Rock Music - Let's Debate: Evil or Neutral?

[etexas]

There are rock bands and...well, there are rock bands. Just like certain movies or books there are certain groups I feel are not spiritually helpful to a Christian. I guess the whole Rock thing is pretty neutral (some old James Taylor might put you to sleep, but I am not sure that is a danger to the soul. Just my

 

[Tom Roach]

The danger in music (and entertainment in general) is when people--mainly teens--idolize the singer (or actor in a movie). So you have a band that has a single on the radio that seems perfectly fine to a set of parents, so they let their daughter get the CD. Then when they hear the CD being played in the house, they realize some songs on the album are essentially wicked. That's one case. Another case may be where all the songs seem perfectly fine but then they see their daughter hanging a poster of the band in her room, and the poster shows obvious perversion in the way they present themselves visually. Then there's yet another possibility where on the surface all seems fine in the music, so the parents let the daughter listen. Then they find out their daughter is copying the ways of this band's lifestyle, which may involved the use of cigarettes, alcohol, etc. You see, underneath good is typically bad. That is, what we hear and see can appear to be something harmless but underneath can be disaster (as in the case with a teenage girl aspiring to be like her favorite band).

Let me tell you, people rub off on each other and I actually consider the source to be very important concerning who the artists are. Since I've been reading the Holy Word, I cannot ever listen to music or watch movies without also considering the lifestyle of who I'm hearing and watching. Case in point: a song I love by a band who is all agnostics and atheists. The song is fine and everyone here would probably agree. But who wrote it? Who's singing it? I do think this matters, because what good is anything if its source is wicked?

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

I do think this matters, because what good is anything if its source is wicked?

To God be the glory inspite of evil men, Edison, Einstein, Mozart, Thomas Jefferson were not Christians and God still allowed their gifts to benefit all of humanity.

You can be entertained by the heathen without being offended by them, whether you wish to give your money to them is a personal choice.

But going to the movies is not an act of idolatry in and of itself, we must own up to our own sins, if we idolize celebrity may we repent.

Yes our culture worships the cult of personality, we do it with theologians ourselves, ALL things can be corrupted until glory comes.

 

[Tom Roach]

To say that because pagans practiced drum beating in sinful rituals does not make drum beating now wrong. But then again, I rarely buy the "origins" arguments for reasons not to do something today (such as observe Christmas, etc. etc.).

I definitely disagree. For something like Christmas, you are accepting that wicked pagan festivals and praising the birth of Jesus Christ can mesh. I know that the traditions of Christmastime seem innocent and almost holy, but their sources definitely were not holy and had nothing to do with God at all. If you took away the pagan/tradition of Christmas and only praised God for sending Christ to save us, it's still wrong because the very reason it is on December 25th is because of the pagan festivals. That is, it has nothing to do with Christ. I say if you were to honor God on 12/25 or so, it's fine only it's completely random it's that day or week, and you do so throughout the year. I mean, we should be celebrating Christ's birth (and life + resurrection) all year. Why one day?

As for Easter--a slightly less obvious false holy day--we bring in all these pagan elements. It's just really sad that the world consume our faith.

Pardon the tangent

 

[kvanlaan]

Where then do you draw the line? Is it the lyrics that will finally be a show stopper? The sensual nature of some of the music? Why allow such a blatantly godless form of entertainment into your life?

These, again, are assertions and it's incumbent upon you to show that any style of music, in and of itself, divorced from lyrics, sinful nostalgia, etc. is evil, 'sensual in nature', or 'blatantly godless'.

Josh, though I would much prefer that you would just accept my assertions, and recognize my genius for what it is, I guess you're not going to do that.

My argument is not so much that the music itself is wicked on the whole (if we're divorcing it from lyrics, etc. and including Christian rock music in there as well) but combine the two (which is the case 99.9% of the time) and you have problems. Rock music and the industry that cavorts about it are, again 99% of the time, without God. Godless. Blatantly. Not sure if the 15 tons of cocaine, etc., that go up these stars' noses and into their arms every fortnight are enough to back up that assertion, but I sort of think so.

Get into the Christian music scene and the number is not so high, but as a genre, secular rock music has little, if any, redeeming value. We would be throwing out a very tiny baby (and it would be a baby harp seal, not an actual human baby) with an ocean of very foul bathwater in getting rid of it.

 

[Tom Roach]

Oh, I agree that man men who were not Christians and were agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever, have made great achievements. I also am well aware of the problem you may not see in this. We place too much value on knowledge (among other things) in this society--particularly in the US. Before electricity/the light bulb/the wax cylinder (Edison), mathematical & scientific theories (Einstein), intensely beautiful compositions of music (Mozart), the Declaration of Independence and great architecture (Jefferson), we still had problems with sin and unrepentant hearts, as we do now. I am not defaming these men, but rather am saying that their good works were gifts from God--as you said to benefit all of humanity : )

This is true because God has the power to use all men (unbelievers included) to work out His will. I really do believe that God works through people of all faiths, because He can and does for His own secret purpose. In that, we see great things spring out of people who deny Christ. This is a mystery to me--can anyone shed light on this issue? It's a mystery because I don't understand why God uses wicked people to do good for the greater cause of humanity. Maybe it's His way of showing He can drive wicked people to do truly things--what an amazing concept!

I said the source is imperative to the end result because there is the possibility that ill intentions on good results can have some less obvious bad results. What it boils down to is why we listen to these songs. I know someone who only listens to particular songs by the artists they like. That is, they skip over the tracks that they find offensive. This shows great discernment skills.

MOVIES:
Say there's a drug-addicted fornicating actress in a film which you play on a TV in your living room, yet her role in the film is a good-mannered girl from Texas who does nothing but help people, there is no problem because the character she's playing is a good example and can teach people how to be kind of whatever. But we have to remember it's an act, and not the real person (we see the common bad guy in the movie and think, "Hey, I bet he's like that in real life because he looks like a bad guy").
YES, I AGREE, it will not harm you or whoever watches it

Again (and I may be repeating myself), the problem with music and literature is that the character of the writer(s) will inevitably come out. A perfect example: my favorite band for years was The Smashing Pumpkins. They even have a generally positive view on Jesus and God in some songs (that is, God is the source of good and beautiful things). However, I learned last year that it's a secular point of view of God (the lead singer stated this) and that secular humanism is garbage even when "Jesus" and "God" are thrown into its mix. So my point? Use your best judgment and base your judgment on that big, thick book that can tell you how to avoid any trouble that may come out of the music.

I heard a song today where the guy was screaming about how awful and hopeless life is, but it did not affect me because I know it's false. I mean, it's all entertainment and generally harmless, but remember Mark 7:18-23 that we can let evil pass through us and be untainted by it, unless of course we accept it while it's passing through us. Use God as your defense when listening to all the entertaining garbage out there : )

 

[Tom Roach]

My argument is not so much that the music itself is wicked on the whole (if we're divorcing it from lyrics, etc. and including Christian rock music in there as well) but combine the two (which is the case 99.9% of the time) and you have problems. Rock music and the industry that cavorts about it are, again 99% of the time, without God. Godless. Blatantly. Not sure if the 15 tons of cocaine, etc., that go up these stars' noses and into their arms every fortnight are enough to back up that assertion, but I sort of think so.

Get into the Christian music scene and the number is not so high, but as a genre, secular rock music has little, if any, redeeming value. We would be throwing out a very tiny baby (and it would be a baby harp seal, not an actual human baby) with an ocean of very foul bathwater in getting rid of it.

GREAT POINTS

 

[bookslover]

Plato said "Give me the music of the nation, and I care not who makes it's laws"

Michael

Yeah? Who did he have on his IPod?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey:

The question was asked by Joshua: "Is someone able to biblically substantiate that any musical note or group of notes, in and of themselves, inherently, apart from lyrics, sinful nosalgia attached thereunto is sinful?"

Art is not neutral - it is the selective reproduction of reality based upon the artist's metaphysical presuppositions. There is, however, a difference between fine art and abusive art.

Is there a difference, for example, between Michelangelo's statue of David, and homosexual p0rnography? Or, heterosexual p0rnography and the Venus de Milo?

If there is a difference between fine art and abusive art, then one can make a case for the idea that Rock 'n Roll is abusive art. I believe that Paul gave us the criteria to judge such things ourselves:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of a good report: if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things, Phil. 4:8

Rock 'n Roll does not seem to fit into these categories,

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[etexas]

If you play the Bangle's "Walk Like an Egyptian" backwards it will say "Throw ham at squirrels" this is scary! I do not recomend listening to that and it will mess up your old LP!

 

[5solasmom]

I definitely disagree. For something like Christmas, you are accepting that wicked pagan festivals and praising the birth of Jesus Christ can mesh. I know that the traditions of Christmastime seem innocent and almost holy, but their sources definitely were not holy and had nothing to do with God at all. If you took away the pagan/tradition of Christmas and only praised God for sending Christ to save us, it's still wrong because the very reason it is on December 25th is because of the pagan festivals. That is, it has nothing to do with Christ. I say if you were to honor God on 12/25 or so, it's fine only it's completely random it's that day or week, and you do so throughout the year. I mean, we should be celebrating Christ's birth (and life + resurrection) all year. Why one day?

As for Easter--a slightly less obvious false holy day--we bring in all these pagan elements. It's just really sad that the world consume our faith.

Pardon the tangent

I had a feeling someone would pick up on my "origins" comment and disagree.

I don't have a problem with others having personal convictions against celebrating these days (they fall under christian liberty), but strongly disagree with you that believers who do observe Christmas are letting the world is consume their faith.

Anyhow, that's a whole nother thread and . I referred to it because I don't believe that pagans should be able to legislate what we can and cannot "taste and touch" when God has not.

Because pagans used a tree to symbolize something doesn't mean we now cannot enjoy trees or redeem the use of trees for God's glory....and because pagans used a drum beat for voodoo rituals doesn't mean we now cannot enjoy drums or redeem them for God's glory. The evil is not in "the thing" at all, and we cannot call it sin when God has not.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Because those animals have been known to be deadly to the touch or if consumed universally...that's not been 'proven' with any type of music, in and of itself.

So something is proven when everyone accepts a conclusion?

CT

 

[CalvinandHodges]

I hope I haven't said that art is neutral. The fact is, it is yet to be proven that all type of any particular style of music is universally evil without exception. I think that's an unprovable assertion. There has to be an underlying presupposition that all rock music (divorced from yada yada yada) is evil without exception...and that's what is yet to be proven, In my humble opinion.

Umm...yes, Sir. But I wouldn't call p0rnography art at all.

Before citing the Philippians passage as a prooftext, one has to show that all rock music, detached from lyrics, sinul nostalgia attached thereunto, etc. is universally impure, unlovely, unpraiseworthy and harmful to all people of all types in all places without exception. Until that is done (and I don't think it can be), I think it's a matter of one being faithful to prodding of the Holy Spirit on his conscience.

Hey:

I think, Joshua, that you are arguing that Rock music is neutral in nature. That is, you seem to think it appropriate if we remove the ugly lyrics, and replace those lyrics with paraphrases from the Psalms.

or,

That removing the ugly lyrics altogether and just have the tune would eliminate any "pollution" found in the music. The music, I belive, fits the lyrics.

Let us consider the opposite: What if we took Handel's "Halleujah" Chorus from The Messiah and attach VanHalen's lyrics to "Panama." Would the music fit the message? The song would be a disaster.

Awhile ago I read a study done by Yale students. They hooked up 2 plants to 2 polygraph machines. One plant was bombarded with Rock music, and the other with Classical. The polygraph machine went off the board with the plant listening to Rock. The plants were then bombarded with their respective music for 24 hrs a day for a whole month. The Rock n Roll plant slightly withered while the Classical music plant flowered.

Similar studies were done with people. Students listening to Classical music while taking a test scored higher than their counterparts listening to Rock music. Here is an interesting article on the psychological nature of music and Rock in particular:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=164902201

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Ravens]

For my part, I fail to understand how someone could make a blanket condemnation of "rock music."

First of all, the term as it is being used in this thread encompasses so many genres, styles, etc., as to become almost useless. Its being used to cover a wide variety of bands, e.g., Peter, Paul, and Mary, Amorphis, Jefferson Airplane, Pearl Jam, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Megadeth, Aerosmith, etc. I mean at least according to its usage in this thread, we could throw Django in there as well.

You simply can't deal with this wide spectrum as a monolithic entity, unless you're trying to make the case that all creativity must *explicitly* glorify God in very objective ways. As in, I think harmonies and what not glorify God (in the same sense as all creation does); but some people seem as if a song would have to have Christian lyrics in order to do so. If you apply the same standard to artistic pieces, then all classical art should pretty much just be done away with and forbidden unless it has a picture of Moses, Abraham, Peter, a Bible, etc. A landscape doesn't explicitly point to Christ, but the beauty of a good nature-scene implicitly leads one to glory in God.

Not to be trite, and its a reductio ad absurdum, but do we have to carve Bible verses into trees in order to appreciate them?

Musical arts started in the line of Cain, but from all appearances so did most of the trades, as well as cities. So if you live in an urban area, you're partaking in the fruit fo Cain's line. Are cities in and of themselves bad?

Also, for my part, I find the "aggression" or "heart-rate" argument to be weak. As someone mentioned, various classical pieces have that same effect. I get "pumped" listening to the Ride of the Valkyries, O Fortuna, and In the Hall of the Mountain King. So a consistent position would throw out those as well.

I don't find music that leads one to be... and I don't know how to phrase this... awake, alert, aggressive, pumped up, to be bad in the least, as long as it isn't fostered into sinful aggression. But there are ways to be masculine and full of energy without going there. I mean, do any of you go to the gym? Like, not for ellipticals, but to actually work out? You're telling me when you get out you don't feel pumped up and masculine, in a good way? And that's bad?

Christian men are also Christian men, and for my part, I'll still continue to listen to O Fortuna and various metal to pump myself up when I'm in the mood to be pumped up.

Also, if you're arguing for explicitly Christian lyrics:

According to the most common view of the RPW on this board, people shouldn't be writing their own worship songs anyway. So every "Christian song" outside of church would probably have to refrain from praising God (if the RPW applies to private worship as well). So maybe you could have songs "about" Abraham or something, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

To use the same bolding trick as earlier, a redeemed creation is still a redeemed creation.

 

[Theoretical]

So where does Jazz music fit in this spectrum? (especially for those on the "against" side in this thread).

 

[Founded on the Rock]

Hey:
Let us consider the opposite: What if we took Handel's "Halleujah" Chorus from The Messiah and attach VanHalen's lyrics to "Panama." Would the music fit the message? The song would be a disaster.
-CH

That is one example. But are you to say that there is not one example out there where it is not possible that it could happen? Just because one example does not fit the criteria does not mean that any will not.

As I mentioned earlier, music is much like writting. Ideas are being expressed in a creative way. For example, it is not good to read filth that talks explicitly about sex. Reading a fictional book written by a non-Christian, with non-Christian ideas behind it, can and should be read(under the discretion of the person reading). One may even enjoy the writting of the author, but not share in some of the conclusions. The same can be said with SOME rock music. It is expressing ideas, in an artistic way. The people playing the rock music do not make the music itself evil.

I am not arguing that ALL rock music fits this mold but that some does. The point I am making is that THEORITICALLY, not all rock music is evil. This is why there needs to be discernment used when listening to it. But banning it completely does not seem necessary.

 

[ChristianTrader]

No. You'll have to forgive my ineptitude at formal logic...it ain't a strong point of mine. On things which aren't so clear cut (and I'd certainly throw in musical style) I think it's impossible to prove something universal about it (i.e. all rock music is beneficial or all rock music is evil for all people without exeption).

So what you were asking before was for someone to do what you think is impossible? If that is so then why were you asking for someone to back up the assertion that there is such a thing as inherently problematic music genres/styles.

CT

 

[turmeric]

I'm going to create a Rock Music poll.

 

[etexas]

Only one song is truly EVIL.........."Muskrat Love"!!!!!!!

 

[Magma2]

Abraham Kuyper has a great discussion on Calvinism and art in his lectures on Calvinism and argues that it had a liberating effect on the arts. He writes: "That which is ecclesiastical must bear the stamp of faith, therefore genuine Christian art can only go out from believers. 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. "These radiations of Divine Light" he wrote, "shone more brilliantly among unbelieving people than among God's saints."

For what it's worth I've heard very little "Christian Rock" over the years that is any good and most is just, well, wimpy. My complaint with rock in general is that it is boring and predicable.

 

[Tom Roach]

I have a great example of a song that sounds up-beat and optimistic, and on the surface the lyrics appear that way, but the meaning of the song (as from the intent of the writer) was a mixture of extreme sadness and hope for optimism. May I post the lyrics? There are no offensive words (no profanity). It will prove that the source of the song is evil but the outcome is good. Both the general appearance (and upbeat sound) had a positive affect on most people who heard it. It was a hugely-popular song in 1993 and 1994. It was an alternative rock song.
So, should I post the lyrics or link to them?

 

[turmeric]

Maybe a link would be good.

 

[Tom Roach]

Maybe a link would be good.

lyrics for
The Smashing Pumpkins: today

 

[kvanlaan]

Um, is this the same guy who dedicated a song to Satan during one of his concerts? I had a friend in college that went to see that Smashing Pumpkins concert and, party guy though he was, said that he thought it "wasn't cool". Joke or no, I find the origins of this music disturbing.