Can We Rock the Gospel? – Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6

The authors begin chapter 3 by claiming to give a definition of rock music. I was very glad to read this as I have been longing for one since I began reading this book. They admit that it is extremely diverse and difficult to pin down but they seem to think, “there is a common musical thread” (p. 51) that we can look to to help us understand what it is. From their point of view, the common musical thread of rock music is, 1) constant repetition 2) a strong back beat (snare drum on two and four) and 3) dangerous volume.

Constant Repetition and Backbeat:
They say on page 53 that “the most we can say is that variety is one of the marks of any good music, regardless of style”. I would then like to ask, “Does the simple repeated praise chorus of an African Christian not qualify as “good”? Says who? Who made these authors the ultimate judge of musical “goodness”? Note the words, “we can say” in the first sentence of this section. If they had said “the most God can say” I would be more inclined towards their thinking that rock music is objectively bad for use in the church but they know they can’t say this, thus they prove here that they are making subjective statements showing their argument to be very weak.

The authors make the claim that constant repetition of the music proves to have a hypnotic effect on the people listening and refer to “drum circles” (typically weed smoking hippies who like the Grateful Dead and sit around in a circle playing drums) and non-Christian drummers who make statements about wanting to fall into “a trance” to point to the fact that drums played in a repeated fashion lead to dangerous hypnosis and over emotionalism opening the listener up to mindlessly accept a message a performer might deliver from the stage. They say on page 54, “This obviously has very serious implications for the use of rock music in worship and evangelism. Any medium of presentation that induces any loss of self-control or awareness and makes the listener unusually susceptible to whatever suggestions are made by the lyrics is clearly dangerous and will almost certainly encourage a response that will be largely psychological instead of that which God requires, which is that we should worship him in spirit and truth”. Later on they say, “What we are saying is that the element of relentless beat and repetition in rock music increases the danger of a shallow, emotional, unthinking response, made at the wrong level for the wrong reasons”(p.57).

In response I would say that rock music may have this effect on people who are already “shallow, emotional, and unthinking” (and even that is a long shot) but it in no way has some magical power to create these attributes in a person. Need I say more? This argument borders on the absurd.

Second, I think their argument is valid for those who go to rock concerts and are high on a truckload of weed, but usually this does not happen in the church. As a personal testimony I have been leading and participating in worship using drums using a backbeat for about 10 years now and I can say with utmost confidence that I have never been, nor seen anyone lulled into a hypnotic state by a rock style of drumming. I am aware that this does not mean it can’t happen, but I offer my experience as a differing voice.

Third, it seems that endless repetition has a valued place for God in that we see in Revelation 4:8 that, “day and night they never stop saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come”. One could say that these are angels and they are created for a different purpose than humans, but I would say that we at least need to admit that God does not forbid some form of endless repetition in those created beings who worship him.


Dangerous Volume:
The authors make the claim that rock music is synonymous with dangerous levels of volume. Again, using this argument borders on absurdity. Does “rock” music somehow embody the essence of loudness? What determines our perception of loudness? Usually it’s our proximity to the object that is omitting a certain sound. Rock music or any musical form for that matter may or may not be “loud”. I have been to orchestra concerts where the decibel level far exceeded the level of a “rock” service at a local church. The authors seem to think that if this music is not performed with twin Marshall Stacks (large guitar amps) turned all the way up to eleven, then the music ceases to be “rock”. I am well aware that the history of rock music testifies to high volume levels, but if we don’t like the volume level in the church one simply needs to have a discussion with the sound man or worship leader and turn the sound system down if the leadership deems this necessary or have your sound man pursue more education to be able to mix the instruments on stage in a more pleasing way.

They also quote a disgruntled former Christian rock fan that couldn’t hear any of the words during a worship service due to the loud drums and guitars. Again, this is sometimes a sound man issue and sometimes a vocalist issue. It says nothing about the value of a certain musical genre. They then proceed to equate rock music with an inability to comprehend lyrical content. This may or may not be true and to make a sweeping judgment based on a few different peoples experiences is poor reasoning. The author’s statements about volume are grossly over simplistic and in my opinion, very unhelpful.

They end the chapter with this quote: “…Christian rockers are simply copying and imitating a music style that was created and inspired by men who in their lust for freedom – free sex, freedom to get high on drugs anytime they please, freedom to seek a god of some sort through altered states of consciousness, and freedom from any kind of authority – have rejected the God of the Bible. This is an important distinction to remember in the ongoing debate” (p. 74). What they are saying is that since rock music was created by those who embraced a highly immoral and anti-Christian lifestyle, rock music is unfit for the church.

Three problems:
1. How rock music was “created” is extremely debatable and subjective
2. We still don’t know what “rock” music is. Based on their definition anything that is loud, repeated and emphasizes a strong pulse on beats 2 and 4 is “rock”.
3. I’ve said this in earlier posts, but moral lifestyle of practitioners does not make the practice immoral. Reasoning like this would go as follows: There are many lawyers who are rejectors of the Bible, cheats, frauds and justice forsaking lovers of money, thus the practice of law is immoral, thus it is unwise for Christian churches to deal with any lawyer.

In response to #3 the authors might say, “No, there is a distinction in that rock music was not just practiced by immoral men, it was CREATED by immoral men, thus making their creation immoral.”

I would respond by asking the authors what sort of musical style they use in their churches? It would be important to ask them if they know the whole moral background of the creators of the musical style they prefer to use in their church. Let’s say they choose to simply have hymns sung with a simple accompaniment of a grand piano. Have they plunged the depths of the moral history of the creators of the piano and the hymn musical form? Is it free from men and women who were non-Christians and entrenched in sin? Most definitely not. My point should be plain. No matter what musical form you choose, the history of it’s creation will be laden with sin filled people. In light of what they have written on this issue, it sorrows me to say that these authors potentially embody a high level of hypocrisy.

There is no real need to make much comment of chapters 4, 5, and 6. They simply use these chapters to build their case that many performers in rock music are satanic (chapter 4), sexually perverse (chapter 5) and high on all sorts of mind bending illegal substances (chapter six). I agree, it's true, but again, this behavior has nothing to do with a certain musical forms being essentially immoral and unfit for the church.

In sum, I’m sure these men are well intentioned, but after chapter three, four, fix and six, I am rather stunned by their faulty and simplistic reasoning.