical instruments of the evil peoples around Israel.
Aaron: Can we generalize that if Scripture doesn’t instruct us about a whole category of things, those things are not important, or we shouldn’t build an ethic based in inferences? I think that would not hold up.
This makes sense. And I agree that there’s a whole level of discernments that go beyond the explicit prescriptions of the Word. Sieves is a term I think we have used for this here at SI.
Philippians 1:9-11 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
That passage demands that we synthesize love, knowledge, and discernment to approve what is excellent.
Approve what is excellent is also seen in Romans 2:18 “and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;”
The same word for approve is seen in Romans 12:2 and 14:22.
I’m not arguing that Rajesh’s conclusions are wrong in the sense that they are binding on him.
Genesis 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
Numbers 10:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps.
Comparing these two passages points to a vital truth: the Spirit directly states that the making of the silver trumpets was divinely commanded and directed. Later in the passage, God adds instructions about certain specific uses of those trumpets.
We know, therefore, that the making of those trumpets and their uses that were in keeping with what was divinely specified was all of God and therefore entirely pleasing and acceptable to Him.
By contrast, Genesis 4:21 does not reveal any divine direction or specification concerning those instruments and their uses. To hold that what Jubal or the others who are in view in Genesis 4:21 did on those instruments was all of God and therefore all of it was pleasing and acceptable to God would be to make false claims for which the Bible provides no support.
By contrast, Genesis 4:21 does not reveal any divine direction or specification concerning those instruments and their uses. To hold that what Jubal or the others who are in view in Genesis 4:21 did on those instruments was all of God and therefore all of it was pleasing and acceptable to God would be to make false claims for which the Bible provides no support.
I'll go one step further, Rajesh. To hold that what Jubal or the others in view in Gen 4:21 did on those instruments was of the devil and therefore corrupt and offensive to God would be to make false claims for which the Bible provides no support.
I'll go one step further, Rajesh. To hold that what Jubal or the others in view in Gen 4:21 did on those instruments was of the devil and therefore corrupt and offensive to God would be to make false claims for which the Bible provides no support.
You seem to have overlooked a key word that I repeated in my statements: "all."
To hold that what Jubal or the others who are in view in Genesis 4:21 did on those instruments was all of God and therefore all of it was pleasing and acceptable to God would be to make false claims for which the Bible provides no support.
As with what I said in my opening post, the false claims that I am addressing in this thread concern statements of universal divine approval of all kinds of music, all the music of Jubal et. al., etc.
Since you have responded to my very specific statement with an unspecified claim, I am not sure what you are actually asserting. If you are claiming that none of the music of Jubal or the others in view in Gen. 4:21 was of the devil, you are making a statement for which there is no biblical support.
You seem to have overlooked a key word you used in your comment. You admit that "Genesis 4:21 does not reveal any divine direction or specification concerning those instruments and their uses." How do you know Jubal's music was not all acceptable to God?
It seems to me that we cannot make any statement whatsoever about the relative morality of Jubal's music. We certainly can't condemn entire genres simply because they were invented by sinners.
Right.
And we have some names of instruments. That’s all. None of this gets us any closer to understanding a style that God approved or disapproved of.
Even the specific organs are questionable in their designation. I know what I think of when I read “organ” and I don’t think anyone in the Old Testament had one.
We certainly can't condemn entire genres simply because they were invented by sinners.
Why do you believe that this is true? If you have biblical support for the statement, what is it?
I refuse to be held to a standard you won't abide by. If explicit Scriptural prohibition is required, then specific Scriptural warrant is also required.
I refuse to be held to a standard you won't abide by. If explicit Scriptural prohibition is required, then specific Scriptural warrant is also required.
I cannot figure out what you are saying.
Do you have any Scripture that defines, let alone condemns, any genre of music? In spite of the myriad of posts and comments you have made on this site, you have yet to demonstrate this one foundational claim.
Do you have any Scripture that defines, let alone condemns, any genre of music? In spite of the myriad of posts and comments you have made on this site, you have yet to demonstrate this one foundational claim.
I have argued at length in many of my threads about kinds of music that God does not accept.
Here is part of a treatment that I have done of the subject in a post on my blog:
The Singing of a Harlot
Isaiah prophesied that Tyre would “sing as an harlot” (Is. 23:15). He provides further information about such singing by saying, “Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered” (Is. 23:16).
A harlot, by biblical definition, engaged in immoral behavior. In keeping with the mercenary goal of her activities, she used every means possible to enhance her sensuality and seductive appeal to maximize her earnings (cf. Luke 15:13, 30).
To “sing as an harlot,” therefore, cannot be limited only to the identity of the woman and the sensuality of the lyrics (cf. Prov. 6:24; 7:21) that she sings. It necessarily entails as well the maximized sensuality of her dress (Prov. 7:10; Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 16:16) and her makeup/ jewelry/hairstyle/ facial expressions (Prov. 6:25; 7:13; Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 16:39; 23:40; cf. Is. 3:16-26).
Moreover, her bodily movements (cf. the unstated but clear . . . sensuality of the dancing of Herodias’ daughter [Matt. 14:6-7]) and vocal techniques were specifically designed to maximize her sexual appeal . . .
It also involved her playing a musical instrument (“take a harp”) and having an extensive repertoire (“sing many songs”). She was one who in fact was skilled “to make sweet melody.”
Thus, her singing was skillful and beautiful to hear, but it was also sensual to the core. Such music patently could never be the product of the Spirit’s filling a believer.
From this analysis of biblical teaching about harlots, we certainly can conclude that to “sing as an harlot” is a style that is unacceptable to God because of its sensuality. Any Christian music, whether traditional or CCM, that has even the slightest similarity to the music produced by those who “sing as an harlot” is unacceptable to God.
You say:
From this analysis of biblical teaching about harlots, we certainly can
conclude that to “sing as an harlot” is a style that is unacceptable to God because of its sensuality.
I happen to agree with your conclusion, but that conclusion is not the same thing as a direct Biblical statement.
I think that is what pvawter is trying to get you to see.
You have to reason to your conclusion. It is not the same thing as the Bible saying: "there is this style of music, and behold, it is evil."
I agree, there is ample Biblical revelation that leads us to a conclusion that there is acceptable and unacceptable musical styles. But I have yet to see a passage that directly defines an unacceptable style and condemns it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Thanks for helping to clarify what I've been saying.
Rajesh,
You conclude with this sentence: "Any Christian music, whether traditional or CCM, that has even the slightest similarity to the music produced by those who “sing as an harlot” is unacceptable to God." That's all well and good, but it doesn't do much to help identify whether a particular song or genre actually resembles the harlot's song.
Based on the descriptors you gave the harlot's song is sung 1)by a harlot, 2)consisting of sensual lyrics, 3)while dressed sensually, 4)dancing sensually, 5)using sensual vocal techniques, 6)playing a musical instrument [no skull drum, either, but the harp, a sacred instrument!], and 7)having a large repertoire. I'm still baffled as to how any of this would be applied to the music of Bob Kauflin, for example, since he is one of the men you have criticized in this thread.
No one, and I mean no one, is suggesting that we use a harlot's song in Sunday worship.
You conclude with this sentence: "Any Christian music, whether traditional or CCM, that has even the slightest similarity to the music produced by those who “sing as an harlot” is unacceptable to God." That's all well and good, but it doesn't do much to help identify whether a particular song or genre actually resembles the harlot's song.
Based on the descriptors you gave the harlot's song is sung 1)by a harlot, 2)consisting of sensual lyrics, 3)while dressed sensually, 4)dancing sensually, 5)using sensual vocal techniques, 6)playing a musical instrument [no skull drum, either, but the harp, a sacred instrument!], and 7)having a large repertoire. I'm still baffled as to how any of this would be applied to the music of Bob Kauflin, for example, since he is one of the men you have criticized in this thread.
No one, and I mean no one, is suggesting that we use a harlot's song in Sunday worship.
You are baffled that Scripture speaks about singing as a harlot and expects us to understand that such music is unacceptable to God?
As for the application to what Kauflin and others like him say, CCM/CWM is permeated by the use of sensual vocal techniques and the playing of sensual instrumental music.
More importantly, again, the thrust of this thread is that what Kauflin and others have said about God's supposedly liking all kinds of music is wrong and unbiblical.
You are baffled that Scripture speaks about singing as a harlot and expects us to understand that such music is unacceptable to God?
Read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth. I've accused you before of not arguing in good faith, and this looks like more of the same.
As far as the application is concerned, that's precisely where your argument goes off the rails. You cannot merely wave your hand and declare that any music you do not like is harlot's songs, and you end up slandering godly men like Kauflin when you do.
Of the seven descriptors you gave of harlot's music, only the first five are problematic. (I'm sure the musicians at your own local church both play instruments and have a large repertoire.) If you mean to identify any modern Christian genre or song as a "harlot's song," you need to show that it is sung by a harlot, includes objectively sensual lyrics, that the singer is dressed sensually and dancing sensually, and is using sensual vocal techniques.
Many of us have asked you to do this in the past: connect the dots between the biblical principles and the specific song or genre that we must avoid. If you can do so, you will probably find a whole lot of agreement from your brothers. If not, then you need to accept that these applications are merely your personal opinions.
If you mean to identify any modern Christian genre or song as a "harlot's song," you need to show that it is sung by a harlot, includes objectively sensual lyrics, that the singer is dressed sensually and dancing sensually, and is using sensual vocal techniques.
Not true. Any use in corporate worship of any one or more than one of these combined in any combination renders the music unacceptable to God.
These are direct quotes from Bob Kauflin:
Actually, it seems that God likes music of all kinds. No one style can sufficiently capture his glory or even begin to reflect the vastness of his wisdom, creativity, beauty, and order.
Kauflin explicitly asserts, "God likes music of all kinds. No one style . . ."
These are false statements that are not biblical.
it seems that God likes music of all kinds
Saying that God appears to like music of all kinds isn't the same as saying that there is no music of which God disapproves. Read more carefully and charitably. This man is your brother after all.
If you mean to identify any modern Christian genre or song as a "harlot's song," you need to show that it is sung by a harlot, includes objectively sensual lyrics, that the singer is dressed sensually and dancing sensually, and is using sensual vocal techniques.
Not true. Any use in corporate worship of any one or more than one of these combined in any combination renders the music unacceptable to God.
Yes, it is true. You are obligated to prove that these qualities are truly present in the specific songs and genres you claim are inappropriate for Christian worship. Show your receipts if you hope to convince anyone by your arguments.
Saying that God appears to like music of all kinds isn't the same as saying that there is no music of which God disapproves.
This statement is totally inapplicable to anything that I have ever said about Kauflin, both here on SI and anywhere else. I have never said anything to the effect that he holds to what you speak of in the latter part of your statement.
You need to read what I say much more carefully than you apparently have so far.
Again, saying that God likes all kinds of music is a false statement for which there is no biblical support.
Yes, it is true. You are obligated to prove that these qualities are truly present in the specific songs and genres you claim are inappropriate for Christian worship.
No, it is not true that every one of these elements has to be present in order for music to be unacceptable to God on the basis of its sensuality. The Bible teaches that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Injecting any amount of sensuality--whether in one way or in multiple ways--into corporate worship renders that worship unacceptable to God.
Rajesh,
Let me give this one last shot to see if you'll hear what I'm trying to say.
When Kauflin says that "apparently God likes music of all kinds," I do not believe that is the same as saying, "God likes all kinds of music." He's speaking in a representative sense rather than an exhaustive one; God's beauty is multi-faceted and therefore the music used to worship must also be variegated. I just don't see how anyone can read Kauflin in context and come away thinking he believes that anything goes in worship, yet that is the basis of your complaint, as near as I can tell.
You seem to be reading my words the same way. I never said that all of those elements had to be present in every song or genre, just that you must prove that they (all or some) are present in the music you wish to condemn.
Btw, if it's true that any of those elements of harlot's music you described will taint corporate worship, then what do you do about #6 & #7 from your list? You've excluded instrumentalists and large repertoires from all of our churches!
Btw, if it's true that any of those elements of harlot's music you described will taint corporate worship, then what do you do about #6 & #7 from your list? You've excluded instrumentalists and large repertoires from all of our churches!
No, I have not done that. God commands His people to play musical instruments, which means that we must have instrumentalists minister in our corporate worship. In addition, He has given His people 150 perfect songs (the Psalms), which shows that having a large "repertoire" is also not inherently unacceptable to God.
This article provides a helpful discussion that ties directly with some of the things that I talked about earlier in my comments about singing "as a harlot."
A Biblical Understanding of Communication and Musical Style – Proclaim & Defend
Discussion