In the grand scheme of things, the issue of “rock music” may not seem very important. Of all the many errors in Bill Gothard’s teachings, his misleading teaching on music initially seems much less damaging than some of his more glaring theological mistakes. Yet while it is true that music by itself is not of great import as far as salvation and right living are concerned, Gothard’s teachings on music were a key component of a larger worldview that allowed ATI families to wall themselves off from the world and create division within the body of Christ. Consequently, it is worthwhile to take a serious look at the substance of Gothard’s teachings concerning rock music. There are many components of Gothard’s arguments, but my primary concern in this article is to focus on one glaring issue: the lack of Scriptural support for much of Gothard’s position.
At the core of the Institute’s argument against rock music is the idea that no music is amoral. In other words, musical styles themselves–regardless of lyrical content–have inherent morality. Thus, there are moral musical styles and immoral musical styles. It is therefore possible to take a collection of musical notes and assemble them in a way that is either good or bad, just as a chemist can take elements and make substances that are either beneficial or poisonous, or a writer can take an assortment of words and form a sentence that is either uplifting or blasphemous.[1] If this is correct, then we as Christians are responsible for discerning which musical combinations are moral and which aren’t. Attempting to do so quickly reveals the major problem with Gothard’s argument.
The Bible never directly speaks to musical styles in any way. There are verses about singing (Isaiah 42:10), and using music as worship (Ephesians 5:19), and even dancing (Jeremiah 31:13), and an entire book of Psalms that were intended to be sung. Yet nowhere does the Bible make any judgment on what melodies, harmonies, or rhythms are appropriate and what aren’t. Despite this, all of the Institute’s materials on music begin with the assumption that “rock music” and the “rock beat” are worldly and immoral. This is essentially a totally subjective judgment with no basis in Scripture. As a result, Gothard frequently contrasts “rock music” with what he calls “good music,” without any explanation of how such music was determined to be “good” in the first place. For example, in the IBLP booklet, “How to Tear Down the Strongholds of Rock Music,” the author claims that “One of the elementary principles of good music is that in 4/4 time, the emphasis should fall on beats one and three, but especially on beat one.” He continues by saying, “Most contemporary music has completely reversed this pattern and uses a subtle or dominant emphasis on the second and fourth beats of the measure.”[2] This is presented as worldly and immoral. However, the author makes no attempt to provide any Scripture to support the idea that such a rhythm is sinful. In fact, an examination of IBLP materials on music will show that nowhere does Gothard cite any Scripture that speaks specifically about musical styles in any way. This undercuts the very heart of Gothard’s position. If it cannot be established from Scripture that certain types of music are inherently immoral, then much of the argument falls apart immediately.
Because Scripture does not speak to musical styles directly, Gothard has to resort to other tactics to enforce his point. For example, in the Advanced Seminar Textbook, the writer labels rock music as “carnal” and “worldly,” and then cites verses like II Corinthians 10:4-5 or Galatians 5:17 as proof that such music is evil.[3] This seems to provide a solid scriptural argument, yet it falls apart under closer examination. Once again, the author is starting with the assumption that certain music is “worldly” and other music isn’t. However, he fails to provide any sort of biblical method of determining which is which.
Gothard twists and misuses Scripture in several other ways. In the previously mentioned “Strongholds” booklet, he argues that rock music is sinful because it causes teenagers to “[violate] the Fifth Commandment” by listening to rock music when their parents do not want them to.[4] He uses Ephesians 6:2-3 to prove the point. However, this fails to address the possibility that a parent may have no disagreement with his or her child listening to rock music. Gothard is working under the assumption that parents reading the booklet will disagree with rock music, and therefore he can accuse children who listen to such music of being rebellious without having to support his claims about the music’s inherent morality. This gives parents the opportunity to declare something sinful just by the fact that they are opposed to it.
Gothard also tries to attack rock music indirectly by contending that those who listen to it are guilty of offending their brothers in Christ. He states that “Those who listen to ‘Christian’ rock music are offending a growing number of Christians. In doing so, they offend Christ, because Jesus said that whatever we do to the least of the brethren, we do unto Him.”[5] He then misuses Romans 14:21 to support his argument: “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.” He neglects to mention that Romans 14 is addressing a specific issue in the church and cannot be applied to any and every situation he wishes. Simply because someone can claim offense at an issue does not mean he can then expect all Christians to immediately cease that practice. Gothard also ignores Paul’s prior statement in verse 3, “[T]he one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” Yet this is exactly what Gothard is doing.
These are just some examples of ways Gothard abuses Scripture to support an inherently unscriptural argument. It seems absurdly simple to say, but an entire generation of IBLP parents and students completely missed the fact that the Bible simply doesn’t speak about this issue. And with no clear scriptural guidance on the topic, it is impossible to justify the contention, division, and condemnation that has resulted from this issue. Gothard has chosen to condemn and judge those who enjoy rock music, without acknowledging that he has no scriptural authority to do so. In doing so, he puts himself at risk of being guilty of carelessly using God’s word and creating unnecessary division within the body of Christ.
[1] Advanced Seminar Textbook, IBLP, pages 123-125
[2] “How to Tear Down the Strongholds of Rock Music,” IBLP, page 5
[3] Advanced Seminar Textbook, pages 125-126
[4] “Strongholds,” page 2
[5] “Strongholds,” page 6
"Gothard has chosen to condemn and judge those who enjoy rock music, without acknowledging that he has no scriptural authority to do so. In doing so, he puts himself at risk of being guilty of carelessly using God’s word and creating unnecessary division within the body of Christ." AMEN!
His teachings on music has been one of the most divisive issues that I have seen and personally experienced.
My family and I sure could have saved ourselves and others a lot of heartache and pain if we hadn't believed Bill's teachings on music.
This teaching has caused so much division in the church, for sure. thanks for sharing, Timothy.
Excellent post.
I used to be extremely legalistic about music, refusing to listen to almost anything that resembled rock and refusing to do anything that might be considered "dancing" or "moving to the beat."
Thankfully I am free from that false teaching and am able to heartily enjoy all kinds of music instead of being constantly paranoid about it.
Good points, Timothy.
I used to feel very guilty about enjoying upbeat music and/or rock. One day I read a comment about how music helps express a mood, and that rock is intense and is appropriate when the mood is intense. For some reason, that was one of the light-bulb moments that helped me break out of the fear and guilt about music styles. Upbeat music is an appropriate vehicle for upbeat emotions. Rock is an appropriate vehicle for intense emotions.
On a different note, I am frustrated by the double standard of many who defend Gothard. They will attack, slander, and mock the person and character of Christian performers who live and preach the gospel.
Yet when someone dares to question the teachings of Mr. Gothard, these same people accuse of attacking a godly man and his ministry. It's as if no accusation against a Christian performer is out of bounds while no question of Gothard is in bounds.
Didn't Mr. Gothard also claim that rock music was bad because it set up the musicians as ministers of the gospel when they weren't qualified to be so. That would be incredibly ironic since Mr. Gothard is known as being an outspoken critic of seminary training.
Awesome Article!!! I love it! Music for me has always been the one main issue that I couldn't accept Gothard's teachings because there was never any clear line. I would hear we have to build a gap instead of drawing a line but even then I always thought, yes, but you have to start with a line. You have to know what the boundaries are before you start staying away from them. So what are the boundaries??? Was it just the back beat?
A few thoughts that I have accumulated through analyzing this whole idea and things people have said to me about it.
1. The "back beat" usually can't be detected if someone is simply playing the piano (a fact I proved several times in the presence of people who should have been able to detect "evil" immediately) or a violin or an instrument that is not clear percussion such as a drum.
2. Most Southern Baptist churches such as ones that are predominately black use ONLY the back beat as their choir sways and claps against the first and third beat. Is the entire church evil??? (Btw, I have a very close association with such a church and I feel it is ironic how my dad never seemed to have a problem with "that" particular "backbeat."
3. The Bible actual does talk about a percussion instrument: Psalm 150:4-5
"Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals."
Sounds like a bit of clanging and banging of music with a beat to me.
4. There is absolutely no documentation or even a name of said missionary whose daughters brought said "demon worship music."
5. In America we have people who worship the devil in black robes and candles and a painted star on the ground and... old minor tone music that slightly resembles the old Gregorian chants. So how come Gothard never says anything about the minor tone???
6. If I changed the words to Amazing Grace, to something about the worship of Satan. Trust me, God would not be edified and then Gothard could use this music as evil as well!!!
7. Also, the whole, "It goes against your heartbeat" idea... again, absolutely no documentation (especially medical) and for those that say they can "feel it" I would argue that you can get that same feeling from gunfire!
Ok, off my soap box. But one more thing that I always like to add:
Someone once told me that if it gets to your foot before it gets to your heart that you can be sure it is bad. I say, "If it gets to my foot before it gets to my heart, I will worship God with my foot!!! Since He made my entire being as a being of worship for Him!!!"
"If it gets to my foot before it gets to my heart, I will worship God with my foot!" That's a quotable for sure, Wendy. Love it.
"Most Southern Baptist churches such as ones that are predominately black use ONLY the back beat as their choir sways and claps against the first and third beat. Is the entire church evil?"
Is it possible that the real problem with rock music is that it was originally (as so many popular things in our culture are) appropriated from black people? The NeoNazis don't like it either, for just that reason, but they at least say it outright.
I know I'm late to the party on this, but the "evil music" that people like Gothard rail against has been indeed from music created and performed by African Americans. You can find "church people" railing against music with a beat and "weird" chords since ragtime music, then the blues, then jazz, then rock and roll/rhythm and blues...are you beginning to see the pattern? One the original names for rock and roll (and the blues) was "race music". I grew up in the South, and I knew of radio stations that refused to even play Nat King Cole because he was black! Have you ever heard the Christian music created and performed by Africans? It has beats that would make Gothard's head spin! There is a You Tube video of the singing that accompanies the annual [Christian] Martyrs' Day celebration in Uganda--at a place called Namugango. John Newton and Fanny Crosby could not have written this! The reason no one points out the obvious racism behind the Gothard ban on music with a beat is because 1. Gothard is just regurgitating old arguments against "that kind of music" [the devil's music] and 2. Most of Gothard's followers have little or no contact with African American Christians who could immediately stand up and tell them his stand was bogus. There are few if any African Americans in attendance at ATI or other meetings[some ATI families have adopted African American children, but I'm willing to bet that the family allows little or no contact with other black families]; I have never seen Gothard speaking to African American Christians. Yes, there are black churches that also ban popular music, but if you heard the music they sing in their church [Church of God in Christ, I'm looking at YOU] you would hear harmonies and a beat that would rival anything you hear on your favorite music streaming service! Ever heard Andre Crouch or The Winans family sing? That is what I'm talking about--all were born and raised in the Church of God in Christ. Andrae's father was a minister of a church in that denomination, and all 10 Winans siblings (and their descendants) grew up singing in their father's church. Throw into the mix that in American churches, traditionally racism is treated like it's a political issue, not a moral one,and good Christians don't go into politics (until recently, anyway!) well,...
Jean,
I totally agree with you that racism IS a moral issue. Also that Gothardite adoptions of minority-race kids did NOT nurture the strengths that these kids had/have that can only be attributed to their ethnicity. Not making sure that these kids had connections with those of like culture, so as to preserve the richness of it, was elitism. Especially since there was no effort to know anything about the country or city the kids had lived in before coming here. If Social Studies were ever important, then how about a lesson on your own family members’ place of origin!!!!
I speak from a small window I had to this myself; a Gothardite adoptive home in my community that had all the pathology that you describe here plus much, much worse treatment of the adopted-minority kids. I’m sure it happened other places as well. At the very least, what you spoke to is the attempting to put God in a box regarding those whom He clearly made and through whom His invisible attributes are evident. At worse, it is racism, & what I speak to is also repression, slavery, & human exploitation based on this racism. Gothardite adoptions afforded all of the above based on his expressed ideology.
Of all the Gothard teachings that do severe harm, his teachings on adoption rank way up there. I see racism and a total lack of understanding of the type of love that adopted children need. His adoption book suggests that parents send their adopted kids back to orphanages, as was done in the case studies in the final chapter. Major problems for families that adopted, followed by blessings, including financial windfalls, to the family that sent the 6 year old boy back to foster care, whom they had raised since he was one year old. Sick! But, I think we all know now that those case studies were almost certainly made up.
Gothard told me personally that adoption can only work in cases where there are no other children in the household. Say what? Complete nonsense. We are a family with biological and adopted children. So, basically he was telling me that it can't work in our household.
It is bewildering that people gave his teachings in these areas such high regard- a man who had no children of his own and had never married.
Kevin,
I heartily agree with you, his adoption ideas are the ultimate conglomeration of his ideas of the family. When struggling long long ago with plans to begin adoption, someone (and I think they were well meaning at the time) gave me his new booklet on adoption. I was already at a low point but it honestly was like battery acid being thrown on me when I read it. The well meaning person later asked me what I thought and I told her at the time that this was very negative and anti-adoption. She told me "well it's something to think about". That adoption book resulted in never to turn back or consult his teachings and ideas ever again. Way back then, I realized that there is something very wrong with his teachings to come up with this sickness. I didn't know what, how or why. A year ago we had a mini flood in our basement and in cleaning up the mess, I found this booklet wet and moldy, a fitting end to the warped views he espoused. I had also come to learn that Bill based this loosely on a mixed race adoption gone bad with people that never should have or were prepared to adopted another race child. The mother didn't want to adopt and the father as "head of the household" forced the issue on his family. Sickness all the way around.
More on Christian rock from Christianity Today magazine: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/december-web-only/devils-music-randall-stephens-christian-rock.html?fbclid=IwAR2rWK_R0F6bgD-TDpbWrgjtoPuSkxkXcf7H0TwIIQfu07U3Q27YHjgH0XM
Rob,
I'm pretty sure that the booklet that you refer to is Basic Care Bulletin 5: “How to Make Wise Decisions on Adoption".
This is the one that Gothard gave me and is so terribly disturbing. I still have it as a reminder of how dark his teachings can be.
Sorry Kevin that I didn't see your comment earlier, but yes, that was the booklet and as you know, it is totally disturbing and actually sick
Very well said, Wendy!
Just and add-on. Blessed Assurance is in 3/4 and so is Amazing Grace. Aren't they on the Top-10 of Mr. Gothard's "sanctioned" list?
And "I Will Arise and Go to Jesus" is written in a minor key...well, I guess most Southern churches are in a state of sin!
Seven years later... your comments here are excellent, Wendy.
awesome article! so well written, thank you!!
Great piece, and amen times ten. Gothard's "case" is flawed from the start, and imposes simple personal opinions as axioms.
Amen times ten; and that is one of the many subsidiary outrages from this kind of "rock beat" mysticism: the special granting of power to anyone so long as he/she presents the "I'm Offended" card. That particular notion is utterly foreign to Scripture. The "stumbling block" of offense was specifically something that would cause another believer to be tempted to regress into whatever sin he personally associated with the Thing. It was not a carte blanche method of shutting down anything you simply disliked.
One of the best resources that helped me get hold of the difference was this article from author Randy Alcorn: A Stumbling Block: What it is and What it Isn’t. He specifically mentions two issues on which Gothard followers, with coaching, would likely "be offended":
Alcorn's recommendation is the same as the Apostle Paul's: don't flaunt your freedom just to make somebody offended (for the right or wrong reason), because we're to honor God and be sensitive to actual "weaker brothers." But also, don't take the mystic approach and avoid Things out of some idea that they cause evil -- not the human heart. (This is flagrant Pelagianism, too.)
Does anyone also remember the Anecdote about the new Christian convert, from Africa, who made the Anecdote-sharer nervous about CCM because the new convert said that music has the kind of rhythms they used to call up evil spirits? Yet even more mysticism, and also Gnosticism: acting as if the new convert somehow has more spiritual wisdom in this area than an old, mature Christian.
(Quoted from previous writing elsewhere.)
Loving this site, all; love its balance between experience-sharing and Gospel-driven doctrine exploration applied to life. Godspeed!
Wow, Stephen, thanks for sharing that! I'll have to check out that article you mentioned. Very good thoughts! :-)
Thanks, Beverly. (I wonder if a site admin can fix my unclosed HTML tag? :D)
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. :)
On a positive note, if you're still coming out of the music deception, there were several worship music groups that ministered to me when I was working through it. If you don't know these artists, take some time to listen to their stuff:
Hillsong United (esp Hosanna and Revelation Song)
Casting Crowns (for me, it was the Lifesong album that came out in '05)
Chris Tomlin
Third Day (Psalm 36 and I've Always Loved You)
The two songs from Third Day I would listen to repeatedly, over and over again. The truth of God's unconditional love needed to break through many barriers of deception and only concentrated repetition could make that happen.
Thank God for music that glorifies him and the truth of his unchanging love for his children:)
Thanks for all the responses! I've always felt that this issue is a perfect example of the irrationality the Institute is willing to express in order to support a certain position. And Matthew makes a great point. I remember how I used to feel when people mentioned certain popular CCM bands, and how readily I would question their very salvation, all for an issue that is entirely extra-biblical. It's rather frightening.
I used to be confused by the "no denim" policy at the training centers. I didn't have a problem with it, but thought connecting denim with rebellion was weird. Then I saw the poster for "Rebel Without A Cause" (it was before my time and my parents limited my access to movies). And I understood. Mr. Gothard connected denim with rebellion because the generation of teenagers with whom he began his ministry did as well.
I wonder if this is also the source of his views on music and why he assumes parents will condemn rock music. It was the music of rebellion at one time. Many Bible-believing Christians had a problem with it. At one time, perhaps the "honoring your parents" argument was applicable.
Also, like just about anything, music has power. My parents agreed with Mr. Gothard's teachings and we didn't listen to rock music growing up. I believe my father associated it with sinful tendencies in himself. So if he requested someone else to turn off their rock music or had a problem with it at a church, I think the "weaker brother" argument applies as well. My father should be considered "weak" in this area. (Though he would definitely have stopped well short of causing a church split.) I am grateful that we had a "beat free" home. I don't feel like I missed out that much. I learned a lot of great hymns and listened to a lot of classical music, which gave me a better musical education than I would've gotten otherwise. (And my rebellion included listening to Rich Mullins. I know, shocking.)
All that is to say, however, that what was rebellious for one generation is not necessarily rebellious for another. Music may indeed by a weakness for various reasons for a particular person. But I think this is a case of broadly applying a particular. Another case of Mr. Gothard applying his 1950's, white cultural biases to all Christians in all cases and trying to justify it with Scripture.
And, in case you're wondering, my father has resumed listening to his James Taylor cds. And my family prepared for church this morning while listening to Third Day.
=)
to condemn denim is so stupid, but Mr. Bill has a history of blaming inanimate objects as holding some sort of sin ability, I.E cabbage patch dolls.
Denim, in reality, is a material that is very useful...
Denim jeans are part of our history...In the 1860s California--- Levi strauss used metal rivets to help hold jeans together which made them more durable for the gold miners.
Cowboys wear denim jeans for the same reason....riding horses and working around cattle is tough, dirty work. But those cowboys and cowgirls help put tasty steaks on my dinner table.
to prove a certain supposition is totally stupid, you argue it to its nth degree---thus
So if denim is sinful, i.e. the wearing of it leads to rebellion, then it is also sinful to use denim in other ways, after all, denim is denim no matter how it is used (tents, artist canvas, purses, some hats, cots, even though it may not be blue.)
And anyone, raised to believe that denim jeans are sinful, will associate that thought of sin and rebellion to any denim they see in any other use.
Now to heap confusion on the whole dang idiocy of the denim argument, many QF families (QF had its origins via Mr. Bill) make those shapeless denim jumpers for their daughters to wear! ...................hmm (wheels turning in head) maybe that is why so many of them are rebelling and leaving the movement!!!
Gothard was a city boy and never wore a pair of jeans in his life. Those of us who lived and worked out in the country wore jeans all the time. Growing up, I felt that the message it sends when you show up to someone's farm / ranch / worksite all dressed up when they are working is that you aren't available to help serve them. Funny how Hudson Taylor is a hero for becoming as Chinese as possible yet ATI pressured country dwellers not to wear the basic "uniform" of where they lived and worked. Even when I was at my drunkest on the Kool-Aid that one didn't make sense to me.
If someone says that denim is wrong, is that a con-denim-nation? (groan!)
Shawn, Yes!
For me, back in the day, "Who Am I" by Casting Crowns meant a lot.
"Not because of who I am,
But because of what you've done.
Not because of what I've done,
But because of who You are."
Great article! Of course the true legalists were not content to just stay away from the rock beat. Anything that wasn't a hymn was scorned as sinful as well. I remember noticing that the insanity had reached new levels when scriptures that mentioned anything other than hymns were quickly passed over and not really talked about. During one of our girls' devotional times at the MTC we were reading a passage in Ephesians that contained the phrase "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." One of the very sweet Russian girls raised her hand and innocently asked the director's wife what "spiritual songs" were and how they were different from hymns? I guess I was already pretty jaded by then because I remember relishing the leader's discomfort as she stumbled out a non-answer and moved on. Maybe I was the only one who noticed it, but I always hoped that others would pick up on the fact that we were just totally ignoring scriptures now and that this was not ok!
Excellent article; I'm glad to see it here. As a composer, I've thought a lot about the subject (hmm, am I getting an idea for a guest post?). Short story, I used to be completely into Gothard's "All rock is evil" line, until I started studying for a degree in music and theology and slowly (and extremely sheepishly) came to realize that my cherished arguments were sheer sophisms. To say "Backbeats are unnatural and sinful" is oversimplified to the point of absurdity, about on the level of saying "Songs in E major are ungodly because E stands for Evil."
Just to take a couple of musical examples: Lots of rock and dance songs use a "four on the floor" drumming pattern that puts strong beats on 1, 2, 3, and 4. Does that mean they're good and evil at the same time? Alternately, one of my favorite rock songs (yes, I have favorite rock songs now) is in 7/4 time. (I'm thinking of A Day is Gonna Come by Milano, for those curious.) That means a heavy beat on 1, 3, and 5. How does that fit in Gothardism's musical understanding?
What about gospel songs and spirituals in the African American tradition, where clapping on the backbeat is an extremely worshipful and joyous expression of praise? Try it on "Go Tell it on the Mountain," to pick one you all probably know. I seem to recall one argument that went "Rock music comes from African American music which comes from African slaves which comes from evil paganism"-- which has some disturbingly blunt racist overtones to it, when you think about it.
To me, it's clear that Gothard started with the conclusion "Rock is evil" (because those rebellious youth of the 50s liked it, as Lauren rightly observes) and then cast around for points to support the premise-- sloppy reasoning at best, destructive doctrinairism at worst.
Also, if you think all classical composers and hymnwriters were saints, you could stand to do a little reading in music history and hymnology. They were people just like the rest of us.
Exactly, Eric. While Bach was definitely a Christian, there are plenty of other composers whose personal lives tended to indicate otherwise, even if they did write a few sacred works. For example:
Mozart liked dirty jokes.
Beethoven was an alcoholic.
Schubert had syphilis (possibly from a prostitute), which killed him.
Wagner was an anti-Semite.
Brahms was an agnostic and humanist.
Tchaikovsky was a homosexual.
Just because they were classical composers doesn't automatically make them saints by any stretch of the imagination.
It's not something that have to do with the person itself that compose. It's about the sounds they compose. Classical music have 7 notes. Rock (all rock) have guitars and beats. and drums. Guitars have a sound type called 'pentatonic'. it means with 5 notes instead of 7. The reason of these pentatonic scales is about the origins itself or rock . from Africa's first black slaves that singing the 'work song'. The rock have origins from that.... the africans use different beats and music... infact they used the pentatonic scales... they used these choirs to do their pagan's rituals (that was against the Sacred Scripture)... rock is all satanic. No matter what.. because these beats and guitars can attire demons. The melody and armony of piano or gregorian chants in fact, have the exact opposite result.. evil entities hate harmony and gregorian chants (especially in latin, that is the chatolic language of Church)... so isn't correct to say that 'rock' music isn't demoniac. because indeed it is. Both for lyrics or for cd covers, images, themes, and sound(beats).
This is the truth. And we have to pay attention to not become addicted to rock... the keyword is parsimony..
and of course not only satanic rock explicit.. but also rock with lyrics that indirectly talks about fornification, sex, wrong and strange things or hopeless messages or death messages ... etc.. etc..
Dear Vale: Congratulations! You just hit every argument I have ever heard against music produced by Africans or those of African dissent! Demonic, pagan, ...yup you hit every mark on the list! European music good, African music bad. You just condemned to hell all the music done by my ancestors, who walked with God and forgave the evil done to them by "godly" men who saw them as sub-human inferiors who should be grateful that they were enslaved. Never mind that Africa was Christian before Poland was! Ahem. I pointed out in an earlier post that few if any African Americans attended Gothard seminars, and now you know why. Seriously, what (if any)African American musicians, with or without music degrees, have you talked with to or studied with to arrive at your conclusions? NONE! It is nonsense like this that makes many African Americans deride Christianity as "the white man's religion." Music with a beat was used at my parents and grandparents funerals, as well as weddings of my relatives; I can assure you that no demons were attracted to within 10 feet of the building! Christ was honored and glorified within the music, and joy was magnified and grief soothed by the music. Please do me a favor. If you are sending money to African missions, please stop. Stop supporting it. You are being hypocritical when you do. African Americans love Jesus, and we show it through our music, dance, art, etc. We could even love you, even though you think we entertain demons when we do it in ways that you disagree with.
Love, love, LOVE this article. I didn't grow up Gothard, but my mom admits that she was a little bit influenced by it. She quickly saw the light, however. :D
I must admit that I do not like most Christian rock, but that's more because of aesthetic reasons rather than "spiritual" ones. I do love me some darkwave, classic rock, and metal though. Not to mention bouncy dancepop. I go with "Phillippians 4:8" as guidelines for what I listen to.
My family did struggle a bit with legalism concerning music, or at least I did. I always feel guilty about something or other and I was raised thinking that classical music and soft pop were the only acceptable forms of music. When I discovered rock music, I was at least FOURTEEN. Probably fifteen. I felt terribly guilty about it, and struggled with it because a lot of my friends thought it was evil or beneath them and I myself had often taken part in criticizing my Christian brothers and sisters in their choices of music. I still feel terrible about that, but now I delight in all kinds of music, from classical to classic metal. I eventually came to the same conclusion that this article points out: THE ISSUE IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE BIBLE. I figure if God doesn't talk about it, He doesn't really care. I try to avoid really heinous lyrics, and ugly gunk that grates on my ears, and so far I have been happily rocking out sans the guilt. God is great.
I now realize how fortunate I was to have a youth Pastor who introduced me to the concept of Christian Rock. While over the years I realize that most of these bands are just in it for the money and social politics, I have also learned how to be discerning about the artist, not the style.
The subjective nature of so-called "convictions" prevalent in IBLP is evidenced in this personal narrative.
Back in the day, I prepared a piece of music for chorus, piano and harp to be performed at a girl's counseling seminar in Indy. According the the standards of IBLP, the piece was absolutely acceptable. (And it really was a nice musical setting.) However, following the performance, I had a little sitdown with Bill and he told me the music I had chosen for the chorus did not have enough "power" to it, that it needed to be more majestic, that it didn't move the audience, AND (wait for it)...that the music was so bad I should burn every copy in my possession.
My answer was a respectful one, albeit one of disagreement: I explained that I beleived the music was extremely spiritually uplifting, that it communicated an aura of peace (Christians like peace), and the words were Biblically sound. Besides that, the music obviously didn't have any sort of heavy rhythm or no rock beat, and the melody was prevalent. I went on to explain that not all music need be loud and majestic since David played his harp in the field...and harps are quite serene.
After the meeting, my supervisor let me know later Bill told him to fire me for my lack of submission, questioning of authority, and resentful spirit.
W.O.W. just WOW! He had you fired because you were right and he knew it. What a jerk!
Dan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Bill had some other kind of grudge against you but didn't want to say what it was and just looked for a reason to fire you. Personally, I would consider Bill firing you to be a blessing in disguise, because if he fired you even though you painstakingly tried to create something that, as you understood it, met his musical standards, this makes Bill Gothard a complete hypocrite -- and that's putting it nicely.
I think another word for hypocrite is ass. Pompous one. I was one. He still is.
Oh the pride. Pride. PRIDE.
I know of what I speak.
You are to be commended for staying within his guidelines and doing your best. I bet it was beautiful. Rejoice that you were let go. That guy has problems-a-plenty and you were released from seeing or being involved in more of them.
Hey Dan: HMMM. Not enough power. Not majestic. Didn't move the audience. Burn it.
I wouldn't take Gothard's opinion on music any faster than I would take Julia Child's opinion on how to fix cars!
YOU are the musician, the expert. He is a control freak that can't stand ANYONE disputing his edicts. Probably no one who is a prof of music or adjunct prof of music at a junior college, or 4 yr. college/university would have panned your composition. If they did, they would have given you solid music criticism having to do with tempo, music theory, etc. Glad you were strong enough to stand up to him. MAYBE if more people had stood up to him earlier in his life, he might be a different person.
But I doubt it.
I really love your site and really applaud your efforts. I was never into Gothard's teachings but we do homeschool so I bump into his ideologies from time to time.
My struggle, and maybe someone here can shed some light, is that I have a 10yo who LOVES rock. He gets this from me :) but now he has a desire to branch away from Christian rock and into secular rock (via mainly the radio).
I kind of go into the default "rule" that I've half-heartedly made that he must only listen to the Christian radio station, which here in a rural area, isn't that good. But it feels legalistic to me. I'm busy though, with other kiddos and I just don't have time to screen every secular band and song.
Just looking for your opinions...
Is he old enough to be exposed to secular music and to exercise his own discernent muscles? Or shall I stick to my guns and dig my heels in and keep it to Christian rock only?
I was saved at later (at 35) and have a very sinful past, especially during my teen years. Music like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin DID fuel the flames of my promiscuity, drug abuse and rebellion for sure, but I wouldn't say that it CAUSED it. Many complex family issues, where we were living at that time, and the state of my own heart caused me to be self-destructive. My music choices were just a symptom of where my heart was.
So, is it a situation where if me and hubby are doing our job our son will have good discerment and not be pulled into the really raunchy rock that's out there? Or should we, because he's still young, attempt to control this? I don't want the rock stations to become the "forbidden fruit" and I don't want him conforming to my standards just because he has to, I want him (eventually) to set his own standards based on God's truth. So how do you parents out there approach this??? Have you found any secular bands that are fairly vanilla in their lyrics(no sex and drug themes)? Anyone have any Christian bands to suggest that sound "crazy" as my son would say? (We LOVE Toby Mac, Mercy Me, Third Day and Casting Crowns but they're getting really overplayed here!)
Hope I didn't just hijack this thread but I'd really love to know some of you all's perspective on this.
Thanks SO much and keep up the good work, my prayers are with you!
Michelle
I personally love Audio Adrenaline. Most of the bands you just listed are fairly easy listening; there are definitely some harder, rockier Christian bands out there ;)
Do a Bible study based on the lyrics of some of the secular songs out there and compare them with scripture ...
I would also think that you could just "screen" the individual radio stations. Are they generally clean, are the songs that they typically play, songs you are comfortable with your child hearing? What kind of language do the deejays use? What sort of commercials do they play? Etc.
FIVE IRON FRENZY. A personal favorite.
There's also For Today, Sleeping Giant, Call to Glory, Flatfoot 56...and the countless bands they associate themselves with.
Flatfoot 56... I saw them at an event perhaps 5 years ago and chatted with one of the guys afterwards. He seemed like a very nice person. It was a wake-up call for me that this was a younger generation making music (and I'm not that old yet!!). I was surprised that they were releasing vinyl records and he tried to hide his amusement at my ignorance of the whole punk revival of vinyl, LOL. I take it in measured doses but when I'm in the mood I really like their sound.
perhaps you can reason with your son in this story i read somewhere on the internet--------
A christian father raised his daughters to be aware that there are bad things in the world and to stay clear of them...one of them being cursing and sex-situations in movies. There was a movie they wanted to see but it had some language and sex-situations. But they really wanted to go see it...they claimed it had great acting, fantastic plot line, mostly moral with e positive messages and only a little bit of language and sex...he said he would think about it...the next day he brought them brownies claiming they were made with the finest ingredients, best chocolate, fine sugar, wholesome nuts but had only a little bit of dog poo added to them. Did they want to eat one?
my take is that music is neither good nor bad, no matter what kind it is...it is how people use the music. (personally, most rock music is so loud to me I cannot understand any of the lyrics. same with some hymns...."low in the gravy lay"......... What is Jesus doing in the gravy??!?!?!?
I would say your kid should learn all about music, perhaps history of all kinds of music but you call the shots as to what he finally gets to listen to at his age.
[...] It is also worth noting that, as usual, the Scriptures Gothard uses to make his case against rock music have absolutely nothing to do with music. The passage he mentions in Haggai specifically pertains to ceremonial laws for cleanliness within the context of a prophecy about the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai 2:11-14). It has nothing to do with music, nor is it hermeneutically appropriate to view it as a “principle” that should be applied to our lives. The passage in Corinthians is about Christians who are in inappropriate relationships with non-believers. James is referring to a general spiritual battle against worldliness, and John is specifically referring to rejecting envy, lust, and greed. None of these passages have anything to do with the topic of music. (You may read more regarding what the Scriptures say about music here.) [...]
In the words of Larry Norman . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-x_WyBjO6Y
Gothard does not approve denim...does that mean he does not approve of cowboys who still work hard at jobs of providing beef for our tables?
I was born loving horses and other animals. Of course, Gothard had the answer for that in claiming that girls who rode horses were rebellious.
Have you noticed how many cowboy churches there are today, growing fast all over Texas and other places...they ride horses, wear jeans to church. They must be a highly rebellious and sinful bunch.
Bill Gothard doesn't approve of denim?! I see jean skirts all over ATI kids and moms! No horses, now is that only for girls? And the rock music (anything not a hymn or classical) is also a no... so this is my question. Where is the "no list" coming from? Seminars? Newsletters? In the wisdom booklets? It seems odd that homeschool curriculum would teach about no denim, horseback riding and music... other bible curriculum's in homeschooling don't cover things outside the Bible. Is this just the culture of the homeschooling conferences? Where does this stuff get taught?
Cherrie, from my experience, it was scattered throughout the program. For some things, there are specific publications decrying the presence of these things in a believer's life. For other things, there will be mention in a seminar or conference session. Some things are forbidden in the initial paperwork that you complete when signing up for the program.
For example, rock music. There are several publications that deal with the dangers or evils of rock. It's also dealt with in the Seminars, and it was definitely addressed in both the counseling seminar and in several of the young ladies conference sessions at the ATI Knoxville gatherings I attended. When I served at HQ, room checks (some of them clandestine) were done to make sure that you did not have forbidden music in your possession. Even if the music had been approved by your parents, it had to be approved by HQ leadership before you were allowed to have it.
And I also remember the teaching that girls should not ride horses and that denim was the clothing of rebels. Though I couldn't tell you exactly where it was taught ... I suspect it was mentioned in several different venues at various times.
There are many cowboy churches today, where folks mosey in wearing (gasp!) denim jeans and boots and afterwards they have barrel races (very popular among the ladies) or roping, then go home and tend their cattle herds...I wonder what Mr. Bill would say?
On the teaching that girls should not ride horses, did anyone ever get brave enough challenge them and say, where is that in the bible? "thou, being woman, it is a sin to ride horses" Book of Bill, ch. 4571 v. 976.
to temper all this legalist crap with a little humor---in a proper world, men would ride sidesaddle!
Denim was not allowed at the Indianapolis Training Center. I lived there for two years and we were not allowed to wear jeans, skirts, jackets or anything made of denim.
[...] praise and worship songs I wondered, “Are they really ‘right’? Is this music okay?” An article last summer on Recovering Grace really helped as I struggled through and began re-evaluating all I had been [...]
I know that this is kinda late to post on this article, but my brother asked Mr. Gothard what makes some music bad and some good. Mr. G said that if you are in good fellowship with God, then you will know in your spirit what is right or wrong when you listen to different types of music.
Which means that apparently the rhythm of a human heartbeat was invented by the Devil too. Which is strange, because Christian beliefs state that it is God, not the devil, who created the human body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_sounds
Judging from the heart sound in this Wikipedia article, it seems that thanks to the way the human heart beats (which also has a subtle emphasis on the second and fourth beats, if you judge the heartbeat pattern according to a musical measure), it is completely impossible for humans to know right from wrong in Gothardland, since that "rock beat" was written into the very rhythm of our bodies just as surely as the general pattern of Shakespeare's iambic pentameter was.
Guess Gothard hates Shakespeare, too, because he is guilty of the same "sin" as rock musicians; that is, the "sin" of setting the rhythms of his work to the human heartbeat.
The commonalities between the "rock beat" and the rhythm of the human heart, I am sure, are a major part of the reason why people love to listen to rock music and other such songs.
Grew up listening to rock 'n roll, it is fleshly and meant to be so. The only people who argue that music is amoral are Christians who like rock 'n roll. There are countless examples of non-Christian artist who readily admit the nature of rock 'n roll and relish in it. WE, as Christians, are to live separated from the world and that includes music. Gothard or no Gothard, rock 'n roll is the devil's music, no bones about it. There is no doubt a spiritual component to music and we are to encourage one another with hymns and spiritual songs.
grateful, I wonder what you mean by "rock 'n roll." As is commonly used in our culture, "rock 'n roll" was music that was popular in the 1950s, '60's, and some of the 70's. Is that what you're talking about? If you're talking about secular popular music of today, I would submit to you that people do not refer to most of today's music as "rock 'n roll." This is a common semantical error used by Gothard and others who were unfamiliar with secular music. In short, "rock 'n roll" does not exist today.
I would say that you are too uptight, and defending Christianity too much. Bringing your Bible to define the stamp for rock music is a little much. You need to think, and feel, for yourself.
Christ was a man of the people. I would bet that he would be a big Grateful Dead and bluegrass fan. I imagine that he would also love the blues, the essence of the roots of modern rock and roll. Be in the world, but not of it, I would say. There is a lot to get out of rock and roll music, even if you feel uncomfortable with some of it. I am no fan of Sympathy for the Devil, but I love much of the Rolling Stones, for example.
You need to realize that rock and roll is so popular that it captures a wide, wide net of the music making population. Some of these musicians are good, some bad, some mediocre. It is for the discerning heart to decide what to bring in the home, and it is ok to make some mistakes! That is the nature of life. Stop being hung up on music and let your heart take over.
Grateful Dead has a caused a lot of 70's people to stretch their imaginations.
"Reach out your hand if your cup be empty,
If your cup is full may it be again,
Let it be known there is a fountain,
That was not made by the hands of men."
What a great article. Our family has great friends who are so into this teaching that it is stretching our friendship. We only listen to christian music and they tell my kids they are not worshipping God and it is satanic! Oh how I pray they will see the Light.
Also, I used to listen to heavy metal bands and satanic bands. For me, they were like a drug. I'd feel like an alcoholic needing a drink. I'd try to stop listening to them. Then one day I'd switch the cd player back on and I'd be sucked right back in. It truly was like an addiction for me. Satan knew my weekness. That is one reason why, even today, I can not listen to music like that, it draws me in...
There are some people who like to listen to rock and some people who don't. You know, some times I think people like to judge things and join in just so they're able to put their opinion out there. Just because someone thinks the music is "too loud" doesn't mean it's wrong. I think you really have to listen to what they're saying before you say "This is okay" or this is "satanic" because a rock band could be referring to rainbows, puppies, and flying in heaven and you wouldn't even know it by listening to the beat of it. Then you say "This is some deep, horrible stuff, man" Now THAT is judgement and I was always taught to not judge things and throw them away until I actually understand everything about it.
I wish to add something:
It's not something that have to do with the person itself that compose. It's about the sounds they compose. Classical music have 7 notes. Rock (all rock) have guitars and beats. and drums. Guitars have a sound type called 'pentatonic'. it means with 5 notes instead of 7. The reason of these pentatonic scales is about the origins itself or rock . from Africa's first black slaves that singing the 'work song'. The rock have origins from that.... the africans use different beats and music... infact they used the pentatonic scales... they used these choirs to do their pagan's rituals (that was against the Sacred Scripture)... rock is all satanic. No matter what.. because these beats and guitars can attire demons. The melody and armony of piano or gregorian chants in fact, have the exact opposite result.. evil entities hate harmony and gregorian chants (especially in latin, that is the chatolic language of Church)... so isn't correct to say that 'rock' music isn't demoniac. because indeed it is. Both for lyrics or for cd covers, images, themes, and sound(beats).
This is the truth. And we have to pay attention to not become addicted to rock... the keyword is parsimony..
and of course not only satanic rock explicit.. but also rock with lyrics that indirectly talks about fornification, sex, wrong and strange things or hopeless messages or death messages ... etc.. etc..
What part of the sacred scriptures are the pentanonic scales considered sinful? None of your arguments have any scriptural basis, so all you are doing is putting words in God's mouth, using his name in vain to condemn your brothers in Christ in order to satisfy your weak conscience. Shame on you
Vale: Unlike you I have studied BOTH music history and music theory--college level classes. Some Gregorian chants are ALSO PENTATONIC (yes, and some used 7 and 8 note scales)--so, according to you, chant attracts demons!! And as I said, there are African Christians whose music has very strong beats and rhythms. As a matter of fact, I heard a musicologist at my university talk about the fact that Western music grew to emphasize harmomic complexity, while African music emphazised complex rhythms. As I mentioned above, you need to go on You Tube and look up the music used at the annual African martyrs' celebration--Christians who were executed by their rulers because they refused to submit to sexual immorality. Look, you are just plain WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! You have absorbed an argument by someone who had not studied music at all; they just picked up the term pentatonic, and hoping that there were no degreed musicians in the congregation, proceeded to preach as if he he really knew what he was talking about. He was totally ignorant, and any freshman music major in any music school you want to name could have spotted it in about 3 seconds. And if you continue to make the above argument around anyone who has studied music, they are going to know that you too are ignorant. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm trying to save you embarassment, because that trained musician would probably not be near as kind as I am--esp. if they are making a living in music (performance, music ed, composition, etc.) they would step up and correct & educate you ASAP. Whoever taught you that argument is wrong and ignorant about music, and you are equally wrong and ignorant for continuing to repeat it.
See my post below if you please. I am interested in a study of this musically and professionally, trying to take teachers such as Gothard and David Cloud to task for what they have taught.
I would be very interested in picking your brain (by way of expression only - no zombies here) on the matter. I am hoping to find some sources that would be good arguments for what we are saying and trying to say.
A last question: why the supporters of 'rock' are SO defensive about rock? In the truth you don't want to accept that rock is a problem.. and you prefer to feel 'ok' in front of God, trying to defend rock at any cost. The fact itself is already a deceive of satan.. because is clear rock music is your addiction and you don't want to renunce to it.
I also love rock melodic, but now that I'm aware of this.. I don't defend the rock anymore... i see here many instead of accept something that is not easy, prefer to get the 'easy'road. Jesus advise already us about 'do efforts to pass through the narrow gate"
This is a narrow gate... but you prefer the large gate... and believe the rock music is ok...
This is very sad.. especially from people who think to be 'close to God', and still the Holy Spirit isn't in them at all...
Start to not be so sure about rock, instead of defending it... is your drug, can't you see?
Again, another faulty argument. Just because somebody defends something doesn't register them guilty by default. I could say your Catholic faith is heretical (which it has been proven so) and you would leap to defend it.
When Jesus used his narrow gate analogy, he was talking about how hard it would be to willingly follow him. Yes, the gate is narrow, but people like you make it more narrow than Jesus intended.
I Love Rock music, from soft rock love songs to get up and boogie. Rock however never makes me want to talk to God, Praise Him, or give Him reverence. I've never even thought to read the word while listening to rock even if it was only low volume in the background. I have however thought of worldly things, and there pleasurable satisfaction. Even at church worship services I find that rock songs only make me want to tap my foot, drum my chair or move my hips if we are standing. Even after this type of worship service my mind is wound up and I have difficulty focusing on the message and scriptures. Many weeks I've decided to come to church after the worship time to avoid the chaotic state that my mind becomes because of the confusing music. I'm not crazy about hymns but at least the beat and lack of rock music in these songs makes it far easier to slip into the pastors message or study.
Where I work my coworkers listen to Rock or Jazz, that is fine for them but I am not nearly as productive, nor does it make for prayerful atmosphere. I also resent that these songs (which I spent years distancing myself from) are fresh in my head again and I find myself whistling them or even wanting to get my guitar out to pick them and sing. Only thing missing is the beer, not that I wouldn't drink one if it were there.
My brothers and sisters, I thank God for the wisdom and honesty I have read in these comments and in the preceding article. Timothy was very careful not to judge Mr. Gothard and we must be as well. I have attended several of his different seminars and have read his books many times. I have no doubt he is a Christ-follower and that he is sincere in his views about music, health, lifestyle, etc. I agree that his position on musical styles is not supported by Scripture or by any scientific or physiological studies I am aware of; however, even if he is mistaken in his teaching, we must judge only the worth of his teaching and pray for the man himself. I have known these kind of issues to be used by the enemy a great deal to divide believers, while the Scripture emphasizes the unity of the Spirit. That is not to say we must ignore foundational doctrinal differences in order to get along with each other, but where the Scripture is silent or unclear, we must make allowances for each other, and give our conclusions not as Scriptural, but as opinion. It is often simply a matter of perspective and experience. For example, some recovering alcoholics I know believe that drinking is a sin, but Jesus himself imbibed and even provided the liquor at his friend's wedding feast! As a Bible teacher I often get questions about six literal days of creation, pre-trib or post-trib, predestination, etc., often from people who are either immature believers or doubting seekers. It is best to point them to the truth we all know about who Jesus is and his purpose for our lives. I appreciate the warm tone of your article and responses. You show your maturity in this way.
"It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free!"
I would really like to see some of these ideas developed fully.
We hear a lot from teachers like Gothard, Garlock, and Cloud about why rock music is evil. Invariably, it's all shades of the same argument: "the beat is what does it," "when it is on 2 and 4, it's bad," "syncopation," "beat anticipation."
But most of these "teachers" do not cite any reasons for these elements to be seen as evil. David Cloud is the notable exception. He has tried to arrive at a more scientific conclusion for his teachings than most of them. He has a bevy of quotations from those in the rock industry about the music they make. It can sound convincing at times.
I think many of us are in agreement that this is misguided. It is hard to nail any particular element of music down as moral in and of itself. In his "Music for Good or Evil" series, David Cloud even says, "We are not saying these elements are bad of themselves, necessarily." But he doesn't go on to say when they become bad. Nor does he ever find a selection of rock or praise music that uses these elements. It begs a lot of questions.
But I have heard from many of my friends who studied music at college (more of the classical performance style, mind you) that many of the elements we're talking about are actually found in classical music. As in, many composers have used them and some to great frequency.
What I want to see is this: I would like to see someone take these teachers and challenge their assumptions from a professional standpoint. I want to see a book or two dedicated to showing these elements in classical music and how they have been used through time. See, it's easy for these men to get a crowd, because so few have that information available. If we were to get such a book together, and written from a standpoint that doesn't sound aggressive, we could have something definitive to look toward.
Otherwise, at some point, it will come across as "Gothard taught me this; now I do this." We could go further in trying to reach those still caught up in this with a more definitive work. I am looking into these issues musically. I am hoping to find some sources of such elements in classical music. I am hoping to find evidence that these elements are not just an invention of the last century, and that they have enjoyed such wide use. Can anyone point me in the direction of such a source.
Nearly four years later, and I am still wondering. . .
I think we can do better here. I think we need to answer these "teachers" scientifically and musically.
It's not enough to just say "Gothard taught this, but look what I do now." We need real information and real refutation.
Any takers?
You already know the answer to this. No credible musician wants to waste their time and energy to argue with idiots that actually don't know what they are talking about, never studied music and even when trying to prove their arguments, use failed logic and reasoning, proof text Bible verses and display total ignorance. You already know that music is made up of melody, harmony and beat. For Bill Gothard and those that parroted him, to focus on the beat as what makes a particular brand of music "evil" is just laughable and ridiculous. Marching band music like John Phillips Sousa has a strong beat but I don't think I know anyone that listens to John Phillips Sousa does so in order to get their jollies. To try slice and dice music this way in order to prove that a particular genre of music is inherently evil is off the wall and you know this. Music cannot be lumped into either classical (good) and rock music (evil). Not all so called classical music is about good stuff. Many Operas which fall under the classical umbrella is about Norse or Greek Gods or about immoral life choices. Many classical musicians did not live upright and moral life styles. Rock music is also broad based. Many Country music songs are about broken lives and immoral behaviors. And we even haven't touched on Jazz, folk, Pop music etc. let alone music found in other parts of the world. I think you know all of this. Many of Bill Gothard's ideas about music would make genre like Gregorian Chant evil. Gregorian Chant is actually the basis of the beginnings of what we may call classical music. What is really sad in all of this is that good religious people listen to this nonsense, did not question what was being said and bought all of this stupidity hook line and sinker.
I certainly can't speak for a lot of conservative pastors out there, but the folks I have read HAVE studied music. You need to read David Cloud's booklets on the subject. The late Graham West in Australia was a former rock musician. Dan Lucarini was a worship leader.
Respectfully, I'd have to disagree. It is our side that is weak here, at least in this respect. You mentioned John Philip Sousa having a strong beat. Yes. Everyone knows this. It's where the beat lies that has been the contention. Sousa's beat is a march beat, on 1 and 3. Rock music predominantly uses the backbeat, on 2 and 4.
Your comparison of Sousa to rock is not good, and it is exactly why our side is very weak here.
I agree with you that the world of music is not simple. But to say no credible musician wants to because it is a waste of time, I'd have to take issue with. I don't see any credible musicians doing it. That's what we need.
If it were such an easy slam dunk, why not do it? Get the information out there. In time, we can silence it for good. We see Flat Earth arguments further retreating into obscurity and fringe theories every year. Why? Because the real truth is everywhere. People talk about it - debunking videos on YouTube.
If we do not address the problem, we are allowing the problem to take root somewhere. We need to do better than this. I would love to be the one to, but my skills and knowledge as a musician only go so far. I'd worry I'm not the person to do it. But it should certainly be done.
Ok JM, I never heard of David Cloud so I made the effort to look him up and read a number of his synopsis on his numerous books he sells. In all honesty, he isn't stating anything different from Bill Gothard in regards to music. Yes, I understand that he claims to have a rather dramatic conversion from being a "hippy" in the early 70's. Yes, I would agree with him that rock and roll is a package deal and most of his writings about rock and roll and it's problems stem from the package of hedonism, materialism and immorality. To try and boil the problems of rock and roll to the type of beat though is ridiculous because many other music genres use it. But if he wants to make the case about the immoral lives of rock and rolls musicians being proof that basic rock and rolls music is evil, he needs to try again because a number of the classical giants also lived less than moral lives and the immorality of the life doesn't make or brake that the music in it of itself is evil. He makes a lot of blanket statements and conclusions like Bill Gothard does and maybe that sort of thing is endemic in the world of fundamentalism that is quit fear mongering and isolating. I never heard of this guy and his web site states Michigan, so that is curious. The Bible itself never mentions what type of music is good or evil no matter what either Bill Gothard or David Cloud try to say. Even though the largest book in the Bible is Psalms, we really don't know how any of them were really sung etc. and they might not be sung in a way that either Bill Gothard or David Cloud might approve. The Bible doesn't say anything about beat, in either 1/3 or 2/4. Nothing, so to say that one particular beat is to conjure up the devil and immorality is pure conjecture because it isn't there at all. I get that his conversion from being a hippy made him a self annointed expert on this, but that is all and actually a long time ago. He bashed the Jesus movement his conversion was during which is curious to me. If he is your cup of tea, more power to you, but his web site way of life seems too close to Bill Gothard in too many ways.
I think you're missing entirely what I have said and what I want.
David Cloud isn't my cup of tea. But I am not simply dismissive of the other side. It is important to look at what people are saying and weigh it all by facts. That is how we arrive at truth in questionable subjects.
The point I have tried to make here is that those who are pushing this ultra-conservative separatist music stance are at times VERY informed of the matter. Graham West and Dan Lucarini were big influences on Cloud, and BOTH of them had backgrounds in music - West being a composer and backup band member and Lucarini being a worship leader himself.
This is a problem. We must treat it as such. These people are able to hold sway over many, not just because the masses are mindless sycophants (certainly that is an element). They can convince people because of the factual basis. It is being taught in college courses, for crying out loud (and yes, I can name those colleges and their courses, and no, they're not all ultra-conservative fundy schools).
If we are to hold any other position, we need to be better at it. The gist of a lot of these stories turns out, "Gothard says this, but I do this now." And we treat it as if the person in question found some enlightenment. Maybe they didn't. Maybe it's just another case of pendulum swing (which I have observed in hundreds of cases).
The point is this. These "teachers" are making an intellectual and attempting Scriptural argument. We are just. . .not making an argument. That is not a formula for winning. It's a formula for giving up. It is my contention that we need more articles addressing the topic Scripturally and intellectually, as I believe it can be done. So let's do it.
Now I actually do agree with you on the matters you are discussing. You are not wrong. But why do we not say these things in articles such as these? It's an important matter. We can do better here.
You are giving too much credence to their arguments. There isn't a scriptural basis in the first place because the Bible in it of itself does not describe what is or isn't sacred music. Music is clearly mentioned but the issues of boiling it down to a particular beat as being evil or bad is never mentioned anywhere. So Bill and Cloud trying to make some kind of scriptural basis for their arguments is faulty and shallow. Cloud using only a couple of musicians as a basis is also meaningless because there are thousands of musicians out there so the ideas that he is using musical experts is meaningless. I understand that you are pointing out the pendulum swing of people that once followed Gothard and now no longer do. You actually see this in the Duggar children. The girls (except Jessa) that have married and moved on now make the news because they wear ripped jeans, shorts, sleeveless tops etc. and all these fashion changes makes the news. So they are free now but now they look like bums. The swing from rock music being totally evil to listening to it is another swing. But I think where Bill and Cloud fail is that they stopped focusing on the music's content to a narrow focus on a beat or where the beat falls. Problems in rock, rap, country, pop etc. music isn't about beat but about its content of which some of which is not good or healthy. But again some of rock, pop, jazz, rap etc. isn't all evil or bad either. The concerns over Hillsong music which is used in a lot of places should really be over the content of these songs which is weak theology, not the musical style. I saw a Christmas video done by a Hillsong type of Church. They took "Silent Night" which is a beautiful soft and gentle song and basically turned it into a strip tease type of dance. The other classic Christmas Carols were equally mutilated. Is it Silent Night that is inherently evil or is it the way it was done by misguided people trying to be current and cool? The Duggars also did their own perversion of "Oh Come all ye faithful" where one of them was playing it on the piano (Jana?) and they took a still shot of a bunch of them on a playground monkey bars where the boys were pointing guns at the girls and the girls were frozen with scared faces. Oh Come all ye faithful deserves much better than the Duggars pointing guns at each other and thinking they are cool. I thought that was totally sick and perverted.
Let's keep it all about music, shall we? Let's not go off into tangential arguments.
Cloud isn't using "just a handful of musicians." He has more than 100 at his beck and call to pull statements from. That is significant. And they are not small names either. He has quotes from Mick Jagger, Frank Zappa, Igor Stravinsky, and others.
These kinds of name resonant with people.
Rob, you are ignoring how powerful this kind of argument can be, and it is exactly why we are not succeeding here. The point in everything I am bringing up is this.
The other side is right in one area: we are being made to look like rebels - those who just don't care about the issue.
I ask again. If the argument is that simple to refute, let's do it. Let's do it intellectually. But we're not. As such, we are seemingly losing in this fight. Yes. We are. We're not gaining ground against them.
Take for example Dr. Bakss's book Worship Wars. He has tried to do this. His stance is a bit shaky, I believe, but it is something. And because of that, he has made headway here. There are many conservatives in the fundy movement reconsidering.
This is how we succeed. Simply ignoring it, saying it has no credence, is not succeeding. By doing so, we're letting them run over us. It is a significant problem, and it is one we can very easily solve.
So I suggest yet again. We can do better. We need to. Enough of this. Let's just make it happen.
JM
that is all I replied to was about music. You keep changing and shifting because you already know the answers to the likes of Bill and Cloud over music. You have given too much credence to their arguments. I would suggest reading the blog on Patheos Evangelical channel called "Ponder Anew" by Jonathan Aigner who is a trained Church musician and organist. He is very much against current modern Church music and worship, mostly because it is lead by commercial entities like Hillsong and Marantha (mentioned by Cloud) but for very different reasons than what either Bill or Cloud offer. I would also suggest another book by the brother of Elizabeth Elliot, Thomas Howard called "Evangelical is Not enough: Worship of God in Liturgy and Sacrament". I don't know what argumentation the Worship Wars is offering but if he claims to have studies what or how early Christians worshipped which will include music, then he would have ended up with liturgical worship which eliminates the rock band worship of Hillsong and Marantha. Whatever "intellectual" arguments you are looking for, you probably won't find because there are no intellectual against their arguments. If you find them credible, that is your issue you are obviously struggling with.
No. You got off by bringing up the Duggars. It's good stuff to talk about, but is tangential to the subject. I want to deal with the music topic, and I have not strayed.
In all things, I seek the truth. We arrive at truth through careful research when the subject is unclear. That is why we have this music debate. The problem with these "teachers" with whom we disagree is that some of them, such as Cloud (I don't know if I include Gothard in that mix) are informed and have access to vast libraries of information.
This is not a small thing. The intellectual involvement, even if it be a mask, does resonate. Many are convinced because there is this kind of research.
Saying "you're giving it too much credence" does not help. Why are we giving too much credence? Where is the truth that can refute it? I ask because I don't know where to go to get it, and you would think in 50+ years of the contemporary Christian music SOMEONE would have done so. But we haven't. We have simply ignored it and waved it off.
That is not good. We need to agree on that. Why? Because it looks like we are ignoring the facts. It does. We need to own that, and we can improve.
It's not wrong to want to learn. It's not wrong to question, even if the way be completely right. I want to arrive at that truth. I am very troubled by this line of conversation. It seems as if you want to simply ignore the conversation. It still doesn't answer the question.
If the answer is that clear, why NOT give it? Imagine an internet where people like Cloud, Gothard, Garlock, etc, have their corner where they can claim these things about music, and another corner where people can find factual refutation for those arguments. We can find such argument and counter-argument in other subjects - flat earth, vaccine debate, etc. We are falling down here. We need to be better.
I'll be glad to check out the blog you mentioned. If it's factual, that will certainly go a long way. You need to be careful presuming so much about me. I don't innately know the answer to this problem. I happen to agree with you. That is not the same as knowing the truth. What I believe we need is this kind of intellectual and factual refutation to these men. We don't have it en masse as they do. As such, we are indeed allowing them to run roughshod over so many. It can be better. It has to be.
JM,
there is a saying "be the change you want to see". If you are truly seeking intellectual arguments to counter the points brought up about music by either Cloud or Bill Gothard, then you yourself need to do the research yourself. Cloud from a review of his web site just is another parrot of Bill Gothard, offering the same arguments and support found in the world of fundamentalism. Cloud is clearly from IFB world, the same as Bill. Both men try to make their arguments based on the Bible and both fail because they cannot support their ideas from the Bible at all, something you are ignoring here. If the concern over music is about what kind of music is being used in Church, then you are going to have to go back in history, real history and goes beyond the world of fundamentalism. Be the change you are seeking.
I would absolutely love to do that. My concern is that I'm not the person to do so. I'm not a music professional or anyone with enough background in music. I would worry I wouldn't be seen as the knowledgeable source that would counteract men like Cloud, West, and Lucarini. That would ultimately be the same problem with which we often accuse them.
And if there are professionals in our sphere that can argue it, I would suggest it really is their responsibility, not mine. They're the ones who were given or have acquired the knowledge. It only makes sense.
I do agree these men have no Biblical basis. My contention is that that in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem. In matters where Scriptural is silent or vague, we often have to look outside the Pages for some answers. Scripture never tells us how to work on our cars, or which mechanic to take it to when something needs to be fixed. But we know we're supposed to be good stewards of the things God has given us, and we can do some research into which auto shop has the best operations, service, and staff.
I believe the initial idea was to look at music the same way. It has simply morphed into something far greater and less innocuous than a simple mechanic job. It was seen as a moral issue, and that carries with it a necessary more serious implication. So the goal was to make it a Biblical issue. I certainly agree that is the wrong approach, since it is essentially working backwards - using facts to argue from Scripture to make a moral case instead of using Scripture to make the moral case. It's terrible, but it doesn't automatically remove any facts that are obtained in the search. The facts still stand, and that is why these men and their like continue to use them. They are significant.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. But we need to agree this is a problem, and it's one we've ignored rather than solve. That just isn't good strategy. It is simply my contention that we can do better. We should.
JM,
since you work for Pasadena Christian College and they seem to have an active music department, have you ever talked to the professors in that area about your concerns? It would seem like there are some good resources for you there. Just a thought.
I don't work for Pasadena Christian College. Wrong "P." And I really don't like to bring up where I work in these personal posts. I'm not speaking as a representative of any college or any Christian ministry. But the question is as much a loaded question here as anyone else. The problem is so many Christians of the conservative persuasion are influenced by conservative thinking.
Invariably, we'd all like to believe the conservative thought has produced some good, possibly more than bad. So when questions arise, most often they are not pursued. It's just easier to go along with what everyone knows or is familiar with, and if there is any deviation, bring it into the fold of what we know and are familiar with.
The other problem is that resources in private libraries, such as private schools, are often kept in restricted or rare book stacks. In other words, I'd have to get some permission to access them. And again, I don't know that I'm the best person to do that.
It just compounds the problem. For where I am, I'd have to go deep digging to find information. I'm willing to do it, but ultimately, I'm probably not the best person for it. And those who do have that information ready are either not interested or involved in other studies. It's a problem where the solution possibly gets worse. Strange, huh?
I do look for resources here and everywhere, though. I am trying.
JM,
My immense apologies, I meant Pensecola FL where you have admitted to living. I realize you are speaking on your own, not as a representative of this particular University and I understand that employees of Church, ministries, Universities often are between a rock and a hard place when going on line and maybe expressing views and ideas that might be controversial to the places that they work.
There is a movie coming out on Elvis. I watched the trailers a couple of times. At least what I've seen in the trailer, the gyration of his hips etc. on stage seemed to be emphasized. He has always been called the King of Rock and Roll. The trailers have also shown a very young Elvis in Pentacostal meetings where they danced like this. This was all in the 50s when he rose to stardom. I really never hear him mentioned from those that complain about rock and roll. I doubt I will see the movie because I rarely go to movies, but it just seems like from the trailer that the movie is making a connection between Elvis's early Pentacostal roots and his controversial dance moves when he began. He is just not someone I hear mentioned by Bill Gothard etc. and it is curious because the trailer has the voice of Billy Graham complaining about our country going mad.