It is rumored that the likes of Martin Luther or Charles Wesley said it first: "Why should the devil have all the good music?" Turns out we can't find any references to it. Popular notion, but, from all we can find, no ... they didn't. The first documented quote is from Larry Norman. Norman was one of the earliest "Jesus Rockers," called by some "the Father of Christian Rock." And he did write a song entitled, "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?"
Of course, the quote, especially when attributed to the likes of Luther or Wesley, has been the basis for many to shift from traditional to contemporary music for Christians. Now, even that is misleading, because there has always been "contemporary" music in the church. When Charles Wesley or Isaac Watts wrote their now classic hymns, they were new -- contemporary. But you get the idea. Why did the church make the jump from "traditional" to the music closely associated with teenage angst, sex, and drugs? "Why should the devil have all the good music?"
I think the question is wrong-headed. First, consider the logic. The question assumes that the devil has music. "This" music belongs to the devil and "that" music does not. Problem. Because we're mostly sure that the devil doesn't own anything except that which is in direct contradiction to God's commands and nature, and it's hard to associate musical style with that. Second, consider the obvious secondary question. If the devil does have music, why do you, a believer, consider it "good"? Is it possible that there are some ... skewed values here?
I'm not approaching the question of "the devil's music" here. I'm asking the question of how we determine what is good. In the question, "Why should the devil have all the good music?", the standard is abundantly clear. It is not, "Whose music is it?" It is "What do I like?" The "good music" in the question is "The music I like" and, therefore, by definition, "good." And that's no way to determine "good." It is the way most people, including Christians, do it. And that's the problem.
"Good" is always relative. The question is always "Relative to what?" If your standard of "good" is yourself, it is going to be a very questionable definition of "good." And it will bleed over into a lot of areas.
14 comments:
why should i give a heartfelt expression of my internal joy of the LORD in music. when i got plenty of good old fashion hymns to guild me. i realize that any personal expression on my violin must be bracketed with in the confines of the God ordained 4/4 time. it is not enough to want to play for the Lord, i have to first , become a member in good standing, what ever that means.
somewhere between the rock bands with their fog machines, and the hymn singers with off key 6/8 time signature. there must be some room for free expression of praise with out critical analysis. to play a wrong note is insignificant, but to play without passion is inexcusable. "Beethoven".
Well, now, I was writing about how we determine what "good" is, but it appears you have a few other issues with church music, like time signatures, "member in good standing", and performance vs heart. You would have made this into a much larger post, wouldn't you? :)
Just curious here, even though my question will sound a lot more like a jab. It honestly isn’t. Actually it’s more than one question. The first one is, is the sermon considered to be worship? Second, should the man who gives the sermon be required to be a member in good standing? I guess one of the real questions is, are these two forms of worship different things altogether? I could argue both ways on that one. But I would probably end up having to conclude that there really isn’t a difference even though part of me wants to say that there is.
it just feels so good to get it out... maybe a little therapy is in order. yea im good now.
the little church i go to feels the need to sing all five or seven stanza's of every hymn.
i did not realize that there are five to eleven stanza's to the doxology. see i am getting better...
I consider the preaching of the Word a key component of church worship. I would require the preacher be "in good standing", but clearly Scripture included traveling preachers, so I wouldn't think they'd have to be "members," just believers in good standing.
To your point, I’d suggest that if one is referring to music sung in corporate worship, “good” is defined by theological content, and singabality. If people can’t sing along, they will tune out. Bad theology kind of makes corporate singing pointless.
Somewhere in there should be focus on God and worshiping Him as well.
To Norman’s point. I think (and have had the conversation with Michael Tait as well), that any style of music can be “good” and be honoring to God, but there is no reason not to strive for excellence.
There are so many directions this conversation could go, but for now I’ll leave it at that.
I’d say that preaching the word/equipping the saints is THE key ingredient of a worship service. I agree with the good standing standard as well.
I would agree with you (I think), Craig, regarding "good" in these terms, but I'm not sure that was what Larry wanted to get across. I think he didn't like the older style and enjoyed rock music, so it was "good" by his definition. (I think that because the more I looked into his life, the more disturbing it got.)
Larry’s life is a whole other topic, he was a seriously flawed guy, who was also really mistreated by some of the people he was involved with.
I agree that Norman personally liked certain styles of music, “early rock, aka the “devil’s music”. But he was really open and encouraging of other styles for other artists. I really think that he was focused on pointed lyrics combined with well produced music.
Very interesting guy, definitely a mixed bag, but some good music.
I certainly enjoyed much of his music.
I’ve just recently discovered his music, and am enjoying much of it also. Really talented guy, seems sincere about his faith and to using music to advance the Kingdom. But, he also had serious issues that probably compromised his vision.
If I may be off-topic, I wonder if someone can point me to what Stan thinks about Matthew 5:18, since I would imagine Stan has covered such a crucial passage at his blog.
I'm having an online discussion with a Christian. I am frustrated by how cavalier she is being with interpreting that verse. In the span of minutes she can interpret it in ways that seem pretty much the opposite of one another.
Yes, Anonymous, completely off topic. As for Matt 5:18, I understand it to mean "until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." "The word of the Lord remains forever" (Isa 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24-25). The principles and truths remain.
I'm sensitive to not abusing the purpose of a person's web page, so I'll just say that if I see you get onto this topic in the future, I'll jump in with an explanation of what I am finding dissatisfying about her exegesis.
Post a Comment