Titus 2 Men And Women

Is Music Really Neutral?
by Dan Sweatt

In order to justify currents trends in sacred music, a new idea has surfaced. No other age of church history has held or believed it. No one even verbalized it until the mid-1960s. Even to this day secular musicians and musicologists scoff and ridicule it. In spite of an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary, this new, strange doctrine is vigorously defended in many Christian circles. It says that music is neutral (or amoral)--that only the words matter in sacred music.

Historical Evidence

First, let's examine this philosophy from a historical perspective. Plato wrote, "The introduction of a new kind of music must be shunned as imperiling the whole state since styles of music are never disturbed without affecting the most political institutions." He further comments on music's influence to good or evil: "Music directly represents the passions or states of the soul --gentleness, anger, courage, temperance...If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person..." In Plato's respected opinion, music--rather than being neutral--is powerful indeed in shaping the destiny of nations and men. Note that Plato wrote of music with no reference to the words.

Martin Luther wrote, "Besides theology, music is the only art capable of affording peace and joy of the heart...My heart which is full to overflowing has often been solaced and refreshed by music when sick and weary."

In his classic text, The Enjoyment of Music, Joseph Machlis states the belief that is commonly held among all serious students of music: "Music has been called the language of emotions. This in not an unreasonable metaphor: for music, like language, aims to communicate meaning...Music is related to human experience, and it has expressive content; otherwise, it could not have functioned for thousands of years as a spiritual force in the lives of men."

J.S. Bach implies the power of music in his explanation that music is for "the glory of God and the refreshment of the spirit." If music can refresh the spirit, it is reasonable to assume that it can by the same power pollute or corrupt it.

Modern secular musicians have boasted about the power of their music. Charles Reich, in his book, The Greening of America, describes music's influence. "Music has become the deepest means of communication and expression for an entire culture. The dominant means of communication in our society--words--has been so abused, distorted, and preempted that at the present [words or language] does not seem adequate for people of the new consciousness. Music, on the other hand, says all the things they want to say or feel. It expresses raunchy, sweaty sex. It is [a] repository of fantastic energy--as anyone who has watched a rock band knows. The older music was essentially intellectual; it was located in the mind and in the feelings known to the mind; the new music rocks the whole body and penetrates the soul. The new music is a music of unre-strained creativity and self-expression."

There is an ever-burgeoning field of study called music therapy, whereby mental and psychological conditions such as depression and anxiety are treated by "prescribing" the right music as a medical doctor prescribes a drug. Certainly this field of study is based on the fact that music affects people.

The Sixties Revolution

Let it be clearly understood that the only people on the face of the earth, in this generation or any other, who have tried to promote the "neutrality of music" are Christians living after 1965.

What happened in the mid-sixties that was significant enough to cause many fundamental Christians to ignore what was then and is now common knowledge among musicians? I believe the roots are sociological rather than musical. Those of us who lived during that tumultuous time remember well the social climate. All that was traditional was suspect. The young rejected anything even vaguely associated with "the establishment." Perhaps the most traditional of all institutions was the church, and perhaps the most traditional of all aspects of the church was the music. The cry became "Give us something new!"

Simultaneously in the secular world a new form of musical expression had captured the minds as well as the imaginations of this restless generation. This music they could feel! It gave voice to their rebellion and to their passion.

Preachers fearlessly assailed the pivoting hips of Elvis and the moppy hair of the Beatles. The miniskirt was unclothing our girls, while every other standard was being pushed to the limit. Compared to rock-and-roll, church music seemed bland indeed.

On the one hand, preachers were fighting rebellion--no long hair, no short skirts; on the other, they feared "turning off" this generation who had quite different tastes. It was against this backdrop that someone began to use rock-and-roll as a vehicle to reach this new generation. The reasoning was, "If we are going to reach them, we must speak their language."

With the ever-widening media influence and so many in the church becoming entertainment oriented, the stage was set. "Get them to the church by giving them what they like; then give them what they need. Since a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, let's coat the gospel with rock-and-roll." Someone described it in this way," We'll sneak up on them and inoculate them with the gospel before they know it."

Flaws in Contemporary Logic

As viewed from twenty-five years down the road, this approach had several problems. The first is that the gospel is not medicine, but it is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." It does not need covering up to make it more palatable or jazzing up to make it more relevant. It merely requires proclaiming so that God can do His work. Secondly, many preachers had already begun, and rightly so, to attack this music's sensuality, its driving jungle rhythm and the bizarre dress and behavior of its performers. But as the pressure mounted and apologists asked questions for which these preachers had no answers, many began to ignore the music and focus on the messages the songs gave. To be sure, preachers had plenty to preach about there. However, because most preachers did not feel qualified to talk about the music itself beyond the phrases "jungle beat" and "too loud," musicians interpreted their silence as tacit approval. With a little faulty logic about reaching the lost with its own music but with Biblical words, the corner was turned. If music is neutral, then why not use any style to communicate a good message? If the message of the text is all that matters, then any musical vehicle is appropriate.

The Message of the Music

The problem is that the message of the music is at least as powerful as that of the lyrics, and the perception of the message is greatly colored by the vehicle that carries it. So today every musical style imaginable from country to heavy-metal is being called sacred. How in the world did we move from traditional church music to Stryper in twenty short years? By accepting the totally fallacious position that music is neutral.

But music is not neutral. Its message comes through loud and clear--often more clearly than the overshadowed words. It is time the twentieth-century church considered the message it is communicating by its music. Rather than a message of salt and light, and of separation and holiness, it has become a message of compromise and confusion.

During the past twenty years, our young have taught us much about their music and free lifestyle; it is time we begin to teach them about godliness and holy living. 

Dan Sweatt is the pastor of Berean Baptist Church outside Atlanta. He is also a trained musician and popular conference speaker.

This page has been displayed 7 times this month, 21 times since October 11, 2008.