by Dr. Barry Liesch

I contend along with Harold Best, author of Music Through the Eyes of Faith, that music without words is morally neutral.  By that I mean that sound by itself cannot express truth, or communicate belief or propositional truth.

I also contend that music style is neutral, ethically and morally. No style should be considered evil or off limits in expressing the Gospel.  I believe that a Christian composer has the freedom to use any style, any materials.

I believe in an open universe for the Christian artist.  My contention is that this ought to be our starting point, theoretically, as Christians.  Any chord, any rhythm, any instrument should be theoretically acceptable for worship. The sound of a sax is not more immoral than a clarinet or a violin.  A reggae beat is not more evil than a waltz or a march.  However, for a given group of people, a given instrument or rhythm may not be appropriate because of its associations (I'll develop this a bit later).  But even in this case, as I wrote in The New Worship, I would attempt to teach everyone to be "strong" (as Paul was) and to accept meat offered to idols (read in place of that "music")--for the earth is the Lords.  Nevertheless, I would not force, constrain, or cajole anyone to eat meat offered to idols (or listen to any music style) if it bothered their conscience.  But again, teaching people to be strong is vital.

In some senses I hold that music is not neutral.  It's not neutral emotionally. It can arouse emotions and induce physical actions.  It can stimulate you to tap your foot, nod your head, or sway your body.  Musical sounds are active and alive--sound waves literally hit your body.  You can actually feel loud, low sounds waves hitting your chest.  But the fact that sounds strike your body is not immoral in my view.  Moreover, we are often persuaded by our emotions, and music appeals to the emotions.  So I would agree that when music is combined with words, music can be highly persuasive.

Music associations are, for me, the most troubling area for the Christian community.  In worship contexts, often people are better off not knowing the associations.  For example, if congregations do not know that a particular rhythm is derived from a sexy dance step, it is just appreciated for its energy and vitality without any sexual overtones.  I also think parents have every right to be concerned with the environment, the culture that goes with a particular music (I'm thinking of drugs being associated with certain musics, for example)--especially so when text accompanies the music.

With music without words, however, meanings are more ambiguous, because unlike a representational painting, music itself is invisible and contains no concrete images.  There is no interior beacon of reference or meaning upon which everyone can agree.  People can and do draw different inferences (meanings) from the same musical passages depending on their experience and the associations they make with the music.  Our minds are not passive, but active in making associations.

For example, when I grew up in Vancouver B.C., there was in those days an understood agreement that my brother would not play the sax in church because it was associated with dance halls--the clarinet was OK.  The sax was thought to have a sexy sound not appropriate to convey reverence to God.  Today, however, many people positively identify the sax with contemporary worship bands and that old problem of associations doesn't exist.

Similarly, my Christian piano teacher tried to dissuade me from using complex jazz chords in church settings, although he had no problem with my playing rhythms originating from ragtime!

I would argue that the "tongues of fire" passage in Acts 2 teaches that the Gospel can be preached in any language.   And if the Gospel can be preached in any tongue, then any music style is also implied, and in fact, inevitable, because musical styles mimic the inflections, syntax of language. Music reflects language.  Moreover, music is just the next cultural step.  People speak the Gospel and then sing it.

As for finding ethical reasons for avoiding certain musics in scientific studies, I find these studies inconclusive.   Certainly, music can speed up your heart beat, etc., but is that ethical or moral? Plants, they say, prefer classical music.  But what does that mean for us as humans?

I hear arguments against the use of dissonance in worship because studies show that babies wrinkle their faces and show dislike when they hear dissonances--but why shouldn't they!  Dissonance, analogically, often represents pain in music.   Yet everyone experiences pain in life.  We need a musical language which can addresses all of life, both the pain and the joy. Do we want to excise from Scripture all passages that convey emotions of hatred, anger, and so on?

This is as far as I'm going to go with this discussion right now.  If you want to look into this subject more, I suggest you read Harold Best's book Music Through the Eyes of Faith. Chapters 12 and 13 of my book, The New Worship, provide more rationale and more scriptural backing for the point of view I've expressed here. I also understand that other good Christians have differing views on this subject.  Nonetheless, I believe this is a crucial issue today.