Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven Part Eight Part Nine Part Ten
Even though music itself is not words, this does not mean it is morally or theologically empty or neutral. In a major way, modern so-called worship easily makes musical style a matter of personal taste because professing Christians have assumed that music itself does not communicate anything definitive. They grant that lyrics communicate, but they treat the music underneath the words as morally and aesthetically neutral. The result is the common claim, “The words are biblical; therefore, the music can be anything.”
That claim does not sufficiently consider what music is. Music is communication. It communicates differently from ordinary propositional language, but communication does not cease to be communication merely because it is not propositional. Music can and does communicate or express qualities, affections, attitudes, and dispositions. It can make something seem solemn or trivial, noble or common, restrained or uncontrolled, joyful or mournful, majestic or frivolous. It therefore participates in what a congregation is communicating about God.
Music is not merely a neutral “thing,” but an action performed by moral human beings, and that music communicates through affective meaning. Because scripture communicates truth not only through propositions but through aesthetic forms, Christians should consider whether their musical forms correspond appropriately to the truth they are communicating. That is particularly important in worship. The issue is not merely whether the congregation is saying the right words. The issue is whether the whole act of communication is fitting to the truth being expressed.
Ephesians 4:29 Establishes a Broader Principle of Communication
Paul writes (Ephesians 4:29):
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
The immediate subject is verbal communication. Ephesians 4:29 is not teaching a doctrine of musical style. It is not. But it establishes a principle that is directly relevant to musical communication: God cares about what proceeds from His people as communication to other people, and He cares about the character of that communication. Paul does not say merely: “Do not communicate false propositions.” He says: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.”
The communication itself is to be fitting — good for edification and ministering grace to those who hear it. That principle becomes especially significant when we remember that music is itself a means of communication. If words can communicate something corrupt, then the mere fact that a Christian has attached biblical words to a musical form does not automatically make the whole communication good. The question must also be asked: What is the music itself, lacking the words, communicating?
Music Can Communicate Without Saying Something in Words
This is where the distinction between propositional meaning and aesthetic or affective communication becomes important. Suppose a congregation sings the words: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty.” Those words make a definite propositional and theological claim. But the congregation is not communicating those words in a vacuum. The words are accompanied by a melody, rhythm, harmony, meter, tempo, vocal manner, instrumentation, dynamics, and other musical characteristics. The music contributes to the total communication.
This does not mean that every musical element has a dictionary definition. A particular chord does not mean “holiness.” A particular rhythm does not mean “God is glorious.” We should not make that kind of simplistic argument. The point is more fundamental: Musical form communicates qualities and affections, and those qualities can either correspond to or conflict with the truth being expressed.
To communicate scripture’s meaning accurately through contemporary musical expression, the composer or player must give attention to an aesthetic correspondence between the meaning of scripture and the form through which it is communicated. Therefore, “the words are right” does not settle the question. He must also consider the musical communication.
A Biblical Example: Words and Manner of Communication
Consider Ephesians 4:29 again. Imagine someone saying something technically true, but saying it in a manner that is deliberately mocking, contemptuous, frivolous, or degrading. The words might be factually correct. Yet the communication can still be wrong. Why? Because communication includes more than bare words. That is precisely why biblical communication can be judged according to its character.
The same principle helps us understand music. The question is not: “Can I prove that this rhythm means one particular thing?” The question is: “Does the manner of musical communication fittingly express the truth being communicated, or does it communicate something contrary to or incongruous with that truth?” That is an objective question even if every particular musical judgment requires wisdom. This becomes particularly important when the object of communication is God Himself.
God is not merely an idea about which we sing. He is the object of worship. Therefore, when we sing about Him, we are communicating something about Him. This is why the golden calf remains such a powerful warning. Israel retained God’s name, even with significant enthusiasm, but through various means they altered the representation of God. The danger, therefore, is not simply that somebody will sing an incorrect doctrinal statement, but that the worship communicates a conception of God that does not correspond to the God revealed in scripture.
Beauty Is Not Merely “Whatever I Like”
This is why the biblical phrase “worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness” is so important. Beauty in worship cannot simply mean: “That which I personally find attractive.” True worship grounds ordinate expression in harmony with truth, goodness, and beauty rather than merely in subjective preference. The aesthetic forms will correspond appropriately to the meaning of scripture rather than being selected merely according to preference. The music should fit God, rather than God being expected to accept what we like.
The alternative is not: “My taste versus your taste.” It is: God’s character, God’s revelation, God’s truth, God’s beauty, and God’s pleasure versus human preference. That gives an objective direction to learn who God is, what He commanded, and what scripture calls beautiful, holy, reverent, truthful, excellent, and fitting. God-honoring or worshiping musical communication corresponds to those realities. That is very different from beginning with: “What style do I enjoy?”
Feeling About God What We Should Not
Music’s particular communicative power lies in its ability to communicate affective meaning. Consequently, music can help shape the way a person feels about the object presented. It can debase or trivialize the object it accompanies. When worship music leads people to view God wrongly or to feel wrongly about God, it profanes the Holy One. If the words say that God is holy, but the musical expression communicates an attitude of casualness, frivolity, sensuality, entertainment, or self-centered emotionalism, then there is a problem of correspondence. The communication is incongruous with the object of worship.
Music is an action of moral agents and therefore falls under the authority of scripture. The relevant question is how scripture governs musical communication. The church music, or worship music, must fit who God is. This ultimate criterion rejects “what we like,” “what makes me feel good,” and “what unsaved people like” as proper governing of church music. The issue is not: “Is this music my favorite?” It is: “Is this fitting for God?”
When one speaks of the object of worship, he should also think of objective meaning, to distinguish objective communication from subjective approval. To allow for preferred sensuality, people reject objective communication. They do not fail to perceive what music communicates. They may even recognize it is wrong. It becomes an idol that they won’t relinquish, much like the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-22, who went away sorrowful because possessions were too important for him.
Art Communicates the Real World
Human beings do not live in a world of meaningless sensory impressions. God created a world that has order, intelligibility, distinction, beauty, goodness, and moral significance, and He created man capable of perceiving that world. Romans 1:19–20 says:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen.
And Romans 2:14–15 says that even Gentiles who do not have the law can
shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.
This does not mean that fallen man interprets everything correctly. Scripture emphatically teaches that sin darkens the understanding. But it does mean that human beings possess real knowledge of reality through God’s creation and conscience. This is the foundation for understanding art. Art does not create reality out of nothing. It represents, imitates, symbolizes, abstracts, emphasizes, or interprets aspects of reality.
David De Bruyn, in his writings, calls art a form of “sub-creation,” in which human beings shape materials such as light, color, sound, words, and ideas into imaginative symbols. He argues that art deals with ultimate realities and that art shapes imaginative perception. Art can communicate something true or false about the world without stating a proposition.
Art Does Not Have to Say Something in Words to Tell You Something
Consider a painting of a woman who is dressed modestly and another painting of a woman deliberately presented in a sexually provocative manner. Neither painting needs a caption saying: “This woman is sexually attractive.” The visual form communicates it. The viewer sees the posture, exposure, emphasis, expression, setting, and manner of presentation and understands something.
Likewise, consider a painting of a violent man with a distorted face, clenched fists, and a threatening posture. It does not need a caption: “This man is angry.” The viewer knows. Or consider a picture of a mother tenderly embracing her child. The viewer understands something about tenderness and affection without a paragraph explaining it. That is because human beings know the created world.
Art works by drawing upon that knowledge. This is why art “shapes imaginative perception.” Art takes elements from reality and forms them into an imaginative presentation. And this is precisely why artistic form cannot simply be dismissed as subjective.
Pretending Not to Know What One Sees or Hear What He Hears
This is where the modern discussion of art can become strangely artificial. Someone says: “You can’t say this picture is sensual. That’s just your interpretation.” But it isn’t merely an interpretation. Suppose a woman is deliberately photographed in revealing clothing, in a sexually suggestive posture, with the camera emphasizing particular parts of her body. The fact that someone can call a photograph “art” does not erase what a photograph communicates. People know what they are looking at.
Likewise, if a musical performance is designed to imitate or evoke sensual bodily movement, the Christian doesn’t need a musical dictionary that says: “This rhythm equals sexual sensuality.” The human being already possesses the ability to perceive it. The question becomes whether what he perceives is fitting. The world itself reveals regularly that it understands this. Professing Christians are most guilty of misrepresenting this reality, strangely conspicuous in doing so.
Think of a mother catching her child with his hand in the cookie jar. Just because he acts like it wasn’t really happening doesn’t make that true. Or she sees his hand in it, and even though both know it’s happening, she goes about her business as if nothing did. Even though she knows he took the cookie, perhaps even she is unwilling to deal with the consequences. That doesn’t mean that she doesn’t know. Her son with his treat is temporarily a happier child.
Scripture Assumes This Kind of Knowledge
The Bible constantly appeals to things that human beings recognize in the created order. For example (1 Corinthians 11:14): “Doth not even nature itself teach you?” Paul appeals to something that can be observed in ordinary human experience. Likewise, Scripture speaks about: nakedness and shame, modesty and immodesty, masculine and feminine distinction, sexual behavior, anger, drunkenness, violence, tenderness, humility, pride, beauty, ugliness, order, disorder, wisdom, and foolishness. These aren’t merely abstract theological categories. They are recognizable realities in human life.
Genesis 3:7 says: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” That is significant. They didn’t have to receive a propositional lecture explaining: “Nakedness is now something that should be covered.” They perceived their condition and responded: “and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” Then God Himself clothes them (Genesis 3:21): “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”
Whatever further theological conclusions one draws from the passage, Scripture clearly treats nakedness and covering as realities that human beings recognize. Later, God’s law regulates nakedness and shame explicitly. So if a modern culture deliberately uses nakedness or near-nakedness to communicate sexuality, the Christian does not need to pretend that the visual communication is unknowable. It is knowable. The question is whether the communication is right.
Modesty Also Assumes Objective Perception
Paul says (1 Timothy 2:9): “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety.” “Modest apparel” assumes that clothing communicates something. The clothing itself is not morally culpable. But the manner of presentation matters. That means Christian clothing cannot be reduced to: “I like it.” The biblical categories of modesty and shamefacedness imply that there are forms of dress that appropriately communicate modesty and forms that do not. Again, that doesn’t mean every culture must have identical clothing. It means that the underlying realities are objective, even though their particular expression can vary.
Gender Distinction Is Another Example
Deuteronomy 22:5 says:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment.
And 1 Corinthians 11 appeals to distinctions between male and female appearance and presentation. The principle is not merely: “God likes certain colors for men.” The larger issue is that God created male and female as distinguishable realities, and He expects those distinctions to be appropriately recognized. This is why the deliberate visual erasure of sex distinctions communicates something. It doesn’t cease communicating merely because someone says: “Gender is subjective.” The very disagreement demonstrates that the visual distinction is being perceived. The question is whether the perception corresponds to reality.
Sexuality Is Not Merely a Private Interpretation
Romans 1:24–27 treats sexual behavior as objectively meaningful. Paul describes sexual relations contrary to God’s created order as: “against nature.” That phrase is extremely important for this discussion. Paul appeals to nature, meaning that God’s created order itself supplies a real structure against which human conduct can be evaluated.
Therefore, if an artistic form intentionally celebrates or eroticizes what scripture calls shameful, it is not enough to say: “That’s just the artist’s style.” The artist is making an aesthetic presentation of a moral reality. And the viewer can understand it.
Anger Is Similarly Communicated Without Words
Suppose an actor walks onto a stage, slams something down, screams, clenches his fists, and violently moves toward another person. He hasn’t necessarily said: “I am angry.” But everyone understands it. Why? Because anger has an embodied expression.
Likewise, music can imitate, evoke, or embody characteristics associated with anger, agitation, aggression, sensuality, frivolity, tranquility, dignity, tenderness, solemnity, or joy. Scott Aniol has described music as a medium of communication that communicates through what he calls “emotional metaphor” — musical symbols evoke associations with moods and emotions. That doesn’t mean: “This drumbeat means fornication.” That’s far too simplistic. It means that music participates in a human world of recognizable expressive qualities.
Music isn’t identical to verbal language, but it shares something fundamental with language: It communicates. Words communicate primarily through conventional symbols and propositions. Visual art communicates through images, forms, proportions, colors, arrangements, and representations. Music communicates through sound, rhythm, melody, harmony, dynamics, timbre, texture, and expressive conventions. All three can communicate without the recipient first constructing a conscious verbal definition.
That is why someone can hear music and immediately say: “That sounds aggressive, “That sounds sensual, “That sounds playful,” or “That sounds solemn.” They aren’t necessarily giving a philosophical analysis of music. They are perceiving its expressive character.
More Than or Not Just a Preference
There is a difference between “I prefer this” and “This communicates this.” The first is subjective preference. The second is a claim about communication. Someone might say: “I don’t mind sensuality.” That doesn’t prove the thing is not sensual.
Someone might say: “I enjoy aggressive music.” That doesn’t prove the music isn’t aggressive. Someone might say: “I think this clothing is beautiful.” That doesn’t prove the clothing isn’t sexually revealing. Someone might say: “I don’t perceive gender distinction.” That doesn’t mean there is no male/female distinction in reality. Preference does not erase perception, and perception does not cease to be objective merely because people disagree about whether they like what they perceive.
Sin Does Not Destroy This Capacity; It Corrupts It
This is where we need an important qualification. We should not argue: “Everyone always interprets art exactly the same way.” That would be false. Nor should we say: “Every person has an infallible perception of beauty.” Scripture says the opposite. Sin darkens the mind. People suppress truth. People call evil good and good evil. Isaiah 5:20 says:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.
So people can know something at one level and deny its significance at another. Romans 1 is particularly relevant because men “hold the truth in unrighteousness.” They know something of reality, but they suppress it. That distinction is crucial. A person may recognize “This is sexually provocative,” and then say, “There is nothing wrong with sexual provocation.” The recognition has not disappeared. The moral judgment has been corrupted.
The same thing happens with music. A person may hear music and recognize sensuality, aggression, frivolity, tenderness, dignity, melancholy, excitement, or tranquility, but because of cultural conditioning, he may have learned to love what he perceives. That is precisely why Romans 12:2 says:
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.
The Christian’s task is not merely to learn new propositions. His judgments must be renewed. That includes his judgments about beauty. A true believer should change his tastes so that they correspond to what is truly worthy of admiration. He should reject the idea that beauty is merely “in the eye of the beholder.”
More to Come