Archives For CCM

In the ongoing debate about CCM, many Christians argue that Romans 14 supports the propriety of their using CCM in Christian churches. An application of Romans 14, however, to the testimony of Meghan O’Gieblyn’s experience with Christianity and CCM supports rejecting the use of CCM in churches.

The Testimony of Meghan O’Gieblyn

Writing in Guernica, an online magazine about art and politics, Meghan O’Gieblyn relates the role that she believes CCM played in her Christian experience (Sniffing Glue: A Childhood in Christian Pop). She writes,

I was homeschooled up until tenth grade, and my social life revolved around church. I grew up submersed in evangelical youth culture: reading Brio magazine, doing devotions in my Youth Walk Bible, eagerly awaiting the next installment of the Left Behind series, and developing a taste in music that ran the gamut from Christian rap to Christian pop to Christian rock. . . .

“Meeting kids where they’re at” was a relatively new concept for the church. My parents had grown up in an era when teens were supposed to sit in the pew and sing hymns along with everyone else. When I reached middle school, Christian youth leaders were anxiously discussing the battle for “cultural relevance”—one of the many marketing terms adopted by evangelicals. In the ’90s, mainline Protestant churches were losing members to the growing evangelical movement. With the explosion of rock-concert-style megachurches, many traditional congregations incorporated contemporary worship services in order to attract young people. For our dwindling Baptist congregation, this meant scrapping the organs and old hymns with arcane lyrics like “Now I raise my Ebenezer,” and replacing them with praise choruses led by “worship teams” of college kids with guitars and electric violins. It meant sermons full of pop culture allusions, with juicy titles (“Marriage in the Line of Fire,” “The Young and the Righteous”) designed to make conservative values seem radical and hip. . . .

I saw MTV for the first time when I was thirteen. My parents, like most of my friends’ parents, didn’t have cable, and I literally had to go halfway around the world to see it. In November of 1995, my grandfather went on a trip to Moscow and took my sister Sheena and me along. . . . It was supposed to be an educational experience, but we hardly left the hotel. All week, he attended back-to-back meetings while Sheena and I stayed in our room, eating duty-free chocolate and gorging ourselves on Euro MTV.

On one of those gray afternoons I saw Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video. In a smoky warehouse, the band and a team of tattooed cheerleaders performed for bleachers full of kids. As the song progresses, the scene dissolves into anarchy. . . . I watched this perched on the edge of my bed, about three feet from the TV screen. . . . I didn’t catch any of the lyrics, but I was mesmerized. . . . I couldn’t have told you what the word “irony” meant, but I knew I’d been cheated by Christian rock. This was crack, and I’d been wasting my time sniffing glue. . . .

Despite all the affected teenage rebellion, I continued to call myself a Christian into my early twenties. When I finally stopped, it wasn’t because being a believer made me uncool or outdated or freakish. It was because being a Christian no longer meant anything. It was a label to slap on my Facebook page, next to my music preferences. The gospel became just another product someone was trying to sell me, and a paltry one at that because the church isn’t Viacom: it doesn’t have a Department of Brand Strategy and Planning. Staying relevant in late consumer capitalism requires highly sophisticated resources and the willingness to tailor your values to whatever your audience wants. In trying to compete in this market, the church has forfeited the one advantage it had in the game to attract disillusioned youth: authenticity. When it comes to intransigent values, the profit-driven world has zilch to offer. If Christian leaders weren’t so ashamed of those unvarnished values, they might have something more attractive than anything on today’s bleak moral market. In the meantime, they’ve lost one more kid to the competition. (bold text is in italics in the original)

From this brief sampling of Meghan’s testimony, we learn that Meghan was homeschooled, did devotions in her Bible, and grew up in a church that had organs and sang “old hymns that had arcane lyrics.” She was part of a Baptist church that later changed from that approach to music and became a church that “incorporated contemporary worship services in order to attract young people.”

Later, after she had encountered MTV and secular rock, she felt that she had been “cheated by Christian rock.” After her early twenties, she stopped calling herself a Christian. She views herself as “one more kid” whom Christian leaders “lost . . . to the competition.”

Applying Romans 14 to Meghan’s Testimony

At a minimum, we must understand that Meghan believes that her exposure to CCM in her local church contributed to the process that eventually led her to secular rock and then to the point where she now no longer calls herself a Christian. As such, she testifies plainly to the horrific results that came about in the life of a child who was in a Baptist church that regularly exposed her to CCM.

In Romans 14, Paul unequivocally asserts that Christians must never do anything that would cause a brother to stumble:

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Yet, exposure to CCM in her local church did contribute to Meghan’s stumbling. Moreover, an examination of the comments to Meghan’s article reveals that many others have had similar experiences of turning from Christianity in part because of the CCM that they encountered in churches.

Applying Romans 14 and Meghan’s Testimony to the CCM Debate

Meghan was in a Baptist church that changed its music. She no longer calls herself a Christian. CCM contributed to her current tragic state. Many others have had a similar experience.

Many children attend services today in churches that use CCM. Romans 14 makes clear that churches must never do something that would have the possibility of contributing to people turning from the faith, as exposure to CCM did for Meghan, but the use of CCM by these churches puts these children at risk of having a similar tragic experience.

Even if Meghan were the only person who had ever had such an experience, believers would be obligated to reject the use of CCM in their churches so that they would not put even one other child at such risk. Sound churches that have rejected the use of CCM in their churches must continue to do so, especially for the sake of the children in their churches.

May God help us not to do any such thing that may contribute in any way to even one child in our churches turning from the faith.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

I have worked with Shelly Hamilton at Majesty Music for a number of years now. For the past many months, I have had the privilege of interacting with her extensively as she worked to complete the writing of a book about CCM.

CCM Book pictureShelly has researched this subject carefully for many years. Her musical giftedness, solid Christian training, dedication to serving Christ, and gracious desire and intense burden to help people with this difficult subject have uniquely prepared her for advancing the kingdom of God and His righteousness through her book Why I Dont Listen to Contemporary Christian Music.

In the 103 pages of this book, Shelly covers many key topics, including Is Music Neutral?; The Rock Beat; The Pop Singing Style; Intent and Motive; Biblical Teaching about Music; Rock by Its Fruit and Association; A Musical Line; The Power of Music in the Church; and What Are a Christian’s Musical Options?

If you are looking for some solid help to discern answers to the musical and biblical issues that CCM poses for believers, I heartily recommend that you give this work a careful hearing.


For more help with issues concerning CCM, please see my post Resources That Provide Answers to Key Issues Concerning CCM

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

When king Saul rebelled against God, God judged Him by rejecting him from being king of Israel (1 Sam. 15:23). After Samuel anointed his successor, David, the Holy Spirit came upon David from that day onward (16:13). By contrast, “the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him” (16:14).

Was the spirit from God that tormented Saul an unholy spirit or was he an angel who was sent by God to distress Saul? Some believers are troubled to think that this spirit was actually an evil spirit in the sense of being a demon. For them, for God to use such a spirit creates theological problems with their view of God and His separateness from sin.[1]

An examination of many similar Scripture passages helps to answer the question of the identity of the spirit that tormented Saul.

1. Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan, who could only have assaulted them had God permitted him to do so (see point 2 for Scriptural support for this interpretation):

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.

 2. Job was assaulted by Satan on more than one occasion when God gave him permission to do so:

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. 

3. Because of his sinfulness, God judged king Ahab through a lying spirit:

2Ch 18:18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

 19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

 20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?

 21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

 22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. 

4. Paul’s affliction at the hands of Satan was divinely given him: 

 2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

The use of the divine passive (“was given”) shows that God was the One who allowed Paul to be afflicted by Satan.

5. God will judge many people in the future who will have rejected His truth by sending strong delusion upon them, which will be the work of evil spirits:

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

These five passages provide ample biblical support for holding that king Saul was tormented by an unholy spirit from God and not just a “distressing spirit” (1 Sam. 16:14 in the NKJV). In addition, the Spirit’s departure from Saul prior to the evil spirit’s coming upon him also points to his being an unholy spirit that came to torment Saul once the Holy Spirit was no longer upon him (cf. 1 Sam. 10:6).



[1] Additionally, the identification of this spirit as an evil spirit versus a distressing spirit has vital bearing on determining the moral character of the instrumental music that David played for Saul (see my post Correcting a Wrong Handling of the Accounts of David’s Music Ministry to Saul).

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

As an unsaved child and junior high, high school, and college student, I listened to a wide variety of music, including heavy metal, soft rock, and pop. Growing up in an Indian home, I also had very extensive exposure to Hindi music, especially music from Indian movies.

Music was an especially vital part of my life from about junior high onward. At one point, I even wanted to be a lead guitarist and vocalist for a rock band.

In college, I took guitar classes and lessons and longed to learn how to play rock music. Although I tried very hard to learn how to play it, I never was able to figure out how to play the rhythms of that music. Most of the few rock solo parts that I did learn to play, I learned from a few close friends who also played guitar.

In contrast to my very limited success in learning to play rock music, I was able to develop extensive abilities in note reading and strumming and picking chords for songs that did not have a rock beat to them. In addition, considerable exposure to classical music during these years, both through my guitar lessons and through close connections with many college friends who were classical musicians, developed a deep love and appreciation in me for classical music.

Although I had listened to many different styles of music in my life, I did not have much exposure to Christian hymnody before I was saved. In the years leading up to my conversion, I did attend services occasionally at an Assembly of God church, but I have no recollection of the music that I heard on those occasions.

Shortly after I became a Christian, I began attending services regularly at an independent Baptist church in Cookeville, TN. In that church, I first experienced extensively Christian hymnody and other sacred music that was sung and played in a way that was distinct from all the music (except for the classical music and the other sacred songs that I had heard before) that I can recall ever having heard prior to that point in my life.

My experience of this new music was not just that I was singing words that I had not sung before—there was an entirely different feel to this music. This sacred music did not bring back to my mind the earlier styles that I had saturated my mind with over the years.

Now, after 23 years of being immersed in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, I am readily able to detect a difference between what I first heard in my first church and what I hear today in Christian music sung and performed in contemporary styles. Whereas the former never recalls to my mind secular music that I have heard, CCM readily does so.

As one who first had his mind immersed for many years in the world’s music and then immersed for many years in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, I find it regrettable that good brethren assert that CCM is acceptable music for divine worship. Not having the background that I have, many of them do not understand the harmful effects that the musical styles of CCM—regardless of the words—are having upon them.

Furthermore, even after years of being a believer, I find that I still have within me a deep affinity for rock music, pop, and other music that is played and sung in worldly styles. Based on my extensive experiential knowledge of the world’s music and of sacred music that is clearly distinct in style from the world’s music, it is clear to me that CCM has no place in the life of a dedicated believer and should be eradicated from every church that desires to glorify God in its worship.


See my post Resources That Provide Answers to Key Issues Concerning CCM for much more biblical information about issues concerning what music God accepts in corporate worship.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Scripture provides three accounts of David’s music ministry to Saul (1 Sam. 16:14-23; 18:10-11; 19:8-10). Because the results of his ministry to Saul in the first account were different from the results in the other two, some have wrongly concluded that David’s music was unreliable and even have dismissed the value of the first account for addressing the issue of the morality of music without words.

A close examination of key differences between the first account and the latter accounts, however, provides the right explanation of the differing outcome in the latter accounts and underscores the value of the first account.

David’s Music Ministry Delivers Saul from Demonic Affliction (1 Sam. 16:14-23)

God judged Saul by sending an evil spirit to afflict him (1 Sam. 16:14). To relieve him of his affliction, Saul’s servants sought a skillful harpist to minister to him (1 Sam. 16:15-16). In some unexplained way, they had confidence that such a ministry of music would deliver Saul from his affliction.

Saul’s servants found David and brought him to Saul (1 Sam. 16:17-22). Whenever the evil spirit troubled Saul, David’s playing made Saul better and caused the demon to depart (1 Sam. 16:23).

The passage does not say anything about David’s singing any words to Saul as he played his harp. In fact, the passage stresses David’s playing through three explicit references about the playing of the harp (1 Sam. 16:16, 18, 23).

It was David’s instrumental harp music, therefore, that caused the evil spirit that tormented Saul to depart from him. Had his music been amoral, it could not have had this effect for good.

Because the music did drive out the evil spirit, it was a force for good. We thus learn that David’s instrumental music was not amoral.

Saul Tries to Kill David Twice in spite of David’s Music Ministry to Him (18:10-11)

Whereas David’s music ministry had previously delivered Saul on repeated occasions for an unspecified amount of time (1 Sam. 16:23), the next account (1 Sam. 18:10-11) records that Saul tried to kill David twice (18:11) in spite of his ministering musically again to Saul (18:11). What caused there to be such a dramatic difference on this occasion compared to the previous ones?

In between these two accounts, we read of David’s valiant defeat of Goliath (17:1-54). Following several verses that speak then of Saul’s inquiry about whose son David was (17:55-58), we read of the covenant that Jonathan and David made (18:1-4).

The next five verses provide key information that explains the differing outcome of David’s music ministry to Saul on this later occasion:

1Sa 18:5 And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.

 6 ¶ And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.

 7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.

 8 And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom?

 9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.

These verses reveal that Saul became very upset when the women lauded David more highly than they did Saul (18:8). He then became jealous of him and suspicious of him from then on that he would seek to take the kingdom from Saul (18:9).

Right after reading about this key change in Saul’s attitude toward David, we encounter the first of two accounts that record that David’s music ministry to Saul did not benefit him as it had done before:

1Sa 18:10 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.

 11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.

This passage specifies that this account took place on the very next day after Saul’s becoming intensely upset at David and becoming suspicious of him (18:10a). This time when the evil spirit came on Saul, he raved madly in his house. The text also specifies that Saul had a javelin in his hand on this occasion.

Prior to this point, we never read of Saul sitting in his house with a javelin in his hand. Nor do we read of him being afflicted by the spirit to the point of his raving madly. Both these differences point to the same reality—a vital change in Saul’s disposition toward David.

The natural explanation for Saul’s having a javelin in his hand now is that he apparently was so suspicious of David’s potentially trying to take the kingdom from him that he wanted to have a weapon to protect himself should David try anything to harm him. Because of the dramatic change in Saul, David’s music ministry that was the same to him “as at other times” (18:10) did not deliver Saul now from his spiritual affliction.

Saul’s intense jealousy and mistrust of David prevented him from benefiting from David’s music ministry as he had done before. He now degenerated to letting the wickedness of his heart come out in two attempts to kill David.

David’s music thus was not unreliable or ineffective on this occasion. Rather, Saul, as the listener, forfeited on this occasion the value of David’s ministry to him because of his hardness of heart toward David.

Saul Again Tries to Kill David in spite of His Music Ministry to Him (19:9-10)

Saul’s two attempts to kill David show that Saul was now not just opposing David—more importantly, he was also actively fighting against God, who had chosen David to become king in place of Saul. Saul had thereby now set himself in opposition to the Lord and His anointed one (cf. Ps. 2).

Because Saul was now opposing both God and David, he continued to degenerate spiritually and be hardened in his sinfulness (1 Sam. 18:17, 21, 25). He became more and more afraid of David and became his enemy continually (1 Sam. 18:29).

In spite of further events (1 Sam. 19:1-5) that led Saul even to swear by the Lord that David would not be killed (1 Sam. 19:6), we read of another time when Saul tried to kill David despite David’s music ministry to him while he was being afflicted by the evil spirit:

1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.

 10 And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin; but he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.

This final account shows that Saul’s hardness of heart toward David and opposition to God again caused him to forfeit the benefit of David’s music ministry to him.

David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral and It Was Not Unreliable

A careful analysis of the flow of these various events in the lives of David and Saul shows that David’s earlier music ministry profited Saul by delivering him from spiritual affliction caused by an evil spirit. Because Saul was delivered by David’s instrumental music, we understand that it was not amoral.

Moreover, the latter accounts do not show that David’s music was unreliable or lacked the spiritual ability to deliver Saul consistently. Rather, the greatly heightened wickedness of Saul’s heart on those occasions prevented him from receiving the benefit of David’s music ministry to him.

For the same reason, the latter accounts also do not negate the importance of the first account for showing that David’s instrumental music was not amoral. David’s instrumental music ministry to Saul thus was not amoral and it was not unreliable.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Whether music without words is moral or not is a question that is widely debated today among believers. This post treats biblical teaching about natural revelation and music related to God’s providence to answer this question.

Natural Revelation

Psalm 19:1-6 provides clear teaching about natural revelation:

Psa 19:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

 6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

David teaches that God is continuously providing worldwide revelation of His glory and handiwork.

Paul corroborates his statements and further teaches that all are without excuse because they are suppressing God’s infallible communication of moral truth through His creation:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Scripture thus makes clear that God is continuously infallibly communicating moral truth to every person through natural revelation that involves no words. Wordless communication of moral truth, therefore, is a pervasive worldwide reality that every human being experiences on a nonstop basis.

Music Related to God’s Providence 

Building on the foundation of God’s communication of moral truth through wordless natural revelation, related teaching about God’s providence provides additional relevant information. Psalm 104 highlights God’s creating and sustaining His Creation. In that context, the Psalmist provides an important statement about music related to His providence:

Psa 104:10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.

 11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.

 12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.

 13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.

The Psalmist makes known that God provides water to every animal to satisfy its thirst. In that context, he speaks of birds that sing among the branches of trees located by the springs that God sends.[1]

Statements that God satisfies His creation (Ps. 104:11, 13) on both sides of the statement about the singing of the birds show that it is not an incidental “filler” statement. Rather, the clear implication is that the birds sing in grateful response to God’s satisfying them by providing water and habitation (cf. Ps. 104:16-18 and the command for the flying fowl to praise the Lord [Ps. 148:7, 10]).[2]

Furthermore, no humans taught the birds to sing—we thus rightly infer that they continue to do what God created them from the beginning to do. What’s more, He created them (Gen. 1:20) before He created man (Gen. 1:26-27). Because God said that His creation of the birds was good (Gen. 1:21), we rightly deduce that their singing at that time was good, as was also everything else taking place in God’s universe at that time.

Moreover, after He had created man (Gen. 1:26-29), God pronounced that everything that He had made was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). We infer correctly, therefore, that the singing of birds that took place after man was created—but before he fell—was also very good.

Both before man was created and after he was created but before he fell, birds thus sang wordless moral music to the praise of their Creator! Furthermore, even after he fell, Scripture provides revelation about birds (Ps. 104:12) that points to their communicating a wordless moral message through music.

In addition, the clear teaching treated earlier about God’s present-day worldwide communication of wordless moral truth through natural revelation provides a supportive universal backdrop for interpreting the present-day singing of birds as still communicating a moral message without words.

The Debate about the Morality of Music without Words 

God is continuously providing infallible moral truth wordlessly to every human being through the heavens and the firmament that He created (Ps. 19:1-4). He is also providing moral truth wordlessly through the singing of the birds that He created (Gen. 1:20) to praise Him (cf. Ps. 148:7, 10) for His providential care for them (Ps. 104:12).

Scriptural teaching about natural revelation and music related to God’s providence thus establishes that the default Scriptural position is that music without words is moral.[3] Christians who hold the position that music without words is amoral thus have the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of their view from Scripture.


[1] Because the Hebrew here does not use a specific word for singing (cf. “Heb ‘among the thick foliage they give a sound’” [NET Bible translation note on Psalm 104:12]), some hold that this verse does not establish that birds sing music. The context, however, makes clear that singing is in view. Furthermore, Zephaniah 2:14 explicitly uses a Hebrew verb to speak of the singing of birds. See also my post Do Birds Sing Music or Merely Make Sounds  for additional explanation of why the position that birds do not sing music is not tenable. Moreover, numerous videos available on the Internet abundantly attest to the fact that birds sing songs with multiple pitches, rhythm, rests, etc.

[2] Many commentators concur with this interpretation: “The birds, also, in their nests among the branches are able to pour forth their melodious notes as the result of the God-directed valley-springs. Singing among the branches should inspire us to sing where we dwell—even if it be like Paul and Silas in a prison cell. . . . Said Izaak Walton, great lover of birds, especially the nightingale, ‘Lord, what music hast thou provided for the saints in heaven, when thou affordest bad men such music on earth?’” (Herbert Lockyer, Sr., Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 409). 

“Among them the fowls of the air dwell. That is, among the trees which spring up by the fountains and water-courses. The whole picture is full of animation and beauty. . . . Which sing among the branches. Marg. as in Heb., give a voice. Their voice is heard—their sweet music—in the foliage of the trees which grow on the margin of the streams and by the fountains” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Explanatory and Practical, 9:85). 

“’Everything lives whithersoever water cometh,’ as Easterners know. Therefore round the drinking-places in the vales thirsty creatures gather, birds flit and sing; up among the cedars are peaceful nests, and inaccessible cliffs have their sure-footed inhabitants. All depend on water, and water is God’s gift. The psalmist’s view of Nature is characteristic in the direct ascription of all the processes to God” (Alexander MacLaren, The Psalms, 3:116). 

“How refreshing are these words! What happy memories they arouse of plashing waterfalls and entangled boughs, where the merry din of the falling and rushing water forms a solid background of music, and the sweet tuneful notes of the birds are the brighter and more flashing lights in harmony. Pretty birdies, sing on! What better can ye do, and who can do it better? When we too drink of the river of God, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life, it well becomes us to ‘sing among the branches.’ Where ye dwell ye sing; and shall not we rejoice in the Lord, who has been our dwelling-place in all generations. As ye fly from bough to bough, ye warble forth your notes, and so will we as we flit through time into eternity. It is not meet that birds of Paradise should be outdone by birds of the earth” (Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, 2:305). 

“The music of the birds was the first song of thanksgiving which was offered from the earth, before man was formed” (John Wesley; cited in Explanatory Notes and Quaint Sayings on 104:12 in Treasury of David, 2:319). 

“They sing, according to their capacity, to the honour of their Creator and benefactor, and their singing may shame our silence” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 893).

[3] See also my post David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral for further Scriptural teaching that establishes this point.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

God’s universe is composed of many different elements, many of which occur naturally in various elemental forms as well as in combinations with many other elements to form compounds, mixtures, etc. A comparison of differences among various chemical substances provides a valuable analogy that pertains to the debate about the morality of music without words.

Oxygen in its diatomic molecular form (O2) is necessary for human life. Molecules that contain three oxygen atoms, however, form a powerfully toxic substance, ozone. The same element thus forms two different molecules that have radically differing effects on humans.

Carbon and oxygen combine to form two different compounds, carbon monoxide (CO), which is poisonous, and carbon dioxide (CO2), a natural waste product of human respiration that is far less toxic than carbon monoxide. Similarly, hydrogen and oxygen form two compounds: water (H20), which is essential for life; and hydrogen peroxide (H202), which is highly corrosive at high concentrations. These examples show how the same two elements can combine in different proportions to form different substances with vastly different properties.

The same holds true for differing combinations of more than two elements. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen combine to form various compounds that vary greatly in their toxicity. Methyl alcohol (CH3OH) is poisonous, but ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH) is only directly toxic when people consume large quantities of it over a short period.

Unlike both methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol, glucose (C6H1206), however, is a vital substance that the body itself produces to maintain life. These examples show that major differences exist in the properties of chemical substances that have the same three elements but differ in the ratios that they have those elements.

Similarly, even though individual elements of music such as single notes have no intrinsic morality, we would be right to expect that differing combinations of those elements would have differing effects on people. To argue that combining various musical elements (without words) in a way that communicates a negative moral message to humans is impossible would not be in keeping with the reality that we find in the chemical makeup of God’s universe.

To hold the view, therefore, that music without words is inherently amoral, there should be some clear basis for expecting that combining musical elements would be somehow radically different (in the specific sense talked about in this article) from combining chemical elements. I am not aware of any such justification.

Based on the analogy between chemistry and music (as well as for many other valid reasons, both biblical and non-biblical), I believe that the right default position to take in the debate about the morality of music is that music without words is not inherently amoral.

RELATED POSTS:

If Music without Words Is Inherently Amoral, Then . . .

Do Birds Sing Music or Merely Make Sounds?

Would the Psalmists Approve of CCM?

David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral

Toward Solving the Church’s Music Problems

A Parable about Music

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Many believers today espouse the view that music without words is inherently amoral. Those who hold this view should carefully think through the following serious implications of taking this position.

1. If music without words is inherently amoral, then no one, including even God, is able to combine any set of notes, rhythms, meters, harmonies, dynamics, etc. to communicate through music alone any kind of moral message, good or bad.

2. If music without words is inherently amoral, then even the most evil person whose heart is entirely consumed with flaming hatred toward God cannot express his hatred to any degree through just instrumental music. Although he can do so through facial expressions, other gestures, and other nonverbal activities, he is incapable of doing so through any musical means that does not employ words.

3. If music without words is inherently amoral, listening to the worst possible secular heavy metal music in a foreign language that one does not understand cannot directly have any deleterious moral effect on a person.

4. If music without words is inherently amoral, exposing very small children who are not yet talking at all to CCM has no beneficial moral effect on them because they do not understand any of the words being sung.

5. If music without words is inherently amoral, though the rest of the whole creation was ruined by the Fall of man, Adam’s sin as well as all subsequent human sin has not had (and could not have had) any corrupting influence whatever on music. Although sin has corrupted every man’s entire being, somehow his innate corruption does not and cannot taint to any degree any instrumental music that he produces.

6. If music without words is inherently amoral, all inventors (and proponents) of various musical styles who have repeatedly and unequivocally said that they have specifically created their musical styles for accomplishing specific immoral objectives were (and are) clueless in what they were (and are) doing and seeking to do. In reality, they were (and are) pointlessly pursuing an impossible goal, not knowing that all musical styles are amoral and therefore incapable on their own (minus words) of being used to further any such ungodly agendas.

7. If music without words is inherently amoral, divine worship employing any style of music should be usable by any people as long as the words are ok.

Is it credible to hold that music without words is inherently amoral?

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In a few recent discussions with some friends and one family member, I discovered that some people hold that birds do not sing music but merely make sounds. This post explores this issue and shows why I believe that position is not tenable.

Perhaps some would argue that a single bird that produces sounds of only one pitch does not sing music. While that may technically be true, a single bird that produces sounds of more than one pitch, however, would produce music. Furthermore, two or more birds that produce sounds of at least two different pitches certainly would produce music.

Beyond the issue of producing sounds of multiple pitches, another reason that some doubt that birds sing music concerns their perspective that birds lack the necessary creative abilities to do so.

DO BIRDS INHERENTLY LACK THE CREATIVE ABILITIES NECESSARY TO PRODUCE MUSIC?

Because birds are subhuman creatures, is it valid to hold that they therefore inherently lack the creative abilities that are necessary to produce music? Based on the implications of several passages that record certain activities of animals, including some about birds, I believe that this position is highly questionable.

Before the Fall

A serpent spoke to Eve and tempted her to do evil (Gen. 3:1; 4-5). Although we have no other data to work with about the abilities of animals before the fall, there is no clear reason that I am aware of that we must hold that the serpent’s actions were a unique instance of such activity.

Furthermore, God created birds (Gen. 1:20-21) before He created man (Gen. 1:26-28). In their unfallen state, surely their abilities far exceeded their present abilities to create sounds of varying pitches.

After the Fall

Two passages about animal activities after the Fall of man also support holding that birds do sing music and not just make sounds.

Numbers 22

The account of Balaam’s interaction with his donkey records another occasion when an animal interacted verbally with humans. The donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in front of it with a sword and responded accordingly (Num. 22:23). The passage provides no indication that the donkey’s seeing the Angel or its reacting to the threat that He posed to the donkey were supernatural, out-of-the-ordinary occurrences.

The donkey responded similarly two more times (Num. 22:25, 27), and on each occasion, Balaam responded by striking it (Num. 22:23, 25, 27). The Lord then opened its mouth (Num. 22:28), and she asked Balaam what she had done so that he had stricken her three times (Num. 22:28).

Balaam accused the donkey of abusing him (Num. 22:29). The donkey then reasoned with Balaam and elicited a response from him that implied that he had erred in his treatment of her (Num. 22:29b).

The Lord then enabled Balaam to see the Angel of the Lord standing before him (Num. 22:31). The Angel then asked him why he had stricken his donkey three times (Num. 22:32) and explained that the donkey’s actions actually saved his life (Num. 22:32-33).

Although some would argue that the entire account is exceptional, the text only indicates that the Lord’s allowing the donkey to speak and Balaam to see the Angel were supernatural in nature. The passage provides no explicit textual basis for holding that the donkey’s ability to reason with Balaam (after the Lord had opened its mouth) was also supernatural in nature.

Psalm 104

In a glorious Psalm that praises God for His creation and His providential care for it, an unknown psalmist writes, “By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches” (104:12; KJV). Although the Hebrew does not employ a term that specifies a musical activity, the context makes clear that singing is plainly in view here (cf. other important modern translations that also render the Hebrew verb as sing: NKJ, NIV, ESV, CSB).

Several commentators take Psalm 104:12 as an important statement about music:

“The birds, also, in their nests among the branches are able to pour forth their melodious notes as the result of the God-directed valley-springs. Singing among the branches should inspire us to sing where we dwell—even if it be like Paul and Silas in a prison cell. . . . Said Izaak Walton, great lover of birds, especially the nightingale, ‘Lord, what music hast thou provided for the saints in heaven, when thou affordest bad men such music on earth?’” (Herbert Lockyer, Sr., Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 409).

“Among them the fowls of the air dwell. That is, among the trees which spring up by the fountains and water-courses. The whole picture is full of animation and beauty. . . . Which sing among the branches. Marg. as in Heb., give a voice. Their voice is heard—their sweet music—in the foliage of the trees which grow on the margin of the streams and by the fountains” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Explanatory and Practical, 9:85).

“’Everything lives whithersoever water cometh,’ as Easterners know. Therefore round the drinking-places in the vales thirsty creatures gather, birds flit and sing; up among the cedars are peaceful nests, and inaccessible cliffs have their sure-footed inhabitants. All depend on water, and water is God’s gift. The psalmist’s view of Nature is characteristic in the direct ascription of all the processes to God” (Alexander MacLaren, The Psalms, 3:116).

“How refreshing are these words! What happy memories they arouse of plashing waterfalls and entangled boughs, where the merry din of the falling and rushing water forms a solid background of music, and the sweet tuneful notes of the birds are the brighter and more flashing lights in harmony. Pretty birdies, sing on! What better can ye do, and who can do it better? When we too drink of the river of God, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life, it well becomes us to ‘sing among the branches.’ Where ye dwell ye sing; and shall not we rejoice in the Lord, who has been our dwelling-place in all generations. As ye fly from bough to bough, ye warble forth your notes, and so will we as we flit through time into eternity. It is not meet that birds of Paradise should be outdone by birds of the earth” (Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, 2:305).

“The music of the birds was the first song of thanksgiving which was offered from the earth, before man was formed” (John Wesley; cited in Explanatory Notes and Quaint Sayings on 104:12 in Treasury of David, 2:319).

 “They sing, according to their capacity, to the honour of their Creator and benefactor, and their singing may shame our silence” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 893).

The accounts about animal activity in Numbers 22 and Psalm 104 support holding that birds sing music and not just make sounds.

In the future

A remarkable future occasion of universal worship of both God the Father and the Lamb will include verbal praise from every creature in heaven, in the earth, under the earth, and in the sea:

Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Some commentators hold that this reference does not literally refer to subhuman creatures such as birds giving praise to God because they believe strongly that they lack the intellectual capacity to do so (e.g., Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 407). In view of the passages treated above, this seems to me to be a dubious position.

CONCLUSION

Given the available biblical data, I conclude that birds do sing music and not merely make sounds. I would appreciate hearing from those who disagree so that I can further my understanding of this matter.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Many professing Christians today approve of the use of CCM. This article evaluates the propriety of that approval by directing attention to a question that every believer would do well to consider carefully—whether the authors of the Psalms would approve of CCM?

To answer this question, we should keep in mind some facts about the book of Psalms: God inspired a number of men to write the Psalms: David (75); Asaph (12); Solomon (2?); Ethan (1); Heman (1), and Moses (1); [no information or unclear information about the authors of the other 58 Psalms]. Together, these men have given to us the only inspired sacred songbook in existence.

Of these men, at least four were also instrumentalists (David, Asaph, Ethan, and Heman; cf. 1 Chron. 15:19). These four men produced at least 89 of the Psalms, so more than 59% of these inspired songs were written by men who also played musical instruments themselves. The Psalms, therefore, were not merely the product of poets or songwriters inspired by God to write lyrics for inspired songs.

If these inspired songwriters (and sacred instrumentalists) were somehow to hear the CCM of our day, would they approve? To answer this question, we should consider what God has taught us through them.

The first Psalmist teaches us that a man will be blessed (i.e., uniquely favored by God), if he will be characterized in the following dual manner:

1. Negatively, he does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of the scornful.
2. Positively, he delights in the law (Heb. instruction) of God and meditates therein day and night.

Because the Psalmist begins by characterizing the blessed man negatively with three expressions of what is not true of him, we must understand that these statements are the right place for us to start in answering our question.

To be blessed, we must not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. Our lives must not be lived influenced in any essential way by any ungodly advice, viewpoints, priorities, objectives, and practices.

How does this truth apply to the music that we use for our worship? It teaches us that we must not get our music perspectives or practices from those who are not like God.

CCM, however, was created by professing Christians who chose to incorporate into Christian music a style and type of music invented by ungodly people who created that style specifically for the purpose of promoting ungodliness. Because CCM was therefore created by those who acted contrary to the teaching of Psalm 1:1, which directs us not to live under the influence of the ungodly, we should hold that the Psalmists would not approve of CCM.

Confirmation of this assessment is seen by applying to our question David’s teaching in Psalm 2 about the counsel of the ungodly:

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us (2:1-3).

To understand the importance of these statements, we note that the first Psalmist provides no specific information about the counsel of the ungodly. David here thus gives to us the first specific information about that counsel when he teaches us that ungodly men (especially the kings of the earth and the rulers) have taken counsel together to promote rebellion against the authority of Yahweh and His Messiah.

From taking the teaching of Psalms 1-2 together, we learn that the inspired songwriters preeminently warn people about following ungodly counsel that incites and promotes rebellion against God. Applying this principle to music means that these two (if David did not write Psalm 1 as well) Psalmists would not approve in any way of music created by ungodly people for the purpose of promoting rebellion.

The people who created and advanced rock music have openly and repeatedly testified that the music itself—apart from the lyrics—was created for the purpose of promoting rebellion. Rock music, therefore, regardless of what words are sung along with it, is ungodly music because it was created by the ungodly to promote rebellion.

Those who created CCM—as well as those who have since promoted it—have thus advanced the use of music of which the Psalmists clearly would not approve. Because David wrote at least half of the Psalms, he is by far the most important musician spoken of in Scripture. Hence, we do well to give special regard to applying his teaching in Psalm 2 to this issue.

The believer, therefore, should heed the godly counsel of the first Psalmist and of David and categorically reject CCM as well as all other music that weds Christian words with ungodly music styles.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.