The Effects of Loud Music
by Ted Slater on 06/26/2009 at 1:01 PM
My life took a turn a dozen years ago. Though I personally didn't care for their style, I bought a Delirious album, thinking it'd be good for me to become familiar with their music.
I came to love their music, and have since come to appreciate a swath of contemporary Christian music. Sure, a whole lot of it is worthless pabulum: uninspired lyrics spit out by some Random Christian Cliché Generator, skill-less musicianship, tired rhythms and chord progressions, sterilizing production. But some Christians creating music for today's generation speak with a relevance and passion and quality that inspires me in my devotion to the Lord and my devotion to excellence.
So today I'm listening to RED, a band whose lyrics wrestle with our disposition to sin, that explore our struggle to honor the Lord with integrity. That they use distorted guitars and edge into metal/screamo at times does not distract from the urgency and desperation of their message. Indeed, I find that it promotes it, helping me better engage it.
I don't know that I would have denounced this kind of music a decade ago; I may have just dismissed it. But these days I adamantly appreciate the breadth of musical styles embraced by many of today's Christian musicians.
I had a conversation with someone earlier this week who was condemning the music of today's Christian artists because it's "loud" and "rhythmic" and "extreme." Such music, because it may provoke a physical response, he dismissed as "sexual." His judgment reminded me of Michal, King David's wife, who mocked her husband for the "vulgar" way he was "leaping and dancing before the LORD." God's judgment against her? Barrenness.
I'm learning not to be so quick to write something off as ungodly simply because it's not my preference. After all, the Lord's ways are not like my ways. And where Scripture doesn't express a clear judgment, perhaps I should be slow to express mine. At least in the realm of music.
Well, that's a little peek into where some of my thoughts are today: affected by a discussion I had a few days ago and by my current iPod playlist. May what you find here -- our articles, blog posts, and podcasts -- effect some engaging discussions for you! :-)
1. obewan said the following at 1:31 PM on Jun 26:
I have listened to and I own some of the hardest of Christian rock music like Rez Band and Petra, but I have to say that things are drastically different today.
Most of the stuff I see on the TBN equal to MTV called JCTV is pure thrash metal and head banger music. I don't even see how they can call it "music". Most of it has zero melody, and the vocals consist of screaming in some kind of demon voice. I suppose if they put the words in subtitles so I knew what they were screaming I could make a better evaluation regarding how spiritual the message is.
But, it goes to show you that I am from a different generation. The old folks hated the Christian rock music I listened to as well when it first came out. My college roommate was so worried about it that he made us turn off the stereo on Sunday afternoons when his parents called on the phone to visit. LOL. He said they would die if they knew what he was listening to. We felt like such rebels back then, and it was just Petra and Degramo & Key Band. I don’t know how these kids feel about their thrash metal or why they want to listen to stuff with no melody and guitars that sound like chainsaws.
2. Ted Slater said the following at 1:38 PM on Jun 26:
obewan -- I used to feel the same way. I grew up with Rez, Petra, D&K, and the rest.
3. Patrick Dudenhofer said the following at 1:46 PM on Jun 26:
Some thoughts...
1. Music is NOT amoral.
2. Music is NOT just a medium.
2. Music always elicits some sort of physical response in our body. (Not "may" – it does!)
Why should those who follow the Risen Savior appropriate for their own use something that was intentionally developed by those who rejected the Risen Savior as a response against God, His character, and His principles? We don’t (or shouldn’t) use Darwin’s God-rejecting theory of evolution to glorify the Lord, so why should we use music that was designed to reject God to glorify Him?
4. Jo said the following at 1:49 PM on Jun 26:
Ah Delirious. They were like, THE cool Christian band when I was a teenager. Had a couple of singles in the charts and everything. (You have to understand that Christian bands just don't get in the charts over here, it's practically unheard of.)
I really appreciate the fact that there are Christian artists in every genre now, too. While I'm not particularly into rap or thrash metal, I love the fact that there are Christian rap and thrash metal artists for those that do. I think it's wonderful.
5. Ted Slater said the following at 2:00 PM on Jun 26:
Patrick (#3) -- music was designed to reject God? The unfolding of tones over time innately serves to reject God? Physically responding to music is necessarily sinful?
The truth is that Scripture speaks highly of music, and gives many examples of it being used to honor the Lord and facilitate His worship. People accompany their God-honoring music with dance, with shouts, with clapping, and so on. In no way does Scripture say that music is by nature wrong, or that engaging in the music with our bodies is wrong.
You're going to have to explain what you mean when you say that music "was designed to reject God" and imply that responding physically to music is wrong.
6. Rachael said the following at 3:08 PM on Jun 26:
wow, thanks for pointing out that passage of Scripture. I'd be curious what a commentary or study Bible might say about that...like about the lack of coverage aspect.
Maybe sometime I'll look....
7. Adam said the following at 3:28 PM on Jun 26:
I spent several years growing up where any music with a rock beat was considered to be of the devil. The lyrics did not matter a bit. Merely the presence of a rock beat supposedly exuded sensuality/sexuality and was thus wrong. Nevermind the fact that God's first recorded commanded to humans involved having sex... but I digress.
Patrick #3 says, "Why should those who follow the Risen Savior appropriate for their own use something that was intentionally developed by those who rejected the Risen Savior as a response against God, His character, and His principles?"
First of all, God created music. Has sin touched the area of music? Absolutely, as sin has touched essentially every area of life of creation. But God is in the business of redemption. That which may have been intended for evil - God can use for good.
I would actually agree with 2 of Patrick's numbered points. Music does not have an innate morality to it. If one disagrees... what is the morality of Handel's "Messiah"? Chris & Conrad's "Lead Me to the Cross"? How about Eminem's "Hello"? Remember, lyrics cannot be used for the argument.
Personal reactions also may be stronger than underlying physical reactions that music can cause.
There are studies regarding babies and classical music. David's harp playing seemed to have a soothing affect on Saul. Music can have an unconscious physical affect on us. In that way it is not just a medium, but a message as well.
But I have an intense dislike for a type of music commonly referred to as "country". I would tend to say that my personal response to country music affects my mood and body reactions more than the the music does itself.
For me, I don't believe any type of music is inherently "evil" or "bad". I find that it is important that we think about what is good, right, etc (Phil 4). For me, the lyrics tend to cement their way into my thinking a little more than just by reading a book. So I should choose music that has lyrics that encourage me to think properly. If I listen to too much T.I. or Eminem, it affects the way I think in a bad way. So I choose to listen to a lot more of Third Day and other Christian artists that help keep my mind in check.
8. BDB said the following at 3:34 PM on Jun 26:
Which is worse - choice of music genre, or the choice to shut out people and the world by constantly being plugged into an iPod instead?
9. JuliaH said the following at 3:42 PM on Jun 26:
I am fully expecting to see the "drums are used in Africa to worship the devil and therefore drums are evil" argument next. That's what my husband's church teaches. ROFL.
10. Rachael said the following at 4:38 PM on Jun 26:
"May what you find here -- our articles, blog posts, and podcasts -- effect some engaging discussions for you! :-)"
Thanks to all the Boundless post and article writers...
Recently an article called "Failed Disciple" was published. Maybe I'm jumping the gun and maybe someone will write about it, but, it could be interesting to see some comments.
In it, Dodson writes: "I began to realize that Jesus is not merely the start and standard for salvation, but that He is the beginning, middle, and end of my salvation. He is my salvation, not just when I was 6, but every second of every day."
Part of me wants to learn this concept in a frequent and real practiced way, but part of me doesn't have faith or discipline to apply that.
I'd love to hear from commenters who truly frequently look to God for salvation beyond the salvation with the capital S (eternal life).
My feeling is that this concept doesn't get addressed enough in real life. At least not worded in the way of 'salvation'. Of course you hear that you should pray and read the Bible. But my sense is that not many people talk about truly understanding the power of salvation for daily moments. I think my mom understands this. But I don't see many real life people talking about this and sharing testimonies of how this takes place in their lives...
Thanks!
11. DannieA said the following at 5:30 PM on Jun 26:
Growing up, in my household appropriate music was classical and KSGN (the way it was back then) which was very hymnal traditional soft religious music.
As a teenager, I uh "rebelled" by going to the dark side that is Christian Contemporary/Rock music (yeah I was a good kid sue me! This was a hard core rebellion)
Now I am more tame in my music choices....bands like Delirious, Petra, Jars of Clay etc. that I loved just kinda faded along with any other music that was hard....I now listen to music that I deem has a good rhythm, storyline, and the lead singer(s) actually sing....
My take is that hard loud music is a phase that teenagers go through and most grow out of, doesn't matter what genre.
12. Joseph said the following at 5:51 PM on Jun 26:
Thanks so much for pointing this out Ted. If you really want to find some christian music that will make your skin crawl with the passion in it, i suggest looking up the lyrics to some of Demon Hunter, Disciple,or Underoath's music.
13. Heidi said the following at 9:57 PM on Jun 26:
To settle the debate in my own mind on what *I* specifically was to listen to intentionally, I once decided to run a little test. While my parents discouraged music with a hard beat, they allowed me the freedom to purchase the CDs and listen to the music. So I had conservative music and was beginning to buy harder Christian rock, even a rap CD at one point.
I decided I needed an experiment because I noticed that the only time I ever wanted to listen to that "Christian rap" and actually enjoyed it was when I was angry or frustrated. Yep. The attitude conveyed from the songs seemed to have a validating effect on my own attitude. After a few such instances I wondered, what's really going on here?
For my test I separated my CDs into two separate groups: conservative and fast/rock/other (both were Christian lyrics only). For two weeks I listened only to the conservative music. Then I listened to only the other group for a while. Then I switched back.
I was amazed at how obvious the effects were on me. During the time of listening to non-conservative Christian music I became notably cynical and seemed to be on a short fuse all the time. I was much less gentle and meek in attitude, and it showed quite painfully. Switch the music back to conservative Christian and after a few days these "symptoms" disappeared.
My conclusion for myself, then, is that certain kinds of music, no matter what the lyrics, are non-edifying and even a stumbling block for me. They change my attitude in an ungodly way no matter how much I try to resist that effect. It reminds me of the way God designed colors to affect us--colors are beautiful and good! But put a baby in a yellow room and it will cry more often, or put a couple in a red room and they'll fight louder, longer, and more frequently. Put a depressed person in a blue room and they'll become much worse. So the misuse of colors, even if done with good intentions and godly motives, still produces a negative result in the people exposed to it. My theory is that the same is true with music.
But thus far I can only speak for myself, though I admit it's difficult to believe that others do not experience this same effect because I didn't notice it either until I put it to the test.
14. Patrick Dudenhofer said the following at 10:04 PM on Jun 26:
(I am not quite sure what was "wrong" with the response I posted at 2:30ish blog time, but I'll try again.)
Ted (#5) -- Please don't put words in my mouth, especially ones of such a radical position. In no way did I say that _all_ music was designed to reject God, but perhaps my crafting of the English language in my original comment (#3) could have been clearer.
Music (that is, a composition or piece of music, or portion thereof) is not amoral - music is either morally good or morally bad.
Music communicates "something" to us even without lyrics.
Scripture affirms that music affects us physically and spiritually (for one example see 1 Sam 16.23 and the surrounding narrative) - therefore music is a moral issue.
Adam (#7) -- There is a difference between music specifically created to glorify God, music created "ignorantly" that may or may not be in sync with God's character and His principles, and music specifically created to reject God and His principles. Some composers and artists have specifically written their music to reject God just as others have written their music to honor the Lord.
Scripture does speak highly of music. However, like we have done with most things in God's creation, we can take a gift that God has given us (in this case music) and pervert it so that what was originally good becomes something that is neither glorifying to God nor beneficial to ourselves. There is plenty of morally good music and plenty of immoral music.
Again, my question is, should we try to glorify God by using particular kinds and styles of music that were originally designed to reject God?
15. Dan (real name) said the following at 11:04 PM on Jun 26:
I was one of those who once looked down on those who listened to contemporary christian music and looked down upon the music itself as bland, canned, and too "safe". However, several of my friends are fans of some contemporary christian music groups, and my thinking now is that if it lifts them up and encourages them, then who am I to criticize contemporary christian music. With a critical attitude like that, I come off as nothing more than boorish, self-important, and a snob.
I am a fan of christian music, but I gravitate more towards stuff that is off the beaten path (Jill Phillips, for example) and praise and worship music. And I do listen to some "secular" music as well.
Regarding loud music, I don't have a problem with some musicians who want to play louder stuff. There is a guy from my area that plays in a (christian) hardcore metal band, and he loves Jesus, and my roommate says he is one of the most kind and genuine and solid Christians he knows. If I am going to start criticizing some bands with comments like "they're too loud to glorify God" or "how can they praise God with THAT" or "I just don't understand kids music these days", then I need to realize that those thoughts and comments are more reflective of me getting older, not necessarily Biblical wisdom.
Lastly, I play electric guitar, and I have NO desire to play 3-chord praise songs in front of a church, or become the stereotypical "youth group guitar player" type guy.
16. justice said the following at 1:17 AM on Jun 27:
Ted,
Welcome to the 21st century.
17. Rachael said the following at 9:38 AM on Jun 27:
A comment about judging, but not in reference to music.
I just received an insightful e-mail from my mom. Maybe it'll help me and others feel compassion.... And I know that I am in need of a lot of growth.
Anyway, here is part of her e-mail, though I took the church name out:
"At [church name], when I was so discouraged about that church, and wondering so much about spiritual things, and just starting to read some of the early reformers, I remember one night I was teaching the "Daisies". A woman came in to watch the whole time.
I could tell her attitude wasn't favorable. I was feeling flustered. I misquoted a verse, or said it was from the wrong place. She raised her hands in exasperation and said something along the line of that is what is wrong with this church---we don't know the Scripture, and are always misquoting things, we don't know God, etc. etc.
I was embarrassed, and was aware of my immaturity and her great maturity with God. But how does one drum up "maturity"? In spritiual matters, if the light isn't on, it isn't on. You keep pressing on anyway, and throughout your life, sometimes a lightbulb shines. Sometimes it shines and you think, "How could I have ever thought the other way??" And sometimes you just don't "get it".
The woman might have just as well demanded I fly to the moon without a spaceship.
I think of this situation now and then, if I ever feel tempted to want to put something more onto others. I have been in places where I felt so much more immature than others. This instance put a face on that feeling that I won't soon forget.
So...I am thinking, from our conversation, that maybe you aren't totally satisfied with some of the Christian thinking that you encounter. Maybe lack of seeming depth? If I get to thinking that way myself, like at our church, this picture of what happened to me comes to mind. A small instance, but the feeling was real.
The woman had no idea--she saw spiritual ineptness--but inside my heart was breaking. I was a Christian in search of "real Christianity". I was the weaker "brother". Christian love would be---to love the weaker brother. Who knows what comfort there would have been to my sorry soul if she had taken me by the hand, so to speak, and led me along a better path? But the accusation sent me downward. I knew I wasn't "there", but her attitude didn't give me any hope."
and another part of the e-mail:
"None of our "failures", embarrassments, lack of knowledge, lack of knowing God,----none of it is so dear to us that we have to hang on to them. That we can't let them show, so we can know God better. It's better to risk being embarrassed and thought of as a spiritual deadbeat than to not grow & let ourselves be corrected. Maybe because I've gotten older, that I just don't seem to care quite as much what my spiritual life "looks like" to others.
Anyway, the phrase "love the weaker brother" comes to mind.
Over and over again. Yes, I suppose sometimes as we see the grace of God and the deep meaning of those things, and we encounter someone who seems to want to talk only in modern spiritual phrases, we can be discouraged. But I don't think we should be.
We do not know what really is bubbling in someone's soul. Like me in Daisies. They may know the jargon and how to do the small talk, but we don't really know their soul, and how God is leading them along. I think it is up to us to take someone who is stuck in a sort of rut, take them by the hand and gently help them.
So I think this is Christian love: Love the weaker brother. Love one another---wherever they are in their walk with God. If the whole church you are at seems to be in a modern church thing, you can still be YOU. The point is, they are God's, and we are to love one another, not all be the same and on the same wavelength."
...anyway I know that's a lot of info., but maybe it'll help someone in their thought processes and love...
18. Lizzie said the following at 11:13 AM on Jun 27:
Yay! (And good for you for using "affect" and "effect" correctly in your last paragraph. ;)) I don't listen to heavier, metal-like rock music just because it's not my thing, but I'm totally for the freedom to like whatever kind of music you like. So it irks me when people condemn rock music (although maybe it shouldn't? Because is it just a difference of opinion, like how some people choose to eat certain foods and some people don't?).
I mostly listen to lighter rock and pop-like stuff (a recent favorite: "You Found Me" by The Fray). But I will admit to liking the occasional country song, especially Taylor Swift. I really like her "You Belong With Me."
(Also, regarding Rachael's comment #10, maybe you mods could consider including her comment in a new blog post so the comments here won't get mixed up? Just a suggestion.)
Yeah, can you tell I like parentheses?
19. Jay said the following at 11:42 AM on Jun 27:
Interesting that the body of your essay doesn't once deal with the issue presented i nthe title. One might consider the damage induced by the decibel levels associated with much live contemporary music. I have sat through church “worship” services that were so loud my ears were still ringing the next day. Ear, nose,and throat specialists estimate that about 40% of students entering university in the U.S. have hearing defects. They associate this to rock music as in in pre-Rock days the figure was 1%. Many have hearing problems normally associated with sixty-five to seventy year old people.
Certainly the Bible commands us to make joyful and loud noises to the lord, but this does not justify damaging our hearing. The Hebrew words used in these passages(ranan and ruwa) merely suggest a ringing cry or jubilant singing, not decibel levels capable of causing hearing loss.
At 90 decibels or above, the experts start worrying about effects on health. Otologists, concerned about youngsters going deaf from Rock music have investigated at concert venues and discovered the average intensity to be 106-108 decibels in the middle of the hall. In front of the band it often peaks to 120 decibels. Sound levels of 120 decibels are only safe to listen to for about 10 seconds! Forty feet outside the building a university of Florida investigator recorded the level still at 90 decibels. Permanent hearing loss among Rock aficionados is often the result of such volumes.
Under the guise of entertainment, Rock has become a dangerous past time. These masochist tendencies are anything but biblical. Besides, how can the work of evangelism be helped by something which makes its message more difficult to hear? How can Christians worship in truth and experience sanctification, instruction, and correction when they are unable to hear the words?
If I have time later, I will address David's dance. Perhaps the reason God judged Michal was becuase she misjudged David in her assessment. A close examination of the the biblical data certainly doesn't support the idea that David was dancing in an orgaistic or shameful style or that he lacked clothing.
20. Marilyn said the following at 11:46 AM on Jun 27:
The argument over musical correctness is unwinnable; I think "Christian liberty" comes into play here. If a driving rock beat causes you to have "unclean" thoughts, then it is up to you to shun that type of music. If the same music brings you to a greater appreciation of the Savior, ushers you closer to His presence and causes you to truly worship Him, then it is an acceptable thing for you.
Not one of us can supplant the Holy Spirit in the life of another person yet it seems that is what many folks are trying to do when they offer hard-line opinions about musical style.
Matthew 5:28-30 addresses the intent of the heart. No one can judge that except the individual.
I do object to excess volume. I had to start wearing earplugs to church because the loudness hurt. Excess volume causes hearing damage, and I value my ears.
21. Lukas said the following at 8:06 PM on Jun 27:
As a lover of Christian hardcore and metal music (August Burns Red, Norma Jean, Twelve Gauge Valentine, the Showdown, and even some old-school Stryper), I can say that sometimes there is no better way to express frustration or righteous indignation than with a thundering breakdown or a 300 bpm blast beat. I can understand those such as obewan who only hear noise, it is defintely an acquired taste, but once I came to appreciate the blistering technicality and sheer emotional intensity, it is tough to go back to DC Talk or the OC Supertones of my youth for a similar fix. (BTW, I am really too old for the hardcore scene, but thats ok)
22. Ted Slater said the following at 11:04 PM on Jun 27:
Patrick (#14), you asked, "should we try to glorify God by using particular kinds and styles of music that were originally designed to reject God?"
My reply: No music was "originally designed to reject God." The Designer Of All trumps little people who come up with ways to manipulate or interpret sound waves.
I used to not care for Schoenberg's 12-tone row, but now I can really appreciate it. I used to think that because it dismissed a tonal center, a sonic resolution, that it dishonored God. Now I think it's just very creative, in a way that honors the Creator. I enjoy some 12-tone row music. Wow!
Let's take another composer. John Cage, for example, suggested that any sound could be "music," even noise, even random tones. I don't care for his stuff, but I can't reject as "rejecting God" the music inspired by his philosophy.
I would argue that we should glorify God through large diaphragm condenser microphones, through Marshall amplifiers, through strings made of metal and plastic and animal, through speakers and open-air, through metal cymbals, through air blown across holes, through electrons rubbed across electronics, through vocal chords captured by a dynamic microphone (such as an SM58).... All elements are open territory for honoring God through music. Even "distorted guitars" (stringed instruments whose tones are sonically augmented).
Yes, we should try to glorify God by using music ... which was originally designed to honor God.
My question to you: Which "kinds and styles of music ... were originally designed to reject God"?
Honestly, Patrick, the very question finds its foundation in ignorance about the nature of sound waves. I makes me wonder: If you distaste polka, do you think "polka" rejects God?
23. Dan (real name) said the following at 11:20 PM on Jun 27:
Hey people,
Remember that your likes and dislikes about music aren't necessarily God's likes and dislikes. Some people take their music preferences a bit (or much?) too personal. And just because you were disturbed by a particular style, beat, rhythm, or artist doesn't mean that everyone else has had or should have the same reaction that you have had.
24. Lizzie said the following at 11:44 PM on Jun 27:
Hey Ted (#22):
I really like those thoughts. And as a classical pianist (or at least someone training to become one), I thought I could bring something up with you that I've been wondering about for a while: some of my friends shun Contemporary music (piano music in the Contemporary style versus the Romantic or Baroque style) because of its disorderliness, maybe because of 1 Corinthians 14:33a: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." Now, the context for that verse is very much a church/worship one, but I have to admit it has made me wonder a little bit. Your thoughts?
(Not that I like Contemporary music that much, anyway, ugh. Chopin is my one true love!)
25. BDB said the following at 12:55 AM on Jun 28:
OK, maybe I missed someone else mentioning this, but it's important to this debate.
Do you realize how many old hymns are sung to old drinking tunes? The lyrics were changed to redeem them. Maybe I'm thinking specifically of the tune Greensleeves which is the tune used for the more pious song Carol for a New Year's Day.
Readers here may be most familiar with the lyrics to What Child is This, the Christmas Carol sung to the same tune.
So, if we can redeem music that originally had tawdry lyrics with Christian lyrics, cannot we redeem the tune?
And if we can do that, is there any reason why the chanting of South Pacific Islanders can't be redeemed for Christ?
I too pondered whether electric guitars were appropriate for church. Until I realized that pipe organs didn't exist in Biblical times, either.
26. Tehilah said the following at 2:27 AM on Jun 28:
Your comment on Michal's loathing had me thinking (and repenting) all weekend. I am one who is quick to judge and set my preferences up as standards so it was good to relinquish this "right" (taken straight out of self-"right"eousness...) Thanks.
27. Jo said the following at 6:26 AM on Jun 28:
Hmmm.
In response to Heidi #13 and the issue of whether music itself can be good or evil, apart from the lyrics.
Music does have an emotional aspect, that's how God designed it. And to a certain extent, particular emotions are associated with particular types of music - that much I think is true. A simplistic view would identify slow music in a minor key as sad; fast, heavy music with a strong beat as angry; upbeat, bright music as happy. There is truth to these associations, but it is still a simplistic view.
Heavy rock for example can be about passion and intensity rather than anger, and it might be tricky to identify precise musical differences that would distinguish one from another. I can certainly tell the difference between songs that seem angry or passionate to me - but how much of my response is to do with the music itself, and how much is to do with my personal experience of different styles and genres? In other words, if I feel angry listening to a particular song, can I identify it as objectively 'an angry song' without reference to the lyrics or theme behind it? Or is that just how I feel?
Also, is anger inherently evil? Clearly not, as we know there is 'righteous anger' - we should for example be furious about injustice and oppression - a song about these things would rightly be angry - so why shouldn't that anger be expressed in the music as well as the words? And what about other kinds of anger, that might not be 'righteous anger' but are inevitably a part of our lives? Is it okay to express 'ordinary anger' in song, and is it okay to listen to songs that express 'ordinary anger'?
I think there's value in balance. We experience a wide range of emotions, and emotions are not wrong, in and of themselves. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge these emotions and express them. However, I do think there's an issue here about what we want to feed. Heidi is right I think that if all we listen to is music that for us is 'angry', that will likely affect our lives, because we will be feeding the anger in us. But equally, I'm not sure it's necessarily the best option to listen exclusively to praise songs that talk of the joy of the Lord but not the pain of earthly life. The Psalms cover everything from joy to sadness, helplessness, fear, trust, desperation and wonder; I think we should take our cue from them.
28. Jo said the following at 6:28 AM on Jun 28:
And in response to Patrick #14 and Ted #22:
I agree with Ted's reply, although I do see where Patrick is coming from. I think it is important to look at the heart of the composer (and that's where lyrics often come in very handy), but God was the one who created the sounds; we just organise them. If you're going to say that certain ways of organising sounds are morally evil, I think you need to demonstrate how and why this is the case.
As an example, 'punk music' was originally about rebellion against the establishment, but does that mean that the original proponents of punk music own that particular formula of song structure and style of instrumentation? Clearly not, since punk has since been mixed with pop, with ska, with heavier rock, with folk, with blues, with 'emo'........ At what point does it depart from its roots? At what point is it diluted enough to be 'not necessarily about rebellion any more'? Or if it always is, then to be consistent you would also have to say that Christmas trees are still about pagan religion, and the days of the week are still about the worship of Roman gods.
In other words, nearly every style of music has been developed by non-believers. When non-believers use something that God has created, and even use it to reject Him, is it always then tainted and forbidden for proper reverent use by His people?
29. Hanna said the following at 6:43 AM on Jun 28:
Words, paint, notes are all “non-evil” – as is a computer, a radio, a TV. And we are certainly all in agreement that it is the hand which uses the object that is responsible for the message that the final product carries with it.
If I understand you correctly, Ted, then you are saying that no style of music is in itself evil, but individual songs/compositions could probably be evil. That would, however, not be the fault of the style but of the composer. Am I right?
If so, then that is an interesting thought … one well worth a thoughtful investigation.
I wish I had time to think through a thorough response, but some thoughts.
I am an African. Much of what has already been said does seem to me to be greatly influenced by the fact that Westerners do not fully understand the potential of music to control minds. I do not believe drums are evil, but I do know what a certain “style” of drumming can do to a group of people – I have yet to see good coming out of that. There is definitely something about that kind of music that seems to call up a very real presence of evil. So, I’m not sure (from experience), that I can agree with you, Ted.
I find your comments about Cage and Schoenberg interesting. Are you aware of the motivation behind Cage’s “style”?
Personally I find myself in agreement with Patrick and Heidi. I do believe we need to be careful of appropriating a style which has its roots in the occult or was created as part of a deliberate attempt to be anti-establishment.
In my limited experience many Americans are very sensitive about the rock music issue (I know some true and very sincere American Christians who sing the praises of Led Zeppelin and co. – often makes me wonder). May I, as an outsider, venture a question? How much have American Christians allowed their culture to influence their idea of what is holy, pleasing and acceptable to God? (BTW – it is something I ask myself as well.)
I enjoy reading and read books from many cultures (not just in English) and time periods. I also appreciate art and music. Something that I have noticed is that modern art, music, and novels are becoming (in general) increasingly shallow, sensual, mono-“idea”ic and individualistic. The focus is increasingly on the individual, his/her emotions and experiences. I cannot find the same intellectual satisfaction from it as I can from older works. Unfortunately that is also true, in my experience, of much of modern Christian works. Is this linked to style? Maybe not – but certainly to worldview. Does worldview influence style? I do believe it does, as any serious study of the history of art/writing/music should reveal.
We should not judge, but we have to discern. And for what it’s worth Ted – was Michal punished for not liking David’s style? I thought it was because she despised him in her heart and then, as a result of her wrong attitude, mocked him.
30. Pinon Coffee said the following at 12:56 PM on Jun 28:
One thing I learned from attending a multi-denominational college is that Christians vary wildly in their taste in music. And they're (pretty much) all still Christians.
But that doesn't mean you have to listen to their CDs voluntarily. :-)
31. H.A.P. said the following at 3:02 PM on Jun 28:
Random comment...I'm sitting in my home in Ireland and I can hear the words to the songs being played at an AC/DC concert 2 miles away....not much sleep tonight. Now that is LOUD!
32. Adam said the following at 3:57 PM on Jun 28:
Patrick #14 said, "Again, my question is, should we try to glorify God by using particular kinds and styles of music that were originally designed to reject God?"
I suppose I have a couple questions, and then a couple thoughts. First of all, is there a particular kind or style of music that was originally designed to reject God?
Second, is there a way to isolate that particular style or type from the rest of the music spectrum?
Perhaps I am just extremely historically ignorant; but I cannot think of a single type of music that was not an evolution (for lack of a better term) of another style of music. I have not been able to find an example of a type so radically different than anything else made that it could theoretically fit into your category.
If a particular thing was made by someone for the means of rejecting God, does that mean we should reject that thing?
For instance, should skyscrapers be banned? Should Christians just wholeheartedly reject anything to do with skyscrapers because the idea originated in the tower of Babel?
It is not clear whether Alexander Graham Bell was a Christian. Should we reject the telephone in any form because it may have been created by someone who rejected God and His ways?
Can the absolute essence of a series of notes to a particular rhythm be rebellion towards God, or does there have to be some kind of sinful intention behind it?
33. Hannah said the following at 4:03 AM on Jun 29:
S is for Serialism!
34. Dan Gill said the following at 6:41 AM on Jun 29:
John Cage was just plain wrong. His philosophy inspired and filled his "music". There is a vast difference between music and noise. We all know that, although the line differs among us.
35. obewan said the following at 6:47 AM on Jun 29:
#21. Lukas said the following at 8:06 PM on Jun 27
I can understand those such as obewan who only hear noise, it is defintely an acquired taste,
------------------------------------
I try to give most of it a fair hearing. In other words, when I watch JCTV on TBN, I do not change the channel even if I don't care for the music.
In taste, I tend to draw the line at bands like Skillet though. They were on this weekend, and I did manage to hear some melody in their music.
I still have a hard time getting excited about the "new" rap music, and I am a fan of the old DC talk!
36. Leah said the following at 7:04 AM on Jun 29:
Patrick Dudenhofer - are you serious? Let me assure you, sitting listening to Mozart has never elicited any physical response in my body.
I'd like to see your sources that state music was intentionally developed in opposition to God and his people. In fact, if I remember correctly (and I do, in this instance),and as you seem to agree, the book of Psalms encourages people to sing and dance in praise to God. Pretty sure it doesn't give any rules as to which instruments should be used, which chord progressions, what style of singing, etc, so I don't see ANY foundation to the claim that certain styles of music were deliberately designed in opposition to God.
Oh, and Ted wasn't putting words into your mouth. Whether you meant it or not, that's what you said.
I think the song "Why Should the Devil have all the good music" is the perfect anthem for a cause such as this ;)
Heidi (13) - what do you mean by "non-conservative" music? Rock, pop etc? I find that sort of music makes me happier and more cheerful because of the energy it exudes. I don't like heavy hard-core screamo music just coz I think it's rubbish, but my husband loves it and, bewilderingly to me, it seems to make him happy too. If he was already angry it might keep him angry - I don't know, I haven't observed that - but I've certainly never observed it to bring his mood down.
Also re: Christian rap... I haven't really listened to much just coz I don't really like rap, but my husband discovered this great Christian rapper called Lecrae. He has really, really fantastic lyrics - the most theologically sound and hard-hitting lyrics you are likely to come across in modern contemporary christian music.
37. Sarah P. said the following at 10:19 AM on Jun 29:
Hanna (#29): Something that I have noticed is that modern art, music, and novels are becoming (in general) increasingly shallow, sensual, mono-“idea”ic and individualistic. The focus is increasingly on the individual, his/her emotions and experiences.
I completely agree! And you cannot objectively discuss the merits of books of this sort with people who like them, because they take such discussion personally. Ex: The Shack or the Twilight series. I find this kind of book deadly boring, poorly written, and self-indulgent.
As far as music goes, it's true -- some styles were developed specifically as an antithesis to order, beauty, and harmony. They are intended to disrupt and bring chaos. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am curious how styles that symbolize chaos can be effective vehicles for the gospel. Simply slapping in some God-words isn't enough, esp. if the lyrics are incomprehensible.
To render this specific, one of the Matrix movies has a prolonged orgy scene, accompanied by pounding rock music. (I have not actually "seen" this bit, because I had my eyes closed in the theatre.) Now, isolate the music from that scene, completely separating it from the movie. Add some Christian lyrics. Does that make it a good Christian song, or is it now a mis-matched juxtaposition of two separate things?
38. Patrick Dudenhofer said the following at 2:23 PM on Jun 29:
Ted (#22) –
If having a narrower definition of music than John Cage (who believed music is “purposeless play” – a clear rejection of God’s purpose for music) is ignorance, then so be it. I am ignorant.
It is obvious, Ted, that we have conflicting definitions of music and debating “kinds and styles” would be less than productive. If “music” is merely a collection of sound waves then anything can be acceptable and everything is acceptable. There is no purpose or meaning to “music” other than that which an individual subjectively and personally attaches to it.
You are quite right in saying that all elements are “open territory for honoring God through music.” A piano, a snare drum, a sound system, a voice, a trumpet, a computer, a musical note, a mandolin, a half rest – all those items may be used in such a way to give God glory. However, those elements are not music. I am concerned that the music we create with those elements does not always honor God. Though I don’t know exactly where the line is, we can (and must) take objective standards from God’s Word and apply those truths to music in order to determine what music is moral or immoral.
For instance, Marilyn (#20) mentioned that the volume of the music at her church “hurt.” She had to start wearing earplugs. Now if the music is causing bodily harm – doesn’t that fact alone at the very least make that particular music morally suspect? (After all, volume is just another property of sound waves (amplitude) and therefore of “music.”) I can find no instance in Scripture that approves of an individual physically harming himself or another individual.
Just like language... which was originally designed to honor God... can be used to dishonor the Lord – so music... which was originally designed to honor God... can be used to dishonor the Lord as well. We have a responsibility to objectively discern what constitutes good and bad music on the basis of God’s Word - not on our own preferences or culture’s acceptance.
39. Patrick Dudenhofer said the following at 3:05 PM on Jun 29:
Adam (#32) --
Some of John Cage's "music" is a good example of music that in no way reflects the attributes of God and therefore is - at the very least - morally questionable. I don't think going into "kinds and styles" would be helpful when we (i.e. those posting comments) still don't have a common understanding of what music is and what it represents. (Even without naming musical genres specifically, this particular post and its comments have almost devolved into a flame war. YIKES!)
Your final question, "Can the absolute essence of a series of notes to a particular rhythm be rebellion towards God, or does there have to be some kind of sinful intention behind it?" is really the crux of the problem and the answer depends on your view of music. If music is merely a medium for communication then no, "the absolute essence of a series of notes to particular rhythm" cannot be in rebellion towards God. But if music is both a medium and a message, then yes it can.
With the assumption that music is both a medium and a message let me use an analogy and rephrase the question... "Can the absolute essence of a series of letters arranged in words and sentences be in rebellion towards God, or does there have to be some kind of sinful intent behind it?" A "series of letters" that blasphemes God's name and character will always blaspheme God's name and character, no matter how we read it or hear it. We may use it for teaching purposes, but the message that that particular "series of letters" always communicates is rebellion against God. I don't know how to take that same "series of letters" and glorify God with it. I can't add Christian commentary and expect that "series of letters" to change what it is communicating.
Music communicates "something" to us and we have to discern what that message is, viewing music - as we should all things - through the perspective of God's Word.
This is a tough topic! =)
40. BDB said the following at 3:23 PM on Jun 29:
Is Jazz improvisaton evil because it is disorderly?
41. Ted Slater said the following at 4:04 PM on Jun 29:
Patrick Dudenhofer -- in comment #38, you spoke of some music being "morally suspect." In comment #39, you said that some of John Cage's music is "morally questionable."
I agree with your position here, that certain pieces under certain circumstances could include immoral elements.
In the first case, it may be morally wrong for the guys at the sound booth to expose church attendees to audio over 90db. In the second case, it may glamorize "meaninglessness" by affirming the legitimacy of Cage's music. It is good to ponder the morality of the music we listen to; I appreciate your encouragement to examine what we listen to.
But I just don't understand how we can dismiss as immoral something as broad as a genre or a volume level.
OK, I don't see music as amoral. I see it innately as good, just as the metal that makes up a knife (in the hands of both a surgeon and a murderer) as innately good. That metal points toward a wise Creator, points toward order and meaning and cohesion. Yes, when used by a murderer to kill someone, its being used in an immoral way. But the knife itself, I would argue, remains morally honoring to God.
Similarly, though the stuff that Cage brought us often communicates meaninglessness, if there's any tone at all, then that implies meaning. If one of his compositions is merely someone banging on a piano keys, the sound coming from the piano speaks of the beautiful order of a piano's strings and sound board and so on. It's ironic that he tried to reject meaning, but used meaning to communicate that philosophy.
Or take Dadaism -- an "anti-art" rejection of logic in favor of chaos and irrationality. You know what? Though this movement resulted from a rejection of all that is good and godly, I find some of the music that was inspired by this experimental movement to be fascinating. The philosophy was immoral, and some of its adherents were immoral, but the music influenced by this movement isn't necessarily immoral. I frankly enjoy that irony, that what man meant for evil God uses for good.
I hate to sound wishy washy, but I'm getting to the place where I think that the morality of music is largely relative and situational. One piece may be perfectly good to listen to in one situation, but wrong in another.
Let me throw something out there that'll puzzle some of you: I have been provoked, in good ways, by listening to Slipknot. My heart breaks for these men and for those who regularly listen to their music, and am alarmed by how they may be damaging those who engage in their music; at the same time, I'm inspired by their ironic pursuit of excellence in their craft.
Please note: I analyze and critique their music, I don't resonate with it. If I were to resonate with it, it may be best that I not listen to it.
42. Ted Slater said the following at 4:23 PM on Jun 29:
Patrick Dudenhofer -- in regards to the volume of music, and how it can be too loud, you said, "I can find no instance in Scripture that approves of an individual physically harming himself or another individual."
I can: Jericho. The Lord commanded the Israelites to play their trumpets loudly and to shout. I imagine it was painfully loud. Note that while most of the inhabitants of Jericho were killed, some were saved. But all were the on the receiving end of this loud music.
In the case you described, I think it's good for this woman to wear earplugs. She may just be sensitive to sound, or sitting in an especially "hot" spot in the room, and it would be wrong for her to demand that the sound be decreased to accommodate her personal preferences.
Of course, again, the guys manning the board could indeed be playing the music too loudly.
43. Becca said the following at 4:34 PM on Jun 29:
Here's a music history lesson for you...
When music was first used for worship in the church, it was carefully controlled. There was no instrumental music, becuase it was believed that the words were the most important. When harmony and polyphony (the use of multiple lines of music) were developed, the church specified what sort of harmony was pleasing, and dissonance was used sparingly, if at all. This "church-controlled music" led to some severe limitations on composers and began a mentality that casts out musical styles not becuase they're displeasing to God, but because they're new.
I think that even today, the church can have an almost tyrannical claim on what kind of music is "acceptable". Some say that only "contemporary christian music" is acceptable, while others claim that only classical music or hymns are pleasing to God. Note that the defense of both of these styles is similar to that of the harmonically-pleasing acceptable music of the church. The way I see it, I think that even "non-christian" music can enrich our lives becuase of its artistic value (though I'm not saying that we should regularly subject ourselves to seriously screwed-up lyrics). We should use caution, but not legalism.
44. Tami said the following at 4:43 PM on Jun 29:
Ted wrote: "...the guys manning the board could indeed be playing the music too loudly."
Indeed. Some sound board training may be in order.
They could be turning up the music super-loud because they can't figure out the mix correctly. Or, there could be one musician on the team who insists on turning up his or her instrument really loud, and the people who work the board don't know how to compensate for that without turning everything *else* up.
Instruments should really be controlled from the board and not individual amps :P
45. Heidi said the following at 4:48 PM on Jun 29:
"Heidi (13) - what do you mean by "non-conservative" music? Rock, pop etc? I find that sort of music makes me happier and more cheerful because of the energy it exudes. I don't like heavy hard-core screamo music just coz I think it's rubbish, but my husband loves it and, bewilderingly to me, it seems to make him happy too. If he was already angry it might keep him angry - I don't know, I haven't observed that - but I've certainly never observed it to bring his mood down."
Leah (#36) By "non-conservative" I mean bands like Delirious, Newsboys, Toby Mac, Kutless, and others that aren't coming to mind at the moment. I'm not saying every song in these bands were like that, just in general. I have nothing against these bands, I was enjoying their songs, and I thought that since the lyrics were Christian they could only bring me closer to the Lord (that was perhaps 6 years ago...I'm more discerning now :P).
Just to clarify, they did not specifically bring my mood down, as in making me depressed and discouraged. There was no immediate correlation between listening to one of their CDs and then getting angry. The change was only noticeable when I listened to one kind all the time vs. the other kind all the time...it was the difference between night and day.
I simply encourage people to test it for themselves if they're unsure. I'm personally very glad that I did, because after the experiment I realized how much it was hindering my own walk with the Lord and I could then get it out of the way.
"Heidi is right I think that if all we listen to is music that for us is 'angry', that will likely affect our lives, because we will be feeding the anger in us. But equally, I'm not sure it's necessarily the best option to listen exclusively to praise songs that talk of the joy of the Lord but not the pain of earthly life. The Psalms cover everything from joy to sadness, helplessness, fear, trust, desperation and wonder; I think we should take our cue from them."
Jo (#27) To clarify, it was only one rap song that I identified with as "angry"...all the other songs on the other CDs I merely enjoyed at face value. :) And I certainly don't consider all those bands I've mentioned earlier in this post as "angry". There was praise and worship music lyrics in with my "non-conservative" group of music that I listened to, and my heart would praise along with it. So the only difference, truly, was the music style. The lyrics themselves contained the whole range of emotions that conservative music and hymns do.
In fact, some old hymns are even more sad or angry than contemporary music. "Adore and Tremble for our God" is a hymn of forceful tune that's all about worshipping God's righteous anger. And the hymn "To God I Cried with Mournful Voice" is depressing with the best of them, speaking verse after verse of unbearable sorrow and pleading for the Lord's comfort and a fittingly doleful tune to accompany it. Both of these hymns are near and dear to my heart.
So I certainly did not separate which music communicated, for lack of a better term, "negative" emotions and which was all happy and praise music, listening to one all the time and then the other. The result of that test would have been very predictable, and I can see how you may have reached that conclusion. Rather, I listened to all ranges of lyrics in both non-conservative and conservative music, not withholding myself from either the sad and angry in conservative nor the worshipful and happy in the non-conservative. And I embraced and enjoyed both equally. That is why the results of my own experiment were surprising to me, because the difference in my everyday attitude as influenced by the style of music alone was made plain.
46. Patrick Dudenhofer said the following at 5:03 PM on Jun 29:
Ted (#42) --
I think the battle of Jericho is an instance where the government is exercising its God-given authority as "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13.4 NIV) and the government is acting on God's direct instructions in this case. I don't believe the individual Israelites were "authorized" to harm the individuals of Jericho other than as direct agents of the government.
BTW -- Thanks, Ted, for all the good work that you do for Boundless and Boundless Line! I've grown tremendously from the articles and posts that the Boundless team has worked on over the six-plus years I've followed the site. Keep it up! =)
47. Leah said the following at 5:44 PM on Jun 29:
BDB (25) is spot-on. Many old hymns and Christmas carols were sung to popular pub tunes :)...and we continue to sing them today! If you're going to protest the connotations that certain music brings to mind, wouldn't you have more issue with songs sung to drinking tunes rather than something that just has a different beat and rhythm than you're used to?
48. Leah said the following at 5:47 PM on Jun 29:
Adam (7) said I would actually agree with 2 of Patrick's numbered points. Music does not have an innate morality to it.
Umm... I think that's the OPPOSITE of what Patrick was saying. He was saying music is NOT amoral. You, by saying it does not have an innate morality to it, are suggesting it IS amoral.
Also, re the examples you gave (emphasising lyrics are not to be considered)... what's wrong with any of that music, without lyrics?
49. Jay said the following at 9:50 PM on Jun 29:
Okay, I wasn’t going to go here since I didn’t think this is what the post was about as it is titled “the effects of loud music” (hence my previous comment), but if we want to get into a discussion of the moral implications of musical aesthetic I can’t refrain from commenting. This is by no means a simplistic topic, but I have done some extensive research and study. I don’t necessarily enjoy these discussions as it seems to be very personal, and to put down someone’s choice in musical taste is almost like insulting the person themself. I am of no attitude to tear down a fellow bother in the faith, but I can not stand idly by and allow faulty logic and untenable arguments to suggest to other illinformed readers that the musical medium is non-affective, and that our choices in musical selections is purely subjective. It is that idea “which finds it foundation in ignorance about the nature of sound waves.”
I could point to numerous studies done with plants and animals which show the effect that music can have. One in particular, involving Swiss albino mice, found that a form of chaotic drum beating caused hyperactivity, learning disabilities, and some brain damage in the test animals. Disharmonious music can affect living organisms negatively! Insofar as human beings have mammalian brains like that of the mice, we cannot preclude the possibility that disharmony may affect human brains as well.
Many will doubtless complain that plant and animal experiments should not determine the suitability of Rock music for human beings. Even though skepticism of this sort is not unwarranted, in that plants and animals are in many ways different from human beings, we should still take these studies seriously. First, mankind does have certain biological similarities to other created beings. Second, the significance of those experiments lies in the fact that plants, and in most cases animals, do not come with preconditioned tastes in music, a factor that makes it difficult to determine the fidelity of similar studies on humans. Since music can affect plants and mammals, then such effects have to be due to the objective influence of the tones directly upon the cells and processes of the life form. Therefore, there should be reason for concern. If Rock music has an adverse affect on plants, is the Rock music listened to so long and so often by the younger generation partly responsible for their erratic, chaotic behavior. Could the discordant sounds we hear these days be the reason humanity is growing neurotic? Shrill sounds projected into a liquid media will coagulate proteins. If you take a soft eggs to Rock concerts and place it at the foot of the stage, midway through the concert you can eat the egg hard-boiled as a result of the music. Amazingly few Rock fans wonder what that same music is doing to their bodies!
Moving beyond the physical effect of sound waves, as Heidi rightly recognized, “certain types of music, no matter what the lyrics, are non-edifying and even a stumbling block.” (for more testimonies attesting to this fact check out: http://www.av1611.org/crock/crockids.html) As Patrick was saying earlier, music is it’s own affective medium. It contains it’s own message and must be judged on its own regardless of what enlightened propaganda may be foisted upon it. But as Jo was getting at, how do we know what message it conveys, and how do we know everyone will react to it the same? Again, Jo was on the right track in that in the search for musical universals, the lowest common denominator is found in human feeling and emotions. The biblical witness, as well as the conviction of many musicologists, psychologists and scholars lend credibility to the thesis that the connection between music and emotions is universal. Of the more than five hundred references to music in the Scripture, the majority connect it with some kind of emotional experience (Job 30:31; Jeremiah 48:36, Isaiah 24:8, Psalm 81:2, Job 21:12 etc.).
How can this connection be universal? Because our being as humans, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or culture, is theomorphic - that is, created in God’s image (Gen 1:26). Our ability to feel, will, reason, and desire are derived from those same components in our creator. God is a personal being and genuinely feels love, sorrow, joy, and hatred. We as creatures made in His image, possess a likeness to those emotions.
In a study of musical structure you will that there are certain characteristics which can be seen to parallel certain emotions. For example, when people feel sad they exhibit certain types of behavior: they move slowly, they tend to talk in hushed tones. Now music can be said to be sad when it exhibits these same properties: sad music is normally slow, the intervals between the tones are small, the tones are not strident but hushed and soft. In short, the work a musical selection can be judged based on its features that human beings have they feel the same or similar emotion or mood. Some emotions are more easily paralleled in music than others. The primary emotions would include states such as happiness, sadness, fear, and anger. These are emotions that have detectable physical and behavioral manifestations and are the most hospitable to musical expression. Higher emotions consist of feelings that are subsets, and sometimes combinations, of these broader categories. Conditions such as hope, anxiety, jealousy, and shame generally do not betray external features that distinguish them from similar feelings, and usually cannot be known apart from access to the inner thoughts of the person. In turn, these are considered less capable of musical expression. But even if higher emotions cannot be articulated with distinguishing precision, it is still possible for music to portray the moods that accompany these higher emotions. Hope would be compatible with joyful music, rather than sad or angry. The joyful music could be further refined to match dynamics of hope perhaps by slowing the tempo and adding elements of tension. Likewise, themes of jealousy – a mixture of sadness, fear, and anger - would be absurd in the setting of a joyful, uplifting melody.
So we see then that musical sounds imitate feelings that we experience, and gives rise to those feelings in the listener. Music both reflects and elicits various moods, and certain moods are typically associated with specific sorts of behavior. Throughout recorded history, music has been used in a variety of social situations to promote moods appropriate to that situation. The sorts of feelings elicited by music are more or less congruent with certain sorts of action (consider the music used in various movie scenes). Considering that actions are elicited by feelings, one cannot help but wonder about the moral ramifications of the mentality engendered by much of the popular culture aimed at teens. Some communities exist to serve ignoble ends, and anyone who has ever been to a “rave” should know the power of music to transform behavior (and in those settings, it’s seldom for the better). I don’t doubt the sincerity of feeling in listeners who respond to “We Are the World,” but the actual behavior of many young people who are hooked on Rock suggests that their real agenda is “I am the world” and “The world owes me a living.” Rock music allows us to indulge in expressions of strong emotion while freeing us from the obligation of doing anything.
But, if like Ted, we claim: “The Designer of All trumps little people who come up with ways to manipulate [His creation],” and “All elements are open territory to honoring God…” then how can it matter what can of emotions we allow ourselves to indulge in? First off you can’t be serious! Do you realize where this logic takes you? If we apply this logic to other areas of life, do you know what we come up with? I could use this logic to support pornography. “The Bible never says we can’t look at photographic representations of the naked human body. If it’s a problem for you, maybe you should avoid it, but it’s just art and I am merely enjoying the beauty of God’s creation. Seeing the magnificence of His creative handiwork really helps me worship Him. I mean, after all, it’s just a matter of the intentions of the heart right? “ Do you see how absurd this is? There are elements within the arts that must be considered immoral in and of themselves. The basis for what is right and wrong can not come from within ourselves and the self-fluctuating passions of human ideals.
There are numerous Scriptures that, as a condescension to our limited understanding, present in anthropomorphic language the reality of God’s emotions such as joy, sorrow, anger, delight, love, hate, etc. It would be a great mistake to forget that God feels, though in a way of necessity, that transcends a finite being’s experience of emotions. Thus He creates things for a purpose, according to His divine counsel and wisdom and He has instituted the arts and music within human culture, not to be developed according to fluctuating human passions, but analogically as a covenantal expression of His glorious nature. Divine attributes such as righteousness, love, holiness, purity, majesty, order, reason, harmony, balance, and goodness should govern our evaluation and production of music. It is undeniable that variety and creativity are characteristic of God; yet whatever variety and creativity we exercise in the arts, our workmanship must reflect divine qualities if it is to glorify God. Therefore, any idea which denies absolute standards in music, and regresses to secular aesthetic and ethical standards by admitting that the measure for what is good or bad in music is found within man himself, who assigns its value based on its ability to give pleasure, is impossible to reconcile with the derived and analogical nature of the aesthetic impulse in man.
So where do we find a basis for right and wrong? Try God, and His revealed Word. But we claim “the Bible doesn’t say anything about types of music!” Actually music is mentioned over 500 times, and we can always find guidance from the Bible on any issue, if not by direct command, then by indirect principle. That is an idea know as “the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture” which has been affirmed for the last 2000 years and was not drawn up by extremists, but by our church Fathers to whom, under God’s Sovereignty, we owe our Christian heritage.
God, obviously, is the original author of music, but He gave his creatures musical ability, and as in everything else in life they are fully capable of taking what God intended for good and perverting it for their own evil purposes. Satan was created with musical ability (Ezekiel 28:13), and being a master of deception has ever since the Garden of Eden been perverting God’s creation to achieve his own diabolical purposes. is also interesting to note the first mention of man using music in Genesis 4:21. Here we see that Jubal is the father of “all those who play the harp and flute.” Jubal was a descendant of Cain, and in Job 21:8-16, we find that these descendants “send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance. They sing to the tambourine and the harp, and rejoice at the sound of the flute” (vs. 11-12). This however was not done in a spirit of praise for they say to God “depart from us, for we do not desire the knowledge of your ways. Who is the Almighty that we should serve Him? And what profit do we have if we pray to Him?” (vs. 14-15). Looking back to Genesis 6:1-7, we see that this wicked line of Cain intermarried with and ultimately so corrupted the Godly line of Seth that “every intent of the thoughts of his heart were only continually evil. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on earth, and He was grieved in His heart” (vs. 5-6). The wickedness of the descendants of the human “father of music” was so great that they corrupted the entire human race, save Noah and his family, and God wiped them all out in the flood. Unregenerate man, with or without the influence of Satan can and will corrupt the things that God has given him.
Of course, if “God trumps all,“ then is ought not matter how I craft my language or what words I use. If I want to use explicatives, swear and cuss, or use other obscene language, what difference does it make? If God trumps every way that I might manipulate language, than it doesn’t matter if I use it to deny His existence, He’ll trump it and love me and save me anyway (sarcasm)… OF COURSE it matters how we use the tools God has given us! Language isn’t just a tool to convey morally neutral facts. Language is both manifestly moral and suffused with the power to sway, persuade, uplift, degrade, and deceive. Music is a form of language, and yet it is so much more. Music, through its’ patterns, rhythms, melodies, and tempo, conveys emotional nuance and communicates something. We pass moral judgment on language based on what is communicated. Language intended to deceive, insult, belittle, provoke, blaspheme, and degrade is bad because its content is bad. Language that informs, edifies, comforts, strengthens, etc., is good because it tends to promote these traits in others. The language of music is no different, except that music is primarily a vehicle for communicating emotions rather than ideas. But communicate it does, and inasmuch as it conveys negative, false, venal, or evil emotions or states of being, such as rebellion, chaos, violence, atheism, or moral relativism, music must be considered bad. However, where it appeals to our higher emotions and aspirations, music is good and at times even heavenly. Music can in fact be morally charged and serve as an effective medium for conveying a variety of ideas, feelings, and behaviors, which can either be compatible or incompatible with Christian ideals.
So what do Rock musicians have to say about their music? Let’s let them speak for themselves and bear in mind they are referring to the music itself, not the lyrics:
“I do deliver sex appeal. It’s part of modern Rock. “ –Freddie Mercury of Queen
“Rock ‘n’ Roll is 99% sex.” -John Oates of Hall and Oates
“That’s what it’s all about – sex with a hundred pound megaton bomb, the beat.” -Gene Simmons of KISS
“Transformation. That’s the power of music. If the music has that then it has power. The grooves… those are powerful. They have the power to transform, to take you there. To make you dance, to trance you, to put you into a rapturous state.” -Mickey Hart of The Grateful Dead
“I figured the only thing to do was swipe their kids. I still think it’s the only thing to do. By saying that, I’m not talking about kidnapping, I’m just talking about changing their value systems, which removes their parents very effectively.” -David Crosby of The Rolling Stones
As Frank Zappa of Mothers of Invention has told us: “Our present state of socio-sexual enlightenment is directly attributable to evolution of rock music.”
“By carefully controlling the sequence of rhythms, any rock group can create audience hysteria consciously and deliberately. We know how to do it. Anybody knows how to do it.” - John Philips of The Mamas and the Papas.
“Atmospheres are going to come through music, because music is a spiritual thing of its own. You can hypnotize people with music and when you get them at their weakest point you can preach into their subconscious what you want to say.” - Jimi Hendrix.
This obviously has serious implication for the use of rock in worship and evangelism. Any medium of presentation that induces a loss of self-control or awareness and makes the listener unusually
susceptible to whatever suggestions are made by the lyrics is clearly dangerous, and will most certainly encourage a response that will be largely psychological instead of that which God requires, which is that we should worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (John 5:24).
Worship is a conscious act that responds from an understanding of who God is and what He has done. The passion that we want to see is the response of the singers and hearers to the biblical truth of the text. If people don’t have that sort of response in a traditional service, it is not a problem with the music, it’s a problem with the hearts of the ones who hear the texts and are not moved with emotion as they contemplate the greatness of God and His redemption of sinful man. Again, music itself is also capable of producing the same sort of worshipful contemplation in the listener. But it is only when we are moved primarily by intelligent thoughts providing a view of the Lord and His work, that we have genuine and legitimate spiritual feelings. Emotions fanned into flames by sentimental or stirring music may be enjoyable feelings at a purely human level, but they are not worship. When we make the music responsible for generating worship, we merely mask the un-worshipful thoughts of the worshipper by adding other emotion. A group of unregenerate people can be made to “feel” as if they are worshipping and coming into the presence of God by the utilization of musical tools to create an emotional response. In our worship services, we should not confuse the proper emotional response to truth with the false emotional response to louder and faster music. The musical setting should match the emotions we are expressing, not create them.
Music is a medium that can convey a variety of ideas, feeling, emotions, and behaviors. If it expresses anything that is not compatible with Christian ideals then God is not honored. As the originators of the rock genre tell us themselves, it was “designed to reject God.” It is immoral because the message of the music is imitative of such emotions as pride, unrestrained anger and hatred, a wrong sense of freedom, rebelliousness, and sensuality. The Composers’ intentions will always come across in the music being written. They are writing what they want to convey to the listeners, they are writing what they want the audience to experience from the music, and they are writing from their hearts where intentions begin. Various musical styles such as Rock ‘n’ Roll and it’s relatives have been designed by immoral people with specific intentions and results in mind. How can something that is nothing at all like Christ somehow draw our attention to Him? We think that this irrelevant because these are not the intents of the Christian Rock musicians. However, those intentions still remain because the Christian musicians have not created new music to convey their altruistic intentions. Rather, they have borrowed and used the same specific musical techniques used to achieve the cited immoral goals of secular musicians, and those mentalities are still prevalent even though we have changed the lyrics.
The great composers of proceeding eras composed their music for the sake of the spiritual upliftment of their fellow man. But the music of today seeks tonal arts simply for arts sake. It brings the attention of the listener to the mental, emotional, and physical levels. Formerly, very purpose of the music was to direct the listener’s feelings toward God. More modern music is designed to evoke reactions toward fellow man and the environment, and directed consciousness to the physical level leaving out the spiritual direction.
In the music of Mussorgsky we see compositions written freely according to the whims and dictates of his emotional being. If it sounded right, and accurately expressed his own feelings, he wrote it, regardless of established rules of key and harmony. As a result, we find music that accurately expresses and elicits in the listener the emotional state of the composer; emotions that are of a negative nature; desolation, anguish, and psychological pain. In Schoenberg we find music that ultimately abandons tonality altogether. His atonal phase of composing has been called the “phase of unlimited anarchy and liberty.” This very idea is in direct contradiction to principles of spiritual idealism.
Next is the music of Varese who composed music which parallels the literature of existentialism: the general doctrine which denies objective universal values or morals. A man so it is claimed must create values for himself through his own actions. He has absolute liberty to do as he chooses; thus allowing for anarchy. Varese even described his music as being “a protest against inquisition [the maintenance of standards] in every form. The philosophy of this music is designed to reject God, and that is exactly what it does.
Then along comes John Cage, whose “compositions” culminate in 4” 33” which doesn’t contain a single note. He also introduced “indeterminacy” in music in which ends up with pieces that could be completely silent or utterly chaotic noise. This unfortunately has shaped much of modern music into an almost anti-music. Is random noise really music? What type of person feels moved to actively pursue the creation of a literal anti-music?
Music should be used in order to influence man’s spiritual nature, inspiring his soul with feelings of love, beauty, resolution, altruism, and all virtuous emotions. But the much of today’s music is not aimed toward the spiritual nature, it is purely physical, aimed at causing tingles, and sensations that make us feel good or bad. Music has ceased to be an art, but is now a method by which the musician and the listener can experience sensuous pleasure, in the pursuance of hedonistic goals. Christian musicians can not suddenly turn around and use this same style of music to create uplifting, spiritual music as they try to do in Christian rock. The music was not designed for those purposes. It speaks it’s own language; a language which will always undermine whatever positive message may be tied to it from a lyrical standpoint.
Genres exist because societies collectively choose and codify the acts that correspond most closely to their ideologies. A society’s discourses depend upon its linguistic (or musical) raw materials and upon its historically circumscribed ideologies. The ideologies of rock music; anger, rebellion, lust, and so on are completely incompatible with the Christian life. The contemporary Christian musicians would have us believe that changing the words changes the music’s very nature, as if power of music resides in the words alone; as if music can be completely severed from its cultural and social context and suddenly take on new meaning not only removed, but contradictory to those contexts. On the conscious level, we may think this music isn’t affecting, us but we can not really be the judge of this? How does listening to music that characterizes base desires help cultivate our character to become more like Christ? Surely it does not take much discernment to know that music acceptable to God cannot be debasing by its very nature.
To borrow the words from evangelist Hall Web: “Shame on new sound singers whose style and accompaniment are the same as today’s depraved beat music in the secular world. When Christian music carries the beat, instrumentation, and exact sounds of the lost crowd, it results in confusion and shame... It is shameful to use musicians who in shallow songs daze instead of praise, who entertain instead of train. Spotlights flash and drum beats roll, but its all for the flesh and little for the soul… Many teens have grudgingly given up worldly Rock, replacing it with the same beat and tempos of Christian Rock. They like it because it still speaks pleasingly to the flesh, and its shallow message doesn’t cramp their world loving style ... They transfer the worship owed to Christ to concert hopping, money hungry entertainers who never left the world far enough behind to stop sounding like it.”
50. BDB said the following at 10:12 PM on Jun 29:
It was somewhere up above where someone mentioned Petra as being "hard rock."
My, how times have changed. It seems so tame now.
And yet, This Means War uses lyrics that do a pretty dramatic job of illustrating the battle in Revelation.
Fairly recently I had the time to read through all the Psalms. I was surprised by the number of times David called on God to crush his ememies to smithereens.
(OK, I'm not sure if there is an ancient Hebrew word for smithereens, but it's a cool word.)
There are 80 references to "enemies" in the Psalms!
I know how much work it is to schedule the worship teams each weekend. And my circle includes several of those worship-team members. I don't want to unduly burden them, but I'm soooooo tempted to ask, "Can we have an entire service where we sing Psalms about God crushing his enemies? Can we?"
Well, maybe I an get them to do it for a men's BBQ.
51. Kelly said the following at 12:07 AM on Jun 30:
Interesting debate.
Almost my entire music collection is made up of instrumental works (both classics and modern SF movie soundtracks) so this debate is never one I really have an opinion on!
To me, the words just get in the way of the music. ;) The more complex the music, the better.
52. Jo said the following at 12:21 AM on Jun 30:
BDB: "Is Jazz improvisaton evil because it is disorderly?"
Couple of quotes about jazz (I don't have sources sorry, but both are from newspapers/media around the 'birth period of jazz - and that of course was very mild jazz compared with later styles):
Jazz is “filthy and suggestive” (1899)
"Jazz is a cross rhythm that carried far enough, could so irritate the nervous system as to derange it entirely."
So BDB makes an excellent point. :)
Heidi,
What I meant was that the 'non-conservative' styles obviously inspired frustration/anger in you, even if you didn't identify them as angry. But obviously you must have recognised some difference in the style, in order to conduct your experiment. Also, I'm not criticising what you did if that was right for you, however I think that just because you noticed a change in your behaviour when you listened to 'non-conservative' music exclusively, does not necessarily mean that such music is bad to listen to. If I eat exclusively chocolate, I will not have a healthy body - but that doesn't mean it's wrong to eat some chocolate in moderation.
Honestly, Delirious is not a band I would think of as 'non-conservative'. The problem with that term is it's about familiar versus new, rather than identifying particular styles. To make your point more clearly you would have to explain what is different in the music itself. Is it faster, louder, more intense? But even there you have a problem, because those descriptions certainly don't fit all of Delirious's music.
53. Jay said the following at 4:04 AM on Jun 30:
BDB 25 and Leah 47. It seems fashionable these days for the musical avantgarde to claim that all hymn music was once worldly music and that the tunes were commonly barrowed from bar tunes. Part of this might be confusion between bar tune as a pub song, and bar form as term for a compositional style. While they may be a couple of tunes that were borrowed (I’d like to see you come up with more than a dozen), 1). No one is trying to defend them and perhaps we have just as much a problem with them as any other type of music 2). There is a huge difference between utilizing an element of a musical style and mimicking the entire style as a whole 3). It’s a baseless claim that has no historical foundation. Those who repeat it have given too much respect to the source from which they heard it. Of all of Luther’s hymns only ONE borrowed the melody form a local bar song, and he later changed it because he was embarrassed to hear the tune to one of his hymns being sung in the local bar. 4). When Luther said, ‘Why should the devil have all the good tunes?’ he spoke in the context of Catholic chanting. He was not interested in stealing from the world around him, but providing singable melodies so that congregations could begin to sing. And what else would we expect from the Reformer who wrote these words:
‘Take special care to shun perverted minds who prostitute this lovely gift of nature and of art with their erotic rantings. And be quite assured that none but the devil goads them on to defy their very nature … They purloin the gift of God and use it to worship the foe of God.’
Luther clearly believed that music was to be identified with its source and users
54. Jay said the following at 4:11 AM on Jun 30:
BDB 40. Comparisons will be attempted to equate harder music with Jazz, but any such comparison breaks down at one vital point. The key ingredient in Jazz is the improvisation of the melody within an established rhythmic framework. It is extremely ordered and structured. A jazz instrumentalist starts his solo at a point where either the group or other soloists have left off. Then he builds his own performance by weaving into it improvised melodies. This requires abundant talent and the attention of the listener is drawn to the melodic intrigue. It is the melodic inventiveness and the chromatic arrangement of the chords that interests the average listener in Jazz.
55. Lizabth said the following at 8:14 AM on Jun 30:
Actually, that old canard about hymns sung to pub tunes is something of an urban legend.
Some hymns were set to 'bar' tunes is true, bar being a sort of musical construction.
He was VERY upset that some of his melodies were sung in theaters and pubs, though. But this was after the fact of their writing.
56. Ted Slater said the following at 8:51 AM on Jun 30:
Jay -- would you consider Leeland's music to be "rock," and therefore "shameful"?
You said in comment #19 that "the body of your essay doesn't once deal with the issue presented in the title." In fact, Jay, it does. The entire narrative was inspired by my listening to loud music, and I reference "loud" music in each paragraph, either explicitly or implicitly.
I'll be writing a new blog post shortly, defending the intrinsic goodness of music.
57. Sarah P. said the following at 9:58 AM on Jun 30:
@ Ted (#41): Let me throw something out there that'll puzzle some of you: I have been provoked, in good ways, by listening to Slipknot. My heart breaks for these men and for those who regularly listen to their music, and am alarmed by how they may be damaging those who engage in their music; at the same time, I'm inspired by their ironic pursuit of excellence in their craft.
I don't know the artists, so I don't know what is troubling about them. But after reading Jay's essay above, it does make me think...
What about the movie Sex and the City? Some people said they were getting "some good" out of it. :P Is there an objective difference between the audio and video realms? Or is this really a "weaker brother" thing, where Ted is not very affected by the audio, but the visual bothers him greatly?
I know that I am super sensitive to music. I cannot listen to it very much, period, because it distracts me so absolutely. Except classical or Celtic music when I need to focus on writing. I love the rock beats when I exercise, but... really never, the rest of the time. Interesting, because I guess I am focusing my mind on my body when I am exercising.
58. Ted Slater said the following at 10:05 AM on Jun 30:
Jay -- I noticed that you point to av1611.org in your comment #49.
That site exists to defend a 400-year-old translation of the Bible as the only legitimate translation, and reject all other versions. They condemn the ESV as "distorted and deceitful," for example, denouncing it as including "blatant attacks on the Lord Jesus Christ, salvation, hell, the word of God and deliberate new-age-neutral-gender distortions."
If the proprietors of that site have lost their senses when it comes to evaluating Scripture, then their views on other subjects (such as music) are also suspect.
Let me make it clear: I have absolutely no respect for that site, and find it laughable that anyone would consider anything they say to be of any worth whatsoever.
* * *
Also in comment #49 you quote verbatim (without attribution) from Bob Larson's 1972 book The Day the Music Died:
"If you take a soft eggs to Rock concerts and place it at the foot of the stage, midway through the concert you can eat the egg hard-boiled as a result of the music."
Again, it looks like you copy-pasted that from av1611.org.
Come now, Jay, if you're going to share information from other websites, it's good form to give them credit for their rantings.
That "raw eggs turn hard-boiled at rock concerts" thing is a myth, by the way. Shame on you for trying to perpetuate it here.
You should know that Bob Larson has recanted, and no longer demonizes rock music. In the 80s, years after speaking against "rock music," Larson came "to embrace contemporary Christian music, including styles such as heavy metal and rap, and actively promoted the music and artists on his show."
* * *
You know, Jay, I don't have time to counter the ideas that you've copy-pasted from av1611.org . The "academic" style of communication you employ -- something I had to unlearn after spending four years earning two master's degrees -- is tempting to engage. But ... nah.
One final thing: I laughed out loud at your comment #54. You prefer jazz, and so you praise it as "extremely ordered and structured." You don't prefer "rock," and so you say that God hates it. Prooftexting, Jay, dishonors God and makes a mockery of Scripture. Cut it out, for God's sake.
59. JuliaH said the following at 10:09 AM on Jun 30:
Can we please limit the length of posts to 400 words or less. I tire of scrolling through the lengthy rants of those "godly" people who mistake length for truth.
60. Jo said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 30:
Jay #54:
I confess I didn't read your first post - and to think I worry about the length of mine!
But I will respond to this:
"The key ingredient in Jazz is the improvisation of the melody within an established rhythmic framework. It is extremely ordered and structured..... It is the melodic inventiveness and the chromatic arrangement of the chords that interests the average listener in Jazz."
Have you ever listened to Dream Theater? Just one example of a heavy prog rock band whose music is incredibly complex both melodically and rhythmically and whose members are among the most talented and technically skilled in their field. And yes, that's why I listen to them; it's the very point of their music.
I'll grant you that there are many rock bands who don't display anything like that level of brilliance, but I would argue that there are also mediocre jazz artists just as there are mediocre artists in any genre. Equally, there are incredible musicians in any genre. If the morality of a musical style is in its creative excellence, then you simply don't have a leg to stand on in dismissing rock.
61. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 11:01 AM on Jun 30:
Ted (#41),
Have you read any of the writings of Francis Schaeffer (great Christian thinker and author) on music and art? Your thinking on this subject seems very "Schaeffer-esque"-- which is a good thing! :-)
62. Tami said the following at 11:21 AM on Jun 30:
Sarah P (57) -- there was a lot of discussion about "Sex and the City" on this blog; I think Ted gets specific about his reasoning in those posts.
Without getting into the specifics of that debate again... Personally, I think the difference is that in the case of music, we're debating whether or not certain *styles* are appropriate; whereas with "Sex and the City," we were discussing the content itself.
Maybe a more analagous conversation of movies would regard *genre* or *film style* (e.g., "is it OK for a Christian filmmaker to emulate Truffaut?" "Can a Christian make a romantic comedy that glorifies God?"), rather than a particular movie or its content.
63. BDB said the following at 12:17 PM on Jun 30:
Jay (#49) lists a bunch of aging rockers and what their opinions are about rock music.
The thing is, they were old back when I watched MTV in the 1980's.
I'm guessing that most Boundless readers haven't heard of them.
Heck, Dweezil Zappa, one of the first MTV VJays is my age.
If you listen to a "classic rock oldies" station you can probably still hear the guys Jay is referencing.
Did that era of music affect things? Yes - that was the 60's, when the Baby Boomers made a mess of society.
For many readers here, that's their parents' generation. Perhaps grandparents.
64. BDB said the following at 12:24 PM on Jun 30:
Jay (#54) wrote:
>>The key ingredient in Jazz is the improvisation of the melody within an established rhythmic framework. <<
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. One of the reasons that MTV's "Unplugged" was so popular was that it separated the true artists from those that were a marketing construction.
People like Eddie Van Halen and Carlos Santana really can play guitar. If you heard them play acoustically - and were unfamiliar with their pop music exploit - you might never know how involved they are with very secular music.
If God were to convert them, their guitar-playing ability would not disappear. But it could be redeemed.
65. Sarah P. said the following at 12:34 PM on Jun 30:
Tami (#62): Yup, I remember all the discussions about Sex and the City, which is why I brought up that point. I was responding to the particular quote I cited from Ted, which seemed to be saying that all music could have some worth to it, no matter what. The film discussions didn't seem to follow the same standard.
If I remember right, Ted also did not like The Dark Knight, which I thought was genius, albeit disturbing.
So I take the apostle Paul's statement that "there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Rom. 14:14, emphasis mine). "Nothing?" Did Paul really just say that? I certainly think that Sex and the City is unclean. And others seem (probably rightfully) shy of what rock music stirs in their bodies and minds. I know I am personally revolted by the stream of filth that pours through the mouths of many/most secular hip-hop and rap "artists."
This idea that God's standard is different and the problem is the weaknesses of my limited humanity does not make me comfortable. I don't naturally want to accept that I am weak. It is humbling.
I want to say that I really appreciate Ted's original post. It makes me want to go try some different music. I've also heard some of that weird stuff that people like Schoenberg put out, and it makes me go, 'huh!'
So there's a lot of questions here. What is music? (Must it have a melody line; does rap count?) If some people "stumble" over certain styles of music, should Christians keep them out of church, even if they are not inherently sinful -- because they do not "edify" the body (Rom. 14:19)? And the positive question: what kinds of appropriate themes are best expressed by different styles of music?
It really is a question of love and freedom, I guess.
66. Zach Nielsen (Vitamin Z) said the following at 12:57 PM on Jun 30:
Some of you might be interested in this series I ran on my blog a few months ago in reference to the book, "Can We Rock The Gospel?"
67. Ted Slater said the following at 1:24 PM on Jun 30:
Sarah P. -- I *did* comment on "The Dark Knight." I wrote that I did not "like" the movie; you'll have to read my original post and comments to understand the nuance of what I was saying.
I still don't "like" the movie in the sense of "enjoying" it. I agree with you that the movie "was genius, albeit disturbing." I've purchased it on blueray, and have watched it a couple of times in my home theater. Powerful movie.
My primary concern about the movie "Sex and the City" was that someone might actually come out and encourage people to see it.
Yes, we are left with, as you say, "a lot of questions here." Great discussion starters!
68. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 1:33 PM on Jun 30:
Sarah P. (#65),
For Romans 14:14 (as with any verse or passage of Scripture), it is immensely helpful to look at the context of the surrounding verses, the chapter, and even the entire book in question, in order to get to the meaning and application.
Paul is not saying, in Romans 14:14, that anything and everything is ok for even certain individual Christians to watch, listen to, and/or read. He is addressing the question (very timely in his context) of whether or not Christians could, or should, eat meat that was known to have come from animals who were sacrificed to idols.
On the topic of some Christians watching sexually explicit, or otherwise problematic, material (such as Sex and the City or *certain* hardcore rap songs, heavy metal songs, etc.), some material is simply not spiritually helpful or edifying. One cannot eat or drink filth and easily be nourished. Not that sex is bad-- God created it! :-) The *abuse* of sex, though, is rampant in non-Christian artistic expression, and it is often poisonous to imbibe.
A Christian may claim to be able to expose him/herself to such material without harm. He/she may even say that such exposure can be spiritually helpful, in terms of evangelistically "engaging with the culture." However, if this hypothetical (but often, very real) Christian looks carefully at the seriousness with which Scripture teaches on our sexuality, such claims begin to sound very problematic and not very evangelism-minded-- or at least not very *wise* in the practice of evangelistic culture engagement.
I'm not saying that Christians should *never* watch, read, or listen to art which deals with dark subject matter. The abuse of sexuality is part of a fallen world. Violence is part of a fallen world. Therefore, such things will be subjects for art in a fallen world-- and sometimes, very legitimate subjects. As Christians though, we must be very careful about what we allow before our eyes and into our minds.
I think about these matters when I hear Christians explaining why they enjoy certain TV shows, movies, video games, etc. I'm not saying that I have it all figured out here-- nor am I saying that my choices are *always* the wisest. I do try, though, to think and choose wisely, with Biblical discernment, in my entertainment choices.
69. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 1:40 PM on Jun 30:
One other thought-- I would not necessarily say that any particular style of music is "off limits," in terms of its possibly being used to glorify God. I'm thinking more of lyrical content, when I write of certain songs being problematic for Christians. However, I must say, it's hard for me to imagine Ramones-style punk rock being appropriate for most Sunday morning worship services (although it could be fine in one's car)-- and I say that as a fan of the Ramones! :-)
70. Sarah P. said the following at 2:16 PM on Jun 30:
Cool, Ted. That helps. Again, thanks!
Tami: Maybe a more analagous conversation of movies would regard *genre* or *film style* (e.g., "is it OK for a Christian filmmaker to emulate Truffaut?" "Can a Christian make a romantic comedy that glorifies God?"), rather than a particular movie or its content.
ooh. Is there such a thing as a Christian horror film? I know Frankie Schaeffer tried it, but he wasn't very good at filmmaking, as I recall.
71. Jay said the following at 2:33 PM on Jun 30:
Adam #32. You are missing the key thought here which is that those who have a problem with certain forms of music do so, not because of who designed it, but because of the design itself.
72. Jay said the following at 2:38 PM on Jun 30:
Ted – Regardless of what the site exists for, the link contains a list of testimonies from young people who have suffered from the Rock medium being used in their churches. Most of the material in that lengthy comment was probably inspired from other sources, sorry I didn’t take time to look up and list the probably 50 different ones that would have been necessary. I didn’t “copy paste” it, I typed it from what I remembered in researching this topic previously which included dozens and dozens of books and equally as many websites.
That is, with the exception of the quotes from the 60’s rockers. And I point to those only to show how much things change. If those musicians thought that “tame” music was so bad, how much more so the harder stuff of today? We become desensitized to it through exposure. Music keeps mutating and we go right along with it.
Actually, I personally can’t stand Jazz. But I can’t deride it because it seems to follow a more “vertical” dimension. Also, I personally enjoy listening to current rock groups. But I don’t allow myself to indulge in it because of the apparent negative language and message of the musical content.
73. Todd said the following at 2:47 PM on Jun 30:
David Crosby a member of The Rolling Stones? (#49)....That's sure news to me!
74. Jo said the following at 2:48 PM on Jun 30:
Christopher, #68 - very good post.
75. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 2:59 PM on Jun 30:
Jo (#74),
Thank you, my sister in Christ! :-)
76. Tami said the following at 3:00 PM on Jun 30:
Sarah P (70) -- Funny you should mention horror films; I almost used that as an example :)
I always think of A Thief in the Night as a horror film...
77. Sarah P. said the following at 3:20 PM on Jun 30:
Christopher (#68): Paul is not saying, in Romans 14:14, that anything and everything is ok for even certain individual Christians to watch, listen to, and/or read. He is addressing the question (very timely in his context) of whether or not Christians could, or should, eat meat that was known to have come from animals who were sacrificed to idols.
Yup, I re-checked the context before I posted. It's an outrageous claim, isn't it -- that nothing is unclean of itself? But when you read all the way through from chapter 13 into 15 of Romans, you see that Paul is talking much more broadly than simply about food offered to idols. Verses 5 and 6 discuss a different scenario; both the food question and the "holy day" question are simply examples to illustrate the larger argument.
When he says "nothing," that is exactly what he means! This is the awesome, mind-bending freedom of grace!
The same question comes up in I Corinthians, where Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not" (10:23).
I can do anything, absolutely anything, and God will still love me! But there are earthly consequences, and not all things edify (lit: "build up") God's kingdom in my soul and in others around me.
78. Dan real name said the following at 4:02 PM on Jun 30:
Jay #72 - most people here are not going to read you long post. I REALLY do believe you need to consider this issue akin to the "meat sacrificed to idols" scripture passage and STOP playing the job of the Holy Spirit. You need to trust God's working in the lives of your fellow believers. Nothing else needs to be said.
79. Simon Wilkins said the following at 5:08 AM on Jul 1:
I would be much more disturbed my music which isn't rhythmic.
80. Jo said the following at 7:07 AM on Jul 1:
Jay,
All right, I've now read your post 49 - most of it anyway.
I'm not expecting anyone else to read this, as it will probably be just as long. But of course they can if they like, it is fascinating...
You do have some good points, but I think they're intertwined with an awful lot of bad ones. Where I agree with you: music is a medium of communication and expression, in and of itself, separate from lyrics. That's absolutely true. Music speaks directly to the emotions, bypassing words and conscious thought, which makes it very powerful. It is really important that people consider this when they listen to music, and decide what messages they want to allow in, and which emotions they want to express and feed - because again, you're right that music is simultaneously an expression of our feelings, and an influence on our feelings.
I'm training to be a music therapist, a field that involves using music as an alternative to speech, for people who find verbal communication and expression difficult - learning disabled people for example. Client and therapist improvise musically together, creating a safe way to explore difficult feelings and work through them. Bear in mind that some clients may have been abused, some have experienced significant loss, some are suffering from terminal illnesses - there are emotions there that need to come out. Unsurprisingly, clients' music is frequently chaotic, loud and unmusical. The therapist's role is to contain the feelings that are expressed musically, by offering a pulse, solid chord structure or grounding musical motif, for example. Her role is not to calm the client down, but to bear his feelings and come alongside him within that. Through the course of therapy, as those emotions are worked through, the therapist would hope to see a decrease in chaos and an increase in controlled emotional expression as the client becomes able to contain his feelings himself.
Are you with me so far? Are you willing to allow that music, with all its orderly and disorderly elements, can be used in such a way to positive effect?
In therapy, the therapist's role in containing the music with 'orderly' elements is crucial. Now, if I am feeling furious, chaotic, unbelievably angry, and I listen to a piece of music that expresses those feelings within a musical structure that contains them and gives them some sort of order, and if that in turn affects my state of mind, allowing me to express and process my feelings in an ordered way, has that helped me? Perhaps. But it would be unhealthy for me to keep feeding my anger indefinitely. If though I use 'angry' music as a medium to work through my anger, so that I can become more able to control it and not let it affect those around me, then I believe it is safe and healthy.
One question: there is a lot of anger and pain and distress and frustration and desperation in the Psalms. What kind of music do you imagine those songs being sung to? Obviously not rock, but do you think there might have been dischord anywhere? Do you think it might have been loud at times? Do you think musical techniques might have been employed to reflect some of the anguish of the lyrics?
Now, I've said that I agree with you about music communicating emotions, however I'm not at all sure you've supported your claim that it also communicates ideas like atheism and moral relativity. By your own admission the more subtle feelings of jealousy etc are less easy to express musically, and less easy to recognise without reference to the lyrics. So apart from the fact that many rock musicians express themes of rebellion etc in their lyrics (which I accept, and agree with you that rock was - as are many new genres of music including jazz - largely created to rebel against older generations), how can you attach 'rebellion' to the style of rock as a whole, which encompasses a huge variety of music with all sorts of emotional differences? If it's hard to recognise jealousy, how much harder to recognise rebellion - unless you're pre-conditioned to expect rebellion in rock music because it's a theme that is often used. What precise musical techniques represent rebellion, as opposed to anger, for example? And if a song is merely angry, then how is it possible to judge whether that anger is good or bad, without knowing the heart of the composer? Even rebellion is not always bad - Jesus was a rebel.
In summary, I would say that music communicates generally on an emotional level, while lyrics communicate specifically on an intellectual level. I would argue that you need both to form an opinion on the moral quality of any piece of music.
81. Jay said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 1:
If anybody is still following this, read if you want … Jo, hopefully you will as I will pick up on your last point momentarily…
I hate to pick up the cudgels in my own defense, but just one more comment and then I’ll stop wasting your time, the other readers time, and my own (big sigh of relief from everyone : ). The whole point of my argument was that what is good and bad in musical material does not stem from subjective personal preferences or taste. Hence I disapprove of music which I enjoy and approve of music which I don’t. Others (Heidi, Hanna), presented a similar view as my own, but in a much more loving and gracious manner (which I highly respect and by God’s grace hope to get to that point someday). But much of their view was presented in terms of their own experience whereas my aim was to present an argument not rooted in personal experience as that is not the final arbitrator of right and wrong in any enterprise which humans engage in.
I approach the topic with a different underlying philosophy than most, which is why we have our differences. I ascribe to a more classic Greek philosophical undergirding which sees musical aesthetic and morals as being intertwined. This view, that music influences behavior, was held by many up until about my Grandparents generation. Most people today don’t see homologies between aesthetic and moral judgment but adhere to a perspective which sees mans aesthetic apprehension as autonomous from the shaping of moral or ethical values. We will never come to an agreement on a conclusion because the arguments are based on different premises.
What I wrote was not meant as an attack on, or judgment of, any person. My sincerest apologies to anyone who may have been personally offended. It was an attack on the philosophy that morality is situational and a defense of a viewpoint that is typically callously dismissed. Usually when you hear someone castigate certain styles of music as a work of the devil, it is based on their own personal distaste for it. I was pointing out that whatever way you happen to swing on the pendulum, there is other criterion for determining what constitutes appropriate choices in our musical selections. It’s not a matter of defending what we like and condemning what we don’t.
Jo, I had written most of the above earlier but didn’t have internet access to post it. Rather than making multiple posts, I’ll just continue on here. By the way, thanks for your patient and insightful comments. I get way too carried away and brash in my arguments sometimes (most of the time…) and it puts people on the defensive. Definitely need to work on that.
Now, Ted had asked about Leeland. I have listened to several of their albums, and I can’t judge them on a whole as a group. Some of their work is wonderful; some of it is “rock” (which I have just been using as a catch all phrase for much of the contemporary music of today). It is not as simple as dismissing a group or style or genre and I think it’s sad when people do. Jo, as you indicated awhile back in this thread (oh, and I haven’t heard dream theater, I’ll have to check it out later), there is much overlap in styles and genres. It’s much more complicated a task than just picking out some stylistic feature (melodic line, harmonic progression, rhythmic pattern, instrumentation) and saying if “X” is incorporated than the music is bad. Since the music medium is primarily an emotional vehicle (which we agree), I judge it based on what emotional response it triggers. Does it trigger altruistic emotions that focus us toward God, or does it trigger negative emotions that speak to our fleshly nature.
But this too is difficult to determine because we must consider the response it will trigger in humanity in general as our own response can be conditioned and disillusioned. Our response will be controlled by our conscience, but the conscience is neither infallible, nor a source of information as to what is right and wrong. We see in the Bible that it can be weak (needlessly condemning) or defiled - even to the point where it ceases to make distinctions between right and wrong. It must be carefully honed and informed by God’s Word if it is to be of any use in holding us to Biblical standards. Successive, unchecked emotions can be very dangerous. If you are without the control of the Holy Spirit (and even often with, if we are not sensitive to His promptings), devotional emotion and religious excitement will typically end in sensuality. The question is, what musical components stir feelings that either in themselves, or when acted upon are negative? That is a question that I for one can not answer. It seems to have a lot to do with an accented back beat which was introduced as the basic rock style. However, this is not always the case as I have heard music that was very straight with no “beat” that still seemed more sensual in its effect upon the emotional state of the average listener (some of Enyas work for example), than even the hardest of rock rhythms. I have also experienced (not a good indicator, I know) music that had accented back beats, but because of its combination with other musical material (I don’t know what features exactly ‘overrode” the usually negative rhythm) but were vey positive in what it expressed as a whole.
A little more food for thought, which I am quoting from Oswald Chambers: “Emotions that stir feelings must act themselves out. The sovereign emotions are guided and controlled by love, but bear in mind that love in its highest moral meaning is the preference of one person for another person. A Christian’s love is personal passionate devotion to Jesus Christ, and he must learn to grip on the threshold of his mind as in a vice, every sentiment awakened by wrong emotions. God holds the saints responsible for emotions they have not got and ought to have as well as for emotions they have allowed which they ought not to have allowed. If we indulge in inordinate affection, anger, anxiety, [My own insertion – which in general seem to be awakened and expressed in an accented back beat], God holds us responsible. He insists that we have to be passionately filled with the right emotions. It is as impossible to be filled with the Spirit and be free from emotion as it is to be filled with wine and not show it. Jesus Christ demands the whole nature, and He demands that part of our nature the devil uses the most – the emotional part. We have to get the right bedrock for our nature, the life of Jesus Christ, and then glean the things which awaken our emotions, and see that those emotions are expressed in ways like the character of our Lord.”
At any rate, I am following you through the musical therapy paragraph. Great choice of career; where are you studying? Yes, I completely agree that we can use any element of music for both positive and negative ends. The question is not the tools themselves, but rather the final result of what we have built with those tools. The question I was addressing in previous comments concerned music we listen to. The nature of what you are asking now concerns music we create. I am in agreement that music can be used as an emotional purge, especially in the context of music therapy. Here is where we differ though. I believe that in order to be used to rid ourselves of “wrong” emotions, it is done through expressing them in the music that YOU are generating. Just like your clients in the therapy classes. They are creating music to express the emotions they have no other way of expressing. I am very weary, however, of listening to the music someone else has created in order to purge your emotions. If you are the listener, instead of the creator, you are Absorbing the sentiments contained, not expressing them. Yes, it is very unhealthy to keep feeding your anger, but isn’t that you are doing by listening to angry music? I find it helpful to listen to peaceful music when I am angry as I absorb the peaceful sentiments it contains. Either that or sit down at my keyboard and bash out my anger in music that I am creating. But I wouldn’t then go and record that and listen to it when I am angry as it would just make me angrier.
I have no idea of what extreme beauty the music was like that accompanied the Psalms. Most of them contain titles that ascribe to them forms of stringed instruments. I imagine they probably in some way used stylistic features which expressed the feelings contained in the lyrics through the music as well. But why would they then re-inundate themselves with the very feelings they just expressed (purged) by continually listening to it over and over? I am sure they sang them at certain occasions, either collectively or individually, to express their feelings; I highly doubt they would use them at other times to create those feelings.
The atheism and moral relativity come in, not necessarily in the music itself, but in the philosophy that we use to condone exposing ourselves to it. How do we know if expressed rebellion or anger is good or bad? Jesus’ righteous anger caused Him to defend His Fathers honor and restore order to the “church.” Do those sentiments, when awakened in you by the music you are listening to, cause you to go out and do street evangelism and stand up for attacks against God and His word? If not, it is probably being expressed negatively.
One final thought, which perhaps Ted would like to pick up in a future post. A number of comments here spoke to the extent of Christian liberty. I don’t not see the world as black and white, and we certainly have freedoms in Christ, yet, it seems to me, that whatever liberties we are afforded (i.e. “all things”), they are to be expressed in the context of community, not individualism.
So, again from Oswald Chambers: “’All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient’ (1 Cor. 6:12). We call liberty allowing the other person to please himself to the same extant as we please ourselves. But true liberty is the ability earned by practice to do the right thing. Spiritually, liberty means the ability to fulfill the law of God, and it establishes the rights of other people. The teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is the exact opposite of the modern jargon about ‘equal rights’; ‘Why shouldn’t I do this? I’m within my rights.’ Of course you are, but never call yourself a Christian if you reason like that because a Christian is one who sacrifices his liberty for the sake of others, for Jesus Christ’s sake. Paul’s whole argument is based on this (1 Cor. 8, Romans 14). Don’t use your liberty ‘as an occasion to the flesh,’ he says. Paul continually dealt with people who under the guise of religion were libertines; they talked about liberty when what they really meant was 'I insist on doing what is my right to do, and I don’t care a jot about anyone else.' That is not liberty; that is lawlessness. The only liberty a saint has is the liberty not to use his liberty. As Christians we shall come to find that being ‘not under the law, but under grace,’ does not mean we are so free from the law that it does not matter now what we do; it means that in our actual lives we can fulfill all the requirements of the law of God. ‘But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak’ (1 Cor. 8:9).”
My conclusion? You may have freedom, but it is not unlimited, it has boundaries. Not for future discussion, but in application to this, if the music we prefer is an offence to another brother and causes him to stumble, as is typically the case with accented back beats, we should never listen to that kind of music in front him again. Not only that, but it should never be used in a church where he might hear it, nor should we have albums in our homes or on our I-pods where he might happen to see that we listen to it and thus think it is okay for him as well. Our guide should be that of the person with the weakest conscience. We should sacrifice our freedoms willingly for the sake of our brothers in Christ.
82. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 5:56 AM on Jul 2:
Sarah P.,
I agree with you about the incredible, liberating reality of grace, but I'm still not sure that I agree with you on what Paul means by saying that "nothing" is unclean in itself.
We must compare Scripture with Scripture here. Is Paul saying that if a Christian man chooses to sleep with a prostitute, he is not necessarily committing an "unclean" action? There *must* be certain choices and actions which are "unclean," by their very nature, because Scripture unequivocally condemns certain choices and actions-- such as the choice of professing Christian men to sleep with prostitutes. Paul even likens such a choice to joining *Christ's* body with that of a prostitute!
It is a Biblical truth that a believer can commit any sin and still be loved by God. However, the question is, *will* a true believer commit any and all kinds of sin? It might conceivably be possible-- King David did have a man murdered. However, he did not do so without ultimate, sincere, truly remorseful repentance.
We should never think of the freedom of grace as freedom to *sin,* even while God still loves us (believers) when we sin, because of Christ's perfect life and death on our behalf.
83. Jo said the following at 12:20 AM on Jul 3:
Jay,
I did read that comment and I appreciate the thoughtful response. I still disagree with a lot of it, but I think perhaps that's inevitable. :)
I think the main area where we differ is in your assessment of some emotions as 'negative' and 'fleshly'. I would say that it always depends on the context. No emotion is bad in and of itself. I would agree though that dwelling on emotions like anger and even sadness would not be healthy, and there are people who do this, often preferring music that triggers those emotions.
As to which kinds of music trigger these emotions, you allow that it's more complicated than simply identifying a particular musical element, but you still seem to suggest that there is an absolute answer, that certain pieces simply 'are' angry for example, even if the listener doesn't experience them as angry. I would differ with you there, too, and I would wonder how the objective absolute emotional core of a piece could be recognised, if the responses to it are not universal.
Your appeal to classical Greek thought is interesting, but it isn't Biblical. Beauty is never equated with moral quality in scripture, that I can remember. God is obviously a God of order and beauty, so there is a goodness in beauty, but not a moral goodness.
You say that listening to music is not expression; I say that singing along to it is. From personal experience, when I was very upset over the end of a relationship a few years ago, I listened to a lot of 'fun' break-up songs - some of which I wouldn't necessarily recommend, but all of which treated the subject quite lightheartedly. ('I Can't Stand Losing' by the Police was one.) For me, the message I was feeding myself was "It's not the end of the world". That helped me massively. In other situations though, listening extensively to music like that wouldn't have been as useful.
Finally, I'm not sure I agree with the extent to which you've taken the 'weaker brother' thing. I was totally with you on not listening to music in front of someone who is offended by it. I could even see your point about it not being played in church - although I'm not necessarily in agreement, but to not listen to it yourself or have it in your house for fear that someone who is offended by it might see - that's going too far in my book. A comparable example: modesty. A survey of young men that was blogged about here showed that a small minority of guys find it tempting to see a woman wearing any kind of trousers. Something like 2%. So you could say to me, "Well, if you're going to be spending time with someone you know has that problem, you should be sensitive to that, and wear a skirt." Fair enough. But you could NOT say, "Because you might run into that person when you're not expecting to, you should NEVER wear trousers in public, just in case." And you absolutely couldn't say, "And actually you better not wear trousers at home either, because other people might tell him that you do that and it might cause him to stumble." Do you see...? Just as we can take the Christian liberty thing too far, we can also take the weaker brother thing too far.
That's enough for now I think. I might not reply again but don't take offence if I don't, it's just taking up too much time!!
84. Jay said the following at 4:20 PM on Jul 13:
Jo #80. I’ve been out of town. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as this has probably gone on more than long enough. But I should point out that though you are right in that history does not stand alone as a self-interpretive phenomenon, my position, however, is not merely historical, it is also Biblical. In 1 Samuel 16, we are given a complete picture of how music can affect us. In verse 23 we read the following: “And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took a harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.” The indication here, that David took a harp and played, would imply that what followed was a result of the music; if there were lyrics (the text doesn’t say there were any), they were merely incidental. First we see that Saul was “refreshed.” This is translated from the word “ravah,” which refers to physical relief. Saul was literally uplifted, relieved, and affected on a physical level. Secondly he was “well.” This is from the Hebrew word “tov” which refers to the idea of being relieved from a mental condition. We also see a third principal illustrated here; “and the evil spirit departed from him,” the music brought about spiritual healing! This single verse points to the fact that music is not neutral but reaches to every facet of the human constitution touching us physically, psychologically, and spiritually. This section of scripture shows the positive outcomes music can have, but one must also consider the inevitable corollary. If music can be used for physical and mental relief, and spiritual uplifting, then music can also be used to cause physical and mental anguish, and bring about spiritual degradation. We ought to be very careful in our musical selections as it has the potential to affect us in ways beyond our comprehension.
85. Doug said the following at 1:22 PM on Jul 22:
I plan on starting a symphonic power metal band once I recover my keyboard skills. The first composition I plan to write will be setting Psalm 55 to music. Do you, Patrick and Jay, think YHWH will be offended by something so petty as the melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic structure the Psalm is set against? If you believe that God can't use a certain style, by virtue of the orginal creators of it, you have a very low view of God. Music genres are merely styles.Sure, most black metal songs and bands are Satanic, but that's more of an issue w/ the performers and lyrics; there's nothing wrong w/ the music itself (personally, I find it annoying and tasteless).
Just because morally suspect people started a genre doesn't mean they own it. Sometimes, passion and energy are exactly what you need to express something, complete w/ syncopation and distortion.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Music was created for Man, not Man for music. All of the so-called restrictions on the syle of music used for worship ae actually dealing w/ the performer's intent and heart, not the style.
Oh and the comment about raves...most ravers take drugs. That's why they act weird.
Stop trying to take over the job of our consciences and the Holy Spirit! YHWH does not suffer pretenders to His Throne!!!