First of all, not all music that is classical in form is Christian in content. Think of the Mephisto Waltzes by Franz Liszt. But even excluding disturbing exceptions like this, its form is all wrong, as well. Whereas classical music embodies order, law, structure, and beauty, punk rock embodies--not the world as it should be--but the world as it is. Also, punk music has a social awareness that would put Beethoven and his ministry to the deaf to shame.
Punk music has its feet firmly on earth and deals with the nitty gritty of a world in chaos, scrambling for some moment of sanity. Think of The Clash in their song "Straight to Hell." This song addresses in rather painful fashion the mistreatment of immigrants, as well as the love children of American G.I.s who procreated with the unfortunate female population of Vietnam during the war. Gritty, painful, dirty. Punk lives in the here and now--the already, rather than the not yet. Or consider a song by The Dropkick Murphys called "The State of Massachusetts," which faces head-on the effect that drug-abuse has on families.
These singers sound more like the Psalmist or Habakkuk and less like the sort of feel-good Christianity that gets day-in and day-out dumped out of the musical sugar jar we call K-LOVE. The world is plunged into sin, and Jesus Christ has brought hope. Yes, punk music reflects a genuine attempt to push back against authority, but Paul speaks in Colossians of the fact that Christ "disarmed the rulers and authorities." Jesus was the original punk (minus the wallet-chain). Things aren't right in the world as we know it, but Jesus Christ will one day come to consummate what he began in his incarnation. There's some already in there with the not-yet, but the structured, ordered, law-abiding nature of classical music misses out on the already and exchanges it for cherubs floating on clouds clutching harps.
-----------------------------
One thing that we see a lot of in our world today--especially when it comes to interchange between Christians and the cultural enjoyments they partake of, is an impulse towards baptizing our own particular preferences. Nancy Pearcey did it in How Now Shall We Live?, we just did it in the first part of our post above (for purposes of illustration), and bloggers and Facebookers the world over do it all the time. It's that human religious tendency to take something that we like, and to say, "You know? This makes sense to me when I look at it a certain way," and then jump to the conclusion that the music or the art or the movie or the political party that we enjoy may just have some warrant in Scripture.
This doesn't mean that we ought to despair ("Oh no! The Bible doesn't tell me which political party to join! What will I do!?"). Instead, it means we ought to be modest about our own views and preferences if Scripture doesn't speak to the matter. We use common sense, we use reason and thoughtfulness (all aspects of the imago dei) to arrive at correct conclusions. I do not need the Bible to tell me that the stock market crash of 1929 happened because of X, Y, or Z in order to arrive at a correct conclusion (obviously it was because the U.S. left the gold standard and started printing money, but that is beside the point and has nothing to do with Scriptural teaching).
But there is a way out of this conundrum, and it's something that many Christians are uncomfortable with. The Bible doesn't speak about everything that ever happened in the history of mankind. The Bible does not tell us who is funnier: Hugh Laurie or Stephen Fry. The Bible does not tell us if a certain kind of musical beat is sinful. The Bible does not tell us whether or not to shave our head or do the comb-over. The Bible doesn't tell us if we should have oatmeal for breakfast or eggs. There are just issues in life that the Bible doesn't directly teach on, and when it doesn't, that becomes an area where we ought to be extremely careful about making dogmatic declarations. Many a Christian are guilty of taking their pet peeves or their pet preferences, or even opinions they've arrived at via a very rational and thoughtful mental process and making it an issue of dogma.
The hard thing that we're calling for is a good bit of modesty about many of our views, recognizing that we do not need a "thus saith the LORD" in order to justify every decision or choice that we make in life. In other words, stop baptizing your preferences.
But seriously, God may not say so, but you should really start listening to punk music anyway.
Hi Adam,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Jeremy de Haan, and I’m a friend of Josh Walker’s. I even write poetry about him sometimes, which makes him uncomfortable.
Fun facts aside, I wanted to ask you some questions about what you’ve written here. Really, at the heart of it is just a single question: Is there such a thing as a sinful art form? Because if the case can be made, for instance, that urinating on a crowd of people or vomiting in someone’s face are both inherently sinful things to do, neither of which Scripture speaks directly about, then it follows that anyone who claims them as their “art” are engaging in art forms that are sinful. Could you say that there is a musical equivalent to vomiting in somebody’s face? Is that what was behind Sid Vicious’ claim that the point of punk rock was to “undermine their pompous authority, reject their moral standards, [and] make anarchy and disorder your trademarks?”
I appreciate the concern about giving one’s cultural criticisms the weight of divine inspiration. But at the same time, I cannot see how Scripture cannot be applied to these sorts of questions. And if Scripture is applied carefully and with wisdom, then there is much more to the judgment than simply “this makes sense to me when I look at it a certain way.” That’s way too easy a dismissal.
Jeremy
Thanks for commenting, Jeremy.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that there really IS a musical equivalent to the thing you mention, since it is one thing to physically assault someone and quite another to make music.
The thing I would caution against, in terms of your reply, is assuming that Scripture can be applied to more than it was intended to be applied to. That doesn't mean, of course, that discussion of theft can't be applied to money laundering, for example. But it might mean that if Scripture is silent on something (as I gave the example of, musical style or beat) then we should be modest and willing to withhold judgment.
Is physical assault really "quite another" thing from making music? I don't know the answer to that, but why do you find mosh pits at rock concerts and not at operas, and why do you find worse mosh pits at a Slipknot concert than at an Avril Lavigne concert? And I’m not sure if Sid Vicious would have seen much difference between his music and violence.
ReplyDeleteAs far as what Scripture says, it does not speak about styles of music, but it does speak about communication. Does music communicate? If I sin when I communicate with words, and when I communicate with gestures, am I also able to sin when I communicate with music?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But as far as I know anything about music, it does seem very much like a language of the heart. It seems effortless in its ability to subdue our intellects and to command the undivided attention of our hearts. And if Scripture also speaks to the heart, which of course it does, profoundly, then I fail to see how Scripture does not speak about the music we listen to, or create.
Jeremy
Well I like punk music, and I've never punched somebody in a mosh pit (I'm not one for live shows). Hence, I make the distinction. Also, there are punk shows where (so I'm told) people can be quite civil. So I think the distinction is helpful.
ReplyDeleteBut again, I don't want to get caught up in defending punk music (or musical forms), because that's not the point of this post. I actually had other examples in the original post to help make my point, but Josh warned me that everyone would want to talk about the examples and not the larger point.
(that last deleted comment was from me, but signed in with my wife)
ReplyDeleteYour larger point was, to quote you directly, "if Scripture is silent on something (as I gave the example of, musical style or beat) then we should be modest and willing to withhold judgment."
Yes, the first section of my last comment dealt with mosh pits, in order to get at a larger point, the same kind of format you used in your post. Perhaps I did it poorly. But you have completely ignored the larger point of my comment and focused on my illustration, the very thing that you accuse me of (and for whatever reason, taking the very uncivil route of using our mutual friend to do that). So let’s forget about punk and mosh pits for the moment, and instead focus on the parts of my comment that you conspicuously ignored. Which, neatly enough, are the parts directly relevant to your larger point:
As far as what Scripture says, it does not speak about styles of music, but it does speak about communication. Does music communicate? If I sin when I communicate with words, and when I communicate with gestures, am I also able to sin when I communicate with music?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But as far as I know anything about music, it does seem very much like a language of the heart. It seems effortless in its ability to subdue our intellects and to command the undivided attention of our hearts. And if Scripture also speaks to the heart, which of course it does, profoundly, then I fail to see how Scripture does not speak about the music we listen to, or create.
Jeremy
Let's just grant everything you're saying. Could you give me an example of music (not talking about lyrics) that in itself communicates sin?
ReplyDeletePoint taken, do not sanctify personal preferences not specifically spoken of in Scripture. I also understand the concept of keep quiet when the Bible is not clear, and a beat in and of itself is not sinful. I agree and commend the attempt to relay the point in this post. I understand the conversation you would like to have, but you have chosen poorly your analogy to convey it, and in this I must comment on you example.
ReplyDeleteYou speak as someone who obviously enjoys punk rock, and who equally obviously has never lived it. Punk music is more than a style of music, it is a style of life. It is a worldview. It is aggressive, it is angry, it is destructive, and it is adamantly anti-Christ. Crass, Anti-Nowhere League, Left-over Crack, SubHumans, Fear, Dead Kennedy's, Exploited, Chaos Uk. This is punk rock and if you can find anything of any redeeming value in this genre than you are not truly listening, but only sanctifying your own personal preferences.
I appreciate the thoughts in this post, but warn you that punk rock is not just musical expression like Mozart or Beethoven. When Jello Biafra speaks openly about his hatred for Christianity, when Left-over crack openly worship the devil on stage, and when Crass and the SubHumans sing about their disdain for Christ and Christians this is not just a fringe element this is normative within punk rock music. It is not just anti-authoritarian it is anti-Christ and proud of it. The social justice aspect of the music aside, and with full acknowledgment that punk music does display the world as it is, are we not called to be in the world but not of it. I do not turn a blind eye to the plight of the world, but I do not stand with chaos and anarchy when we have a common enemy in the unjust wars around the world. The Germs were founded on the idea that rebellion and chaos were more important to punk rock than musical ability, and if you have ever listened to their music you can not deny this. This is punk rock chaos, rebellion, hatred, violence, death, and fear. Punk rock as musical notes may not be sinful in and of itself, but the lyrics are, the images are, the ideas are, the majority of its adherents are, and the worldview is openly anti-Christ.
Be careful what you place in your head, and what you lead others to place in theirs. I don't know what degree you are seeking at RTS, but be careful speaking on and promoting things you do not understand. As a brother in Christ, as a friend, and as a cleansed ex-punk, preach Christ and Him crucified and be careful.
Joey Ramone, the lead singer for one of the great punk bands, was a republican and a friend of the establishment. He was a fervent conservative. The ramones were not exactly the anarchists you imply characterizes "punk" music. In your attempt to generalize, you're driving punk pioneers right out of the movement. Despite your adamant statements about what is and isn't "punk" these are ongoing debates within the punk community. A distinction between punk culture and punk music would be in order and help explain "anomalies" like Joey Ramone. It would also explain why somebody like Adam Parker can like punk music but have no tattoos, avoid mosh pits, and live a pretty conservative, boring life raising his four kids while happily married. Your post is so full of broad generalizations, and they can't be true of all bands that claim to be punk (or influenced by punk). There are bands whose music is Christian in content (in terms of lyrics) and punk in form.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the warning about not speaking about things I don't understand. I'll keep that in mind. In your desire to nail my feet to the floor on my example, I'm afraid you might be doing the same thing.
I’m not trying to say much, mostly asking questions. I couldn’t give you an example of sinful music, no, as I don’t know what would make music sinful. For that reason I also don’t know what would make music not sinful. I don’t know how sin does or does not factor in at all, hence the questions. My own position is largely the same as yours, but for my part it is a very unexamined position. I’m agnostic as to whether or not Scripture speaks about styles of music, but you are not, so I’m interested in what is behind your position.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that to make that claim requires an understanding of how music communicates. Or, if “communicates” is the wrong word, from what part of a person music comes and how it is received in another person. How exactly music works. This was behind my earlier example of violence and music; is it possible for music to communicate the same thing as a punch in the face? Or does music communicate in a completely different way? If so, how?
One example that comes to mind is Melkor from the Silmarillion. Why did Tolkien choose to use music in order to illustrate Melkor’s turn to evil? I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Tolkien himself believed discordant music to be representing evil. I’m also assuming that he’s working off of Plato, who believed that musical innovation was bad for the State. How would one go about verifying the truth or falsehood of Plato’s or Tolkien’s understandings of music?
I want to hear some of that poetry about josh walker !!!!!
ReplyDeleteHay, Chad W here.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing aesthetics and worldview, the most important distinction when we begin is not between the aesthetic form and the worldview being portrayed, but rather between the object and the subject. Music, as with movies or books, will almost always carry with it expressions of both the fall and redemption of this world contained in form and content. Even Scripture must be read with some sense of Spiritual discernment lest it be twisted as it was from the lips of Satan tempting Christ. As sinful perceivers of art made by sinners, we must always discerningly take part in our enjoyment of (and hopefully edification from) any art form, be it so called secular or so called Christian. Some can be as easily misled into a world of false utopia (Kincade's escapism) as others can be led into an immoral thought process. Because of this, I too would caution against ever saying "I do this, so you should too" with regards to anything other than the means of grace, especially in a pastoral role of leadership. I personally find most punk music inherently lacking in content and form. I find little in most of it that would ask me to grow in aesthetic awareness or challenge me with anything new in its content. This does not hold true for every "punk" band or song. There are a handful from which I have learned, and I'm sure there are many others out there.
But, to the point about "classical" (I assume you aren't using this term technically, because John Cage is not from the Classical period) music being Christian, I believe there is much more to this discussion than what you say here. It is more about historical observations within Christendom (making the technical distinction above important) than it is "preference." There is a reason why harmony and the twelve tone system developed within Western Christendom, and a reason why some heathen cultures readily adopted it while others dismissed it, as well as why certain individuals like John Cage and groups like Mahavishnu seek to expand or ignore it. Neither punk, rock, blues, or jazz would exist without Western Christendom's development of musical form preceding them. One of those discussions to have in person, though.
Even more reason for me not to baptize my preferences!
ReplyDelete