I just read a blog post yesterday that inspired me to say something about tools. I stumbled across this link on twitter in a search I have up in TweetDeck. So here goes.
Is a tool inherently good or evil? How about a fork? Is it good? Bad?
Seems a kind of silly question. Let me rephrase it a bit: Is a weapon inherently good or evil?
Now that will get some responses. A weapon generally is used to harm. Most people would say that is an “evil” purpose. But how about when it defends something from evil? Is it now “good?” Most would say that defending the innocent is good. Why the difference?
It’s all about how the tool is used! The intent of the heart decides what is good or evil.
The original post, if you didn’t read it, were about contemporary worship music and how the inherent quality of certain kinds of music (extreme paraphrase). As a musician and as a Christian, I am deeply passionate about this subject. So here are my thoughts in response.
Musical style is a tool. Musical instruments are tools. Tools are not inherently good or evil. Therefore, no musical style should be considered good or evil. If a musical style reaches a portion of our culture in such a way as to bring them to Christ and repent, then why should we not use said style? If a musical style brings us to worship our Creator God who wants nothing more than to fellowship with his people, then why should we not use it?
My biggest problem of the “Which musical style is the best for worship?” debate is who gets to be arbiter and judge? Who decides that rock music is evil and that folk music is good? Or that classical music is worthless and rap is relevant? God is the only one who can judge the heart and soul of a man. Period. If you don’t understand why someone is moved by a certain genre, try to understand. If you still don’t, try and find out why. Agree to disagree, but don’t say one style is better for worship than another.
I think I need to put a disclaimer in right here. I am not condoning a “Whatever works for you” brand of theology. That gets into some dangerous waters. God is the judge, so go to Him for your answers. Listening to questionable lyrics that talk about sex explicitly, or have rampant profanity, or hold to very ungodly ideologies is probably not a good idea. We are to be holy as God is holy, so what we take in needs to be controlled.
That said, how does instrumental music (i.e. devoid of lyrics) become sexual? Or filled with profanity? Or rebels against God? How do drums depict wrong affections whereas piano depicts right affections? If I remember my music history correctly, the piano (or the fortepiano as it was originally called) was not accepted into the church rapidly. It was seen as an evil instrument, and that the organ should be played in church instead. Sounds familiar… And what do we see today? Piano is considered an acceptable instrument. Funny how that works.
All art, I believe, is viewed through the lens of one’s own values, views, and experiences. That means, if you think that the electric guitar is not an instrument to be used for sacred music, you won’t like modern praise music that uses it. There’s nothing wrong with not liking something, or saying that you feel the presence of God better if you listen to Style A than Style B. I don’t like pickles, but my wife likes pickles. I love fish, but my wife does not. Both were created by God. Which one is better? Who is more right? Neither. It’s a preference. But to say one is holy and one is not makes a statement I don’t want to make.
And I can’t understand how one style can be acceptable and one cannot. Art is subjective. It’s not concrete. Offering sacrifices was a concrete deal. There were certain animals you were to sacrifice for certain things, at certain times, in line with your means. So how do we make the jump that music for worship has the same concrete ideas? It’s the same thing as saying only one set of chords are acceptable. Boy, wouldn’t that be boring! It’d become a ritual! Not an overflow.
So here’s an extreme example. If we take instrument restrictions to the logical maximum, then we should only play with instruments that the Bible mentioned. Which would be, I think, basically the lyre, cymbals, and our voices. I’m probably leaving something out, but you get the point. Our God is creative. He is the Ultimate Artist. Therefore, why should we stifle our creativity for worshipping Him? I think God, being the lover of our souls that He is, enjoys hearing all of our ways to worship Him.
The blog post did make some good points. It urged us to pay attention to how we worship. Worship is not just music. It is us responding rightly to all that God truly is. If we go to musical worship and just follow after the cool emotions of being in a crowd, watching a show full of lights and pictures, waiting for the fuzzies to come over us, then we are there for the wrong reasons. But if those outward expressions of love and fear are flowing from a truthful realization of who God is, then that is true worship. It doesn’t matter if that style is classical, rock, rap, folk, blues, jazz, metal, pop, or whatever! If God is truly at the center, then He will be praised.
And it doesn’t have to be music! It could be a painting where you see the true suffering of Christ on the cross, bearing the weight of our shame to save us from our sin. You see that and thank God for his grace, and praise Him for it. Or it could be a work of fiction, where you see God’s eternal pursuit of His children no matter the cost, and you realize that you have been running from God and turn back to Him and praise Him. Or it could be a film, where you finally see the gravity of your sin and the fullness of God’s holiness and glory, and you realize that one day you will not have the option to turn from it, so you turn to God and praise Him for it.
The tools are a means to an end. I don’t believe that they carry with them an inherent value of good or evil. And just because someone does something evil with a particular tool does not make that tool evil. Neither does it make the tool good if good comes from that tool. The tool is subject to the heart of its user. And the heart is subject to God. If God can use us as tools to advance His Kingdom, surely he could use rock music for good.
If you have any thoughts or scripture to share, please do. I always want to be learning about my passions. And if you disagree, please post some comments about why, but do so in love. Thanks.
Hi, Josh. I don’t know whether to comment here or on your Wordpress blog, but here it goes.
I appreciated your post and the heart behind it. I also appreciated your category distinction between tools and uses of those tools. I agree with you completely that tools, in and of themselves, are neutral. It is the use of the tool that is good or evil.
I would qualify one thing in your category distinction, however. You say that “it is the intent of the heart” that “decides what is good or evil.” I would disagree with that to a degree. “Intent” and “use” are two different things. In other words, someone can have a good intent, but in all actuality use a tool for evil. For instance, my 2 year old son could intend no mischief when he pours cups full of water out of the bath tub, but that doesn’t make the action (the use of the tool) any less wrong!
Further, although you correctly ascribe neutrality to tools and morality to uses, you make a category error when you begin to talk about musical style.
Music as theory is the tool. It is neutral. But the minute you have a style, you have entered the category of “use.”
Music as theory is from God. It is neutral. But styles are man-made, and any time a human creates something, it is either good or evil, right or wrong.
To summarize, you rightly say that uses of tools is where something enters the category of morality.
Styles (and particular songs) are uses, not tools.
Comment by Scott Aniol — February 19, 2009 @ 6:55 am
I do wish to thank you first for posting, Scott. You have made me think quite thoroughly about this.
I see your point about the cups of water. Just because I intend to do good doesn’t mean I am doing good.
But I still don’t agree that styles are uses. I don’t see how a Haydn piece is fundamentally different than a Chris Tomlin piece or a Kutless piece. They all use the same theory, they are different adaptations of the theory. They all use the same chords, in similar orders, with similar meters. The biggest differences are on which instruments they are played.
Different styles all have their place, and they all can be used for good. Music touches the human race in a very special way. I believe God uses all types of music for His worship.
In the end, we should always evaluate how and why we worship to make sure that it is acceptable to God. That is important regardless.
Comment by Josh Wagner — February 19, 2009 @ 8:10 am
Let me first say that I agree completely with your final paragraph. Right on.
But that doesn’t make evaluation of other elements like musical style invalid.
How can you disagree that a style is a use? A style is a creation of human beings; it is a use of the theory of music to create a medium of communication. I “use” music to create a song, and a group of songs with similar characteristics constitutes a style.
Comment by Scott Aniol — February 19, 2009 @ 11:04 am
I can disagree because it is used as a tool. I will concede this: style could be considered a use of musical theory. But you said that you ” ‘use’ music to create a song.” That to me is a tool. If I make a song (the action) with the elements of classical music (the tools) then I have a classical song (the object or creation).
A sword is a creation of a human being. God used the sword for His glory and His purpose through Israel by defeating the native peoples of the Jordan River area. However, people can use it for evil all the same; for example, murder. To me, music can be used the same way.
I guess I just don’t understand how the jump is made from musical theory carrying no inherent morality to style carrying morality. It’s like making tools from tools. You have simple tools which can be used to create more complex tools. (Hammer and steel create a sword, since I’ve been using that metaphor) Still, the more complex tool does not carry morality.
Another point I’ve been thinking about is the focus on western music. Eastern music is almost a whole other theory. Yet God still calls them to worship as well. What music should they use? Should they sing folk music or hymns written by white composers of the western traditions? Or should they use traditions rooted in their own lands? Considering Jesus probably more closely related to the middle eastern traditions while He was on this earth, I’m not going to be the one to say that a certain style/theory/song is good and one is not.
I have not seen scripture that tells me to sing or play *in a certain style*. Worship is more about the heart than the act (Isaiah 29:13). God created us all different, so we all probably worship different. Therefore, we will probably find different styles easier for us to worship God with.
Comment by Josh Wagner — February 19, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Good points. You will find many people who will try to “prove” their points with no biblical basis. God created music that we agree, but which kind??? Oh wait a minute which kind did he create…..what tempo was the lyre playing, what about the cymbals, was it 3/4 jazz or 6/8 march or 4/4 power ballad. Good thoughts Josh. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by Scott Wagner — February 19, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
I still think you’re making category errors, Josh.
Hammer = Music Theory (neutral object)
Song = Hitting a nail or smashing someone’s head
Style = Different instances of hitting a nail all combined into a group
You say a style is a tool that is used to create songs. You have it backwards. You can’t have a style until you have a group of songs with similar characteristics. If songs carry messages, then groups of songs with similar characteristics carry messages – that’s a style.
Regarding biblical authority on this issue. Of course the Bible does not tell us what styles are pleasing to the Lord. But it does tell us that we should be concerned with our communication. Music is communication; therefore we should be concerned about what our music is communicating.
Comment by Scott Aniol — February 20, 2009 @ 7:07 am
At this juncture, I think we can just agree to disagree. We both agree that we should be very conscious of what our music is communicating, and that our worship should be more than just a good feeling (worship in Spirit and Truth). Let us focus on that.
Comment by Josh Wagner — February 20, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Josh, if I may chime in, you said above:
“But I still don’t agree that styles are uses. I don’t see how a Haydn piece is fundamentally different than a Chris Tomlin piece or a Kutless piece. They all use the same theory, they are different adaptations of the theory.”
The key word in your response would be “adaptation”. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, cited on Dictionary.com, the top two definitions of adaptation are:
1. 1. The act or process of adapting.
2. The state of being adapted.
3. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
4. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
2. 1. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
2. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
~~~
All of these definitions seem to be talking of “uses”. In other words, some operation is performed on something in order to adapt it to another form, or, in order to use it in another form.
I think the impasse you and Scott are having hinges on what you mean in your first response to his comment. What does “adaptation” mean? Is it not using musical theory in some way so as to create varying forms?
Ok, I’ll chime out now. Just thought I would probe that thought a little…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Comment by Don Johnson — February 20, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
“It’s all about how the tool is used! The intent of the heart decides what is good or evil.”
This opening statement from the initial post precludes discernment – a biblically commanded facet of our sanctification. If we must discern the intent of the heart to determine good or evil (an act left to God alone), how then can we determine the goodness or badness of any created thing?
God gave us the raw materials for music – the physical elements from which we craft sound. These include timbre, pitch, duration, and volume. No more, no less. From these acoustical elements, sinful human beings create musical compositions – some good, some bad – yet all tainted with sin.
The intent of the heart CANNOT be discerned by human beings. This is a false premise. God alone judges the intent of the human heart. Only the products of human beings (their words, actions, creations) can be judged for their excellence or lack thereof.
Music is no more a neutral tool than language is a neutral tool. As Scott was expressing above, a single letter may be neutral; a single word may be neutral. But a cohesively expressed thought is not neutral. By the same token, a single note may be neutral; a single chord may be neutral. But a cohesively expressed musical phrase is not neutral. It communicates an emotion by expressing motion in time. The motions that human beings manifest when feeling particular emotions can be expressed in sound through time, thus evoking that same emotion in a hearer. For instance, when we feel sadness we tend to move slowly and smoothly, speak softly, with downward motions and inflections. Music elicits this emotion by using the sounds signifiers for these motions: smooth, soft, slow, downwardly turned music characterizes sad music. The music doesn’t become sad only when it is heard; it contains properties inherent in its sound constructs that communicate sadness.
Music is not a neutral tool, but a highly powerful emotional tool.
Scripture acknowledges this repeatedly. Exodus 32:17 demonstrates that sounded – specifically singing – was the first indication that Moses and Joshua had that the Israelites were committing idolatry. Daniel 3 shows the seductive power of music to idolatry. Many other examples abound in scripture. A student of music in scripture cannot come away with the notion that God created music as a neutral tool.
Sincerely,
Tim
Comment by Tim S. — February 20, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
amvnoggi…
amvnoggi…
Trackback by amvnoggi — August 14, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
7NB8m5 febeiaxumvxd, [url=http://weqodninfimk.com/]weqodninfimk[/url], [link=http://bmuohjvoljix.com/]bmuohjvoljix[/link], http://qwxivsknksan.com/
Comment by ejdiwlg — August 21, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
i5qPZc xbrthddzbxiy, [url=http://reqtuuldojlj.com/]reqtuuldojlj[/url], [link=http://cwojtunmvoip.com/]cwojtunmvoip[/link], http://qevyuwwpqvja.com/
Comment by fmdbvylcsl — August 26, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
23cRBr hczhdrdiidfg, [url=http://wxftelblqgxh.com/]wxftelblqgxh[/url], [link=http://pitiknfqsxxn.com/]pitiknfqsxxn[/link], http://zwwpjtcfuzkl.com/
Comment by yysxcylbikh — September 12, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
cheap home insurance [url="http://www.eliseogallery.com/Home-Insurance.html"]homeowners insurance[/url] http://www.eliseogallery.com/Home-Insurance.html lsgvlr
Comment by zcmlregistry — October 23, 2009 @ 2:57 am
life quotes [url="http://www.eliseogallery.com/Life-Insurance.html"]cheap life insurance[/url] http://www.eliseogallery.com/Life-Insurance.html 07691
Comment by Accardi — October 23, 2009 @ 5:40 am