Anyone who thinks seriously about anything whatsoever must, of necessity, hold certain presuppositions. As a preparation for this essay the reader ought to be aware of some that I hold.

I believe the Scriptures are God’s word; they are, therefore, true.

I believe Ellen White was God’s messenger; what she wrote, therefore, is not her message but God’s message to us.

I believe that anyone interested in learning truth must be born again on a daily basis, for only with such an experience can we be taught of God.

I believe it is always important (especially when we consider choices that demand certain behaviors) to remind ourselves of the truth that we are saved by grace through faith, that salvation is a gift to which we can add nothing by our behavior.

At the same time I believe it is important that we remind ourselves that our salvation involves an apparent paradox. For while even perfect Sabbath keeping can add nothing to the gift of salvation offered by God, Sabbath breaking will certainly cause us to be lost; while returning a faithful tithe can give us no spiritual merit, robbing God of what is His will surely keep us out of the kingdom.

In addition to such basic presuppositions I feel it important to note that the question of making choices in music is not an entry-level topic. That is, before a person is ready to deal with such choices they must already have settled such basic, and more important questions, as The Love of God, Forgiveness, Grace, Prayer, and The New Birth. Put another way, the question of music, being what may be called an "upper division" topic, demands a great deal of spiritual maturity. For as Paul says, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Corinthians 2:14).

Finally, over time I have come to realize that there are no compelling arguments about anything. No matter how tight the reasoning or how persuasive the examples may be to some, they will not be convincing to others. In this essay I have presented the evidence that I find the most compelling, the lines of reasoning I find the most forceful and indisputable. Beyond this, or in spite of all this, it must be the Holy Spirit that makes any argument compelling, and I can only pray that God will use these ideas to His own glory.

When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden He gave them every possible thing they might ever need or want; He also put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden. And while God gave them a strict warning against eating from the forbidden tree, they were still perfectly free to do so, for one of the most fundamental features of God’s government is the freedom and power to choose.

Today, just as in Eden, God has given us many warnings about things that are good and bad, things that will make us eternally happy, and things that will rob us of eternal life. And just as in Eden we are still absolutely free to make bad choices. And since the tempter from the Garden is still very much with us it seems vitally important that we take this gift of choice most seriously and seek to learn to make the best choices possible. That is why I begin this essay on making choices in music with eight ideas that I believe are fundamental for Christians in making all choices.

The first idea to consider involves the nature of truth. Perhaps this can be understood best by the following illustration. I might say to someone, "This room feels cool to me." My wife would almost certainly say, "This room is too warm." Now, it should be understood that at home in the summer my wife likes the air-conditioner turned way down—so I dress in sweat pants and warm socks and she dresses in shorts and goes barefoot. In the winter I like to turn the heater up so I can dress in a way I hold to be "normal"—so she still needs to dress in shorts and go barefoot.

In our perceptions about the temperature of a room both of us are absolutely right. What we feel about the comfort level of a room is not subject to argument; my point of view represents truth for me as does her point of view for her. It is important to notice, however, that these per-ceptions represent subjective truth—how we feel about the temperature—and neither assertion can be proven or disproven. Furthermore, on any given day either of us may have a different perception. If I come in from splitting wood, for example, I will feel a room is much warmer than usual; if my wife takes a nap after a big meal she will feel it is much cooler.

Now the question is this: If the perceptions my wife and I hold about the temperature of a room represent subjective, or relative truth, what is the real, objective truth in the matter and how might we discover it? It is actually very simple. If we want to know the objective truth about the temperature of a given room—as opposed to our feelings about it—we just need to get a thermometer. The more importance we attach to the question, the more accurate the thermometer needs to be. To get the "absolute" truth on this subject we would need to get a thermometer calibrated at the U.S. Bureau of Standards. Then we could find the objective truth about the temperature of a room that would be as accurate as it is humanly possible to determine.

The way I feel about the temperature of a room is subjective truth, and may very well change from time to time. The measurement of the temperature of a room by an accurate thermometer is objective truth, and is subject to verification and proof in an entirely different way than my feelings about the temperature. Both feelings and thermometers give truth, but each is truth of a different sort.

This brings us to the real question: What is the nature of spiritual truth? Is it more like my feelings about the temperature of a room, or the measurement of that temperature by a thermometer? I believe it must be the latter. I believe that spiritual truth must always be objective rather than subjective, must always be measured against a trustworthy standard, never determined on the basis of our feelings.

So is there a Divine Bureau of Standards that can serve as the basis for such measurement? Put in these terms every Christian knows the answer:

If we try to verify the truth about a spiritual matter and make an appeal to "common sense," the conclusion may be right, but we cannot be sure; if the appeal is to "tradition," we may be right, but we cannot be sure; if the appeal is to any source other than the Bureau of Standards set up by God, we simply cannot be sure that we have anything more than subjective truth—and subjective truth is an entirely different kind of entity than the objective truth of God’s Word. Ultimately, subjective truth is not really truth at all—it is opinion, the opinion of weak, fallible human beings. Objective truth is real truth because—while it can also be said to represent an opinion—the opinion is that of the God who is Truth.

And we must believe that we can know God’s truth. First, because Jesus said: "I am the…truth" (John 14:6)—and it is our privilege to know Him. Second, because He said we could "know the truth" (John 8:32). Finally, because He promised that the Spirit would "guide [us] into all the truth" (John 16:13)—at least all that we are capable of knowing.

Another notion closely related to objective and subjective truth has to do with the idea of taste versus principle. When I go to a restaurant I do not think God cares whether I order peas or broccoli; He does care if I order pork chops instead of either. In the first case I would be dealing with taste, in the second, principle—that of health. When I buy a car I do not think God cares if I get a Ford or a Chevrolet; He does care if I get a Rolls Royce instead of either. Again, the first case is dealing with taste, the second with principle—that of stewardship.

In all such cases I believe that taste is basically the same as subjective truth, since it reflects the opinions or preferences of human beings, whereas principle is the same as objective truth, since it reflects the opinions or preferences of God. God gives us the privilege of following our tastes freely in those large areas of life that involve only the good and right; He forbids us to follow our own tastes where principle is concerned.

There are two Scripture texts that apply with special force on this subject. Proverbs 14:12 reminds us that "There is a way that seems right to a person, but its end is the way to death." In Ephesians 2:3 Paul states that we are "by nature children of wrath," that is, we all have fallen, sinful natures. With such natures it is axiomatic that much of what seems right to us will, in fact, be wrong. That is why if we are to make good choices in spiritual things we must always base our choices on the Word of God, not on what seems good to us; we must learn to live by the objective truth of the Scriptures.

It is almost inevitable, in any discussion about making good spiritual choices, that someone will say—by way of justifying some specific choice—that by a particular idea or practice they are "blessed." Though often unstated, the clear assumption is that because they are "blessed," the idea or practice must be good and true. I believe it imperative, before we accept, uncritically, the implications of this notion, that we find out what Scripture has to say about being "blessed."

As a central part of his final review of their covenant relationship with God, Moses reminded the Israelites that "If you heed these ordinances, by diligently observing them" "You will be the most blessed of peoples" (Deuteronomy 7:12-14).

The Psalmist declares a blessing on a particular attitude towards good and evil: "Blessed is the man [or woman] that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his [or her] delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doeth he [or she] mediate day and night" (Psalm 1:1-2).

An important part of the Sermon on the Mount is what has been called the "beatitudes," the blessings available to God’s children. We are to be "blessed" if we are "poor in spirit," if we "mourn," if we are "meek," if we "hunger and thirst for righteousness," if we are "merciful," if we are "pure in heart," if we are "peacemakers," if we are "persecuted for righteousness," if we are "reviled" by the ungodly (Matthew 5:3-11).

When a woman called out a blessing on His mother, Jesus took the opportunity to turn the minds of the crowd to the source of a greater blessing, one that all could share: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it" (Luke 11:28).

The blessing pronounced in Revelation 1 is for those who "read," "hear," and "keep" what is written in the "prophecy" (Revelation 1:3).

I believe such references are clear and unequivocal. In every case we are blessed by doing what is true and right and good. I have not found a single text anywhere in Scripture that shows the opposite to be true—that something is true and right and good if we are "blessed" by it.

This distinction is crucial, because there are no end of experiences in which people claim a "blessing," even when, as it may be, many such experiences are clearly unscriptural (i.e. keeping Sunday as a holy day). And while it is impossible to deny that a person may, in fact, feel "blessed" by some-thing like Sunday worship, it is essential to understand that feeling "blessed" is not the biblical way to learn truth. For, "Blessed are they that do His commandments"; "Blessed are they that hear the word of God and obey it." If we are to make good choices in life we must be sure we are being "blessed" in God’s own way.

The notion of sincerity is closely related to the nature of truth and being "blessed." And while there can be no argument that sincerity is absolutely essential to making good choices, I believe, as the following illustrations will demonstrate, that sincerity can never be a definitive test of truth.

Central to the Roman Catholic Mass is what is called the miracle of "transubstantiation." Our Catholic friends believe that when the bread and wine of Holy Communion are lifted up by the priest (in what is called the "elevation of the host") and he says certain Latin words, these symbols become the very body and blood of Jesus. They will acknowledge that the symbols still appear to be ordinary bread and wine; they nevertheless aver that the priest has, in fact, recreated the body and blood of Jesus.

Given the probable fact that both priest and parishioners are totally sincere, the really pertinent question then becomes: Is this claim true? Is it really possible that a finite man can create God? The answer to this question, quite certainly, must be, No! Therefore it is equally certain that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot true—no matter how sincere those are who believe it!

In some parts of the South it is the common practice of certain religious groups to handle poisonous snakes. Based on the promise of Mark 16:18 this practice is carried on, we might note, with great passion and enthusiasm. Based on videotapes I have seen where copperheads and rattlesnakes are handled freely and safely, I can have no doubts whatsoever that the worshipers are sincere.

Again we must ask: Does their obvious sincerity make snake hand-ling a valid form of worship? Most Christians (especially if they were given an opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity in this way) would be equally certain that such practices are not made true by sincerity.

In Israel over the last several years a great many suicide bombers have demonstrated their sincerity of belief in Islam when they have blown themselves up in crowded market places or on city busses. A few have been caught before they had a chance to detonate their explosives and have been interviewed by television newsmen. It is chilling to hear how sincere they are, how sure they are that they are doing the will of God and that they will go to straight to Paradise for such acts. Most people, even those who profess no religious faith whatsoever, are clear in their understanding that such sincerity, great as it is, can never justify such heinous acts.

In two stories (Matthew 7:21-23 and Luke 13:24-27) Jesus also made it clear that sincerity can never be a sure guide to truth. Even those who "prophesy" in His name, "cast out demons" in His name, do "many deeds of power" in His name, "eat and drink" with Him, and listen to His teachings "in [their] streets," may be found wanting in the end—not because they were not sincere, but because they failed to "do His will." If we are to make good spiritual choices—that is, do God’s will—we must understand that sincerity is important in learning truth—but that it can never be definitive. The word of God, not our sincerity, must be the real test of truth.

If we are to make good spiritual choices, that is, if we are to please God in our choices, we must know His will, His opinions. In this regard I believe it helpful to understand that in the Bible we may expect to find both explicit and implicit opinions of God. In some cases His will is so clearly stated that it is impossible not to understand it with even a cursory study. In other cases His will is only implied, and we will find in necessary to study much more deeply to understand exactly what His will really is.

As examples of the first—the explicit expressions of His will—I would suggest the following:

He also hates pride, untruthfulness, violence, evil schemes, evil actions, false testimony, and any cause of interpersonal discord (Proverbs 6:16-19).

As examples of the second—the implicit expressions of His will—I would suggest the following:

I take this text to mean, at the very least, that every person is equal in the sight of God, and that the distinctions we often make in terms of ethnicity, economics, or gender violate this great principle. I believe this principle of absolute equality applied fully in the Garden of Eden and will apply again in the New Earth. What this means in a practical sense is that because we are preparing, now, to live forever in God’s kingdom we need to allow Him to reshape our attitudes about others so that by the time He comes again we will be in harmony with the way things will be for the rest of eternity.

When we see instances in the Bible where this great principle was not observed I believe we should understand that such were temporary aberrations, problems that, in God’s sight, were less important at that time than some other problems God was trying to correct. Christians, in making choices, must always strive for the ideal, must never settle for embracing that which God views as an evil, even if it is, at some point, of less import than some other evil.

A second example of God’s implicit opinions I draw from Genesis and Isaiah. "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food" (Genesis 1:29-30). Speaking about the New Earth God reveals that "They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain" (Isaiah 11:9).

In the perfect world of Eden the diet for both man and beast was strictly vegetarian; in a world remade there will be no death—hence no roast beef or fried chicken. What this means in a practical sense is that because we are preparing, now, to live forever in God’s kingdom we need to allow Him to reshape our appetites so that by the time He comes again we will be in harmony with the way things will be for the rest of eternity.

There are many instances in the Bible where God allowed human beings to destroy animal life to preserve their own. This is the right of a God who is sovereign over all, but it never represented the ideal. I believe Christians, in making choices, must always strive for the ideal, even if it is only implicit in the Scriptural record.

We should especially note, as we work towards the specific question of Christians and music, that it is quite certain that we will not find explicit counsels in the Bible about such matters. Artistic questions are both time and culture conditioned and thus, unlike many principles (i.e. moral purity) that are timeless and universal, could not be addressed thousands of year ago in a way that would apply directly to us today. We must therefore look for implicit expressions of God’s will, for great underlying principles that, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, can be applied to questions about music in our time.

There are at least two definitions for the word "culture." We say people are "cultured" if they attend symphony concerts, visit art galleries, or enjoy museums. The word can also mean nothing more than the sum total of what makes various groups of human beings what they are. It is this second meaning that I will use in what follows.

A short list of things, practices, and ideas that might define a particular culture could include speaking Japanese, wearing black skull-caps, declining to have a telephone in one’s home, eating dog meat, keeping slaves, practicing polygamy, having blue eyes, believing in the caste system.

We should note immediately that some things on this list are morally good or at least neutral (speaking Japanese, wearing skullcaps, not using telephones, or having blue eyes) and some are morally reprehensible (eating dog meat, keeping slaves, practicing polygamy, and believing in the caste system). What this tells us is that the simple fact of something being an important part of a particular culture reveals nothing about its moral value. If we are to know that we must consult a higher arbiter of values, namely, God’s word. Failure to do this will almost certainly insure that we make choices that are spiritually bad.

If we are to understand this question of culture we must also recognize the importance of three Bible texts:

What these references teach, I believe, is that when we become Christians our "culture" becomes that of heaven; we are no longer primarily citizens of a particular country here on earth.

We commonly refer to ourselves as being Irish-American, or Mexican-American, or Swedish-American. By this we mean that although we live in America our cultural heritage is from Ireland or Mexico or Sweden. As Christians perhaps we should speak of ourselves as Christian-American, or Christian-Brazilian, or Christian-Chinese, meaning that although we live in the United States, or Brazil, or China, our cultural heritage is really from that "better country," the "heavenly one" for which we strive. If we are to make good spiritual choices we must be clear as to our true cultural heritage.

Relativism is a way of thinking that has been called the "major trend of our time," and the "spirit of the age." It is thus one of the most important ideas to consider as we try to understand how we can make good choices. Here are some selected references that describe and define this phenomenon:

It is easy to see that if we buy into this way of thinking it will be impossible to make good spiritual choices. If we consider right and wrong to be only "matters of personal taste, emotional preference or cultural choice," how could we possibly please God? If it is impossible for us to say that "one point of view is better than others," how could we be guided in making truly moral choices? If we believe that no "one sort of theory has an exclusive claim to be the right way," how could we know that there is one sort of way that is clearly wrong?

The moral bankruptcy of this system of thought is so obvious that it seems impossible that intelligent, thinking people would accept it, but, as noted above, many see this as the "major trend of our time." Here are some examples of how non-believers are influenced by moral relativism today:

Shortly after the terror attacks that have come to be known as "9-11" a young woman at Yale University wrote an essay entitled, "The Question That We Should Be Asking." Here are some important excerpts:

Regrettably, it is not only on secular campuses like Yale University that moral judgments are skewed by relativism. Many Seventh-day Advent-ists are being caught up in the same kind of thinking. As examples, I quote from two letters sent to me by brilliant, Seventh-day Adventist graduate students who had, incidentally, received all their previous education in the Adventist school system.

Later in her letter this student said, "How can either one of us claim to be right and the other wrong?"

In the second letter another friend stated that

Notice how no one can claim to actually be right about a religious question, and that no one idea can be superior (or more "legitimate") than any other; thus no one can make any claim to really know truth and error!

I trust it is clear that the implications of such reasoning are dreadfully serious for making good spiritual choices. The only safe alternative to such thinking is to believe in absolutes—the absolutes revealed in Scripture. If we are to make good spiritual choices we must learn how to spot relativism wherever it appears, and we must oppose such thinking as strongly as we can for it is totally incompatible with Christianity.

Anyone seeking to make good spiritual choices must consider the basic facts of what Seventh-day Adventists call the "Great Controversy." For purposes of the present argument, one of the most important facts about the Great Controversy is that Satan is a liar and a murderer and has only one great aim—to deceive and destroy mankind. While he still makes sin appear as "a delight to the eyes," and "to be desired to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6), all he is trying to do, in the end, is to kill us.

From this, it seems logical to me to assume that Satan will use every possible means at his disposal to accomplish his purposes, and one would be hard pressed to think of a single area of life that Satan has not used in his work of deception. In fact, the Holy Spirit corroborates this view in what follows:

A second point we ought to consider is that before his fall Lucifer was the leader of the choir in heaven. Since he will "pervert everything," and since he is an experienced musician, is it not logical that he will endeavor to use music to deceive us? God has revealed exactly what it is that Satan wants to do with music:

The Great Controversy scenario assures us that every day we find ourselves confronted by an enemy bent on our destruction, an enemy who will pervert and distort every facet of life in order to accomplish this end. Furthermore, we cannot opt out of this conflict, we cannot "Just say No." Whether we like it or not, each of us is caught up in this cosmic struggle and will, finally, have to decide on which side we wish to stand. If we are to make good choices we must consider the implications of the Great Controversy in every choice we make.

The last basic point to consider as a preparation for making good spiritual choices involves God’s expectations for each of us. Most Christians are familiar with the idea that God chose the Israelites as His special people in order that they might do a special work. Abraham was promised that in his posterity "all families of the earth [would] be blessed" (Genesis 12:3), and at the time of the Exodus the Israelites were invited to enter into a covenant relationship with God. As a result He assured them that they were to be "my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6).

We must also remember that at the time of Christ’s first advent the spiritual failures of the Jewish nation caused the covenant relationship between Israel and God to be broken, and Christ told the leaders of the nation that "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom" (Matthew 21:43). For this reason Peter could write that "you [Christians] are [now] a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people" (I Peter 2:9).

What this means is that since we are the heirs of the covenant promises we are called to an exceedingly high standard. Not only have we been chosen to be a "royal priesthood" and a "holy nation." We have been chosen "in order that [we] may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light" (I Peter 2:9).

As we consider making spiritual choices we must bear all of this in mind. We are very special to God; He wants us to make very good choices. I think it significant that Jesus summed up one important section of the Sermon on the Mount—a section calling for good choices involving the most stringent terms ("if you even look at a woman with lust….")—with these words: "Be ye therefore perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Someone has said, "Old age is not for sissies"; we might add that neither is being part of God’s "chosen" people. As we study how we are to make good choices, this is the context in which such choices must be made.

At this point the question might legitimately be asked: Is all this introduction necessary to a discussion about Christians and music? Why not just go directly to the point? I believe such a preparation is necessary because without clearly understanding the difference between subjective and objective truth it would be very easy to mistake the former for the latter. It would also be easy to assume that because one is "blessed," or "strangely warmed" by some particular idea or practice it must be the Spirit of God who is doing the blessing or warming. And it would be easy to allow taste to take the place of principle, or to assume that sincerity or culture can make a lie into truth. Keeping the nature of truth clearly before us is the only way to be certain of making valid judgments between the good and evil that surrounds us.

It is also certain that without understanding God’s will—whether explicit or implicit—we will make many bad choices. We may often need to be reminded that tradition, or common sense, or science, or sociology, or majority opinion, or virtually anything else may have much value and importance in our lives—but that all such means of knowing spiritual truth are, and must always be, trumped by the word of God.

Without clearly understanding that relativism is the "moral trend of our times," and that it negates the whole point of the gospel, we may get caught up in such thinking ourselves, and thus find it impossible to make true moral judgments.

Without clearly understanding the Great Controversy and its application to our daily lives, it would be easy to miss an important point when the question comes to music itself. So often people will say, "What’s the big deal, it’s just music." The notion of the Great Controversy tells us that it is not just music or just anything. Everything in life is important, for "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:2).

Finally, without understanding that we are God’s special treasure, a peculiar people called by Him for a special task—a task that becomes infinitely more important as we near the end of time—we would be like travelers who go on from day to day without a certain destination. And without the meaning that comes from setting our course by a particular star we would have no reason to even try to make good and true spiritual choices.

Before we can discuss the specifics of making choices in music it is necessary that we understand something of the nature of music and how it achieves meaning. Virtually everyone agrees that music has meaning; the only disagreement comes on exactly how that meaning is achieved. There are two major ideas, or schools of thought, regarding this aspect of music.

Ascription, or ascribed meaning, is like what we have with national anthems, school songs, and such works as "Peter and the Wolf." Each of these pieces of music means what it does simply because someone ascribed or "assigned" a particular meaning to a set of notes. As the meaning is clearly arbitrary, if one does not know the ascription, the idea that the music is meant to represent, a specific meaning is impossible. Whatever meaning such music would then have would be derived from some other source.

The lyrics used with music also give it meaning. Music with silly lyrics means silliness; music with grand lyrics usually means grandness. It should be noted in this context, however, that the bad always tends to "overcome" the good—much in the same way that rotten apples always make good apples become rotten. (As an example of how this principle works in music I will tell you that when I was young it was not uncommon to hear frivolous or vulgar words put to some well-known hymn tune. Now, many years later when I hear the hymn, "At the Cross, At the Cross," all I can hear in my mind are those frivolous words learned so long ago, and the hymn is still ruined for me.) Thus good music can be spoiled by bad lyrics, and, conversely, music that carries negative meanings (derived by other means) cannot usually be made positive simply by adding positive lyrics.

The associative or connotative relationships of various kinds and styles of music is the third way in which music has meaning according to the first school of thought. A little reflection will demonstrate—if we ever view films, listen to radio, or watch television—that our lives are constantly being influenced by this phenomenon.

As an example we could imagine a movie scene with a large, dark warehouse. As the hero prepares to enter this building how are we made to know that a "bad guy" is hiding there? Or imagine a scene in which a dappled fawn is feeding in a sunny forest glade. How are we made to know that a hungry wolf is lurking unseen in the shadows? In scenarios like these it is clearly the music that gives us such obvious indications of danger. And it is the music that tells us about heroic actions and situations of sadness; it is the music that informs us that a scene is happy or pensive; it is in the music that every conceivable mood and frame of mind is reflected. All this is possible because different kinds of music have, over time, become associated with certain ideas and moods, and in Western culture these meanings are pretty much universal. Because of this a composer can enhance and under-score almost any conceivable idea or situation by choosing just the right kind of music.

In addition, we need to recognize that a competent composer can set a given tune in any number of styles, thus using the same basic tune to convey a great many different meanings. Imagine, for example, the hymn "Abide With Me" as a waltz, a march, a minuet, or a rag. In each case, although we can still hear that "Abide With Me" is the basis for the work, each has become something else entirely. In an example like this it is easy to see that the style, not the tune itself, is what is important. The reason for this is that, in a given culture, certain styles have become associated with certain kinds of activities and places; there is an emotional "baggage" that is attached to each style.

As another illustration of how this notion works we may consider a humorous piece by Garrison Keillor of "The Prairie Home Companion" fame. Mr. Keillor spins one particular yarn about how the Lutherans in Lake Woebegone are hunting for a new church organist. First they engage a gentleman by the name of J. S. Bach. He is a dynamite performer—but his music is so complicated that the members soon tire of his style and decide he is not the man for the job.

Next they hire a wonderful organist by the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. How he can play! But there are so many notes! After a while the joy begins to pall and it all begins to seem a little "light"—so Mr. Mozart is also let go.

Mr. Keillor caricatures a few other composers (i.e. Richard Wagner plays beautiful melodies—but they never seem to end, etc.) before he finally gets to George Gershwin. Keillor’s punch line about Gershwin is that he was a fine organist, "but when the deacons came around with the offering plates the congregation didn’t know whether to put in an offering or order a drink."

Now why would Mr. Keillor say this? It is based entirely on the notion of associative relationships. Such a reference is humorous only when we recognize that George Gershwin was one of the first "classical" composers who made a studied effort to unite jazz with the musical traditions of the 19^th century. Keillor operates on the assumption that everyone understands the meaning jazz carries—that it has long been associated with drinking establishments.

So, according to this first school of thought, if we want to find out what a particular piece of music means we must look at how these three factors—ascription, lyrics, and associative relationships—interrelate to form a composite picture.

There is another line of thought in support of this second notion about the meaning of music, and it is easily understood. It may be called the "What Is" argument. It centers on the question, How did certain styles of music become connected with particular kinds of activities? With the entire gamut of music from which to choose, why are the choices made that are made? What is, in fact, habitually done? The answer seems to be that certain styles of music just naturally enhance certain activities and situations. And this appears to be true in virtually all Western cultures.

Ultimately these two basic ideas about the meaning of music are complementary rather than contradictory, for in a sense the argument comes down to a sort of "chicken and egg" question—which came first, the meaning or the use? Is meaning derived from use, or use from meaning? It probably does not matter, since in the real world people pretty much know what music means, and the "what" is more important than the "how."

There is one more important question along this line: Does God see any meaning in music? What can we learn about how He views music? Note the following:

Such references make it abundantly clear that from God’s perspective music has tremendous meaning—for both good and evil.

All of this being so, what questions would a Christian need to ask as he or she makes choices in music? Let me suggest a few:

Would someone who really understands what Satan is trying to do, and who is committed body and soul to the service of Jesus Christ, want to choose music that has ascribed meanings not compatible with pleasing God?

Would someone who is praying every day for the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit want to choose music that has lyrics that are impure or that glorify sin?

Would someone who is striving every day to be more like Jesus, who wishes to be used by God to save lost souls, want to choose music with associative relationships that come directly out of the kingdom of Satan?

Are not the answers to these questions totally clear? Should this not be enough? Regrettably, things are never quite as easy as they seem so I will be more explicit.

There are basically two types of music that I find especially reprehensible—but that are commonly used in many Christian communities. These are jazz and rock music and I will discuss them in turn.

Christians who are interested in music, if they are really serious about doing God’s will, must at some point face up to the problem of jazz. On the one hand, there was a time when jazz (like a good many other practices now found in the church) was considered by Christians to be a tool of the devil. On the other hand, a sizeable number of sincere Christians feel, today, that jazz is a totally acceptable art form. And, unlike rock music, which is not only spiritually bankrupt but aesthetically weak, jazz can lay claim to both musical sophistication and aesthetic respectability. Thus we have the question: Has the spiritual discernment of the church become blunted over time, or has jazz become—or has it perhaps always been—something desirable for Christians?

Based on all that has gone before in this essay, I would like to suggest a way of looking at jazz that has helped me in dealing with this question.

I hold that jazz is unfit for Christians on two basic accounts: first, its origins and usage—and what that implies in terms of meaning; second, the basic nature of the music itself—especially the obvious "physical" quality of this style.

A useful reference for some of these facts about jazz may be found in the book, Planet Drum. I quote two relevant passages.

Another excellent reference is African Rhythm and African Sensibility.

After going through an elaborate ceremony involving animal sacrifices, etc. Mr. Chernoff, a sociologist, reports his subsequent experience as follows:

I believe such accounts by professionals with absolutely no spiritual "agenda" to support should provide a powerful reason for Christian to ask themselves some very serious questions about the use and enjoyment of jazz. Should not a style that drew important elements out of ceremonies designed to facilitate trance and spirit possession put up some red flags for those who understand that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil"?

My second concern about jazz is the "physical" nature of this style. For much of its history jazz has been associated with dancing and other physical responses that are crude and vulgar. There seems to be something about this style that, as someone has said, "appeals to our bodies from the neck down." Of course Sousa marches also appeal to the "body," but the physical responses to jazz have always been of a distinctly different nature than the responses to most other kinds of music.

In connection with this quality of jazz we should also ask, Why was jazz chosen for use in brothels and nightclubs in the first place? It was certainly not the only kind of music available at the time. Certain sociological reasons have been suggested for this association, and such reasons are clearly true to some degree. More importantly, however, jazz was chosen because it fit; it enhanced what went on in the red-light districts; jazz was a home with whores and pimps.

Support for this notion can be found in a remarkable book by Martha Bayles called Hole In Our Soul, with the subtitle, The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in American Popular Music.

The author makes a significant point in her introduction that will help in understanding the entire book:

Ms. Bayles thus makes it clear that she is defending what she would call "authentic" popular music (which would include both jazz and rock) against a host of aesthetically unworthy pretenders—what she calls "swill."

Basic to her argument throughout the book is this underlying view: all popular music is based on the erotic. Here are a few of the many, many references that might be cited to show this view:

These quotations may also be used to underscore another important point in this book. When Ms. Bayles laments the "loss of beauty and meaning" in popular music, what she means is that the music is too often not simply erotic (a quality in music she apparently admires) but obscene (a quality she decries).

Again, how can such an evaluation from a defender of popular music not alert a born-again Christian to be wary? How can exposing oneself to music that is obscene, or even "simply" erotic, not be a negative for one who wishes to become "pure in heart," or who wishes to follow the counsel to think on what is "good," and "true," and "pure"?

As a Christian I find in either the origins, or the "physical," erotic nature of jazz, sufficient reason to at least ask myself some serious questions concerning how this art form might help or hinder me in my efforts to become more like Jesus.

I would like, now, to go on to some of the objections that are often raised regarding these two basic ideas.

The origins of both these festivals probably cannot be denied, but the real question is: Are they still pagan in nature? I would suggest that to the extent that they are still pagan they are not fit for Christian celebration. If Easter is no more than a form of sun worship or a celebration of fertility rites in connection with rabbit "eggs," it is still essentially pagan. If Christmas is all Santa Claus and elves along with a spirit of total commercialism it, too, is still pagan. I believe that if these celebrations do not place emphasis on the birth or resurrection of Jesus, they have not really been "Christianized" at all and are probably not spiritually healthy for us.

Following the same line of reasoning I would suggest the following kinds of questions about jazz: Have the pagan elements inherited from Voodoo rites been eradicated? (Are we even sure what all of these elements are?) Does the use of jazz over the course of the last few decades suggest that it has really been "Christianized"?

One should also ask: Does "concert" use necessarily change the nature of jazz? If so, exactly how would this be?

The USA Weekend of December 1-3, 1989 carried an interview with Wynton Marsalis, one of the leading jazzmen of our time. The title of the piece was "Sexy Wynton Marsalis." On the side of the first page, in large letters, it said: "The jazzman on his steamy new holiday LP." Here is some of the dialogue that made up the interview:

Interviewer: But that wasn’t sexy....

Marsalis: Oh, yes it was. Duke was one of the sexiest musicians who ever lived.

Interviewer: What is there about the blues that makes it so sexy?

(These profound thoughts on human relationships come from a man who is also described as being "impatient over topics like his live-in girl friend and their year-and-a-half-old son"—surely an important source for lessons on ethical questions!)

If jazz in the concert hall is all pure "art form" with none of the implications of its history, why is Marsalis, a concert jazz artist, called "sexy"? Now, to be fair, it should be noted that the term "sexy" can be used in two different ways. It can mean (a) "with it," "chic," or "fashionable" (as in, "world hunger is a sexy issue today") or (b) simply erotic. Which way is it being used in this interview? If "sexy" means no more than "fashionable," why is this album also described as "steamy"?—surely a euphemism for the sexually provocative. And if "sexy" means being "chic" or "with it," why does Marsalis talk about "what goes on between a man and a woman"?

In May of 1990 I had a conversation with a good friend who conducted the Jazz Band and taught Jazz History at a college near where I lived. In this conversation I learned that for several years in the mid-80s my friend was a free-lance musician in New York City. One of his primary jobs during that time was to play a musical show. He was not a member of the pit orchestra but part of the "cast" in that he played with a jazz combo on stage three times during each show. Presumably his group lent a feeling of authenticity to the show whose title was…"The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas." The success of this show would suggest that as recently as the mid-80s there was evidently still a connection—for those who know such business—between jazz and whorehouses. I can only conclude that the use of jazz in concert halls has not broken the relationship of this music with its origins.

The term "rock ‘n’ roll" was coined in 1951 by Alan Freed, a Cleveland, Ohio, disk jockey, and, like the term "jazz," it also originated as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. And also like jazz, rock music has had a long history of being associated with everything that is unchristian. Still, this style is one of the most pervasive elements in American society today and has become a major part of the lives of many Christians. Since this is so, the thoughtful Christian must address the problem of just how to relate to this form of entertainment.

It is well known that many Christians have opposed rock music from its very inception. But just how do writers in the secular press view this style, those presumably friendly to rock music? And how do the creators and performers of this music see their art? The following quotations cover a period of nearly forty years, yet they show an interesting consistency. I would suggest that these quotations be read with Philippians 4:8 as the principal referent.

Hifi/Stereo Review, Essay on "Popular Song," 1/64:

High Fidelity, Article on Folk Rock, 12/68:

Time, Music Section, 1/3/69:

Time, Modern Living Section, 2/28/69:

Newsweek, My Turn, 5/6/85:

A mother who calls herself a "rock freak" says:

Newsweek, Justice Section, 10/16/89:

Union Bulletin, 1/5/90:

U.S. News and World Report, 3/19/90:

Newsweek, Anecdote from "Perspectives," 4/16/90:

Union Bulletin, Mike Royko, January 1993 on Michael Jackson:

(These vulgar actions of Michael Jackson are put in a broader context in a Newsweek article called "The Glorious Rise of Christian Pop," July 16, 2001. The author says: "He [the performer] gestures like a member of some vicious street gang as he screams and roars into the mike, his arm swinging low as if on the way to the requisite crotch grab. This crude move is as integral to rap-rock as the blown kiss is to a lounge act, and is usually accompanied by a testosteroid explosion of expletives." If the crotch grab is both requisite and integral to rock music, apparently Michael Jackson is not the only one who is involved in this sort of thing.)

Union Bulletin, 2/23/93:

Newsweek, Sports, 3/15/93:

And what of the Americans, progenitors of the sexual revolution, tight jeans and the simulated sexual rhythms of rock and roll?

Union Bulletin, 5/19/93:

Newsweek, National Affairs, 11/1/93:

Newsweek, Music, 12/6/93:

Union Bulletin, 12/11/95:

Newsweek, Music, 4/22/96:

Newsweek, Lifestyle, 7/26/96:

Excerpts from an article on "Rockers, Models and the New Allure of Heroin":

Union Bulletin, 10/5/96:

On the most recent MTV Video Awards program:

Newsweek, The Arts, 8/10/98

Speaking about Liz Phair, this article says:

Newsweek, Arts and Entertainment, 7/19/99

Newsweek, Arts and Entertainment, 8/7/00

About the all-girl band Kittie the article included the following:

Family Circle, "The Rock’n’Roll Horror Show: What Every Parent Should Know," 11/1/01

These quotes (admittedly an effort at "over-kill") were not written by people necessarily Christian, and certainly not Seventh-day Adventist. Taken singly any of them should cause a born-again Christian concern about the propriety of using such music; taken as a whole they offer a devastating indictment of rock music and the associated milieu. In addition we should note that the quotes speak mostly of the blatant sexuality of rock music; they do not speak as much about the celebration of drugs, the violence, and the "Satanism"—all of which are also common in this form of music.

Some may wish to argue that what I have presented above is clearly a worse case scenario, that what one usually hears is much less objectionable. Anyone feeling this way should know that at a recent [2002] presentation of this material a young man who had just come out of the rock scene volunteered the opinion that this picture represents "just the tip of the iceberg."

It has become common in recent times for many Christians to assert that rock music can be "Christianized." They claim to be able to remove the objectionable features of rock music so that it can be made a useful tool for evangelism and worship. Given the descriptions of the rock scene presented above, is this really possible? It must be remembered that even secular writers speak of the "simulated sexual rhythms of rock and roll," and that Michael Jackson grabs his crotch because "I’m a slave to the rhythm." So what are the rhythms like in "Christianized" rock music? Are they really any different from those used in "normal" rock music?

And note this commentary by constitutional law scholar Kathleen Sullivan on the question of reshaping rock music:

Those who believe that rock music can be "Christianized" by substituting better lyrics should also note the following from the Washington Post :

If the message is "in the music"—primarily in the rhythm—and not the lyrics, how could adding "Christian" lyrics to rock music make it acceptable? I would assert that the term "Christian rock" is simply an oxymoron.

We must also ask, Is it really possible to use jazz or rock under any circumstances and still say, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do"? Do these styles of music represent what is holy, what is pure, what is lovely? Will the influence of these styles of music help or hinder us in our battle "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places"?

Let me suggest a final illustration that may help clarify some of the problems involved in choosing music. Imagine a line of water glasses that is almost infinitely long. At one end is a glass that contains water so pure it could only have come "from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (see Revelation 2:1). Now imagine that to the very next glass we add to that pure water a deadly poison at the ratio of one part poison per one "gazillion" parts pure water. To the next glass we add two parts poison per one "gazillion" parts pure water, and to the next, three parts poison per one "gazillion" parts pure water—and so on down the line. At the middle of this very, very long line of water glasses the ratio of pure water to poison will be fifty-fifty. The farther we go down the line the percentage of poison will increase until at the very end we will have a glass where the poison will have displaced the pure water completely.

Now, because the increments of change are so small it may be that there will be hundreds and hundreds of glasses that contain water that is vastly more pure than what we habitually drink, and because the changes in the purity of the water are so very slight between adjacent glasses we may need to move down the line for hundreds of glasses before we can detect even the slightest change. But as we go down that line we will finally come to a point where the water will give a few people who drink it the very slightest headache. Much farther down the line drinking the water will give everyone a headache. Hundreds of glasses on down the line the water will give most people a little tummy ache. If we continue far enough down that line, drinking the water will make everyone deathly sick, and finally the water will be so dangerous that anyone who drinks it will surely die.

If we are thirsty, from where on this line will we choose to drink? Will we not wish to drink the purest water possible? Would it be very smart to see how far down the line of glasses we can go, carefully sampling the water so that we can find a spot from which to drink where the water makes us only a little sick? Would it not be a sound principle to drink the safest water we can?

I want to apply this illustration to music, and imagine all music on a continuum going from very good to very bad in infinitely small increments. At one end is music that is pure and wholesome, music that comes as a gift from God, music that may be used to uplift and ennoble human beings. At the other end is music that is the equivalent of pure poison, music, the consumption of which will cause spiritual death.

In the same way that we would choose drinking water, should we not choose music that comes from the part of the musical continuum that is clearly safe? And would it be very smart for a committed Christian to see how close to the slightly bad he or she could come and still survive spiritually?

Earlier in this paper I tried to show that in the spiritual warfare we call the Great Controversy Satan will use anything he can to lead to the spiritual ruin of as many people as possible. Since he is the master of deception, if he were trying to pass counterfeit money (to change the metaphor) would he be more likely to try to buy something with a $20 bill that is a beautifully crafted counterfeit, or a $20 bill from a Monopoly Game? Would we not expect that an expert like Satan would spend little time with crude forgeries as opposed to brilliant reproductions?

This being so, how might he use music to destroy us? Given his deceptive power is it logical to assume that he would come to most Christians with the pure poison of the worst music possible? Is it not much more likely that he would come to us with music that appears to be safe—but in reality still has enough moral poison to destroy us if habitually used?

My plea is that as we make choices in music we think about this big picture and the ways in which Satan works. Undoubtedly, even mature Christians will disagree on just exactly where the line is beyond which everything is unsafe. This must be a decision that each person makes for themselves based on careful study, common sense, advice from mature Christians, and, most importantly, prayer. But it seems clear to me that the prudent Christian will always want to be on the safe side where there is any question—whether dealing with water or music.

For myself, I have determined that I must draw my line when I can hear anything in a piece of music that is distinctive to jazz, rock, or other kinds of popular music. What this means, specifically, is (a) improvisatory lines typical of jazz, (b) distinctive jazz harmonies, (c) rhythms that overemphasize syncopation, (d) rhythms that emphasize the second and fourth beats [described by supporters of rock music as "simulated sexual rhythms"], or (e) such "signature" musical gestures as a "boogie-woogie" bass or "blue notes" used either melodically or harmonically.

As we conclude these thoughts on making choices in music we need to look at two other facets of this question. Many years ago the Holy Spirit inspired Ellen White to make the following comments about making choices in what we read. Might the principles suggested here apply to making choices in what we listen to?

When we use music that is only a "little bad" is it possible that we may actually be creating a taste for music that is much worse? The counsel given above clearly suggests this to be true. Should not this principle guide us in considering where each of us draws our line in the great continuum of musical choices?

I believe it is helpful, too, to consider some of the things Jesus said about the difficulty of making good choices, of actually choosing to make changes in our lives.

"Jesus answered him, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit’" (John 3:3-5).

Jesus said that the only way to eternal life is by way of the new birth. Just what imagery does this metaphor suggest? At the very least it suggests pain and trauma. And from the viewpoint of an unborn child it also suggests that there will be great disruption in the "lifestyle" hitherto experienced. Given the choice, what fetus would not prefer the warmth, comfort, and security of staying right where it is to being thrust out into a cold, loud, disruptive world? Yet the only safe alternative involves this momentous change, without which life would soon end. For the unborn it is either change or die; for the Christian it must be the same.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matthew 5:29-30).

These verses, though clearly not to be taken literally, teach a most profound lesson. It seems clear that Jesus is trying to tell us that the sin problem is more serious than we often consider it to be. He wants us to understand that making spiritual choices potentially involves what may seem like a kind of personal "dismemberment."

"Then Jesus said, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me’" (Matthew 16:24).

For Christians in the 21^st century the image of the cross is often one of comfort and hope; for Jesus’ first-century hearers it was an image of great suffering and a lingering death. To appreciate the impact this text has on our process of making choices we must try to take ourselves back to the time when crucifixions could be seen in all their horror. It was to people who had a full appreciation for this kind of thing that Jesus declared that discipleship required the voluntary acceptance of this sort of death. The cost of disciple-ship is still the same today, and making good choices may often seem as difficult as the demands of crucifixion.

The rich, young ruler came to Jesus asking about eternal life. The disciples, who would have greatly valued the fellowship of such a man, must have been shocked beyond measure when they heard the demands that Jesus laid out. That this was more than just a suggestion is made clear when the record declares that the man "went away grieving." He grieved because he realized that there was no other option if we wished to follow Jesus. For the modern Christian some choices we may need to make may also be such that we will be tempted to go away grieving when we realize what is actually at stake.

In this text Jesus again uses hyperbole. This mode of expression, this exaggeration, must convey to us the necessity of making choices that may appear to be at the cost of (temporal) life itself. Without this attitude Jesus says that we "cannot be" His disciples.

Ellen White left us a personal testimony on the difficulty in making changes in her life. It should not be difficult to make applications to our own lives as we consider making choices in music.

Is it possible that Christians who want to follow Jesus more than anything else in life may need to "place their arms" across their ears and declare that they will not listen to any music at all until they can listen to that which Jesus shows them to be safe?

I close with the record of an impressive vision, given about 100 years ago, that puts all the questions I have raised into a most significant light.

Woodward, Newsweek, 6/13/94

Trefil, Reading the Mind of God, 1989, pp. 35,36

Newsweek 12/13/93

Newsweek 2/17/01

See Ellen White, The Story of Redemption, p. 25

Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 506

Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 506. Emphasis supplied

Even after Christians have determined that making particular kinds of choices regarding music are both desirable and possible, there still remain questions about the application of various principles in real-life situations. This is especially true regarding choices of music for worship or for Sabbath use in general, and applying such principles may be especially vexing when corporate worship is involved. What follows is an effort to help individuals and/or music committees deal with such problems.

I believe it unarguable that the most basic question to be addressed regarding this subject is this: What kind of God do we believe in? How would we describe Him? What kinds of conceptions of God do we have in our minds? This question is essential because I believe it to be an absolute certainty that the kind of God we believe in will largely govern the ways in which we worship.

Now, God has been conceived and described in many inaccurate ways by human beings. Many see Him as a dreadful tyrant; others, at the opposite extreme, see Him as a sort of benign, indulgent uncle. My favorite (inaccurate) description comes from a Depression-era clergyman who said he conceived of God as "a kind of oblong blur." If we conceive of God as a tyrant we will almost certainly worship (if we worship at all) with the wrong kind of fear; if we conceive of God as a kind of benign uncle figure we will probably worship in some trivial way; if we conceive of God as impersonal (the "oblong blur") we will undoubtedly worship without any sense of moral accountability. In sum, as J. B. Phillips makes clear in his book, Your God Is Too Small, if we have the slightest inclination to do so we will find innumerable ways to define God that, in effect, make Him no God at all.

As we try to develop an accurate picture of God it should be intuitively obvious that as finite human beings we can never comprehend more than a tiny fraction of a God who is infinite! Furthermore, because He is transcendent we can know about God only that which He reveals about Himself. If we are to get a true picture of God, therefore, we must go to His word and see what He has revealed there. Scripture references that need to be considered in such a quest should probably include the following. In these we see God as:

Genesis 1:1 (Creator of all)

I Timothy 6:16 (The Immortal One)

I John 4:8 (The Definition of Love)

Titus 1:2 (The Definition of Truth)

Deuteronomy 32:4 (The Perfect, Just, and Good One)

Revelation 15:4 (Holy)

Malachi 3:6 (Unchanging)

Isaiah 46:9-10 (Omniscient)

Psalm 139:7-12 (Omnipresent)

Genesis 18:14; Matthew 19:26 (Omnipotent)

Isaiah 6:1-4 (The Glorious One)

Hebrews 12:29 (A "consuming fire")

Concerning the last two qualities particularly, Ellen White has shared what she was told about God while in a vision:

These references all describe God as transcendent, and they are all absolutely true. But God may also be described as immanent. Such a God is:

John 1:14 (God in the flesh, the "Son of Man")

Philippians 2:7-8 (The One who "emptied" Himself to become Man)

Hebrews 2:17 (The One made "like His brethren")

John 15:15 (Our Friend)

John 14:9-11 (The One who was "defined" in the human Jesus)

I believe that if we look at the entire body of evidence we will find a God who is infinitely "large" (who demands our utmost respect and reverence) as well a God who is "small" and "friendly" (who invites the most intimate of relationships). If we are to worship both in "spirit and in truth" we must not—like the blind men who tried to describe an elephant—be satisfied with any "truth" that is not as complete as the Scriptures reveal. To please God in our worship I believe we must understand and appreciate both His transcendence and His immanence; both are true and both are necessary for a "complete" view of God.

1) We must do nothing in our worship that will lower our conceptions of God. This principle is supported by the second commandment that specifically forbids the worship of graven images, a practice that would surely debase one’s view of God. The same principle was also enunciated in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament where only perfect animals were acceptable for sacrifice. This requirement was most obviously true because only a perfect animal could represent a perfect Savior. But there was also another meaning. The prophet Malachi points out (1:8) that a ruler would not be pleased with an imperfect offering. Would not a man, knowing that, be guilty of debasing his concept of God if he offered to God that which he knew would not even be acceptable to an earthly ruler?

2) God demands reverence as Sovereign and Lord of all. When Moses approached God at the burning bush (Exodus 3) he was told to remove his shoes to show reverence and awe in the presence of the Divine. The reaction of Isaiah (6:1-5) when he saw the Lord "high and lifted up" should also be instructive about reverence. If we are to please God in our worship this attitude on our part is non-negotiable.

3) True worship involves the principle of "purity." Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8). We often tend to think of this purity simply as moral purity and, of course, it is that at least. But the principle of purity involves much more, for Jesus also said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind" (Luke 10:27). God thus shows us that He loves purity of motive, of purpose, of belief, and of action, and that He is honored when we strive with total singleness of mind to seek His will in all things.

4) Everything in worship must be God-centered and directed. Some may be uncomfortable with the Scriptural notion of a "jealous" God, but this idea underlines another important principle—that all things spiritual must be God-centered and directed, never done simply for the glory of man. Isaiah quotes God as saying, "I am the Lord; that is My name; and my glory will I not give to another" (42:8). One can make the case that anything in worship that calls undue attention to that which is purely human diminishes the glory of God. This is not simply the opinion of a weak, petty God; it is not to "protect" such a God. On the contrary, it points up the idea that when we diminish the glory of God we do ourselves a great disservice; we have remade God into our own image—in effect He is no longer God. God is "jealous" for our good, not His.

5) The sacred and profane must never be mixed in worship. This is another principle amply illustrated in Scripture—that God wants the sacred kept clearly separate from the "profane" or ordinary, the holy from the unholy. A notable example of the violation of this principle was when Nadab and Abihu took "common" fire into the tabernacle and were destroyed for their carelessness. The record goes on to describe how God spoke to Aaron and reminded him that it was important to "put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean" (Leviticus 10:10). Ezekiel, too, was to "teach my people the difference between the holy and profane" (44:23).

1. We must do nothing in our worship that will lower our conceptions of God.

Concerning this principle (and remembering that meaning in music may be a product of associative relationships)—we need to ask:

Would music that is "flippant" be an appropriate vehicle of worship? Would music like that often used in beer commercials raise or lower our conceptions of God?

Would music that represents the lowest common denominator of general taste help or hinder us in developing a view of God like that of Isaiah: "I saw also the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up" (6:1)? To ask such questions is to answer them.

One of the notions developed in the essay (or discussion) on Christians and Music was that some styles of music are simply unfit for Christian use under any circumstances. Does it not seem logical that such music could not possibly be appropriate for use in worship if we are trying to maintain a high conception of God?

Another way to come at this question would be to ask: If we had an audience with a king or queen, a president, a prime minister, or a governor, how would we dress? Would we go in work clothes? Would we even go in casual clothes? Would we not show honor to a person of great human distinction by dressing in our very best? And would not a failure to do so be a clear indication of our lack of respect for such a person? Every time we come to worship God we have an "audience" with the transcendent God, the Sovereign Lord of the universe! Should not everything—our dress, our deportment, and our music—be of such a character to demonstrate that we truly appreciate the greatness, majesty, and "worth" of the One we are worshiping? Surely, if we come to worship the real God of the Bible, we will choose music that will express the lofty concepts of God that are revealed there.

 

2. God demands reverence as Sovereign and Lord of all.

Now reverence is, in essence, an attitude, and that attitude could, in one sense, be proper or improper with any piece of music. But would not our choices of music also reveal our attitudes in another sense? If we believe God to be truly Sovereign would we not show reverence for Him by trying to find and do His will rather than our own? Should we not, as Paul counseled the Ephesians, "Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:10)? In music this might take the form of an attitude that, instead of saying, "I don’t know much about music, but I know what I like," would say, "Lord, what would you have me to do? What is Your preference in this matter?" In this connection C. S. Lewis has written:

 There are two musical situations on which I think we can be confident that a blessing rests. One is where a priest or an organist, himself a man of trained and delicate taste, humbly and charitably sacrifices his own (aesthetically right) desires and gives the people humbler and coarser fare than he would wish, in a belief (even, as it may be, the erroneous belief) that he can thus bring them to God. The other is where the stupid and unmusical layman humbly and patiently, and above all silently, listens to music which he cannot, or cannot fully, appreciate, in the belief that it somehow glorifies God, and that if it does not edify him this must be his own defect. Neither such a High Brow or such a Low Brow can be far out of the way. To both, Church Music will have been a means of grace; not the music they have liked, but the music they have disliked. They have both offered, sacrificed, their taste in the fullest sense.

 

3. True worship involves the principle of "purity.

4) Everything in worship must be God-centered and directed.

5) The sacred and profane must never be mixed in worship.

Now, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that if music is "sacred" as defined above—and if it meets the criteria derived from the other four general principles—it clearly ought to meet God’s desires for the "sacred" in the context of worship.

It also seems reasonable to conclude that if music is "secular" by the same sort of definition it does not measure up to God’s desires. For if music clearly comes out of a secular setting it is "common" or "profane" by any reasonable use of the word. The fact that many Christian churches regularly use such music is no excuse for the person (or church) who wishes to find and do God’s will. In Christ’s day the leaders of the church were promoting practices in the temple courts that Christ knew were not in accord with His Father’s will. He did not say, "If this meets your needs it seems appropriate for the temple." He did not say, "Your generation views things differently from mine so I guess your practices are acceptable." What He did say was, "Take these things hence" (John 2:16). Today, are there not times when Christians need to say, "Take these [musical] things hence"?

The third category of music suggested above was "neutral." This is an area where we must each exercise careful, sanctified, judgment, for some "neutral" music is appropriate for worship and some is not. Perhaps the following guidelines might be helpful in making such decisions. If such music: (a) has no particular secular connotations or associations, (b) is similar in style to music that is specifically sacred, (c) was not written simply to display virtuosity, (d) has musical integrity, and (e) has a least some sense of a devotional spirit or at least seriousness, then it can probably be worthy for use in worship in some capacity.

An alternative view is that rather than dividing music into the three categories suggested above, we might divide music into just two categories: good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable. As we have already established, persons who wish to be like Jesus in every way will quite naturally avoid bad or unacceptable music under all circumstances. It follows, therefore, that for such persons music for worship will be chosen only from that which is good and acceptable.

But not all music that is good is necessarily suitable for use in a worship service. A further question, therefore, must be: Is a particular piece of good music appropriate or inappropriate for worship and/or Sabbath use? The Christian who is seeking in all things to find and do God’s will must then seek to determine (perhaps on the basis of the five principles suggested above) what music from the general repertoire of the good might be appropriate for the worship of God. As an example of applying this idea we could think of an Etude by Chopin or a march by Sousa. A Chopin Etude is a very good piece of music, but—because it was composed as a virtuoso work, with what that implies about personal display—it would not be appropriate for worship. A Sousa march is a very good piece of music, but—because it has such strong associative relationships with festive occasions, parades, and/or athletic contests—it, also, would not be appropriate for use in worship.

To put such ideas in perspective several things need to be noted. First, when music has crossed over "naturally" or "unconsciously" from secular to sacred it has often involved a significant process of musical "evolution."

Second, when music has crossed over without a significant change in style the time for this to happen is usually measured in centuries, not in years. This means that music, in time, may lose its old associative relationships, but the process usually takes place over several generations—meaning that no one lives long enough to see the process completed.

Third, when people have deliberately brought popular music into church they have typically made it sound "sacred"—that is, they have changed the style. Today, more often than not, church music is taken and made to sound "secular." (If people still wish to believe that Luther "brought music from the tavern into the church" they should also note that not every-thing Martin Luther believed and did was necessarily correct—he was, for example, notably anti-Semitic).

A related question that may be of interest to some involves what may be called "sacred concerts"—most commonly Friday evening or Sabbath afternoon "musicals." The major issue I see here involves whether what may frankly be called "aesthetic entertainment through sacred music" is legitimate for Christians during the hours of the Sabbath. After a good deal of thought on the subject (and a lifetime of personal involvement) I have concluded that such programs are legitimate and that they can serve an important function in the aesthetic and spiritual life of a Christian. Space (and my lack of wisdom) forbids anything like a complete treatment of this subject, but a few ideas may be helpful.

My first reason for believing in the importance and legitimacy of sacred concerts is that God is the Source of all that is beautiful. He is the Creator of the great variety of beautiful things we find all around us in the natural world—the birds, flowers, trees, and sunsets. He also made human beings "in His image" with the ability to create beauty through such media as music, poetry, painting, and sculpture. And not only do we have the ability to create such beauty; we were made with the capacity to appreciate the beautiful—whether created by God or man. I believe that one can go so far as to argue that artistic creation and appreciation are both important parts of what we might call the "stewardship of our essential humanity," as part of what being created in the image of God demands of us. In such a context I believe that it is possible to honor and glorify God in concerts of sacred music on the Sabbath hours.

My second reason to support sacred concerts is that God is Himself a lover of the beautiful. Through Isaiah (40:26) He invites us to take note of the beautiful things that He has created:

"Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these?

He brings out their host and numbers them, calling them all by name;

Because he is great in strength, mighty in power, not one is missing."

He also inspired the writer of Psalm 121:1-2, who testifies that he "saw" God in the beauty of the natural world:

"I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth…."

The wise man was thinking God’s thoughts after Him when he asserted in Ecclesiastes 3:11 that

"He [God] hath made every thing beautiful in his time."

When the wilderness tabernacle was constructed and all the various parts of the sanctuary service were set up God specifically told Moses that the priestly vestments (crafted with gold, precious stones, and exquisite needlework) were "for glory and for beauty" (Exodus 28:2).

Finally, Psalm 96:9 calls on us to "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness," and many have felt that it does no violence to the meaning of the text to turn it around in a call to "worship the Lord in the holiness of beauty."

If any of these arguments have been persuasive we might go on to ask whether the same principles apply in a sacred concert that apply in music for a worship service? To answer this question we could ask: Could we glorify God if the music used in a sacred concert in any way lowered our conceptions of His transcendence? Could we honor God if the music used in a sacred concert failed to show proper reverence for Him as Sovereign? Could we please God if the music used in a sacred concert was not true to the principles of purity—in both senses? Could we expect God to accept our homage if the music used in a sacred concert failed to be God-centered? Could we truly praise God if the music used in a sacred concert combined the sacred and the profane?

It would seem that the five principles we have been considering would apply under all circumstances that involve music and God. Yet we should note a couple of differences that might be important when comparing music for worship with music for a sacred concert.

First, some music suitable for a sacred concert might be inappropriate for a worship service based simply on length. For example, there are oratorios and related works whose duration goes well beyond the time usually set apart for a worship service. While some segments of such a composition may work well in the context of worship, a performance of the entire work would be out of the question. Such works glorify God in many ways and may be heard on Sabbath with great profit, but the worship service itself would not seem to be the best venue.

Second, some music considered sacred would be inappropriate for a worship service because of its purpose. That is, while a specific composition may glorify and honor God in the sense of being an expression of the beautiful, and while it may even be an excellent expression of what might be called a "spiritual topic," the major thrust of the work is not specifically the adoration or praise of God in the sense that is desirable for music in a service dedicated specifically to that purpose. Again, such works may be used to glorify God on a Sabbath afternoon concert where many spiritual topics other than worship are fully appropriate.

One more point needs to be considered as we conclude these thoughts for Christians about music—particularly in regard to making collective choices in sacred music. In I Corinthians 8 Paul enunciates an important principle that, he asserts, must govern all relationships between believers. Apparently some Christians in Corinth were in danger of using their superior knowledge about idols to acts in ways that other believers, with a less clear understanding, found difficult to accept. Paul’s counsel was that on such questions the "stronger" ought always to defer to scruples of the "weaker." The solution to problems inherent in making collective choices may also be elucidated by way of a comparison with the way decisions are made in many marriages. Imagine a scenario where Mrs. A wants a cat but Mr. A does not, while Mr. A wants a new tool for his workshop but Mrs. A doesn’t think that is a good idea. In both cases I believe the dissenting partner (unless convinced to drop his or her objection) must always have the power of a veto. The wish not to have a cat or not to spend money on a new tool must always trump the wish of the other partner to have the cat or the new tool.

In politics there is something similar in the necessity of a government protecting the rights of the minority from the will of the majority—even if it be a very large majority.

The Pauline principle of deferring to the "weaker" member, the notion of a dissenting veto in marriage, and the political guarantee of protection for the minority may all be applied in questions of choosing music in a church. For example, if member A feels that a particular piece of music is an adequate vehicle for worship but member B believes it to be "profane," the Pauline solution requires that member A graciously concedes to the wishes of member B. In such cases member B (like Mr. A and the cat) ought to have the privilege of a veto. Though in a minority, member B is to be protected from what may be the wishes of the majority.

We might also note that the Pauline principle (and the others) ought to work at both ends of the musical spectrum. That is, not only should "strong" members defer to "weak" members concerning a style the latter consider to be a "profane"; "strong" members ought also to defer to "weak" members regarding music that might be (objectively) very good but which the "weak" members cannot in any way comprehend. As noted in the earlier reference from C. S. Lewis, the highest evidence of grace may be in the sacrifice of oneself for the good of others!