I hate the internet. I just spent over an hour typing out my post and then it just disappeared. I just want to slap Al Gore for even inventing it.
Well, here it goes again…
Last week, I discussed the idea of Christian music and proposed that perhaps the whole thing didn’t even matter. Maybe the faith of the artists is irrelevent. I came to the conclusion that, for myself, I want to know what the musicians believe, partly out of curiosity and partly so I know how to interpret the songs. I’ll still listen to you if you’re not a Christian, but I like to know that.
Since I’ve decided it’s important to me to know the beliefs of people who create music, now I want to discuss the term “Christian music” itself. There was a time when I understood what those two little words meant when put next to each other, but now that I’ve entered the world of indie music and Sufjan Stevens has shocked everybody with his overtly Christian songs, I don’t know a thing. Indie fans are inherently skeptical of Christianity and many Christian indie artists don’t want their beliefs critiqued by the world, so they shy away from identification with the Christian music scene. Read a little about it here in an interview with Sufjan Stevens. [Note: I just realized I gave you the wrong link. This link is to a review of Seven Swans. I can't find the original interview I had in mind to post here, but this review has some good information about the topic at hand anyway.]
I used to know what “Christian music” meant, but not anymore. Here are some definitions I’ve heard thrown around, none of which I like:
1. “Christian music” means it’s made by Christians.
Maybe Christian music is anything that’s made by a Christian. This is probably my favorite definition, but it has its problems, which I’ll explore below. First, though, if you follow this reasoning, then Bob Dylan, Sufjan Stevens, David Bazan, and others rejected by the Christian Music Industry would need to be included now, and bands like Phillips, Craig, and Dean, poster-child for CCM and ugly epicenter of all that is modern worship, would likely be rejected for their heretical beliefs (see here). I don’t have a problem with this, but it would mean we have to radically realign everything.
I like this idea because it satisfies my compulsive desire to know the beliefs of every artist I listen to. I also like that it leaves it open for musicians to write about all of life, not just the hyper-spiritual “God moments.” Christians can have bad days. The can make mistakes. They can feel depressed or discouraged. They can go to a movie, take a vacation, and eat hot dogs too.
Problems, though, would include the fact that some people would include non-Trinitarians like Phillips, Craig, and Dean, while others would exclude them. Some would include Catholics like The Innocence Mission, while others wouldn’t. Some would include spirit-filled believers like Isa, but others wouldn’t. In short, whose definition of “Christian” do we use?
2. “Christian music” means it’s included in Contemporary Christian Music.
This is the current working definition of Christian music. It’s included if it’s marketed as CCM, if it’s sold in Christian bookstores, if it’s heard on Christian radio.
With this thinking, Phillips, Craig, and Dean, despite being heretics, are solidly within CCM and therefore included as “Christian music.” However, Sufjan Stevens, David Bazan, and other indie artists are not, because they’re not marketed as Christians and they don’t have the Christian Music Industry connections.
There are a lot of problems with this definition, and I might go over those later, but the biggest one, in my mind, is that the marketing gurus and record labels have no right to decide what’s Christian and what’s not. It’s a ridiculous, false situation.
3. “Christian music” means it’s spiritually uplifting.
OK, so maybe if the song encourages you and inspires you to love God more, then it’s Christian music.
This being said, Hoobastank’s “The Reason” would be Christian music because it’s one of the best gospel illustrations outside the original four. It inspires and encourages me. On the flip side, many songs by Wovenhand, This Beautiful Mess, The Listening, Aaron Strumpel, and other outspoken Christians would be rejected because they deal with hopelessness, loss, and going through hard times. Mostly, they bring it back to hope in God, but not always. If I’m having a bad day, their songs can really minister to me, but if I’m doing great, they can make me feel depressed.
Besides, who says that being a Christian is always easy and fun and uplifting? Certainly not the Bible. Following this line of thinking, you’d have to throw out most of Ecclesiastes, Job, Jeremiah, and the Psalms. You’d also have to delete all of Jesus’ sayings on persecution, suffering, and people falling away. And Paul? Get rid of most of his letters. Maybe we’d better not even mention him, actually, considering he was stoned, jailed, beat up, and whipped countless times.
The Christian life is not limited to the happy, encouraging moments, and Christian music should not give the impression that it is.
4. “Christian music” means it mentions God.
This was my working definition for a while. If I heard a song on the radio that mentioned God in a positive way, I got all excited that Christianity was taking over the airwaves, and if my friends listened to a “lukewarm,” “supposedly Christian” band that didn’t mention God in a song, I rebuked them for being lukewarm themselves.
This is a retarded definition, so I won’t spend a long time with it. If we’d adopt it as the working definition, though, it’d mean almost every band, from The Beatles to The Doors to Britney Spears would have created some Christian music, because most bands have all mentioned God positively in at least one song. And you’d have to delete a lot of songs by The Listening, This Beautiful Mess, and even the David Crowder Band, because they don’t explicitly mention God, no matter how great of worship songs they may be. Look at the lyrics for “You are My Joy” by David Crowder. Incredible worship song, but it never mentions God.
You’d have to take Esther out of the Bible because it never says the word “God.” I’ve become pretty ambivalent toward that book ever since the movie One Night with the King, but I don’t want it stricken from Scripture. And I know a lot of people who say nice things about God but would never call themselves Christians.
Like I said, this is a retarded definition. Moving on…
5. “Christian music” means it has nothing vulgar or offensive.
A lot of people have thrown this one around, that if it doesn’t have any swearing or offensive content, then it’s good Christian music.
With this definition, then, instrumental band Mogwai would be making Christian music, because they couldn’t even be vulgar or offensive if they tried, with no lyrics and all. Many of the early Beatles songs would be Christian, and a number of other artists out there who have no faith in God would be included. On the other hand, Derek Webb and Waterdeep would not be included for at times using vulgar language to get a point across.
Besides, who gets to decide what’s offensive and what’s not? Something might not offend me, but you’ll be disgusted by it. The word “sucks” is a great example. I’m not offended by it, but you might be. That sucks, but it’s the truth.
With that, much of Christianity is offensive to people. Saying that you’ll go to hell if you don’t follow God? Offensive. Saying that non-Christians are enslaved to sin? Offensive. Saying that sin is stupid and wrong? Offensive. Saying that homosexuality is sin? Offensive. Saying that sleeping together before marriage is wrong? Offensive. Christianity itself is offensive in a lot of ways to a lot of people.
Heck, the Bible is offensive. Read Psalm 137, where the Psalmist brings up brutal child murder in a positive light. And then there’s all the rape, incest, grotesque murder, gore, genocide, hatred, war, and explicit language. Ezekiel is full of explicit references to Israel as a prostitute. Song of Songs isn’t for the ears of kids.
6. “Christian music” means it speaks “Christianese.”
Maybe the definition is that Christian music has to use the language of the Christian church, Christianese. Maybe songs have to use words like “amen,” “hallelujah,” “salvation,” “wonderful,” “savior,” “lamb,” etc.
This being said, my favorite heretics Phillips, Craig, and Dean are back in the Christian camp, as well as most other current worship bands and a lot of country songs. But Robbie Seay Band, Lifehouse, and some songs by David Crowder Band would be excluded. This would be dumb.
Besides, Jesus and the disciples never spoke Christianese, and neither did anyone who served God before them. Just as merely using Christian words doesn’t make a person a Christian, neither does it make a song a Christian song.
So, like I said, the definition I’m happiest with is #1, but I’m not totally sold on it, and I’d have to up and change the rest of the world first, to get rid of all the baggage inherent with the term.
What are your thoughts? What does the term currently mean? Is it worth redefining it, or should we just throw it out? What are some possible definitions I didn’t bring up? Willing to defend any of the definitions I mentioned?

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 15, 2007 at 9:14 am
schillicous
Well said.
November 15, 2007 at 11:03 am
Jaybrams
If being a Christian means (literally) a follower / disciple of Jesus Christ, than literally “Christian music” should mean music that exemplifies what it is like to follow Christ. So perhaps the only way to define the term is to define what it means to express one’s walk with Christ. This can be summed up in simplistic terms but is much more layered than it appears… kinda like onions, wedding cakes or Shrek … (sorry i have kids).
Case in Point: I write mediocre music but have been told that my poetry is decent so we’ll use that as an example. I’ve written everything from uplifting words to poems that sound like I’m ready to abandon Christ. I’ve written songs about girls, relationships, my wife, my children, my pain, my struggles, my hatred, my failures, my lack of self-esteem, my arrogance, my disdain for church, mixed with a plethora of “worshipful” songs. As a man who is trying to devotely follow Christ, should we throw out my lyrics / songs / poems that do not “uplifit?” Heck, sometimes I use the the most vulgar of all words if that is how I’m feeling at the time… all of these emotions and situations are literally birthed from my walk with Christ and skewed by my Christian worldview, even when the poem or song does not uplift Him at all.
We have such a different standard for music than we do for all other types of entertainment and art that it is ridiculous. Consider Thomas Kincaid: One of the best “Christian” artists ever yet none of his stuff (that I know of) actually portrays a biblical scene. It is hillsides and houses and nature. If they hadn’t smacked a verse plate on the frame, no one outside of his sphere of influence would’ve ever known he’s a Christian.
Truth is always Truth, but it is revealed in so many ways. As with all things, we must look at them with an observant and discerning eye. The sad bottom line, though, is you can only define it for yourself and those that you influence because the media will continue to define it how they see fit (currently your 2nd definition). It is up to the artists (many already mentioned in these two posts) to break the mold of the mainstream definition.
Man, you’ve got me ramblin’ twice now…
November 15, 2007 at 11:58 am
JJ
I believe the phrase “Christian music” is a misnomer. And so, I appreciate the grasping at a definition. People can be “Christian” or not. Their actions and words can be labeled as “Christian,” but music doesn’t fit this category. Music doesn’t need to repent and believe. So, I believe the term muddies the water. Also see this blog http://discerningmind.org/?p=63
However, if we ask the question “What music should I be listening to as a Christian?” then that is a horse of a different color. The broadest command in the Bible is to glorify God in whatever you do. (So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31) So, this applies to music, tv, internet, etc. When I watch “Heroes,” “Journeyman,” watch vids on YouTube or listen to Denison Witmer I must think about them in a way that is obedient to God’s commands. I need to evaluate biblically what is being presented (for example: evolution from Heroes) and think biblically about the subject(s). However, if music ULTIMATELY drags you down into depression and despair, then I would suggest avoiding that music until you can fight against the hopeless message it presents you with. (I know the Bible presents us with hopelessness at times, but does so in ways such as narratives that we can learn from. We are always commanded to be joyful and full of hope. This is not always easy. However, neither is perfection, but we are told to strive for that.) For a talk related to this subject, go here: http://www.crossroadsbiblefellowship.org/?show=teaching
Look for the talk from 5-27-2007 labeled Cultural Evangelism: Acts 17 by Mike Feather.
Love the blog. Just found it. Keep up the good work!
November 15, 2007 at 4:35 pm
jakestimp
Way to go on the rambling, Jaybrams! That’s what blogging is all about, isn’t it?
I agree about our double standard when it comes to music. I wonder if the existence of a Christian Music Industry has conditioned us to have this weird standard? There is no Christian Film Industry or Christian Paintings Industry, so we don’t have to work through things as much. If a painting inspires us or seems to be inspired by God, then we call it as such, but in music, if it inspires us but it’s not in with the CCM crowd, we’re not sure what to make of it.
November 15, 2007 at 4:44 pm
jakestimp
Thanks for the links, JJ. These will help in my quest to solve everything about the Christian Music Industry. Well, they’ll at least make me happy anyway.
I’m tending to agree with your synopsis that you have to look at the music and see how it affects you on an individual basis, not just take everything as either “Christian music” or “secular music” and judge it based solely on the label it’s given. I think I’m coming to the conclusion that we need to just delete the whole “Christian music” term, but I’m not quite ready to give in yet.
November 18, 2007 at 9:49 pm
jessie
I think I’m with Derek Webb on this one when he said,
“don’t teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for
don’t teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music
don’t teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law
…
don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law” (A New Law)
I think we should just do away with the whole label thing anyway and make people pay attention to what they listen to and why and not let someone else decide what’s “Christian enough” for them to listen to. Or maybe we could just leave the whole CCM thing for those who want to be like the folks Derek Webb is picking on.
November 19, 2007 at 7:19 am
jakestimp
Jessie, I think that’s the conclusion I’m coming to as well.
November 19, 2007 at 3:36 pm
JJ
Hey, jakestimp. (Odd name your mama gave you.) Yeah, I have given this subject quite some thought, so I have come to a lot of conclusions about music, in general. One other link I would mention is http://www.songmeanings.net/ Recently, I stumbled across it and found it quite helpful to decipher what was being said in some songs. You might have to wade through a few opinions until you find something helpful, but it seems like a good site.
And as far as the term “Christian music” goes, I’m not necessarily suggesting we delete it from our vocab. Rather, I want to see believers help other believers struggle through what they mean by that and to think about music (Xian or otherwise) in the right way. Keep fighting the good fight!
December 8, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Matt
Christian music is primarily an industry and Christian rock music is a genre birthed out of the Jesus Movement. The people making Christian music are professing Christians. Although for some bands it’s like if you have 1 Christian in the band, then the band is a Christian band.
The whole classification thing is difficult because there are people who I may or may not think are Christians that some consider to be making Christian music.
John Fischer, a Christian rock pioneer, talks a lot about Christian music. He says in the beginning it was about “saving the world with our guitars”. What he said it’s become is music marketed to Christians.
Whether you like Christian music or not is irrelevant, but I think Christians need to make music for God everywhere and anywhere to make his presence known. Whether it’s in a church or a bar, on MTV or TBN, on Capitol Records or Sparrow Records, Christians need to infect the culture with God’s presence.
I wish band members would stop saying “We’re not a Christian band, we’re Christians in a band” and say “We are Christians. We are not ashamed of Christ and if you’re interested we’d love to tell you about our faith and our God.” It’s not important how people classify your band, but it is important you do what God calls you to do. And I think he calls everyone to share their faith when the time is right.
I think people do sometimes gravitate toward spiritual music like U2 or Pedro the Lion or Creed. But not everybody making spiritual music shares the same worldview and what I interpret as the listener is not always the same as what the writer is intending. So I think we need to remember that everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.
I think that the separation of church and state affects our entire culture including entertainment. It’s for this reason that record labels don’t want songs too Christian and TV stations don’t want cartoons having Bible verses. So we have this problem. As Christians we have a Bible that tells us to share our faith, but we have a secular media culture that wants music without faith because they’re afraid of offending people.
So I think there is a struggle for Christians to make music for the world that doesn’t offend people. To walk the line of we’re Christians, but we’re not trying to convert you. And at the same you want to draw people to God and tell people about your faith.
So the question is: Do we fight in the Matrix or outside the Matrix? Certainly there is a place for Christian music in the Christian ghetto, but it also needs to be in the world’s neighborhood. Christians need to be in the world, but not of it. Such a difficult concept.
Keith Green struggled with this. He was playing shows to Christian people, but he wanted to start a secular band, so that he could outreach to the masses. But God never allowed him to go do that. I’m not really sure why that was, but I think he certainly had an incredible impact from within the Christian scene.
I don’t know of that many Christian rockers who sing for the world that have this incredible impact. So the question is whether it’s better to try to compromise on certain principles to get your music heard or just preach to the choir.
I think God calls different people to different things. He can use anyone, anywhere at any time. But I think groups of Christians working together is what God wants whether that’s in the church or not. So I lean toward singing for believers as opposed to trying to walk to the tight rope. But I think it’s OK to walk the tight rope, because God needs Christians in the circus too.
December 8, 2007 at 9:55 pm
jakestimp
Thanks for the comments, Matt! First, I want to acknowledge that you’ve probably got the coolest blog title I’ve ever seen. Microwavable Martian? Who wouldn’t love going there?
Second, I think I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don’t think it necessarily shows a lack of integrity or devotion to God when a band gives the classic (and over-used) line, “We’re not a Christian band, we’re Christians in a band.” That doesn’t bother me, because by saying that, the bands are still being clear that they’re Christians. What annoys me is when bands will say the first half, “We’re not a Christian band,” but leave out the second part. That seems more like a fear of man and willingness to compromise, which I’m sure Jesus isn’t too happy about.
February 1, 2009 at 1:48 am
Keith Mohr
Good discussion. Not too much to add, but I like what everyone is sharing.