epiphany

Music, Sex and God

Over the brief years of my conscious life, my views on music have altered drastically. I've pretty much always loved classical music (including movie scores). I enjoy kiddie songs and various ethnic folk music forms. And I've come to find some real gems among modern music, including rock.

Yes, for those of you who haven't seen or talked to me in a couple of years, I have found some redeeming qualities to modern popular music.

I'm not saying I love all the music that's out there. I tend to be pretty picky. Like most things, you have to know where to look to find the good stuff. Most classical music is not really terrific, which is why it doesn't survive despite various record labels attempting to lure niche market audiences for obscure composers. Many songs in our hymnals are not that good, and there were undoubtedly significantly more of them that mercifully faded from human memory over the years. ("There's a demon in the cup/Dash it down/Dash it down . . .")

Like many things, people often argue about music more in the realm of opinion and personal preference than through genuine understanding/philosophy or (in the case of Christians) Biblical theology. I have heard numerous sermons on the evils of various kinds of modern popular music. I know of several influential books on the matter. I realize that most people have their minds made up one way or the other and are actually unwilling (and therefore unable) to change their position, sometimes for legitimate reasons or misunderstandings, sometimes simply because each of us is proud and dislikes admitting error. I know that's true of me.

Where I Was

For many years, I was a staunch opponent of modern popular musics (which I'll just call "rock" for the sake of simplicity, even though that label is actually more limited than my meaning and could be misleading), Christian or non. I was actually more opposed to rock used by Christians than the rock of non-believers.

The way my mind works, I need to have a strong logical foundation for what I think and believe, and I knew that the sermons and reasoning I had heard against rock were seriously deficient. The primary arguments used against it in Fundamentalist circles (the church group with which I am most familiar) are that it is 1) of a lesser quality than classical music; 2) associated with rebellion and sexuality; and 3) violates the "new song principle" (Psalm 40:3).

I knew that #1 was a matter of technical judgment, which I was not able or prepared to handle at the time. I could see that #3 was actually a gross misinterpretation of Scripture. The Psalm says that "he put a new song in my mouth, even praise to our God." The Bible does not tell us what the sound was like, simply that the psalmist had gone from what must have been a lack of praise to praise. Judging from Scripture alone, the new song is praising God, not necessarily a particular style or fashion of praising God.

#2 is where I took my stand. As I began to study music, I could indeed find sexual aspects to it. I wrote quite a long e-mail (of which I no longer have a copy) to a group of friends about the sexuality of music--rock in particular--and its subsequent impropriety and evil when used in the worship of God. Sex was used in the worship of pagan deities, not the true God. The interesting thing was that I could find all of the same "sexual" sounds and functions even in highly conservative modern church music. The primary difference between conservative music and CCM was that CCM used a drum. The rhythms, dissonance structures and functions, and--most importantly for my ears, since they are the source of the tension/release pattern of music--harmonic rhythms were all similar to rock. So I rejected even conservative modern church music as usable in the worship of God (or in the life of a believer, since it was an expression of sexuality).

I still believe that this is the only viable argument against the music itself.

However, in the name of honesty, I will admit that I was struggling fiercely with many sexual troubles at that time. Sex was a primary enemy in my mind, and I felt that all expressions of sexuality were genuinely evil, apart from married procreation, of which I still disliked the idea and questioned God's wisdom. I was blinded and biased by my own sin and heard evil in everything that I did not like or that made me recognize my body. I can now recall and verify the accuracy of the Bible: "Unto the pure, all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled" (Titus 1:15). Because of the evil in my own heart, I saw (and heard) evil in everything around me.

However, after admitting my need, finding some help and receiving a better understanding of the Gospel, I began to see some of the errors in various areas of my life, including my understanding of music. I'm guessing that some of my friends still have difficulties in these areas, which is why I'm trying to lay down a reasonable and I hope Biblical explanation for my openness to different kinds of music.

Music Is a Tool

Music is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil. I can use a shovel to dig a well, or I can use it to hit someone on the head. The tool is not the moral thing: the shovel does not become good or evil because of the way I use it. The way I use the tool reveals what is in my heart, in this case, either constructive work or murder. As a tool, music, like a shovel, can be used for good or evil.

However, music is definitely more complex a tool than a shovel. Music is a communicative art. It does carry a message in some ways, something which a normal tool does not do. The main component, perhaps the only component, of the message carried in music itself is emotion. Music suggests to us how to feel about something. Apart from the addition of lyrics, music cannot communicate specifically. It simply gives a general impression. It may communicate martial feelings, seriousness or danger, sexual feelings or simple childish comedy, among many possibilities. The composer and performer express the message. It is up to the audience to receive and respond to the message.

This is one place where Titus 1:15 comes into play. Since the message of music is vague at best, being strictly emotional, various people will receive the message in different ways. Some, like me several years ago, will hear evil intent in it. Some will hear nothing much but another song or tune. Some will hear beauty or truth and will thank God. The listener responds with what is in his or her heart (Matthew 15:15-20).

So music is a communicative tool, but it is largely up to the listener to determine or interpret the message of the music. In my own music, I hear a lot of struggle and pain. I intentionally write it that way. But other people have told me that my music always sounds joyous to them. Obviously, we are hearing different things. They are taking a message from the music that is suitable to their own desires and experience of life. What we hear depends on who we are inside.

Now if the message is made explicit through lyrics, we have another level of communication to deal with, and a much easier one. As believers, we simply have to judge the text according to our understanding of Scripture. Is it true or lovely or pure, etc.? The text doesn't necessarily have to meet all the criteria (truth is not always lovely), but it should be a sound message. It does not have to be an explicitly Christian message (see The Song of Solomon). Different people may be conscience-bound at different places on this issue, but that need not divide us if all are truly desiring to walk in faith.

Godly Sexuality

Sex and sexuality are very serious issues in the church today. We in the Body of Christ have ignored our bodies for too long, maintaining the overly protective Victorian (Puritan is not necessarily a correct description, though some would prefer it) veil far longer than the rest of society. As a result our people are succumbing to the increasing openness of our culture regarding sexuality by falling into perversion.

Like the shovel, like music, sex and sexuality--the body itself--are tools, God-given tools. They may be used for his glory and our benefit or for evil and our own destruction. As believers, we should definitely maintain a sense and practice of modesty. However, we need not fear our bodies or our sexuality. Rather, we should use it as God apparently intended, as a reflection of his own goodness. Masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexuality--all are a twisting of God's gift. Men and women were made in the image of God, and all things about us should reflect his goodness. The nature of God is to give, not to take. Therefore, true sex ought to be a committed giving of oneself. Society treats sex as a fulfillment of one's desires, a simple animal pleasure and instinct. While sex is certainly pleasurable, personal pleasure is not the exclusive or primary goal.

I am not saying that sex is merely procreative. It is also for pleasure, but that pleasure is not only physical but also spiritual/emotional. It is the complete, unreserved giving of oneself, not for what we can get from the other person, but because there is nothing more that we can truly offer to him or her. Sexual perversions are sinful because they are not a true giving, not a seeking of the other person's good. Sex for the fulfillment of physical desire alone is a taking, not a giving, an abuse of another person made in God's image. If we engage in sex simply to satisfy our own desires, we do indeed reduce it to animal nature and instinct. But since God has given us both the minds capable of controlling ourselves and the gifts of emotion and love, we may offer ourselves in sex, not merely steal pleasure from the other person. The only true way to offer oneself wholly is a permanent commitment, normally called marriage (though marriage itself has suffered much abuse and is generally no longer viewed as permanent). And a committed giving of oneself in sex would also involve a taking of responsibility by both parties for the natural potential result of the activity, that of childbearing and -rearing. For love is responsible.

But what does this have to do with music? The point is that our bodies are not evil, and a bodily response is not necessarily evil, either. If music makes me tap my feet or dance, that physical action is not a revelation of evil in the music. It is a revelation of who I am inside. How I respond comes from who I am inside.

Some people believe that dancing is evil. The reason most often given is that dancing is sensual (meaning sexual) or leads to (extramarital) sex. I believe that this idea comes from an improper understanding of sexuality and our bodies.

The Goodness of the Body

Many of our people seem to have an unspoken belief that the body is evil or in some way inferior to the spirit. We often speak of "inhabiting" our bodies for a while and "training" our bodies as though the body is separate from the person. It is difficult to avoid such language. But due to how we are made--and God described man as "very good" at creation--we cannot truly separate the body from the spirit without losing the person. A body without a spirit is a corpse, not a person. A spirit without a body is a non-entity as far as physical senses are concerned. To be whole and truly and fully human, one must have both a body and a spirit. They function together to create a person. My spirit without my body is no more "me" than my dead body is a full expression of who I am.

Some may object that the Bible speaks of "putting off this body" and of Scripture "dividing between soul and spirit, joints and marrow." Paul also speaks of making his body submit to his mind. I do not deny those passages. But for practical life, for the everyday reality of who I am, it is useless to divide the body and spirit. God made us as a unity of spiritual and physical realities. We are unique in creation this way. Animals, as far as we know, do not have an eternal spirit. Angels are spirits and do not appear to have physical bodies most of the time. God is a spirit and does not have a body like man (apart from Jesus).

Also, we must consider that fact that the Bible promises believers a "new body." When discussing our future in heaven, Paul describes our present life as a seed. When it comes to fruition, when we are fully awake to God in the next life, our seed will have grown into something new. Just like an oak tree looks nothing like an acorn, our new bodies may be nothing like our present ones. But the fact remains that they will indeed be bodies, and it appears that we will continue to have bodies for all of eternity. A body is not evil or somehow "below" or subordinate to who we are. The actions we do with our bodies reflect and reveal who we are.

That said, a physical response to music is not inherently sexual or sinful. Humanity is wired to respond to sound. That is the purpose of our ears and the various nerves that carry the signals to our brains. Our brains interpret the sound as something dangerous, neutral or positive, and we as individuals respond accordingly. If we hear a loud noise, we instinctively turn to see the source of the sound in order to avoid potential danger. If we listen to someone speak, we may nod in agreement with their words. If we hear music, we may respond with movement that fits the sounds.

No one fears the tapping of feet to a march or the waving of arms like a conductor to the sounds of a symphony. We recognize these things as natural (and neutral) responses. But when we involve more of the body, we begin to fear ourselves. We fear that we will lose control of who we are, meaning that we fear to lose control of who we want others to think we are. Whether or not we respond outwardly does not alter who we are inwardly. But if we are truly in Christ and seeking to follow and enjoy him and his gifts, we do not need to fear our response, even our bodily response, for our response will be truly Christian. David danced when he brought the Ark of the Covenant back to Israel, and none of the priests or prophets condemned him; only his wife did. Miriam and the women of Israel danced after the Egyptian army drowned, and neither Moses nor God called judgment upon them or even rebuked them. Jesus gave a parable condemning the apathetic, giving the example of children playing music to which their friends refuse to dance.

We need not fear to dance unless we fear our response. If we are committedly following Christ, we need not fear our response.

A Question of Rebellion

Having considered sexuality, the body and our responses, I find little to fear in an intelligent and Christian exploration of rock music. Some may ask, "But what about its openly avowed expression of rebellion?" That is a good question.

First, let me point again to the individual interpretation inherent in the message of music. Because music is a vague communicator, we do not always hear the message that the composer or performer intends to convey in his music. Additionally, the hearer must have rebellion in his or her heart in order to respond with an attitude of rebellion. The music could have been intended for evil but ended up being heard as something good in the heart of the believer.

Second, when "rebellion" becomes the prominent movement, it is no longer truly rebellion but simply an expression of dissatisfaction (who is it rebelling against? Rock in the broad sense of the term has become the musical Establishment). It is like the Levi's jeans commercials of the early 1990's: "be an individual: wear Levi's jeans just like all the other individuals around you." Individuality through sameness; rebellion through establishment forms. It has become a normal mode of expression and therefore does not carry a strong message that a small and different group may convey.

Third, not all rebellion is sinful. There are times in the Old Testament when the Israelites rebelled against their oppressors, and God honored and helped them. When there is a legitimate problem, constructive rebellion, that is, rebellion that seeks and is motivated by a desire for positive change, may be a good thing. And depending on which side of the problem you are on, you may not see yourself as rebelling! Those who oppose change often declare change-inducers to be rebels even when those labeled "rebels" have no evil intent.

Where That Leaves Me

(I have not addressed the quality argument because I believe it is a straw man: I have heard many technically and theoretically excellent rock pieces, both Christian and non. And I know of technically poor classical pieces and hymns.)

If the body and sexuality, used correctly, are not evil and auditory rebellion is somewhat or even largely subjective, the main arguments against rock fall apart. The real issue becomes not the external thing, the rock music, but my response to that music. And this is truly where the problems and preaching should have pointed over the past few decades of argument and strife.

In some ways, we have both created and perpetuated a problem. By maintaining a strict (and unbiblical) separation from rock, we have in some measure prevented positive influences in and limited the creation of constructive communication via this medium. Additionally, we have created "rebellion" where none may have existed by placing something legitimate off-limits. I have heard Christians say that people who become involved in rock inevitably continue down the road into heavier and Biblically-defined sins. But in that case, could it not be that the unbiblical prohibition caused the individual to begin a path into sin when the first step was not actually sin? Perhaps the prohibition injured or seared a weak conscience. Another way we could look at it is that we perpetuate the rebellious association of rock within the Christian community by making it an easy or obvious way for individuals to express their rebellion: people call this music rebellious; therefore, I will demonstrate my rebellion by listening to this music. This example once again demonstrates that the music itself is not rebellious; the listener's heart is. The music has become a means, a tool, to reveal a negative attitude.

But what can we do when the listener doesn't have an evil intent? What if his heart is purified in Christ and hears only good aspects of the music? And how can we determine that? The truth is, we cannot know another person's heart apart from his actions. And we usually cannot know the truth of another's actions without an extended period of observation. Therefore, we are forced to allow openness within the Body in this issue. When the person's actions violate clear and genuine Scriptural commands, other believers may get involved. Until that occurs, however, we ought to assume the best in an attitude of love and respect for the child of God.

Rock and the Church

Some will say that rock (in one form or another) is acceptable for the believer in private but not in a church setting. Each church must determine what is acceptable for itself and walk in accordance and continual self-examination just as individual believers ought to do. However, I do not believe that a blanket rejection of rock in each church is necessarily good, wise or safe.

People often divide their lives between who they are at church and who they are at home, another outworking of our mistaken practice of dividing the body and spirit. However, in Christ our lives are united. Who we are in public is the same as who we are in private. Who we are at home ought to be identical to the person we are at church. We cannot rightly divide our private practices and opinions from our public selves without the risk of splintering our persons and causing inner turmoil. A Christian is a Christian all the time, regardless of his or her location or environment. All that we do, whether expressly for the Church or God or for our friends or ourselves, is in Jesus and through him. He is the one who receives the glory or bears the shame.

If that is true, then what we listen to in private is just as much a worship and living of Christ as what we listen to at church. If we cannot listen to or participate in rock in the public worship of God, how can it be acceptable in private? Or if we find it acceptable in private, how can we completely reject its use in public? (I'm neither advocating an abandoning of older songs and hymns nor promoting the performance of any and all kinds of rock in church, simply arguing for what I believe to be an acceptable diversity.) Jesus is the lord and Saviour of the common man, not just the intellectually astute or cultural elite. God speaks to his people through both the creation around them and their common language (hence the Hebrew, Aramaic and street Greek of the Bible). Cannot he speak through their common musical language? And why must we assume a different, more learned language simply because of our location?

It is true God and deserves our utmost respect and honor, but he is also our Father who allows us freely into his presence (and would seem to prefer that we remain there). We need to look at how much of our practice is truly honor and respect and how much is simply tradition. Does our practice actually divide God from our daily lives? Are we continuing or encouraging the division of the believer's church persona and private persona?

In Conclusion

I realize this is a lot of material to think about and consider. I have been thinking about it for a long time, some of it for years. Perhaps some arguments one way or another come quickly to your mind. Perhaps you can find some faults in my reasoning or application of Scripture. That's fine, and while it may initially hurt, I would appreciate knowing the problems with my thinking.

I am not attempting to force anyone or any organization to change. But I would encourage you to think about what I have said and see how it applies to your own life. The main point is that external things do not corrupt you. They simply help to reveal who you are. How do you respond to external things? Is your response truly Christian, or does it possibly reveal sin or weak spots in your own growth in Christ? Each of us needs to examine our own lives and then, as believers, turn again to Jesus trusting for faith, forgiveness and renewal.

Posted by jonhanneman at March 22, 2004 06:34 PM | TrackBack