Regarding The Morality of Music
A Response To
“An Imortant Question for Our Times — Is Music Moral?”
by Kurt Woetzel

Page 3 of 4

Printer Friendly Version

Download PDF [247 KB]

IV. The Question of Secular Sources

The next difficulty that I had with Mr. Woetzel’s article was the fact that he almost exclusively quoted secular sources regarding the morality or immorality of music. Also, these sources were not well documented, so it was not possible to find them and form an unbiased view of their writings.
      There are several thoughts here, the first of all is that consulting secular sources has in the long run always had an adverse effect on the Church. Let me mention only a few, such as the effect that Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies have had on the Roman Catholic church and by extension on the Protestant as well, obscuring many of the truths in Scripture behind a system that tried to explain everything. Think here of the modern movement towards theistic evolution where people are trying to synthesize the evolutionistic world view of science with the Truth that God created everything. Another example is the modern deliverance ministry that casts demons out of Christians and has its followers constantly living in fear of the great powers of Satan comes from getting too much information about the spirit world from non-Biblical sources. I could list more, such as the corporate model of running churches, but that is beyond the scope of this writing. Suffice it to say, we must be extremely careful before letting any secular philosophy into the church, even if it is seemingly to her benefit.
      When looking at these quotes my first question was, what were the motives of the authors of these various books? Each author has an axe to grind, ideas that they want to disseminate, and many of them are strongly tainted away from the truth. Especially critics are ones that we need to be wary of, because they have their own personal tastes that will color what is written. And often they aren’t authorities on what they’re writing about. An example here is what film critics have said about the recent Lord of the Rings movies. First they say that they haven’t read the book and then they complain that they can’t understand the movie. They condemn lack of intelligence, etc., but then praise its silliest parts. Critics need to be taken with a barrel of salt in every venue, including that about music, because they’re paid to be critical.
      We as Christians need to hold to the Bible first and foremost and to its principles. The principles of the world will always be anti-Biblical, because the Bible is the antithesis of this world system and this world’s realm will do everything to corrupt the message of the Truth from both sides.

V. Historical Gaps

When reading Mr. Woetzel’s writings, he contends that, “Music-is-neutral thinking evolved in Christian circles in the late 1960’s and in the early 1970’s.” Perhaps that certain formulation of this idea did, but the use of secular music to praise God goes back much farther than that.
      Let’s take, for instance, General William Booth of the Salvation Army who lived in the late 1800s. A man who staunchly defended singing only music written specifically for spiritual use, he came to the point where he not only realized the usefulness of secular tunes to reach the unchurched, but even endorsed them with his immortal quote, “Why should the devil have all the best tunes?”[4] And so “Champagne Charlie Is My Name” became “Bless His Name He Sets Me Free,” and we ended up with the old favorite “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah” from an old Confederate battle song.
      But we didn’t stop there. We took such melodies as “O Sole Mio” and the theme from Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony and what became the German national anthem (“Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit”) and what became the British national anthem (“God save the King”) and gave them Christian lyrics. And we call it “sacred” music. There’s nothing sacred about that music! It’s only the lyrics that make it sacred. If it were the melodies, then we’d have to stop singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in church because the melody was originally from the bar song “Anacreon in Heaven,” which undoubtedly was a lot more offensive than any of the tunes named above!
      If we look at the modern worship music, there are no secular tunes among them! They are written for the express purpose of worshipping God, albeit in a mode that is uncomfortable for some Christians. If the origin of the music is any indication, we’d have to toss two thirds of our extant church music.
      Another link in the historical gap problem is the definition of the word “music.” Mr. Woetzel states “the term music itself is derived from muse or musa which means to think, to meditate or to contemplate.” If we take a look at the etymology of music, we find that the Merriam-Webster dictionary states the following.

Etymology: Middle English musik, from Old French musique, from Latin musica, from Greek mousikE any art presided over by the Muses, especially music, from feminine of mousikos of the Muses, from Mousa Muse[5]

      Now, if we were to take a  look at who the Muses were, we would find that they are “Greek goddesses who presided over the arts and sciences.”[6] There wasn’t really one in charge of music, per se, but it was spread around among them. Most of them dealt with poetry anyway and not so much with the ordering of sounds in a rhythmic or harmonic fashion. The one that would probably interest us most is Polyhymnia (“many songs”), who is not only in charge of the sacred hymn (or song), but also of eloquence and dance![7]
      The origin of our word “music” is definitely pagan and has little to do with contemplation. We need to do our research correctly before we make any sweeping statements about the origin of the word music, and especially applying them to a spiritual facet of life.

VI. The “Music is a Language” Analogy

This is the one place where Mr. Woetzel strikes a chord with me, because in one way he is right, but he is also incomplete in his analogy. He writes that music “is also referred to as the universal language.” When we look at music around the world, we find that this is inaccurate. Music is not a universal language. We find ourselves faced with Middle-Eastern music, which we can identify as music, but which doesn’t sit well with us westerners because of the unusual combination of tones, rhythms, and instruments.
      Music is identifiable as music, just as speech is identifiable as speech, but just as each people and culture have their own language, so they have their own music which speaks to their heart. And some of these use the precise rhythms and harmonies considered “immoral” by some people. If music were a universal language, then there would be no need for the study of ethnomusicology, which precisely studies the differences in music around the world, tries to understand and document it, much like linguistics does with the languages of the world.
      When we look at the music is a language analogy, though, a lot of things fall in to place. However, Mr. Woetzel doesn’t use full linguistic principles in building his analogy. Language is made up of certain sounds ordered in a certain way to produce a certain meaning. We call these sounds syllables, which become words, and from there sentences. The sentences follow certain structural rules, called grammar. The combination of sounds and grammar differs from language to language. Take for example the word “peach” in English. This might be a perfectly acceptable term to use for a sweet, if slightly hairy fruit that ripens in late summer. However, if you use the same word in Turkish, you would be referring to the canine origins of a person’s mother thus insulting them. What determines the meaning of the words? It is the culture surrounding the words, not the sounds themselves.
      Music is very much like a language in that certain sounds are ordered in a certain way to produce a certain result or meaning. If we take the analogy to its bottom-line conclusion, then the rules for certain types of music are similar to the rules for certain types of grammar. What may be acceptable in one type of music will not be in another, simply because the laws surrounding that genre make up the meaning.
      Mr. Woetzel claims that “Just as language cannot be neutral, neither can music.” The problem is that, from a linguistic point of view, language is neutral. If we begin to claim that language is moral or immoral based upon what sounds and grammar it uses — which would be the logical comparison to claiming that certain types of music are moral or immoral — then we would be hard pressed to find which languages were moral. If we were to take the Biblical languages as an example, then we’d be in quandary as well. Hebrew is formed on a Verb-Subject-Object grammatical structure, as is Aramaic, making it the preferred model for a moral language. However, Greek is formed on a Subject-Verb-Object grammatical structure and both are used for Scripture! Which one is moral, which one is immoral? Shall we extend the analogy to words as well? Should we all stop using the word “peach” in America simply because it is a cuss word in Turkey? Who is to say that the Turks are “immoral” for imbuing such a negative meaning in such a positive sound in our language? What about basic grammatical rules? Does a language that is verb-based, like Hebrew or Arabic, have a moral superiority over a language that is noun-based, such as English or Latin? What about talking about prefixes and suffixes? Which is moral and which isn’t? What about infixes?
      Let’s apply the concept of only certain moral languages to Bible translations. If only the Biblical languages were to be considered moral, then we’d have to burn all our English Bibles and Wycliffe would have to get into the business of teaching Hebrew and Greek rather than translating the Scriptures into the heart-language of the people they are trying to reach.
      If we come down to the bottom line, a thinking that language in and of itself is moral will result in a linguistic superiority similar to that of the Muslims in claiming that Arabic is God’s only language and hence we must pray to Him in that language.
      But what about the heart-language of people? Have you ever seen a foreigner in America light up when they hear their native tongue? There is just something about speaking your own language that touches you deeply. What about when you visit a country where few people speak English? How would you feel if you suddenly heard someone speaking your language? Clearly there are languages that God has placed on our hearts. Each language has its own way of expression that cannot be fully translated into another which suggests that God is the creator of all languages.
      If we take a language-is-moral attitude we end up espousing a cultural superiority similar to that of Great Britain in the colonial age. We will look down on the people because of their poor, immoral languages and believe that God has given us a mandate to force-feed them our language, our cultural values, and our religion, because we are moral and they aren’t. This attitude has harmed missions more than anyone can think.
      When it comes down to it, viewing language as moral in and of itself will actually kill missions, because it will make us hesitant to learn another language, due to the fact that we consider it immoral to speak it. We will never be able to communicate the depth of God’s love to the people of that culture, because we cannot reach them in their heart-language and we will alienate them both from ourselves and from the Truth of the Gospel.
      The results of such a view are staggering and it brings us to the question what makes language moral or immoral. The answer is simple: it is the person speaking the language. The words he or she chooses, the meanings that he or she places within those words affect the morality or immorality of the language. It also depends on the person listening to the language. If a Turk who cannot speak English has an American say to him in English, “Would you like a peach?” he will naturally be offended, even though neither the meaning, nor the words of the American were in the least immoral. The morality is determined first in the speaker and secondly in the listener. Language thus becomes moral or immoral, depending on the sender, the receiver and the circumstances of the communication.
      If we apply this to the language of music, then we can run aground on the same errors. As every person has a heart-language, so each person has a heart-music. This is probably formed by exposure to music as a child, perhaps by changing tastes in the teenage years, but by the time a person reaches adulthood, they have certain musical styles that speak deeply to them. Music that strikes you deeply might leave me completely cold and vice versa.
      Taking the music-is-language analogy to its logical conclusion, we would have to say that if music is a language, then the morality of the music lies not within the sounds strung together, the rhythm used, or even the lyrics set to it, but within the song-writer, the musician, and the listener. Thus the music becomes moral depending upon the above variables.

VII. A Communication Model

I would like to illustrate this idea using a graphic based on one created by David Hesselgrave for his book Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally[8] that describes how communication works.

Figure 1 — The Communication Model[9].

      In this communication model you have the Sender who wants to pass a certain meaning on to the Receiver. The Sender encodes this meaning into a message using his personal preconceptions, world view, opinions, experience and faith matrix[10]. This message is then passed on to the Receiver, who decodes the message using her personal preconceptions, world view, opinions, experience and faith matrix.
      The result will be a meaning that is shaded by the understanding of the Receiver. Added to this is the noise or interference worked by the culture, the milieu, and body language of each person. Sometimes the message can be totally lost to the interference or in the decoding process. The morality of the message is then determined first by the Sender, then by the Receiver and, depending on the filter of each, that can be very different for each person.
      If we take this graphic and apply it to music it might look as follows:

Figure 2 — The Communication Model Applied to Music

      The process becomes much more complicated here, because we often have another link involved, namely the Musician. We’ll assume for a moment that no lyrics are involved. The Song-writer writes the song using a certain melody, harmony, and rhythm. The Musician then takes this piece of music and interprets it, shading the meaning to her liking and plays the piece, which the Listener hears, who then filters the meaning and adds his own spin to the meaning. Then the meaning is affected in each transfer by the noise around the message transmission.
      We must remember that the meaning of music is most often emotional. If a song resonates deeply with someone, it will cause an emotional response, whether positive or negative. If it doesn’t they’ll brush it off.
      The morality of the music is then determined once more in the Song-writer, the Musician, or the Listener. And so the music becomes moral. When we add the lyrics to the song, we add a fourth dimension, because they, too, convey meaning and the song not only carries emotional meaning, but an intellectual one as well.
      Let’s take for example, a worship song that is written by a God-fearing musician using a style that would be considered “moral” by everyone. A well-meaning Christian singer takes the song and sings it in front of an audience using a style that he thinks to be worshipful of God. However, one of the listeners finds that the style that the singer is using reminds them very much of breathy, sensual songs they hear on the radio and so are turned off from the worship aspect of the music. Is that music still moral or has it become immoral to the listener?
      As you can see, if we follow this system of thought, things get more complicated and more responsibility is placed upon each link of the chain. The danger of the music-is-moral view, is that it takes away responsibility from each of the links in the chain, by simply naming certain styles as good and certain styles as bad.

VIII. Considering the Human Element

With this loss of responsibility comes also a tacit denial of the depravity of each of the links in the chain of communication. Now, most of the people who espouse this idea will immediately protest that their view precisely factors that in, but it is really the opposite. If you state that certain music styles are immoral in and of themselves, you begin to think for people and you take away the responsibility of the musician playing the music, because the music is immoral, not necessarily the musician making it. I will grant that we won’t go that far in our logic, but we rarely do follow all our thoughts to their logical conclusions.
      It is in the end effect the human that determines the morality or immorality of the music, not the music itself, because, like a language, the music becomes moral or immoral depending on the use it is put to. Thus a melody that was once used to extol the virtues of drinking alcohol can become a worship song. Thus a music style used by Satan to promote rebellion can be snatched back and used to promote righteousness.
      If we take our individual responsibility concerning music seriously, we’ll find that music that is perfectly moral for the song-writer could be considered immoral for the listener if it has an adverse effect on the listener mentally, physically, or emotionally.
      What also affects the music is the milieu in which it is performed. Thus jazz music played in certain skuzzy bars would often be considered more sensual and profane than music with a similar rhythm and harmony played in a concert hall, or even in a church service. If we look at the milieu in which most modern, pop-style worship music is performed in, we find that the people there are mostly moral, upstanding people, who desire to worship God and are there not merely for an emotional high, but as an expression of their deep faith in God. Is that music then immoral?
      As mentioned above, claiming certain music is moral and certain is immoral takes the responsibility away from each link in the chain and oversimplifies the process of making music. It also denies the idea of a heart-language of each human in music and is highly culturally insensitive (not to our post-Christian culture, but to cultures around the world).
      Are we remembering that each link in the chain, including ourselves, is utterly depraved, utterly selfish, and extremely opinionated to the point that we think that we are the only ones who are right? Are we remembering that we are more often wrong than right? Each of us must judge for ourselves using the Bible as our guide.

IX. Conclusion

In the end the responsibility regarding the morality or immorality of music will lie with each of the three links in the communication chain, and thus with us as we take our place in it. The idea that music is moral is basically a human idea that doesn’t really find support in Scripture and so must be viewed as what it is — an opinion, something that can be presented but that must not be forced upon another human.
      As music is a language, it must be treated the same way a language is and we must realize, that just as language becomes moral or immoral based on the speaker and the listener, so music becomes moral, dependant upon the song-writer, the musician, and the listener’s conceptions and mental, emotional, and physical responses.
      In the end it is each person’s responsibility to decide how the look at the issue of music being moral or immoral. What I then request is that you act upon that conviction in your own personal life and not bicker with one another about it, because all that causes is division within the Body. None of us are completely right. We’re human.
      In closing I’d like to leave you with five guidelines that have helped me to determine the morality or immorality of music.

1. What are the lyrics? — These often determine whether or not I’ll listen to a song.
2. What does the music make you want to do? — If it wants to make you do something negative, it’s probably not good to listen to, but if it drives you towards the positive, embrace it.
3. What is the life of the musician like? — This will strongly determine the two mentioned above. A bad life will often spawn negative lyrics and destructive music.
4. Where is this music played?
5. What happens there? — The milieu will strongly affect the tenor of the music, but sometimes when it is taken out of the milieu it will lose that negative sound.

May God give us all wisdom in dealing with this issue and may we in the end live lives that are pleasing to Him, regardless of what kind of music we like.