CAN “CHRISTIAN” MUSIC EXIST? THE SACRED VS. SECULAR DEBATE RAGES ON

By Mark Joseph, Dr. Patrick Cavanaugh, and Kerry Livgren

CCM, August 1995

As we approach the 25^th anniversary of the advent of contemporary Christian music, it only seems fitting to see how far the industry has come and whether or not it’s on the right path. While there is cause to applaud the growth of an industry that celebrates the Gospel story, there is also cause for alarm, for the underlying philosophical pillars which are holding up Christian music need to be examined.

Is there in fact such a thing as “Christian” or “secular” music? Is the distinction truly valid, and, if so, what set of criteria makes the distinction?

The Formation of a Subculture

The founding of Christian music was unprecedented in that for the first time in modern musical memory an entire genre of music was created solely on the basis of lyrical content. What began as an effort to bypass the censorious nature of the “secular” music industry actually resulted in the creation of a whole new industry. Though founded with the best of intentions, the result didn’t always promote the advancement of the Gospel into “the world.”

Since the “worldly” music system wouldn’t allow artists to express themselves spiritually, those original pioneers created their own musical universe including “Christian” radio stations, “Christian” bookstores, “Christian” record labels, “Christian” music magazines, “Christian” merchandise, and a whole host of other support organizations.

What resulted, it could be argued, was a complete cultural and sociological retreat on the part of the believers, a ghettoization of nearly all orthodox Christian thought in American music. Another result was product which all too often seemed artificial in its stubborn refusal to address the furl range of emotions that are part of the human experience. Many records were strictly records which seemed to deny the fact that part of a “religious” lifestyle is relating those beliefs to every segment of a person’s life.

“Everything we do,” wrote the great Chinese Christian Watchman Nee, “be it in field or highway, in shop, factory, kitchen, hospital, or school, has spiritual value in terms of the kingdom of Christ. Satan would much prefer to have no Christians in any of these places for they are decidedly in his way there. He tries to frighten us out of the world.”

It may be no exaggeration to say that that is exactly what happened, for Christians who made music were effectively silenced in terms of having any meaningful impact on the culture at large.

The term “Christian music” itself raises all sorts of questions. If a Christian sings love songs is that “Christian music?” If a non-Christian sings “Christian” lyrics” is that “Christian music?” If a Christian sings a “Christian” song but is signed to a “secular” label, is that a “Christian song?”

We have come to believe that there is no such thing as “Christian music.” It is bad business, but more importantly, it is bad theology. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to separate activities into artificial categories of “sacred” and “secular.” All activities are to be done to the glory of God. Satisfactory biblical justification for calling one song “Christian” and another “secular” based on such factors as the spiritual status of the employees at the record label or the number of times the name of Jesus is evoked in a song is dubious at best.

A New Standard

In place of the old secular/sacred distinction, we suggest a new standard modeled on Nee’s exhortation to believers to stay in the culture and transform it: music is either consistent with the inerrant, authoritative Word of God and Judeo-Christian tradition, and thus honoring to Him, or is inconsistent with the Bible and thus dishonoring to Him – period.

This “Neeistic” standard will no doubt be uncomfortable for some, for it is true that on occasion those who do not know Him will write or perform a song that is completely consistent with the God of the Bible. Conversely, it is also possible – though perhaps less likely – that a singer who is a devout adherent of the Word of God will create or perform a song that is inconsistent with the Bible.

Vanessa Williams’ outstanding hit love song, “Save the Best for Last,” embodies everything that the Bible teaches us about human love. Don Henley’s “Heart of the Matter” presents loss of human love in a profoundly biblical way, addressing topics like forgiveness, grace, trust, and pride. Steve Winwood’s “Higher Love” challenges the listener in a most Christian way to “Think about it, there must be a higher love… without it life is wasted time…”.

While the 1978 smash single “You Light Up My Life” was performed by a committed Christian, its message that something “can’t be wrong when it feels so right” proves nevertheless dangerous and profoundly anti-biblical.

In a way, it’s not a new problem. In classical music, this has been dealt with for many centuries. Sometimes a Christian composer like Johann Sebastian Bach would write a “secular” piece like his famous “Coffee Cantata.” Sometimes an outspoken atheist like Hector Berlioz would compose religious works (often using biblical texts) such as his beautiful “L’Enfancs du Christ” (“The Infancy of Christ”) or his stirring “Requiem Mass.”

Some will undoubtedly question the eternal value of such songs as “Save the Best for Last” or Amy Grant’s many love songs just as for centuries many Christians have questioned the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the canon or insisted on an allegorical interpretation.

Can such songs contribute to spiritual growth? We believe so. The Bible isn’t a guide for certain areas of our lives to the exclusion of others. Its principles are no less reliable in matters of love and romance than they are in matters of faith. A biblically informed love song, whether with or without explicit references to God, by its very nature draws the listener closer to God’s truth – how He wishes for His children to treat one another and thereby glorify their Father.

What Lies Ahead

The future of Christian music depends largely on the willingness of its leaders to join the culture at large and bring their worldview to bear on that culture. What could that future look like?

It could feature record companies which are committed to signing not “Christian” or “secular” artists but artists who in addition to possessing superior musical talent, share a Judeo-Christian worldview and are willing to articulate it in their music.

It could feature popular magazines that view all products and artists through the prism of a Judeo-Christian worldview, evaluating records for instance, in addition to artistic merit, on the artists’ willingness to articulate such a worldview.

It could feature television networks, music video channels and record outlets whose offerings are consistent with such a worldview.

It could consist of radio stations which play not “Christian” or “secular” music, but music that fits the Neeistic model. That could mean, for instance, a rock play list featuring Guns N Roses’ “Sweet Child of Mine,” followed by Michael Sweet’s “J.E.S.U.S., “ Poison’s “Something to Believe In,” and Ken Tamplin’s “Testify.” Or another pop play list featuring Sandi Patty’s “Another Time, Another Place,” Shanice’s “I Love Your Smile,” Janet Jackson’s “Let’s Wait a While,” and Amy Grant’s El Shaddai.”

We owe it to ourselves to seriously examine whether the artist’s personal life should be a factor in whether or not his or her music is allowed to be heard by the Christian community. Does that artist’s lifestyle invalidate the truth of the art he or she has presented? Does Elton John’s biblically inconsistent homosexuality make his biblically consistent song “Healing Hand” any less true? Should Madonna’s repulsive ideals and behavior invalidate the profoundly anti-abortion message of “Papa Don’t Preach?” Do Janet Jackson’s recent sleazy videos make her bold song urging sexual restraint, “Let’s Wait Awhile,” any less true?

We think not. Those who follow Christ and live by His Word must be discerning enough to separate truth from the imperfect vessels who come bearing that truth. Shunning the work created by those whose lives are less than exemplary regardless of the content of the work itself is ridiculous. We do not apply it to authors, for if we did we wouldn’t be able to read Plato, Socrates, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Steinbeck, John Grisham, or Michael Chrichton – not to mention C.S. Lewis, who in the eyes of many believers today spent too many evening in smoke-filled pubs with ale in on hand and a pipe in the other.

Nor do we apply such a standard to tradesmen or doctors or salesmen or people in other lines of work. Who among us has inquired about the spiritual health of the tradesman who crafted the sofa we sit on or the bed we sleep in? Just as God accomplished His will through unbelieving kings in the Old Testament, so He is in control of the universe and can accomplish His will through the work of those who may not live by His Word.

God’s truth continues to be truth regardless of the flawed vessels that are used to deliver it. To insist that only artists whose lifestyles are “holy” be heard by Christian audiences makes a mockery of the very God who says that all have sinned and fallen short of His glory and may lead artists to pretend that they are something other than that.

In his recent work, The Body, Chuck Colson provides a roadmap for how such a movement should proceed: “We will be more effective when we penetrate behind enemy lines…how does an army fight behind enemy lines? It doesn’t move its forces en masse; it can’t. Rather, it infiltrates small units to disrupt the enemy’s communications and attack strategic targets. And that’s exactly what Christians must do in a post-Christian culture.”

A new generation of artists must emerge – artists who sing and play at a level above, not comparable, to their “Secular” counterparts. Artists whose excellent art points to the inspiration of the Creator. Artists who are able to integrate faith into their everyday lives, writing and performing songs about every area of their lives including the spiritual. Artists who avoid moral compromise, recognizing that such behavior hands the enemy a sword with which to destroy them. Artists who refuse to tolerate evil around them and are unafraid to decline a project, song, tour, etc., that is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.

Admittedly, this new standard of content-based analysis is more difficult to implement since it actually requires us to think about and evaluate music rather than blindly accept what has been approved by a music/religious establishment. All songs would be held up for scrutiny using the inerrant, flawless and timeless Word of God as the standard. “Christian” artists would not be pigeonholed because of their past associations while “secular” artists would not be banned from Christian audiences if they produced an edifying work. All types of artists and musicians could compete on a level playing field and have their work judged on its own merits.