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.

A Tale of Two Faiths

Over on Facebook, I sparked a rather lively debate over this story of a teacher who recently lost her job at a Christian school for the unconscionable crime of PWS: pregnancy while single.  As the Bible prescribes, this sinful adulteress should be dragged into the streets and stoned to death.


Admittedly, we don't know all the details.  On its face, it appears the school's administrators fired her as a matter of policy for violating their allegedly Biblical, moral code -- which she knew full well when she took the job.  My contention is that the school's wiser choice would have been to keep her on as an example to the children not only of genuine, Christian love, but of how to deal with life's inevitable failures.  Instead, they have virtually branded her with the proverbial, scarlet A -- and cast her out to likely be a burden on society.


Compare this case with another recent one.  An avowed atheist, protesting over a Nativity scene displayed on a courthouse lawn, threatened to file a lawsuit.  Now before you read the article, which action do you think the local Baptist church took in response?



    a) marched in a circle around his house while playing loud praise music and binding the demons of atheism in the spiritual realm during a mid-week prayer meeting
    b) organized a boycott of the man's business, and forced his boss to fire him
    c) stood on the courthouse lawn and prophesied in tongues - with proper interpretation, of course - that he would burn in hell for all eternity because of his wickedness
    d) hid their children from him in Wal-Mart while they stared at him judgmentally
    e) picketed the man's house with slogans of loving Christianity
    f) none of the above


According to the article, "...when the Christians in a town that had reason to be angry with him showed him a gesture of love, he began reconsidering his beliefs altogether. He eventually began to realize that evolution would never have the answer to his questions, he says, and it was at that time he began to believe in God."


Imagine that!  Instead of getting angry with the man, they showed him actual Christian love and -- wonder of wonders -- they won him over.

[Side note:  as silly as those hypothetical actions sound - and they are - I spent some 25 years in those kinds of circles and believe me, they are very real things that very religious people do.]

Back to the strumpet -- er, lady who lost her job because of PWS.  The school and its supporters surely believe they did the right thing.  One person noted that if a teacher gets fired over a DUI, then it's equally acceptable for this one to lose her livelihood.  This fallacious logic assumes that drunk driving -- which kills many thousands annually in our country -- is equally as criminal as being pregnant, which kills no one.  Or that apples compare to train wrecks.  (Or, for that matter, Obama compares to Hitler/Antichrist.  See what I did there?)  That comparison doesn't make sense on any level - but then again, I've been accused of drunken heresy for less.

If the teacher had had sex with a student - which happens daily - then she would deserve to be let go.  I would even say that if she had an affair with a married co-worker, then that might deserve the same.  I agree that adults who are in charge of kids should be held to a high standard in order to protect the kids -- don't put them in danger, don't have sex with them.  This man, for example, is someone who should never have been in front of kids (and someone I once knew).  


I certainly wouldn't throw stones at this woman, and some of you know why.

But let's keep it realistic here: criminal behavior such as DUI does not equal "pregnant while single" in any universe. Let's review Jesus' example of forgiving the harlot: not only did he not allow her to be punished under the law, he set her free. That is Christian love -- not what these morons did, who apparently decided to just skip over that part of the Bible. Yes, a teacher who gets a DUI obviously deserves to be fired, because DUI is and should be a crime. Pregnancy is not.  How many teachers get fired from public schools for the egregious crime of being pregnant while single?  At the absolute worst, the woman made a poor moral choice. The school's policy of firing her for it is patently retarded, even if they have (probable) legal standing because they are a private institution.  Just because the school might have legal grounds to fire her doesn't make it right.

In fact, a statistically significant number of those girls will have sex before marriage, and many of them will get pregnant...and the school will kick them to the curb as well. Wishing those problems away by firing the teacher doesn't work on any level, spiritual or otherwise -- it only creates more unnecessary strife, and that is the only message they have sent to those kids. If my kids were in that school, I would immediately move them  just out of protest if it was feasible -- or else ensure they understand why the school's administrators are wrong. 

Besides that, how many more of their teachers should be fired for other non-criminal activity, such as consuming alcoholic beverages, watching R-rated movies, or (gasp!) reading a Kurt Vonnegut novel? Those non-criminal activities, besides being enjoyable, are much more akin to sex outside of marriage (especially the Vonnegut) than DUI.  

The school's policy is arcane at best, and at worst it smacks of the very backwards hypocrisy that causes people like Pat Robertson to blame sinful people for natural disasters.  No matter how you slice it, Bible-thumpers like these do little more than undermine Christianity.  Perhaps if the pedagogical community -- both private and public -- were to teach kids a little more how to deal with life and a little less how to avoid it, our country might be just a little better off.  Perhaps if the Christian community would just read their Bibles they so desperately claim to believe in, they wouldn't drive good people away so readily.

Here's the bottom line: if we fired every teacher, or for that matter every person in a position of authority over kids, because of simply poor moral choices, there would be very few teachers left.  I'm no Bible-thumper, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that we need to cast people aside because of poor moral choices. 

There is a faith that builds up, and a faith that tears down -- which one did the school exhibit?

How would Jesus vote?

I am often quite befuddled at how Christians view Presidents.  For the past few decades, it seems as if Republicans pretty much get an automatic pass while Democrats are demonized no matter what brand of Christianity they profess.  


I had a short, but interesting political/religious discussion about this on Facebook today.  A relative posted this article about a person who spoke before the President at a recent national prayer breakfast.  The speaker, Eric Metaxas (starting at 35:40 in the video), apparently spoke negatively about the President's professed Christianity, insinuating that Obama is a phony Christian.  The article implied that Metaxas is a "prophet," since his speech supposedly preempted many of Obama's topics -- and there was no possible way Metaxas could have had an advance copy of the President's speech.


So, Metaxas is a "prophet" because he's smart enough to call Obama's bluff before he does it?  Or is it because he's echoing the judgmental sentiments of the Christian right?

A few hours after I posted those questions, a commenter responded, "When does God hear the prayers of the wicked?  Only in a prayer of repentance.  The stiff necked, like the Pharaoh was used to do God's Will...before that there were many lessons to be learned by the unrepentant.  This prayer breakfast should have been a prayer vigil on their face behind closed doors!  Obama had no place there, period!  Unless he repents and turns from his thinking and his sin."  Sadly, another person cheered that one on.

I'm no Democrat, but just what is it that makes Obama "wicked"?  Why are Republican presidents practically canonized while Democrats are the devil incarnate?  Perhaps the first reason is that Democrats typically are "pro-choice," while their Republican counterparts are against any form of legalized abortion.  Not to debate that topic, but maybe Evangelicals have a point.  However, Dems are always in favor of social welfare programs, especially for the needy, the sick, and the elderly.  Isn't that a good thing?  I'm pretty sure Jesus said it was.  Maybe it's because since WWII, most Democratic Presidents avoid wars while Republicans do not.

Let's review a little recent history, bearing in mind that just about all of our Presidents were professing Christians.  Nixon said publicly after his fall from grace that he thought he was above the law.  Carter drove us into recession, then there was Reagan -- the "gold standard" of modern Christian Republicans.  Reagan, who spent us into the ground, compromised his principles on numerous occasions, and whose wife regularly consulted with astrologers.  And, I will remind you, that Evangelicals in his time used to say he was a candidate for Antichrist since Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666.  His successor, Bush 41, got us into Iraq the first time (a proximate cause for 9/11, mind you) and broke all his campaign promises for "no new taxes".  Clinton did some good for social welfare, but arguably some of his legislation ended up causing at least some of the fiscal mess we're in now.  He could have been a greater President if he had kept his pants zipped.  Bush 43 (professed Christian) bullied us back into Iraq, castigated everyone in the DoD who criticized how we did it -- ignoring every Clausewitzian or Sun Tzu principle along the way -- and got us even deeper in debt.  Obama has spent more than almost all previous Presidents combined, arguably with some benefit.

I watched the video of Metaxas's speech, and realized that it was not he who was insinuating anything against Obama's religion -- in truth, it was the article's author, Mark Joseph, who twisted Metaxas's words to express the chip on his own shoulder in order to demonize Obama.  If you just read the article, it would appear that Metaxas was downright disrespectful to the President -- but nothing could be more false, and any intelligent person could see from the video that it is Joseph, not Metaxas, who echoes the judgmental sentiments of the Christian right.

Metaxas's 30-minute speech was actually quite interesting.  He talked mostly about two men about whom he has written biographies: William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, two men who had the moral courage to stand up against injustice, and changed the world because of their faith.  In fact, Metaxas makes a particularly interesting point in his thesis with this statement: "dead religion demonizes others."  (at 59:10 in the video)  He goes on to say that whether you are against abortion or homosexual marriage, those who support them are not necessarily evil.

Alas, I should know better than to try to have an intellectual discussion with an obvious Evangelical.  Here was some more pseudo-spiritual rhetoric from the Facebook discussion:  "anyone who supports the things [Obama] does cannot enter the kingdom of God...[I am] just making a comment and interested in hearing from those who may feel the same way."

Falling back on the "Obama is wicked" side of any political argument is the na-na-na-na-boo-boo way out, especially when you can't even express why you feel that way.

But again, why is Obama "wicked"?  In the eyes of Evangelicals, it's only because he's a Democrat.  Perhaps Evangelicals follow a dead religion.

Which of course is a perfect excuse to embed this loosely related video of an old 80's Christian rock song by one of my favorite artists, Steve Taylor.