Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar, wrote, "The medium is the message." McLuhan believed that the content of the message wasn't nearly as important as the medium by which it is conveyed. I suspect there is more truth to McLuhan's perspective than we would immediately recognize.
According to recent studies, it is suspected that one of the leading causes of and major reasons for the radical increase in Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) among children is television. Children's health organizations are now warning that children before the age of 3 ought not be subjected to any video screens whatsoever. Others are saying that it should be severely limited prior to the age of 5 years old. Why? It isn't the message. It's the medium. Children in their early years of development have brains that are also developing. Television short-circuits that development. The rapid flashing images, the completeness of the medium (that is, the sound and sight), and the multisensory overload causes these developing brains to be damaged and makes for a higher demand of stimulation as they get older. Thus ... ADD. There are multiple problems, all brought about by allowing young children to watch TV. And that's completely apart from the content of the viewing. But it's not just children. A recent study said that the adult brain is more active when you are asleep than when you are watching television. Why? Again, not the content, but the medium. The television provides almost no room for mental activity. You aren't filling in an blanks. With a book, for instance, you are drawing the pictures in your mind. But with television the medium fills in all the blanks. And, of course, there is the simple mathematics of time. If the average television time is 6 hours a day, what are they not doing during that time? What more constructive, more beneficial, more valuable things could be done in that spare time that is consumed instead by nearly useless sitting and staring? Without even considering the content, the medium of television is a problem. The medium is the message.
There is another medium that bears its own message. This medium has an almost magical capacity to bypass the thinking portions of the brain and go directly to the emotions. It can almost cause physical movement without conscious attention. It can alter moods, going from content to angry or from angry to calm, just be being present. The content of this medium isn't nearly as effective as the medium itself. That medium is music.
Music is an amazing invention of God. As early as Genesis 4 musicians are mentioned in Scripture. David's first claim to fame was the music he played that calmed King Saul's evil spirit. Music was part of the fabric of the first Temple, and music was part of God's plan to bring down the walls of Jericho. Music is an amazing invention of God. It is also a powerful tool. Tools, by their nature, can be used for various purposes based on the one using them. Music, too, can be used for various purposes. It can calm the savage beast or raise a riot. It can lead you to sublime peaks and plummet you to depression's deepest valleys. It can bring a tear to your eye or a smile to your lips. Music is a tool, and failing to recognize it is like playing with a running saw. It might do something good, but it's more likely going to hurt someone. And while very, very few people seem to realize it, rashly applied music is very capable of hurting someone.
I did a little research and was interested in what I found. According to wikipedia, rock and roll music originated in the late 40's. This is the period immediately following World War II -- the period immediately following the creation of the group of people known as "teenagers". And this type of music was a product of teenage angst. The undeniable underlying thought in the music was sex. Indeed, wikipedia says, "The term 'rock and roll', which was black slang for sexual intercourse." Everyone knows the phrase, "Sex and drugs and rock and roll." The music is designed to appeal to the appetites, and it does it well. It appealed to the rebellion in youth, and it did it well. When it lost its shock value, it morphed into new forms, with shock as their appeal. Punk, rap, hip-hop, "alternative", they were all designed to express largely the discontent and anger that the youth have toward society.
Now we carry this musical message into our churches. We borrow the back beats and rythms and scrape off the old words, substituting praise, but the medium hasn't changed its message. It still aims its appeal at the senses. And somehow we're fine with that. Sensual music is good. It helps us praise God. It lifts our spirits to Him. We are completely unaware, it seems, that this is definitely a case where the medium is the message ... and the message doesn't match the intent. Are we sure this is the route we want to go? Is this actually the kind of music that we believe God enjoys? There is a wide variety of choices out there. I'm just wondering ... is the world's sensual rebellion the best we have to offer God?
8 comments:
I have gone back and forth on this music stuff for some time. Not too long ago, however, we put in a Veggie Tales CD. The kids were dancing around like they always do, and when the music changed they started to dance, well, like teenagers listening to Rock Music.
My children have never seen that anywhere. Where did they learn it? It is in the beat of the music, even though the message itself was completely harmless.
We no longer have that CD, either.
Important information here, wish more folks understood what you have made very clear.
Some of the sweetest testimonies I have ever "experienced" came through music. It touched my soul in a way that words alone could never achieve.
On the other side of that coin, as you have pointed out, some of the most disturbing sounds to my soul have also come from "music", although I would classify the evil stuff as something other than music. The influence of Satan is mixed with hate and anger so much so that it makes it impossible for me to be around.
My take on this is going to be similar to my comments about worship. I'm fine with any of these music styles as long as they are intended to honor God.
Does it bother me that perhaps they are born out of pagan origins, etc? Not really - certainly no more than Christmas or Easter or anything else born of paganism bothers me. Although I prefer not to listen to Christian rap music, I have no problem with the kid down the street doing so provided that when he listens to it or sings with it he is doing so to glorify God.
Once again, we live in a different time (doesn't everyone?). Does culture have influence? Sure. Should it? Debatable... and I suppose ideally not.
The bottom line for me, once again and as always, is what's in the heart of the person doing the listening, dancing or singing.
If that heart is for God... Amen.
Hi Stan
Very informative article. I don't think rap and hip-hop help raise our spirits to praise God either. Even if the words are right, the music agitates. My point in the former thread was that a dry-bones church hymn is no good either. The music we offer should be something we could imagine God enjoying.
Scott,
I'm curious. My point was not "pagan origins". My point was that a medium itself carries its own message. I intended to convey that music itself has its own message, and that musical styles convey their own messages. What I'm curious about is do you disagree with that? Culture, origin, none of that matters if the message that the music itself conveys is not what is intended. If, however, you disagree that music itself is a message, then culture would be significant.
By the way, I wouldn't suggest that "rock and roll is evil", much less that "contemporary worship music is evil". I'm simply wondering about the particular application of this music message in worship of God.
One other point. Enthusiasm is not a measure of being right. The prophets of Baal were very enthusiastic as they prayed to Baal to bring fire. ;)
Jim,
You got my point in that previous article. We have an audience of one -- God. God doesn't like "lively music" that is evil or "dry bones music" with good lyrics. The point is ... What does God want? You were exactly right.
In answer to your questions:
As long as the singing is intended to please that audience of one you speak of, I believe it is entirely Biblical. Now, having said that, I also believe it is much less likely that someone singing and dancing to Christian rap music is doing so to glorify God than, say, someone singing Amazing Grace. But then again, I could be wrong.
I agree that music can be a message - and in fact I would concede that music usually is meant to convey a message. But the bottom line for me is that it's not the music itself, but the heart of the person that God sees. I'm quite sure He is much happier with someone singing rap with a true heart for him as compared to Amazing Grace while they glorify their own beautiful voice, etc.
And I agree with your point about enthusiasm, and those who worshiped Baal - but there were plenty of people worshiping God in ways that were not glorifying to Him as well. I think if you read my comments carefully you will see that false worship is not what I am supporting here.
Scott,
"The bottom line for me is that it's not the music itself, but the heart of the person that God sees."
It sounds like you believe that the only criterion is the heart. It sounds like you believe that it is not possible to do the wrong thing for the right reason. Is that your perception?
No, not at all - I'm not convinced that one is the wrong thing and the other the right thing in terms of medium here. I suppose I didn't address that clearly being focused on the issue of message.
Post a Comment