# Is Music Amoral?



## Fly Caster (Jul 12, 2006)

Please forgive me if this has been discussed already.

Another way of asking would be-- Are there certain styles of music (excluding lyrics) that are inherently immoral?

This is a discusion that I'm having with friends that I'm somewhat ill-equipped to argue my view (that music is moral).


----------



## crhoades (Jul 12, 2006)

quick reply...

Is the note C# good or evil? I would say that this follows along the same lines as food/wine/sex. God created it good. It is to be used to God's glory. It is the heart and actions of man that can take music into a sinful direction either by not doing it to the glory of God with thanksgiving or creating noise...


----------



## Archlute (Jul 12, 2006)

If we link the hearing of music with effects upon our body and spiritual/emotional/psychological state, as did Plato, then we will have to affirm that, yes, there are styles of music that, apart from their lyrics, at least move one towards a failure of virtue. 

Without having to engage Plato's thought, a Christian can come to similar conclusions by asking the following questions:

Are the _moral virtues_ listed for ministers/elders/deacons in the Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus limited to those office bearers, or are the office bearers to exhibit exemplary behavior in those virtues that all Christians should be striving towards in some way?

If indeed, all Christians should be striving towards gains in sobriety, self-control, respectability, gentleness, lack of violent and quarrelsome behavior, should we not forego music that tends to arouse the flesh in these areas?

If indeed, all men alike are made in the image of God, and as we know by recorded history and personal observation, that all men repond to certain rhythmes, intensities of dissonance and volume, combinations of tones and melody lines in ways that cause a distortion of that image through irrationality, aggressiveness, loss of sobriety in possession of self and demeanor, warlike desires, and indulgence in lustful emotions, should we not consider, as Christians being remade in the likeness of Christ, that this music is indeed sinful in that it drives us toward sinful character traits?

If this music is then deemed universally immoral, if not in the essence of its parts (such as a pitch of C#) then certainly in the combination thereof by the minds of sinful creatures, should we not consider the construction as a whole to be inherently immoral by virtue of its intent and effects (for certainly, whether the sinful man sees it this way or not, he does have sinful intent in his creation to glorify the lusts of the flesh rather than the virtues of God, and to magnify his own glory rather than that of Christ's)?

So we should conclude that the elements that make up a musical construction are amoral, but since music never exists in the abstract as such, but rather as a work constructed by men with intent, effect, and cohesiveness (or lack thereof) of thought, we should claim that each composition is indeed moral (or immoral) in as much as it builds up (or violates) the virtues of the Holy Spirit in a person, and as it points one to (or turns one away from) the glory, order, majesty, and beauty of God.


----------



## Civbert (Jul 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Fly Caster_
> Please forgive me if this has been discussed already.
> 
> Another way of asking would be-- Are there certain styles of music (excluding lyrics) that are inherently immoral?
> ...



Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Music is amoral, people are moral.


----------



## bradofshaw (Jul 12, 2006)

I agree that certain music elicits certain emotional and psychological responses. I also will say that music has the ability to communicate an artists intentions, and therefore has real (albeit abstracted) objective values. 

However, I do think you can separate the inherent values of music from the possible affects on the listener. Just like alcohol, literature, excercise, or anything else can become destructive, music is something that should be listened to with discretion. I think it comes down more to a matter of liberty and the stronger/weaker brother situation. Heavy metal may have dangerous affects on some who posses less will power or discretion, while some others are able to listen to it without sinning. 

Two quick points:

1. It is almost impossible to draw hard lines on what will cause somebody to stumble and in what way. Remember that back in the middle ages, the Roman Church outlawed the use of certain chord progressions and intervals as being satanic or unholy. Almost no one listening to these intervals today would find them offensive, and they are common in highly valued classical pieces, and I would even imagine in what many of us would consider wholesome sacred music. 

2. Adam, I think that if you apply this standard that you've applied to music to anything else that we interact with in the world, you will find that everything has an effect on the human observor. We interact in our environment, and we interperet all facts. Granted, music communicates to us and affects us in ways that penut butter and jelly sandwhiches do not. But still, I don't know that you can say that music has such strong potential for causing evil that it's very essence can make us sin. As Christians, we have to be mindful of our sinful tendencies and use wisdom to keep from being led into sin by our environments. However, I think that even art which conveys an evil message or demonstrates something insidious can be observed, contemplated, and even enjoyed without causing the discerning listener to sin. 



[Edited on 7-12-2006 by bradofshaw]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by bradofshaw]


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 12, 2006)

C# by itself is OK. But c# played with a G, now that is a different story.

I concur essentially with Chris and somewhat with Adam (except I don't agree that anything is actually amoral). Sound is created good. Man can manipulate sound for evil. We can even interpret sound for evil.

It is sort of like asking if a word or a sentence is amoral. It really depends upon what the state of our heart is when speaking.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_If we link the hearing of music with effects upon our body and spiritual/emotional/psychological state, as did Plato, then we will have to affirm that, yes, there are styles of music that, apart from their lyrics, at least move one towards a failure of virtue.



Music in and of itself is not immoral, and neither is a specific style or genre of music immoral (excluding lyrics of course). Spiritual/emotional/ and psychological states that are influenced by such music are relative to an individual. 




> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> If indeed, all Christians should be striving towards gains in sobriety, self-control, respectability, gentleness, lack of violent and quarrelsome behavior, should we not forego music that tends to arouse the flesh in these areas?



Again this depends on an individual level. For example one may have a past experience with classical music that conjures up some memory of lust or something like that (just giving an example), so for that person it may not be a good idea to listen to classical music. Of course another persona may have a totally different reaction based on psychological connections associated with such behavior. 




> _Originally posted by Archlute_If indeed, all men alike are made in the image of God, and as we know by recorded history and personal observation, that all men repond to certain rhythmes, intensities of dissonance and volume, combinations of tones and melody lines in ways that cause a distortion of that image through irrationality, aggressiveness, loss of sobriety in possession of self and demeanor, warlike desires, and indulgence in lustful emotions, should we not consider, as Christians being remade in the likeness of Christ, that this music is indeed sinful in that it drives us toward sinful character traits?



No. Indeed it is relative. Is aggressiveness necessarily bad? No. I wouldn´t say that a certain type of music necessarily leads to irrationality. It is person relative. So we can´t state a universal claim that all of music type "œA" is immoral. _That_ would be irrational. 



> _Originally posted by Archlute_If this music is then deemed universally immoral, if not in the essence of its parts (such as a pitch of C#) then certainly in the combination thereof by the minds of sinful creatures, should we not consider the construction as a whole to be inherently immoral by virtue of its intent and effects (for certainly, whether the sinful man sees it this way or not, he does have sinful intent in his creation to glorify the lusts of the flesh rather than the virtues of God, and to magnify his own glory rather than that of Christ's)?



Well, if it is in fact universally immoral then of course it is inherently immoral by virtue of its intent and effects. Is food in and of itself immoral? No. Is gluttony immoral? Yes. So we can see that music in and of itself is not immoral, but relative to the person it can be used in an immoral way. 



> _Originally posted by Archlute_So we should conclude that the elements that make up a musical construction are amoral, but since music never exists in the abstract as such, but rather as a work constructed by men with intent, effect, and cohesiveness (or lack thereof) of thought, we should claim that each composition is indeed moral (or immoral) in as much as it builds up (or violates) the virtues of the Holy Spirit in a person, and as it points one to (or turns one away from) the glory, order, majesty, and beauty of God.



Even though my food analogy doesn´t work perfectly it gets the point across. We conclude that food is amoral, but its effect and intent (intent only on man´s side, for neither food or music can _intend_ to do anything) can be either moral or immoral. Should we them make the universal claim that certain kinds of food are immoral? No. Same thing goes with music.

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 12, 2006)

Sorry Archlute for some reason I thought your post was the first post and I'm not sure why. So if you agree with me than great, lol.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2006)

Sound is amoral. Music is moral to the core. It is speaking an emotional language and instilling a message. It is even used therapeutically. They also teach the blind colours through the use of it. Music is moral to the core.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 12, 2006)

Music is adiaphora. _Things_, including art forms, are not intrinsically evil. In fact, all of God's creation is good, including music, but...any created thing can be employed for wicked uses. 

It does not matter that the "noble art" of music (Matthew Henry) was invented by Jubal of the line of Cain. As Abraham Kuyper said, "Calvinism, on the contrary, has taught us that all liberal arts are gifts which God imparts promiscuously to believers and to unbelievers, yea, that, as history shows, these gifts have flourished even in a larger measure outside the holy circle." (_Lectures on Calvinism_, Calvinism and Art). And as Calvin said, "œAmong other things adapted for men´s recreation and giving them pleasure, music is either the foremost, or one of the principal; and we must esteem it a gift of God designed for that purpose."

So how then should we judge music? Certainly we can distinguish between lyrics which are edifying and those which are not. But what about instrumental music? Setting aside the issue of context (ie., lawfulness in worship, for example), can we say that certain musical arrangements or notes are intrinsically evil? Definitely not.

But what about the associations that we have with certain arrangements? Consider Stravinsky. Consider the theme to _Jaws_. Consider the "African" origin of rock music. Consider the use of classical music as the basis for rock songs (Bach's _Notebook For Anna Magdalena_ => The Toy's _A Lover's Concerto_, for example). Consider the use of "secular" tunes to accompany metrical psalms. Consider this and consider that. But consider this most of all: What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 11.9). 

God himself approved the use of musical instruments (2 Chron. 29.25). Who are we to say that music itself is immoral? Who are we to say that one genre of music is moral and another is immoral? Where does the Bible say that? Without Biblical warrant, no one can say that some_thing_ is sinful in itself. Far from it, Jesus said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matt. 15.11) I don't think it is wrong to extend this principle to the ear as well as the mouth. As J.G. Vos says, "This doctrine is proved by Rom. 14:14 and I Cor. 10:23. "œI know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." "œAll things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.""

However, like anything else, music can be abused, by the composer, the performer or the listener. If Stravinsky composed the _Rite of Spring_ to stir up lust, then that was sin on his part. Is there something inherent in that composition that requires _me_, the listener to sin when hearing it? If so, it must be sinful for everyone. What Biblical warrant is there to say that? I can see none. Sin is not borne on sound waves like some virus which infects the listener. 

Musical notes are not the same as words. Words too are indifferent. Like music, they are powerful. But their connotations are specific, and the Bible does make it clear that the tongue, which can both bless and curse (James 3.10), should abstain from unlawful speech (Eph. 4.29). But music is not confined the particulars meanings to which words are ascribed. (A comparison of a modern dictionary with the 1828 Webster dictionary shows too how words themselves change their meanings over time in cultural context.) What sounds pleasant to one is harsh and unpleasant to another. Who shall make themselves judge over the moral innate quality of musical notes? J.G. Vos: "A corollary of this truth that the Christian is responsible to God for his use or abuse of Christian liberty, is the command to refrain from judging others for their conscientious use of things indifferent, as shown by Rom. 14:4, 10, 13, "œWho art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth . . . ." "œBut thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." "œLet us therefore judge one another any more . . . .""

Without Scriptural warrant no art form can be declared to be sinful. A lascivious or idolatrous picture or an immoral written composition can be shown from Scripture to be an unlawful employment of art because they violate, at the least, the second or seventh commandments. Music at most can be shown to be inappropriate. 

In discussions about what tunes should accompany the singing of psalms (chanting is certainly lawful, but so are tunes), the chief considerations are not whether a tune was composed in a bar (that's a whole 'nother line of query, bar tunes, as in Martin Luther, so called), but whether it is suitable and conducive for congregational singing, and appropriate to the lyrics. The lifestyle of the composer, their particular denomational affiliation, or whether they composed the melody in a tavern, are all factors which I think are essentially irrelevant. 

Francis Schaeffer in _Art & the Bible_ gives four helpful criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of music or other art:

(1) technical excellence;
(2) validity;
(3) intellectual content, the worldview which comes through; and
(4) the integration of content and vehicle.

I recommend his work on the subject which clarifies these criteria further than I will here. But it is clear that, as he says, "Let me say firmly that _there is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style_." (He adds, "Yet, while there is no such thing as a godly or ungodly style, we must not be misled or naive in thinking that various styles have no relation whatsoever to the content or message of the work of art.") Music, like anything else, takes place in context and that context is subject to legitimate scrutiny based on Biblical principles. Schaeffer gives an example in terms of language: "Sanskrit, I am told, developed as a perfect vehicle for Hindu philosophy. And I am told it is a very poor vehicle for the Christian message." Thus, the vehicle should be considered, as one does when selecting a suitable tune for the singing of psalms in worship. But that is a far cry from saying God's word declares a particular note or genre to be sinful. 

Music is God's creation meant for his glory and our good. It is powerful, no doubt about that. It can be used for evil too. But it properly belongs to the category of _adiaphora_. As such, it is a matter of Christian liberty, with all the blessings and responsibilities that this entails.


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2006)

Andrew,

If music is good then it is moral. You may be identifying "amoral" with "evil." "Amoral" means neither good nor evil. Music cannot be indifferent, because it is the reasonable organisation of sounds. Sounds are indifferent and amoral. But once a reasonable soul takes control of those sounds, like any other language, it is morally accountable.

Blessings!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Andrew,
> 
> If music is good then it is moral. You may be identifying "amoral" with "evil." "Amoral" means neither good nor evil. Music cannot be indifferent, because it is the reasonable organisation of sounds. Sounds are indifferent and amoral. But once a reasonable soul takes control of those sounds, like any other language, it is morally accountable.
> ...



Pastor Winzer,

Just to clarify, my post was not meant to be a response to your post. It was just an attempt to express my general thoughts on the subject at hand. 

I don't believe I used the word "amoral" at all. My preference is to use the word "adiaphora." I agree with your definition of "amoral," ie., indifferent, so the word itself is fine. But in the common parlance it is often equated with "evil," which is why I studiously tried to avoid using the term "amoral," even though I concur with your meaning. 

That said, I am not comfortable with the unqualified characterization of music as "language" or with the notion that musical arrangements are intrinsically moral (or immoral). I believe music is like all things indifferent, ie., created "good." Describing a created thing as "good" is not, to me, the same thing as saying it is "moral," which imputes a rational and accountable quality to the _thing_ so described. Only rational beings or actions or intended/achieved results, I believe, can properly be described as "moral." 

Words connotate specific meanings, and those meanings can be judged by the Scriptures (ie., _Word_ of God) to be moral or immoral. The grouping of letters to form words is not intrinsically moral or immoral (a letter grouping in French does not necessarily mean the same thing in every other language for example). But within a language, words can be viewed as moral or immoral, though the same word could be used for both purposes, depending on the intent and context of the speaker or writer or hearer. God communicates to us by means of words, and it is the meaning which truly conveys the morality or immorality at issue. 

I do agree to a certain extent that the arrangement of musical sounds can convey or signify emotion. I would not agree that an arrangement of musical sounds is intrinsically moral or immoral. Morse code or sign language involves the imputation to sounds or hand gestures of specific word-meanings. As far as I know, music, while conveying or signifying emotion, does not connotate specific word-meanings (speaking of instrumental sounds rather than lyrics). That being the case, there are no "four-letter" melodies that convey an immoral meaning as with "four-letter" words. The interpretation of musical sounds is not univerally recognized as a word-specific language. Music and word-language are two different mediums; the latter is clearly morally accountable, the former can only, in my view, be described as morally accountable in the sense of what the composer or performer or listener is _trying_ to achieve. In other words, it is the person who is morally accountable, not the musical arrangement. 

As I mentioned, there are other criteria by which one can judge music. But to speak of it as "moral" or "immoral" requires a clear word-specific meaning to be understood by the grouping of instrumental sounds. There is of course a "distinction" of sounds (1 Cor. 14.7). But God's Word does not impute moral meaning to the arrangements of musical notes in the way that moral meaning can be connotated by words, intrinsically speaking. 

If music is "moral" or "immoral" then it must be shown to be so by the Word of God. God's Word clarifies clearly that there is "corrupt speech," blasphemy and other immoral meanings which can be imputed to words, just as there is edifying speech. Painting or pictures can be proved accountable to the second or seventh commandment. Music, on the other hand, while it can "refresh" the soul (1 Sam. 16.23), not unlike wine (Ps. 104.15), which is also a thing indifferent in itself, does not convey specific moral meaning with its grouping of notes. At least, there is no Scripture that I can find which declares music, with respect to instrumental arrangement or genre, to be "moral" or "immoral" in itself. If it can be proved from Scripture that a particular musical arrangement violates a particular precept of God, I would like to see such a Scripture and its application to a particular instrumental composition. Again, there are other ways to evaluate music besides looking at it in terms of "moral" or "immoral." "Good," in the context of a created thing indifferent, is not a synonym for "moral," in my view. To use the illustration already given, guns are good and they are things indifferent (amoral, adiaphora), but it the people who use them who are moral or immoral. The same I believe is true with instrumental music, considered apart from lyrics or context (e.g., worship), and the artist.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 13, 2006)

All music bears the moral influence of it's composer. Music isn't created in a vacuum. There is purpose in the song which the author intends even though we may not get it. Perhaps the song is just conveying emotions, but even emotions are not morally nuetral. They always exist in the context of a moral framework. The trick of course is trying to figure out the worldview of the composer and how that influences the song.


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 13, 2006)

Country and Rap are evil!

Jim


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> quick reply...
> 
> Is the note C# good or evil? I would say that this follows along the same lines as food/wine/sex. God created it good. It is to be used to God's glory. It is the heart and actions of man that can take music into a sinful direction either by not doing it to the glory of God with thanksgiving or creating noise...




concur

[Edited on 7-13-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## MW (Jul 13, 2006)

Andrew,

Thankyou for your reply. Your original statement -- "Who are we to say that one genre of music is moral and another is immoral?" -- from an ethical point of view is a claim that it is amoral. But then when I read your response I noted you are opposing moral and immoral. So that might explain the confusion. When I say music is moral, I am not saying it is good, but that it is either good or evil. In ethics, Moral and immoral are not used antithetically, but moral and amoral are. I hope that helps to clarify terminology.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines music as "Art of combining sounds with a view to beauty of form and expression of emotion." Combination, form, expression are the attributes of language. Beauty and emotion show that morality is intricately tied up with this language.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 13, 2006)

Instrumental music impacts the human personality (Saul and Elisha). That impact can be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on various circumstances. So that everyone has to honestly apply their discernment to themselves to determine what music is damaging or not.
Music served to prepare Elisha to receive the word of the Lord. Does the music you listen to do the same thing?
And of course, there is a legitimate place for recreation, for that which refreshes and energizes us. Does your music do that?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Jul 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Fly Caster_
> ...



I'm not an expert on the music/is it amoral question but I wanted to address this point by Anthony.

Anthony, we discussed that in a Sunday school class a few years back. I quoted that line and the teacher and some others disagreed. They said that guns do kill people. They didn't deny that people kill people but it is the gun that finishes the job. Without a gun, it is difficult to kill someone from a distance away. Do you see what I'm saying? If not, I will try to make it clearer. 

Anyways, back to the topic my friends.


----------

