What does the Bible say about what music we should listen to?
Nothing...
"What? What do you mean? You've been talking about music all week..." My point is this: The Bible doesn't have any info on what kind of music to throw in your CD player or to take with you in your walkman. You didn't take music with you in Bible times. From what I can tell, you got your music either from making it yourself, or when you were around a gathering of followers of God - whether it be from the singers in the temple or in a New Testament church setting. The only exceptions (that I can think of) are king Saul and Elisha. [To clarify, there were other instances of music, for sending away parties, and for other festivals as well. But they were not necessarily godly assemblies.]
What does that have to do with anything? I don't know, but that was the closest thing to a normal Lunch-Time Thought that I've had all week, so I decided to add it. Once again, I have to ask you forgiveness for the length of this post - but as today is Friday... you have all weekend!
I would like to try to summarize some of the discussions this week, but rather than just saying what so-and-so said and that person said, I am going to give what I think the Bible teaches - Smarter people and more spiritual than I will disagree (I know, because I personally know smarter and more spiritual people on both sides of this issue).
Why do we have music?
Unlike things like circumcision, baptism, the Lord's Supper, OT Offerings, etc. we don't have places in Scripture that tell us: Music was made because of this, and here's how you should do it every day. So, perhaps that makes this topic a little more difficult.
What is the purpose of music?
- To bring glory to God. - To aid in the process of letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly by teaching and admonishing through music. - To edify the saints. - To prepare the spirit for the reception of God's word.
Does some music glorify God if listened to at home, that does not glorify Him if performed at church?
No, I don't think so. However, I will bring attention to Romans 14 here. The Bible says that there are some "doubtful disputations" in the world. If you have a doubt about something, you are sinning if you continue to do it (that's what Paul means when he says, whatsoever is not of faith is sin). So, if you have a doubt about a particular song whether it is good or not - it is not good for you to do it. In that sense, there could be something that is OK for you to do, but not OK for me to do. However, the principle of Romans 14 is that while there are doubtful disputations, the things that are doubtful should not be done in front of everyone, and especially in front of those that would possibly stumble at it. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Disputed music should not be performed in church as it can cause people to stumble. Experience tells us that Christian Rock music is a bridge. It can and does bridge people from Secular Rock music to a more conservative style of Christian music, or it can and does bridge people from conservative Christian music to Secular Rock music. If Christian Rock is being pushed onto people, then a stumbling block is being created.
How important are the lyrics?
Singing about a country's flag does not bring glory to God, help let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, edify saints or prepare for the reception of God's word. Singing about Jingle Bells, Silver Bells or a Winter Wonderland also is empty (a.k.a. "vain"). Singing a 4 minute long song that never mentions the name of Jesus or God, but does make an allusion to Him once - is mostly vain, with a little good. If music is going to bring glory to God, then He needs to be mentioned. If it is going to teach and admonish, to help the word of Christ dwell in you, then some of the word of Christ ought to be in it. If it is going to edify the saints, then it needs to be edifying them in spiritual matters, not carnal matters.
What can you write to get you in trouble?
Hey, this is my blog :) There is room in a Christian's life for music that is not directly God-glorifying. My kids have picked up a song: "If you don't know what it is, stay away" teaching them not to pickup little things that might look like candy, etc. One of the Fire Safety Educators here at work taught a song to a group of homeschool kids: "Two ways, out... you need two ways out... in case their is a fire in the house, you need two ways out." The Bible does not condemn things like this. They are helpful in teaching children - I'm not against them. However, if I am listening to those most of the time - then I have major issues - and it is not glorifying to God. Things for the life under the sun profit little compared to things with eternal value.
What if the only music I know how to make is a certain style that would not be considered acceptable to many in the church?
The question is: If I only know how to make 'techno' music, shouldn't I do that for the glory of God? Though that sounds good, I don't see that principle as being biblical. Nadab and Abihu sought to bring an offering to God in Leviticus 10. Praise the Lord, they wanted to do what's right. But it says they offered "strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not." The result was that they were devoured by fire from the Lord. It appears that they were trying to do things for God the way that they had witnessed the Egyptians doing to their gods. Their motives were right, but their methods were wrong. The same principle can be applied when Uzzah wanted to stay the ark of the covenant from tipping off the cart. The motive was good, but the method was not. 'Techno' music is a style of music that is being offered to the god of this world - I don't think anyone would argue that (yeah, right, of course people would argue that - we argue anything!). So, if someone is offering music to Satan, and then gets saved... nah, I think their style of music ought to change. I think they ought not to offer the same strange fire to the Lord that they were giving to Satan.
What defines worldly or devilish music?
Ok, here's where I really get in trouble. The Bible doesn't say what kind of music (referring to sound here, not lyrics) is worldly or devilish. That is, the Bible doesn't say, "If the heavier beat is on the 2nd and 4th beat of the measure it is wrong, but if it is on the 1st and 3rd, then it is OK." I have heard that principle taught before (or maybe it was the other way around 1st & 3rd bad, 2nd & 4th good... whatever). I don't think you can make a distinction that way. The Bible also does not say what instruments are worldly. If we were to constrain our choice of instruments to what the Bible says, then we should probably abandon the piano, maybe the banjo, and whatever other instrument is not found in the Bible. At the same time, we need to consider that the harp and the predecessor to the violin were used just as much in drunken feasts (cf. Isaiah 5:12). I don't believe an instrument by itself is good or bad - Ok, basically I'm saying that you can't rule out drums as being sinful, or even an electric guitar (half my readers just clicked on the X in the upper right corner - the other half are using Macs, and I don't know what they clicked!). So, to figure out what defines 'worldly' I think we have to take the biblical defintion found in 1 John 2:16: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
What music would fall under 'the lust of the flesh'?
How do you define music that pleases the flesh vs. music that pleases the spirit? Galatians 5:17 says that the two are contrary to each other, and you cannot do the things that ye would. My answer: I don't know! I know that lost people like the song Amazing Grace. Since they do not have the Holy Spirit, does that mean that Amazing Grace is pleasing to the flesh... I think we misphrase the question we say music: "ministers to the flesh" or "ministers to the spirit." Most would not say that Saul was a saved man, and we know that at the time he had an evil spirit, but when David played, it refreshed Saul. Do we say that music ministered to the flesh or spirit? Does the Mormon Tabernachle Choir singing Hallelujah Chorus minister to your flesh or spirit? One way I could identify music for the flesh would be a sound that if you listen to it and 'let go' you will find yourself head-banging. Fair enough?
What music would fall under 'the lust of the eyes'?
Well, since music is a sound, the eyes are not involved. However, eyes are involved when there is a performance of music. So, all I say here, is that when there is a performance of music, the peformer ought to be dressed modestly and covered. (I would like to make a note here that those two words are not synonymous.) Also, body movements of a performer should not be made that would be enticing to the flesh.
What music would fall under 'the pride of life'?
Here is where I will gain back some of my readers that clicked the X above. Unfortunately, this principle applies to those that are making the music, whereas in most of Christianity today, the issue is not with the makers of the music (they are relatively few compared to the listeners) but with the listeners. What I mean by that is, the majority (greater than 50%) of you reading my blog have never made a CD or even performed a musical special in church. How can we tell if a creator of music is creating worldly music by doing it for the pride of life? It's easy: When creating the music (whether it be writing the song, or arranging the music, or practicing the voice), is the driving factor in the music creator: "What can I do to make people like this song," or is the driving factor: "What can I do that would make God like this song?" I am ok with both questions being asked in the preparation of the song, but whichever of those two questions are driving the production - determines whether it is worldly, for the pride of life, or godly. "Do I now seek to please men?" As for the listeners of the music, some discernment can be had to determine whether the music was made for the purpose of pleasing God or men. But I don't think it's as obvious as just hearing the music. Nehemiah had an invitation to go to the Temple in Nehemiah 6 - that sounds like it would be from God - but the truth is that it was a trick of the enemy. Only because he was "walking in the Spirit" was he able to discern that.
Should we be separated and peculiar unto God?
...Duh... (sorry). Does the phrase, "Be ye holy" mean anything to you? Of course we are to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works, we are to come out from among them and be separate. But to do that, we are to be separated unto God. That is, from the time we get saved until the time we meet the Lord, we are to do everything we can to please God, to bring Him glory and honor. When it comes to music, we should be different from what the world is doing. However (about to lose those readers that clicked the X above... again), that is an almost undefinable task. For example, if a man from India comes and plays Indian music. How can you tell if that is the music of the world in India? What if a man from Zambia comes? Is his sound and clapping and dancing the same sound and clapping and dancing as the lost world would make in Zambia? If so, should it be anathemized (I do enjoy making new words)? What if the popular music in America is no longer a particular style? Would it then be OK for a Christian to use it? I mean, 'harmony' seems to be originated in ancient Greek music (non-Christian). Should we avoid harmony altogether because the world did it first - or because we are so far from its origin that it is OK? Or, is the real issue that we need to be separated from primary associations? Rap music is clearly primarily associated with a worldly sex and drugs and violence culture - nobody would argue that (again, sure they would!). Rock and Roll music also is primarily associated with sex & drugs & partying, etc. But if these primary associations go away, then I think you will find that even the conservative church will accept it - again, think harmony and Greek culture.
What's my conclusion?
Well, I think 1 Corinthians 10:31 should come to mind: Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all for the glory of God. Music should be made for the purpose of glorifying God not man. It should edify man, but that edification is through the words not the music. The lyrics must be such that teach us and admonish us, warn us, about God - meaning they should teach Scriptural truths. The music should be meek not obnoxious. It should be humble not proud. The music in church should be the most conservative to avoid causing a brother to stumble... I believe that the music generated with these principles in mind would be glorifying to God. In regards to listening to music, some of these principles require that the Holy Spirit has to help you discern if the music was created along these lines or not...
Will anybody read this far down?
Doubt it :) Just a thought...
Nothing...
"What? What do you mean? You've been talking about music all week..." My point is this: The Bible doesn't have any info on what kind of music to throw in your CD player or to take with you in your walkman. You didn't take music with you in Bible times. From what I can tell, you got your music either from making it yourself, or when you were around a gathering of followers of God - whether it be from the singers in the temple or in a New Testament church setting. The only exceptions (that I can think of) are king Saul and Elisha. [To clarify, there were other instances of music, for sending away parties, and for other festivals as well. But they were not necessarily godly assemblies.]
What does that have to do with anything? I don't know, but that was the closest thing to a normal Lunch-Time Thought that I've had all week, so I decided to add it. Once again, I have to ask you forgiveness for the length of this post - but as today is Friday... you have all weekend!
I would like to try to summarize some of the discussions this week, but rather than just saying what so-and-so said and that person said, I am going to give what I think the Bible teaches - Smarter people and more spiritual than I will disagree (I know, because I personally know smarter and more spiritual people on both sides of this issue).
Why do we have music?
Unlike things like circumcision, baptism, the Lord's Supper, OT Offerings, etc. we don't have places in Scripture that tell us: Music was made because of this, and here's how you should do it every day. So, perhaps that makes this topic a little more difficult.
What is the purpose of music?
- To bring glory to God. - To aid in the process of letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly by teaching and admonishing through music. - To edify the saints. - To prepare the spirit for the reception of God's word.
Does some music glorify God if listened to at home, that does not glorify Him if performed at church?
No, I don't think so. However, I will bring attention to Romans 14 here. The Bible says that there are some "doubtful disputations" in the world. If you have a doubt about something, you are sinning if you continue to do it (that's what Paul means when he says, whatsoever is not of faith is sin). So, if you have a doubt about a particular song whether it is good or not - it is not good for you to do it. In that sense, there could be something that is OK for you to do, but not OK for me to do. However, the principle of Romans 14 is that while there are doubtful disputations, the things that are doubtful should not be done in front of everyone, and especially in front of those that would possibly stumble at it. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Disputed music should not be performed in church as it can cause people to stumble. Experience tells us that Christian Rock music is a bridge. It can and does bridge people from Secular Rock music to a more conservative style of Christian music, or it can and does bridge people from conservative Christian music to Secular Rock music. If Christian Rock is being pushed onto people, then a stumbling block is being created.
How important are the lyrics?
Singing about a country's flag does not bring glory to God, help let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, edify saints or prepare for the reception of God's word. Singing about Jingle Bells, Silver Bells or a Winter Wonderland also is empty (a.k.a. "vain"). Singing a 4 minute long song that never mentions the name of Jesus or God, but does make an allusion to Him once - is mostly vain, with a little good. If music is going to bring glory to God, then He needs to be mentioned. If it is going to teach and admonish, to help the word of Christ dwell in you, then some of the word of Christ ought to be in it. If it is going to edify the saints, then it needs to be edifying them in spiritual matters, not carnal matters.
What can you write to get you in trouble?
Hey, this is my blog :) There is room in a Christian's life for music that is not directly God-glorifying. My kids have picked up a song: "If you don't know what it is, stay away" teaching them not to pickup little things that might look like candy, etc. One of the Fire Safety Educators here at work taught a song to a group of homeschool kids: "Two ways, out... you need two ways out... in case their is a fire in the house, you need two ways out." The Bible does not condemn things like this. They are helpful in teaching children - I'm not against them. However, if I am listening to those most of the time - then I have major issues - and it is not glorifying to God. Things for the life under the sun profit little compared to things with eternal value.
What if the only music I know how to make is a certain style that would not be considered acceptable to many in the church?
The question is: If I only know how to make 'techno' music, shouldn't I do that for the glory of God? Though that sounds good, I don't see that principle as being biblical. Nadab and Abihu sought to bring an offering to God in Leviticus 10. Praise the Lord, they wanted to do what's right. But it says they offered "strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not." The result was that they were devoured by fire from the Lord. It appears that they were trying to do things for God the way that they had witnessed the Egyptians doing to their gods. Their motives were right, but their methods were wrong. The same principle can be applied when Uzzah wanted to stay the ark of the covenant from tipping off the cart. The motive was good, but the method was not. 'Techno' music is a style of music that is being offered to the god of this world - I don't think anyone would argue that (yeah, right, of course people would argue that - we argue anything!). So, if someone is offering music to Satan, and then gets saved... nah, I think their style of music ought to change. I think they ought not to offer the same strange fire to the Lord that they were giving to Satan.
What defines worldly or devilish music?
Ok, here's where I really get in trouble. The Bible doesn't say what kind of music (referring to sound here, not lyrics) is worldly or devilish. That is, the Bible doesn't say, "If the heavier beat is on the 2nd and 4th beat of the measure it is wrong, but if it is on the 1st and 3rd, then it is OK." I have heard that principle taught before (or maybe it was the other way around 1st & 3rd bad, 2nd & 4th good... whatever). I don't think you can make a distinction that way. The Bible also does not say what instruments are worldly. If we were to constrain our choice of instruments to what the Bible says, then we should probably abandon the piano, maybe the banjo, and whatever other instrument is not found in the Bible. At the same time, we need to consider that the harp and the predecessor to the violin were used just as much in drunken feasts (cf. Isaiah 5:12). I don't believe an instrument by itself is good or bad - Ok, basically I'm saying that you can't rule out drums as being sinful, or even an electric guitar (half my readers just clicked on the X in the upper right corner - the other half are using Macs, and I don't know what they clicked!). So, to figure out what defines 'worldly' I think we have to take the biblical defintion found in 1 John 2:16: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
What music would fall under 'the lust of the flesh'?
How do you define music that pleases the flesh vs. music that pleases the spirit? Galatians 5:17 says that the two are contrary to each other, and you cannot do the things that ye would. My answer: I don't know! I know that lost people like the song Amazing Grace. Since they do not have the Holy Spirit, does that mean that Amazing Grace is pleasing to the flesh... I think we misphrase the question we say music: "ministers to the flesh" or "ministers to the spirit." Most would not say that Saul was a saved man, and we know that at the time he had an evil spirit, but when David played, it refreshed Saul. Do we say that music ministered to the flesh or spirit? Does the Mormon Tabernachle Choir singing Hallelujah Chorus minister to your flesh or spirit? One way I could identify music for the flesh would be a sound that if you listen to it and 'let go' you will find yourself head-banging. Fair enough?
What music would fall under 'the lust of the eyes'?
Well, since music is a sound, the eyes are not involved. However, eyes are involved when there is a performance of music. So, all I say here, is that when there is a performance of music, the peformer ought to be dressed modestly and covered. (I would like to make a note here that those two words are not synonymous.) Also, body movements of a performer should not be made that would be enticing to the flesh.
What music would fall under 'the pride of life'?
Here is where I will gain back some of my readers that clicked the X above. Unfortunately, this principle applies to those that are making the music, whereas in most of Christianity today, the issue is not with the makers of the music (they are relatively few compared to the listeners) but with the listeners. What I mean by that is, the majority (greater than 50%) of you reading my blog have never made a CD or even performed a musical special in church. How can we tell if a creator of music is creating worldly music by doing it for the pride of life? It's easy: When creating the music (whether it be writing the song, or arranging the music, or practicing the voice), is the driving factor in the music creator: "What can I do to make people like this song," or is the driving factor: "What can I do that would make God like this song?" I am ok with both questions being asked in the preparation of the song, but whichever of those two questions are driving the production - determines whether it is worldly, for the pride of life, or godly. "Do I now seek to please men?" As for the listeners of the music, some discernment can be had to determine whether the music was made for the purpose of pleasing God or men. But I don't think it's as obvious as just hearing the music. Nehemiah had an invitation to go to the Temple in Nehemiah 6 - that sounds like it would be from God - but the truth is that it was a trick of the enemy. Only because he was "walking in the Spirit" was he able to discern that.
Should we be separated and peculiar unto God?
...Duh... (sorry). Does the phrase, "Be ye holy" mean anything to you? Of course we are to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works, we are to come out from among them and be separate. But to do that, we are to be separated unto God. That is, from the time we get saved until the time we meet the Lord, we are to do everything we can to please God, to bring Him glory and honor. When it comes to music, we should be different from what the world is doing. However (about to lose those readers that clicked the X above... again), that is an almost undefinable task. For example, if a man from India comes and plays Indian music. How can you tell if that is the music of the world in India? What if a man from Zambia comes? Is his sound and clapping and dancing the same sound and clapping and dancing as the lost world would make in Zambia? If so, should it be anathemized (I do enjoy making new words)? What if the popular music in America is no longer a particular style? Would it then be OK for a Christian to use it? I mean, 'harmony' seems to be originated in ancient Greek music (non-Christian). Should we avoid harmony altogether because the world did it first - or because we are so far from its origin that it is OK? Or, is the real issue that we need to be separated from primary associations? Rap music is clearly primarily associated with a worldly sex and drugs and violence culture - nobody would argue that (again, sure they would!). Rock and Roll music also is primarily associated with sex & drugs & partying, etc. But if these primary associations go away, then I think you will find that even the conservative church will accept it - again, think harmony and Greek culture.
What's my conclusion?
Well, I think 1 Corinthians 10:31 should come to mind: Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all for the glory of God. Music should be made for the purpose of glorifying God not man. It should edify man, but that edification is through the words not the music. The lyrics must be such that teach us and admonish us, warn us, about God - meaning they should teach Scriptural truths. The music should be meek not obnoxious. It should be humble not proud. The music in church should be the most conservative to avoid causing a brother to stumble... I believe that the music generated with these principles in mind would be glorifying to God. In regards to listening to music, some of these principles require that the Holy Spirit has to help you discern if the music was created along these lines or not...
Will anybody read this far down?
Doubt it :) Just a thought...
