Thank God for Christian Rock

xnrkOn March 23, 1997, I gave my heart to God. I was a heathen agnostic. I was undeniably a sinner. Yet God granted me grace and repentance and I was reborn by faith in Christ Jesus. It changed my life in ways I did not anticipate.

For example, I found myself getting rid of a lot of my books, movies and music because they contained stuff that I simply would not have felt comfortable having in my home if Jesus came by for a visit. I grew up in church, so I had some idea of what God expected out of his followers. Unfortunately, I grew up in a more legalistically fundamentalist sect of Christianity and this colored my views of God and his expectations.

The point remains that, even if I erred on the side of caution,  I got rid of a lot of stuff for the sake of my walk with Christ. Another thing that happened was I had to make a choice about my band. I was the lead vocalist in a local metal band I’d helped form. I’d written all of the lyrics – and that was well over 100 songs! Unfortunately, my unregenerate self was a rather vile and pagan lyricist, so I no longer felt comfortable singing those songs. Nor did I think it fair to my band-mates to insist that we begin singing Christian lyrics; that wasn’t what they’d signed on for. So I gave up the band and stepped away from that scene. While I enjoyed singing hymns due to my upbringing, I had an affinity for rock and roll, as you can well imagine. So when my baby brother introduced me to this band called Skillet, I was just overjoyed! Here was a Christian band, singing about their faith and strengthening mine – and they did it with rock music.

The point I’m getting at is that I’d been warned that rock and roll was the Devil’s music. Folks were quite adamant about that. They reminded me [ala’ Bob Larson] that many big-name secular bands were into the occult and Satanism. They reminded me that the lyrics of secular bands contained references to sex, drugs and the occult.  They repeated the tales of suicide victims listening to morbid rock lyrics and warned of the dangers of hidden messages implanted via back-masking. And that was supposed to be that.

But that was comparing apples to oranges. Of course secular bands have bad lyrics and ascribe to bad ideas and ideologies. Christian bands, by definition, have Christian themes and lyrics instead. Furthermore, a bit more investigation revealed that there is no research to suggest that lyrics  that can only be heard when you play a record backwards [which are often only coincidental phonemes that only vaguely sound like what they’re supposed to say] have any effect on a person’s behavior or beliefs. Furthermore persons who commit suicide do not commit suicide because of the music they listen to. Quite the reverse. Depressed persons find music that resonates with their mood and intent. People have committed suicide to mood music from various genres, including rock, classical, country, etc. To call rock music the cause of these suicides is simply false; using such anecdotes as evidence that rock is the Devil’s music simply says that the person objecting to rock cares less about truth than he does his own biases and preferences.

Now at this point I want to prevent critics from making the ridiculous mistake of saying something to the effect that God was bringing me out of my rock music or that God was convicting me to get rid of the genre. The general claim is that I’ve said something to the effect of “Before I was saved, I was a nudist. Then I clothed myself after I was saved. But then someone showed me Christian nudism, and I was overjoyed!” That analogy assumes that rock is evil a priori. But I wasn’t convicted of the genre; I was convicted of some of the messages that some songs in the genre contained. What I am saying is that “Before I was saved, I ate rotten apples. Then I stopped eating apples altogether until someone showed me that I could eat apples that were not rotten and how to discern between good and rotten apples.” I could also use the analogy of fire: “Before I was saved, I used fire to hurt, destroy and kill. When I became a Christian I thought I had to give up fire, but then someone showed me how to use fire to cook, keep warm and clear land, how to use fire safely and properly and how to discern when things are getting out of hand.” Of course, if you’re the type of person who throws out the baby with the bathwater, I can understand if the distinction between medium and message or entity and use is confusing.

Modern Day Pharisees

Recently I ran across one of those anti-Christian rock articles that are quite simply an affront to reason, sound Scriptural exegesis and common sense. This article hit all of the Bob Larson bases; I could have predicted where it was going long before it got there. The trouble with his argument is that he was assuming that rock was evil from the outset and then using the Scripture that says a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit to argue against Christian rock. The other side of that coin [the part of the verse he didn’t want us to thin about] is that a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit. This is a real problem for his entire premise of rock and roll being the Devil’s music. If a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit [Matthew 7:18], as Jesus said, how is it that folks who listen to Christian rock affirm that it helped them to find faith, or that it strengthened their faith or that it helped them to admit to and address some sin in their life? These Christian rock objectors imply that listening to Christian rock is something of a gateway drug to secular rock and will cause a Christian to backslide or apostasize entirely. But that’s NOT the testimony that Christian rock has from its fans! Instead we see Christian rock bearing good fruit and secular rock bearing corrupt fruit.

The fellow who penned the anti-rock article began with a note that we need to use discernment when we listen to music, buuuut what he really meant was that we need to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Now I do agree that we need to use discernment when we listen to music. I just don’t think we ought to be worldly about it.  Jesus said to judge righteously, not merely by appearances [John 7:24].  Paul warned the Colossian Church, saying:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” [Col 2:8]

He goes on to rebuke the Colossians for falling back into following ordinances and the traditions of men:

“Why if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances,  (Touch not; taste not; handle not;  Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?” [Col 2:20-22]

Touch not, taste not, handle not is still the substitute religion of the modern-day Pharisee. Pharisees like to add things to the commandment of God – and sometimes they mean well – but in doing so they go further than God intended. For example, when Jesus’ disciples were hungry on the Sabbath day, they picked corn to eat as they passed through the field [Mark 2:23-28]. The Pharisees were livid! In their zeal to obey God’s commandments, specifically the 4th Commandment, they’d come up with all of these extra rules and regulations. In this case, they wanted to precisely define “work” so that they didn’t break the Sabbath. They had decided for example that a man could only walk so far before it was considered work. The trouble was that they forgot that God never said the things they’d added to His commandments. They saw them as one and the same.

In response, Jesus reminded them that David ate the showbread from the altar when he was hungry, though by law it was only to be eaten by the priests. By his example, Jesus made it clear that they were being too legalistic in their approach. Furthermore, they had the wrong perspective: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

In a parallel passage in Matthew 12, Jesus rebuked them with Scripture, saying, “If you had learned what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless.” Now the irony is that Jesus had actually told them to go and learn what that Scripture meant before this incident. When Jesus called Matthew [Matt 9], he ate with Matthew’s friends who were publicans and sinners. When the Pharisees saw this, they rebuked Jesus for associating with sinners, but Jesus answered them by saying, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.  But go you and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus was quoting Hosea 6:6, in which the Lord says, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” The Pharisees weren’t concerned with reaching sinners and showing them God. Rather, they were interested in showing how righteous they were and in condemning everyone who didn’t fall in line with their standard of holiness. Rather than being their brother’s keeper, they laid weights on people that were hard to bear because they weren’t what God had intended [Matt. 15:3; Mark 7:13]… and they never lifted a finger to help others shoulder those weights [Matt 23:4]! pharisees

If you want to see a worldly man, look at the Pharisees. They were conformed to the rudiments of this world rather than being transformed by the renewing of their minds through Christ [to paraphrase Romans 12:2]. True discernment doesn’t lie that way. Neither is discernment based on our feelings. It’s based on letting the Holy Spirit lead us through God’s Word. We have to study God’s Word if we’re to know how to rightly divide it [2 Tim 2:15]. Rest assured the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth [John 16:13] and that when a man asks God for wisdom, your Creator gives it in abundance [James 1:5].

Now this anti-rock Pharisee used all of the typical arguments. He even noted that the term “rock and roll” used to be a slang term for sex. He concludes this section by claiming, “With the understanding that ‘rock’ is a slang term for fornication, when someone says ‘rock music’, they are actually saying ‘sex music’, and when someone says ‘Christian rock music’, they are actually saying ‘Christian sex music’, which is an oxymoronic phrase.” And of course the Bible warns us against fornication, so open and shut, right?

Unfortunately, he is using a logical fallacy called the etymological fallacy. This fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. For example, do you worship Norse gods and goddesses? Probably not, but did you know that the origin of the names of the days of the week are references to Norse mythology? What would you say to someone who suggested that you were a pagan idolater because you made an appointment on Thursday [Thor’s Day]? You’d tell him that the meaning of the word today [the fifth day of the week or the fourth weekday] has nothing to do with its origins!

I will not deny that sex is a thematic elements of some secular songs and acts in the rock genre, but the term “rock and roll” no longer refers to the sex act; that’s a far out-dated use of the word. In its normative use, rock and roll refers to “a genre of popular music that originated and evolved in the United States during the late 1940s and early 1950s, primarily from a combination of African-American genres such as blues, jump blues, jazz, and gospel music, together with Western swing and country music.” [src: Wikipedia].

But to say the term Christian rock is like saying Christian sex music… well, even hardcore detractors of Christian rock would be hard-pressed to find an example of a sex-themed Christian rock song, so his argument is a case of special pleading. Now the Pharisee who wrote the anti-rock article that inspired this article tried to defend this error by saying:

“In order for me to have violated logical laws, the definition of “rock and roll” would have had to change at some point over the past 60 years. Again, this particular style of music was given the label “sex-on-the-go” (i.e. rock and roll), and the definition of it has never changed. The context in which “rock” is used always refers to the musical genre, which was labeled based on the “sex-on-the-go” term, and proof of this can often been seen in modern movies and shows today that depict sex orgies or wild acts of fornication because you will most often hear rock music played in the background.”

That’s right. He just said we know the definition has never changed because you “most often” [based on his wide sampling pool I’m sure] hear rock music playing in the background during sex scenes in movies and TV shows. I’ve also heard rap, country, classical, reggae and, yes, even Gospel played in the background during such sex-related scenes. I’ve also heard rock in the background for scenes that portray violence, depression, celebration, determination, love, comedy and camaraderie [a short list, to be sure]. This reductionist argument from usage fails because it is derived from cherry-picking [a selective use of evidence rooted in confirmation bias]; furthermore, he cannot provide a single modern dictionary that includes “sex-on-the-go music” as a current definition, which means this argument is in fact an etymological fallacy because it is based on such an out-dated definition of rock and roll that the typical reaction to any revelation of the term’s origin is usually met with the reaction, “Really? I was not aware of that.”

He then used all of the Bob Larson arguments we’ve discussed, making no difference between the holy and the profane and this assuming that all rock was bad so Christian rock must be an oxymoron. Of course, since Christian rock doesn’t contain Satanic lyrics, sexual themes or anything else he objects to in secular rock, he is forced to ask, “What does all of this have to do with Christian rock?” Quite simply, he hoped to condemn Christian rock by association with secular rock by using an etymological fallacy and a selective use of evidence [cherry-picking his examples]. He had not proved his point at all by this False Analogy between Satanic variants of secular rock and Christian rock. All the bad apples in the world have no bearing on either good apples or oranges.

Void for Vagueness?

Of course, since Christian rock doesn’t contain any of the themes he objects to in secular rock, he and other modern-day Pharisees must resort to attempting to tear down Christian rock lyrics by a different standard than the one they use to condemn secular rock. They usually accuse Christian rock lyrics of being vague and self-centered. In fact, the author of the post I criticized made the claim that “most of the words are useless and have little to do with edification and praise to the Jesus Christ of the Bible.” [emphasis mine]. Most? Really? Can he verify that somehow? Or is he just hoping he’s preaching to the choir? Sweeping generalizations aside, the fact is that a lot of the stuff I hear on contemporary Christian radio like K-Love and Air1 is not vague at all: the lyrics mention God, Jesus and specific doctrinal truths. This critic is simply ignoring a large body of evidence that contradicts his claims. progressivechristianity

We also have to ask ourselves if vagueness [however vaguely defined by critics of Christian rock] is a legitimate criteria for criticizing Christian music. I can understand that someone who is not a lyricist might get bent out of shape over a song being vague, but if we’re going to start condemning stuff that doesn’t contain an overt and clear reference to God in a consistent manner, we’re going to have to chuck the book of Esther from our Bibles. Note that Esther may not contain any overt or clear mentions of God, theology or doctrine, but it does convey God’s providence and care for His people.

Of course, the usual charge is that some Christian rock songs and some secular love songs are largely indistinguishable from one another. My answer to this is: so what? Are Christians [who are commanded to love their wives] not allowed to write a love song? Without being arbitrary in our standard, what distinguishes the book of Esther or the Song of Solomon as being holy rather than secular? The answer is context. The context makes the meaning clear that the song is about God. Every Skillet or Third Day fan knows what their songs are about, even if a particular song does not specifically reference God or Christ. Anyone hearing such a song on Christian radio knows what they are about. These songs are not sung in a vacuum. And for every song a detractor might find vague, he or she ignores just as many songs, if not more, that make overt references to God, Jesus Christ and passages of Scripture. This selective review of the evidence is damning to their argument.

When charging Christian rock lyrics with being self-centered, an objector has to ignore a good many hymns and Psalms that emphasize the personal experience of the believer. In fact, I pointed out to the Pharisee that wrote the anti-rock article that inspired this post that  he’d basically emphasized the I/me/my phrases in Christian rock songs and called them self-centered and emphasized the God/Christ phrases in hymns. The fact that he didn’t apply his method consistently, betrayed his bias. For example, he offered the following comparison:

Building 429 – “Where I Belong” SELF-Centered It Is Well With My Soul GOSPEL-Centered
Sometimes it feels like I’m watching from the outside Sometimes it feels like I’m breathing but am I alive I won’t keep searching for answers that aren’t here to find All I know is I’m not home yet This is not where I belong Take this world and give me Jesus This is not where I belong So when the walls come falling down on me And when I’m lost in the current of a raging sea I have this blessed assurance holding me. When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul. Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And hath shed His own blood for my soul. And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll; The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul.

He’s emphasized the I/me/my phrases in the Christian rock song and the emphasized the theological elements of the hymn. Unfortunately, I could just as easily reverse this:

Building 429 – “Where I Belong” SELF-Centered It Is Well With My Soul GOSPEL-Centered
Sometimes it feels like I’m watching from the outside Sometimes it feels like I’m breathing but am I alive I won’t keep searching for answers that aren’t here to find All I know is I’m not home yet This is not where I belong Take this world and give me Jesus This is not where I belong So when the walls come falling down on me And when I’m lost in the current of a raging sea I have this blessed assurance holding me. When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul. Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And hath shed His own blood for my soul. And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll; The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul.

If we’re fair in our assessment, both songs contain elements that are Gospel-centered and Self-centered, because these songs are Christian songs that relate a personal testimony. Both songs say essentially the same thing: “I have this blessed assurance holding me” or “It is well with my soul” no matter how the sea rages or the sea billows roll. Both were saying they weren’t truly home yet. The songs differ after this theme because they were written by different men with different experiences. Again, there is no Scriptural reason why we cannot write songs from a personal POV that emphasizes our personal testimony.  In fact, my grandfather used to say of the hymn “Blessed Assurance” that he was singing his testimony.

Arguments from Reductionism

Another tactic of the anti-Christian rock crowd is to ask, “Is this edifying?” This is a reductionist tactic that ignores the fact that not even the Word of God is all edification. Just as the Bible contains warnings, edification, rebukes, doctrine, etc [2 Tim 3:16-17], song lyrics may expound a theme that is not necessarily edifying, but does address some Christian doctrine. For example, the Pharisee to whom I responded included a quote from some Rob Rock lyrics [see below] that were clearly allusions to the Book of Revelation and Jesus’ prophetic warnings of the Last Days in Matthew 24. Unless we’re going to veto readings of those and similar prophetic passages, we cannot use a reductionist definition of “edifying” to veto Christian rock.

The same argument would apply against a reductionist question of “Does it praise God/Jesus?” as again not all Scripture is praise, but also contains history, poetry, prophecy, rebuke, doctrine, correction, etc. One variant of this that has come to my attention is the claim that “Psalm 66 clearly demonstrates how we should write a truly Biblical praise of God.” Sigh. This is why these guys make horrible lyricists. I’m not saying you couldn’t write a song using Psalm 66 as a guideline; I will state that Psalm 66 does not in any seek to demonstrate how one should write a truly Biblical praise of God. It’s an invitation to praise God zealously; it speaks nothing to form, structure or genre.

Yet another similar tactic in this vein is to misapply Philippians 4:8. If the Bible truly meant what they attempt to make Phillipians 4:8 mean, we couldn’t read most of the Old Testament for all of the murder, rape, adultery, etc., contained in some passages. Sometimes a passage is true but not necessarily lovely, like David’s challenge to Goliath or truthful accounts of man’s sin. Paul was telling the church at Philippi to meditate on these good things because right thinking leads to right action/behavior. He was not saying that we should never think about things that are evil or false; if this were the case, the anti-rock critic has made a hypocrite of himself and caused fellow Christians to sin by dedicating a post to the evils of secular rock!

A final tactic in the reductionist vein that should be mentioned is the objection that a particular song is weak on a particular point of doctrine. Songs are NOT theological treatises. They may be personal testimonies. They may emphasize a particular doctrine or theme [grace, confessions of sin, God’s love, dealing with doubt, joy, edifications to do more good and/or share the Gospel, warnings of future judgment, etc]. Some contain more doctrine than others and this is usually based on the chosen theme or the tone of the song. Hymns are no different in this regard, because have limitations that are inherent in the art form. Books and sermons have different constraints. in short, this objection betrays  a basic misunderstanding of what a song is. Bottom line: don’t fall for this sleight of hand.

Each of these tactics is an attempt to set up a False Dilemma. There is no Scriptural warrant for condemning a song based on vaguely defined “vagueness” or any of the qualifications these modern-day Pharisees have contrived. In fact, if applied fairly and without bias, all of their contrivances tend to condemn certain portions of Scripture that are out-of-line with their standards. That pretty says you’re doing it wrong, guys.

Emotional Appeals

Don’t be fooled. It isn’t about the lyrics. It’s about the genre. There are tons of Christian rock songs with lyrics would wholly approve of they that these guys ignore. If they were to judge these songs by the lyrics alone, could they condemn them? Would they condemn hymns that were put to rock music? They most certainly would. In fact, the Pharisee I responded to wrote the following challenge: “Look to the Lord God and be honest about which one of these would the chosen Twelve Apostles would approve for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Rob Rock – “Judgement Day” It Is Well With My Soul
Violence, wrath and chaos, Blood fills the street Generals lead their masses, Children at their feet Come Armageddon, The woman rides the beast Wisdom from the heavens, Anger, plagues, disease Lead the nations astray, Kill the prophets and saints Deluded and fallen, the mark of the beast Judgment Day When the stars fall from the sky Good and evil will collide There’s a rider on the storm Bringing justice and the sword When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul. Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And hath shed His own blood for my soul. And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll; The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul.

After warning in the beginning of his article that we cannot rely on our feelings to determine God’s will, this Pharisee asks his readers to respond to this blatant emotional appeal. He wants you to answer based on how the music makes you feel and how you feel the Twelve Apostles would react. Ironically, the answer to his question of which music the Twelve Apostles would approve for the church is neither. The Apostles would find both musical styles completely foreign to their historical and cultural tastes. This evident cultural bias is a common fallacy committed by Christian culture warriors; they simply assume that their tastes are what God approves of.

Poisoning the Well

A lot of times, you will see blatant attempts to poison the well. This is a a logical fallacy where someone tries to taint the opponent’s position by associating it with something that is bad but ultimately irrelevant to the argument. For example, the article I objected to noted that Skillet fans call themselves Panheads and made the following remarks:

“It’s interesting to note that ‘panhead’ is referring to cookwear, but ‘Pan’ is also one of the satanic gods that Aleister Crowley worshiped. Earlier, I quoted the “Hymn to Pan,” which was the poem/song Crowley wrote claiming that he was a god himself, and that he rapes and rends forever. Why would a born-again Christian call oneself a ‘panhead’ for any reason?”

Of course, the answer is that cookware [skillets, pans, etc] has nothing to do with Pan, so there is NO reason why a Christian fan of Skillet should not to call themselves a panhead. His entire argument is a non sequitur and a case of special pleading. He hasn’t given us any reason to abstain calling ourselves a panhead other than an irrelevant definition of pan that is inapplicable to the situation. Of course, this Pharisee knows that the term Panhead has no association with the god Pan or with Satanist Aliester Crowley. Several persons have pointed out that the association is unwarranted, but this Pharisee continues to try to associate them. Why let the facts get in the way of a useful bullet point, eh?

Another tactic is guilt by association. Anti-Christian rock critics will note that Christian rock bands often look like secular bands. They ignore the fact that most of these fashion and hairstyle choices are more indicative of the culture and decade a person is engaging and do not indicate that a person is a Satan worshipper or that their desires are worldly rather than spiritual. Truly as God said to Samuel, “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart” [1 Sam 16:7]. This  is why Jesus told us we should “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” [John 7:24].

But wait! Doesn’t 1 Thessalonians 5:22 say that we are to  “Abstain from all appearance of evil”? Yep. The problem is that the Greek work eidos [translated as appearance in the KJV] doesn’t mean anything like semblance. That word actually means something more like the modern words kind or type. What this verse means is that we are to avoid any type of actual evil. It does not mean that we are to abstain from things that may or may not be evil but look evil outwardly, because that would force us to disobey Christ’s command not to judge by outward appearances!

Worse still, they condemn Christian rock groups for hanging out with secular artists. When these guys make that objection, all I can hear is the Pharisees scoffing, “This man eats with sinners and publicans!”

Sometimes you will also hear the charge that rock music is associated with violence and death. The critic who wrote the article that inspired this one wrote that heavy metal is associated with death and destruction… and then provided a military recruiting video as proof! We covered this objection already in exposing the etymological fallacy in the charge that rock and roll is sex music. Again, rock [even metal variants] is chosen as the background music for scenes that portray violence, depression, celebration, determination, love, comedy, sex and, camaraderie and so on and so forth. We also covered it when we dealt with rock music being misrepresented as the cause of suicides rather than being one of many genres depressed individuals choose as mood music to go along with that senseless act.

The absolute worst attempt to condemn by association is the accusation that Christian rock artists use the Devil’s sign. The Pharisee who got my attention with his anti-Christian rock rant correctly noted that this hand sign for Satan is identical to the ASL sign for “I love you.” Predictably, he claims that Christian rock artists are really giving the goat-head devils sign and not signing “I love you,” because rock is bad. Furthermore, he notes that Helen Keller was a Swedenborgian so she must have somehow come up with the “I love you” sign via the power of the Devil, inadvertently causing countless deaf people and [later] Christian rock artists to ignorantly make the Devil’s sign when they mean to say “I love you.”

OK. Breathe. Context determines meaning. If you say, “She’s hot” and you’re checking a thermometer, you’re probably not commenting on how attractive you think she is. The same normative rule of communication applies here. The devil did not sneak the goat-head sign into ASL. It’s more like a a homonym. This guy owes the entire deaf community a great big apology – as does his fan club, who have not had the integrity to rebuke him on this point!

Again, all claims against Christian rock boil down to one thing: trying to misuse Scripture and logical fallacies to confirm one’s own biases against a genre that others are successfully using for the glory of God. Just as Christian rock music from artists like Skillet, Third Day, Thousand Foot Krutch have helped to strengthen my faith and resolve to follow hard after God by the messages in their songs, many other have similar testimonies. Rock is a genre. It is no more inherently evil than country, classical or hymnody. It can be used for good or evil and demonstrably so.

So thank God for Christian rock.

“Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.” Psalm 33:3 christian-rock-concert-drums-small-78671


107 Comments Add yours

  1. This is a struggle that I’ve had for years. No, not with the music, but with legalistic Christians. One time, I approached a pastor about taking the youth group to a Christian rock concert. He refused because it was “worldly” and had the “appearance of evil”.

    Ummm…so a guy who dresses like a banker condemns a music style as “worldly”? Show me in Scripture where any style of music is forbidden. “Verily, stay thee away from the detestable rhythms of the Philistines. And the counterpoint harmonies of the Hittites are an abomination unto me.”

    My point of contention has long been that music is like other things, a tool to be used for good for for evil. To be consistent, wouldn’t that preacher have to give up using a microphone, since Communists use microphones, too? We can do a “guilt by association” thing for hours, but the point remains that the most important part of Christian rock is the lyrics. For that matter, I’ve been in churches that gave weaker sermons than I received listening to lyrics by Petra.

  2. tony-c says:

    Thanks for this rigorous defense of Christian music. I used to play in a Christian band (we played coffee houses with Building 429 when they were just a local band) and I work with some Christian bands today as an engineer/producer. Since I spend so much time with these musicians and have been there myself, I’d like to add an angle to this discussion about the musicians.

    Young Christian artists don’t always see themselves as ministers or leaders; they may just see themselves as artists with Christian convictions and influences. They are sharing art that touches people who may not show up in a church in a Sunday morning.

    They may be at a stage in their life where they’re learning more about the world and making their own decisions as they become independent adults. They may be feeling alienated, they may be questioning and doing those things artistic people tend to do in their heads. I’ve seen first hand how much damage can be done by legalists and judgmental people who criticize and discourage them at this critical point. Instead of cordoning off entire art forms at the expense of the musicians and those they play to, I believe the Church should be edifying them. It’s like supporting the troops since these kids are on the front lines yet aren’t the leadership. They are a voice of and to their own generation and produce art that also benefits the Church across generations and advances the Kingdom. I know that grumpy churchfolk and Christian rock opponents may feel called to be gate-keepers and doctrine-defenders, but I hope they take caution before throwing stones at Christian artists (especially while their fans are watching). It can cause a lot of damage based on shaky reasoning, as you’ve addressed here in your post. *Sorry for the long post.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Thanks for your thoughtful and much-needed comments. Well said! ;]

  3. I am against Christian rock music, but not because of the lyrics. I’m also not a legalist. I think the problem with Christian rock lies with the music itself. Like it or not, all music carries a message, with or without lyrics. Music is a language, the language of the emotions. Some emotions are good for the Christian, and some are bad. Therefore, some music is good for the Christian, and some is bad (Remember, I’m talking about music, not lyrics). Can Christians use Satan’s music, which carries a sensual, immoral message and infuse it with good? Absolutely not. That would be like saying poison is OK to drink if you change the label on the bottle. There is no denying that rock music is sexual.
    John Oates said, “Rock ‘n’ roll is 99% sex.”
    Debra Harry of Blondie said, “The main ingredients in rock are sex and sass.”
    Rapper Luke Campbell of 2 Live Crew said, “The sex is definitely in the music, and sex is in all aspects in the music.”
    There are countless quotes from rockers and scientists alike who attest to the fact that rock music is sexually appealing. The very term “rock ‘n’ roll” implies sexual activity (if you don’t believe me, look it up).
    How then can we justify putting Jesus Christ into this filthy music? It would seem to me to be the height of blasphemy to mix sex and our Savior and then call it wholesome entertainment.
    Believe me, I’m not judging you or putting myself on a higher level than you. I speak about this topic with authority because I have experience with it. I spent years listening to Switchfoot, Skillet, Red, and other highly talented rock bands. I have been on both sides of the coin, and I took a Bible college course on music.
    I hope what I’ve said makes sense. Feel free to ask any questions or make any objections. I’m just a fellow Christian who cares.

    1. Tony Breeden says:


      Your argument suffers from being reductionist. You state that rock and roll is the Devil’s music without bothering to prove that point [and you could only make your case if you gave us a biased sample of rock music as you did with this sample of quotes].
      Furthermore, you evidence the fact that you did not read my article, for you commit the etymological fallacy of claiming that an anachronistic definition of rock and roll somehow defines what the term means today – even though no one recognizes the term was once a reference to having sex.

      As for your sample quotes, you cannot seriously expect us to believe that John Oates is in any way quoting actual statistics. Furthermore, Harry and Campbell’s quotes are more e reflection of what secular rock bands like 2 Live Crew and Blondie write. The same could not be said of political rockers like Rush and Queensryche. Again, your sample is biased to reflect your preconceptions.

      Music of any genre evokes different moods depending upon the song. Within rock [as in all genres] we find music that evokes sex, violence, joy, love, peace, outrage, etc. Your reductionist argument that rock music is sex music is ridiculous and demonstrably false. Where the Devil did you take your course on music? I would like to write them to see if they put these absurd notions in your head!

      While it would be the height of blasphemy to mix sex and our Savior, you have not proven that any Christian rock band has done so. Rather you have judged another man’s servant by your own biased standard.

      Next time do everyone the courtesy of reading the article BEFORE you comment,

      1. The only true Christian music is the stuff that resembles 1950s country music. That’s what Pastor Glumface told me.

  4. Simon Berger says:

    Thank you very very much for this article. I had soo many discussions already with christian rock music critics…. Its so sad, that they are extremely convicted in error… because they think its the devils music. Why do they give so much credit to the devil? But yeah, if we have a closer look on scripture and rock music (or any music) i really dont see anything that is against rock music… Most, if not all rock critics fail, to have good arguments. Because if you have a closer look to theyre arguments, you see that they are not valid. Things like;

    – It has its roots in paganism/occult etc.
    – It is worldly music
    – It appeals to the flesh etc.

    Thats what i hear all the time from rock critics. But we know the truth about rock music (or any other musicstyle). Thats why i ignore rock critics. Because they will never listen. Thats why i as well could talk to a brick wall =) And thats unfortunately what most of all rock critics are;
    religious-bounded-stiff-necked-brick-walls…. sad to say this, but its true.

    Ok, thanks again brother =) be blessed!
    Many greetings from a swiss guy, who lives in the netherlands =)


    P.s Sorry forgot one thing =) do you know this website? its amazing

  5. Rick says:

    Tony, great article. I want to point out a few other issues with the anti-Christian rock article.
    There is a caption under the “Almost Identical” graphic that states in part “Christians spreading information that isn’t authenticated as true is called ‘gossip’.”.
    Elsewhere, he states “there is a lot of stuff out there that are hoaxes or exaggerations”.
    Aren’t these exactly the things he is spreading?
    Cases in point:
    “Stairway to Heaven was started by demonic channeling.” Where’s your proof?
    “Dora the Explorer played backwards says, “Hail Satan!”” I tried it, and it does not. The phonemes aren’t even close. I doubt if any of the other backwards examples are true.
    The Beatles never had a record titled “Magic Circle”, at least not in the US or UK. Perhaps he was thinking of Magical Mystery Tour.
    The song “I Love You” was not written by Larry Norman and he was only a member of the band People, which actually recorded the song. Furthermore, it is not nor has it ever been considered a Christian song. And it peaked at #14, not #7.
    How does he know that Kevin Max styled his hair to look specifically like Kurt Cobain? Couldn’t it be that he just liked the look?
    Lastly, it is likely that not all the people allegedly making the “Devil sign” are actually doing so. Jenna Bush, pictured with her father, George Bush (who was governor of Texas) was probably making the “Hook ’em horns” as that is associated with the University of Texas at Austin, the mascot of which is the Texas Longhorn, a breed of cattle. Last time I looked, cattle had horns. Neither of those signs are identical to “I love you” in American Sign Language, however.
    All right, I’ve gone on long enough. My point is if the original author’s article, Christopher J. E. Johnson, wants any credibility at all, he at least should get his facts straight. Of course, it’s quite possible he’s not interested in either credibility or facts.


    1. David Buzulak says:

      CCM conformed to this evil world.

      Romans 12:2King James Version (KJV)

      2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God

      1. Tony Breeden says:

        I hope you’re not using a microwave or driving a car if that’s how you mis-translate this verse.

      2. Anonymous says:

        1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

      3. Tony Breeden says:

        The first is true but its application to Christian rock is not.

      4. I’ve seen pastors decry the appearance of worldliness, totally misunderstanding the concept. They are dressed in business suits, looking like bankers and stockbrokers. To be consistent, they should not dress in such a worldly fashion. Or use computers, Or microwaves. Or drive cars. Go and do thou likewise.

      5. Tony Breeden says:

        Indeed, Paul qualifies what he means by worldliness in the book of Colossians [2:8, 20-23]:

        “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ…
        Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.”

        Taste not, Touch not, Handle not is the truest definition of worldliness for it is upon these rudiments that all worldly religions are founded. To borrow a cliché, other religions say do this and don’t do this, but Christianity says done.

      6. bike300 says:

        Well said, sir! Too many Christians live a stagnant life justifying doing whatever pleases themselves. It is usually easier to rationalize what we like then face that it might not be good for us or, more importantly, God-honoring. I myself struggle with this still.
        Another issue with Christian rock is that many of the artists know nothing of doctrine, giving us weak, wishy-washy, and even irreverent songs. It sounds blasphemous to hear many artists groaning, moaning, grunting, screaming, and whispering the holy name of Jesus Christ while shaking their bodies and exuding sexuality.
        Leviticus 10:10 kjv: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
        Leviticus 22:32 kjv: Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,

      7. Tony Breeden says:

        You appear to misunderstand the verses I quoted, so let me lay it on the line for you. I said absolutely noting about Christians living a stagnant life doing whatever pleases them. Rather these verse speak of folks who give the traditions and commandments of men after the rudiments of this world [touch not, taste not, handle not] in place of the commandments of God. It’s as if they feel as if God didn’t go far enough with the Thou Shalt Nots so they add a few rules of their own to account for His lapse! …which is exactly what folks like you are doing where it concerns Christian rock. You are condemning an entire genre without a Biblical warrant, simply because you don’t like it… or can you show me where the Bible forbids any genre of music?

        While there are Christian rock songs that are wishy washy, doctrinally weak or which some folks might find irreverent [I mean, irreverent to what exactly?], if I’m being fair in my standard of judgment I can say the same thing about some hymns and Southern and urban gospel songs.

        As for the vocal stylings of a genre sounding blasphemous to you, I would caution you against speaking evil against your Christian brothers and sisters who perform in a genre you don’t like. I will say that in my experience, I’ve not seen a Christian band that “exuded sexuality.” That seems a rather subjective condemnation at best.

        A final note of caution, while you are correct that Lev. 22:32 forbids blasphemy, you have not established that Christian rock is in any way blasphemous. Sounds blasphemous is not exactly the same thing as being blasphemous. Man looks at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. As for Lev. 10:10, you’ve misapplied it. That verse IN CONTEXT forbids drunkenness in the sanctuary so that we may be able to discern between the holy and profane. I’m sure you’re aware of the effects alcohol has on one’s judgment. Remember: a text without a context is a pretext for error!

      8. Simon Berger says:

        Ooooh loool….. David Buzulak!!! Did you even read the article? Or did you skim it as mostly and just leave a comment which has nothing to do with a musicstyle???? I hope you did read the article! It refutes all of your nonsense teachings against rock music!

    2. Rick says:

      Recently, Mr. Johnson has added to this page with the following questions concerning a Skillet video ( I have added my answers below each question, with some additional comments following the list of questions.
      Do they appear meek and humble?
      How is “meek and humble” supposed to appear? Meekness and humbleness reside in the heart, not in appearance.
      Do they look and sound like the world?
      Again, an appearance oriented question that begs the question “How are Christians supposed to appear?”. People in immoral lifestyles (crime, pornography, etc.) are often conventionally dressed. How does appearance always indicate morality?
      Do you look and listen to them and think, “Wow they’re so righteous in God?”
      Again with appearance. How does righteousness or unrighteousness manifest in appearance?
      Are their actions and words showing the Word of God hidden in their hearts with a meek and quiet spirit?
      Four questions in a row with appearance. See response #1.
      Does it look like they’re instructing others in patience and gentleness?
      Five! How do you know (and please don’t tell me “by their appearance”!)? They are performing! “Instructing others in patience and gentleness” can take place at another time. Or are you saying that those are the only things believers should do?
      Does the world love them or hate them?
      Now here is where you may have a point (albeit a small one). They have had success in the secular arena (charts, awards, etc.) but it seems difficult to tell by that whether the world “loves them or hates them”. Skillet is openly a Christian band and does not try to hide that fact. John Cooper himself is quoted about this larger issue in his Wikipedia entry: “You couldn’t wear black, you couldn’t listen to anything with drums, anything with guitars, you couldn’t have long hair, you couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that. Everything was so lifeless. I know I’d read the Bible and be like…’This isn’t what the Bible says. I like the idea of living for Jesus, but I hate the idea of living for you.’ Ya know?”

      I have met John Cooper three times and not once did he ever seem the least bit opposite of “meek and humble”.

      I know that Tony and others have already touched on these things, but as Mr. Johnson added the above to his page, and as I was struck by the shallowness of his arguments, I wanted to reply.

  6. bike300 says:
    Try and tell me this girl is worshiping God.

    1. Tony Breeden says:


      What Dawn Michele is doing in this video is expressing the music rather than just singing it. I think very often that Christians forget that music is a performance art. In any case, you’ve offered us a veiled bifurcation fallacy, namely that if she isn’t worshipping the way you think of worship that her music can’t be Christian. Maybe they didn’t teach you this at Old Paths Bible Baptist Church but the Bible tells us to do everything we do as unto the Lord. Martin Luther put it this way, “The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good craftsmanship.”

      When we do what we were designed to do with everything we have for God’s glory, whether it is making shoes or making music, we are truly worshipping God. As Casting Crowns puts it, our lifesong sings to God.

      So yes this “girl” [seriously, she was born in 1982; have a little respect] is worshipping God. What you likely objected to was her hair, that tiny bit of spirited head-banging at the beginning of the video, the fact that she is obviously happy (Legalists always seem to have a problem with people being happy without heavy does of fabricated religious guilt), and that she is singing a rock song. And how can she be worshipping God singing a rock song when you’ve decided that genre is the Devil’s music, right? Don’t inflict your musical biases on the revealed Word of God; rather allow yourself to be transformed by what it actually says [rather than what you’d prefer to have it mean].

  7. John says:

    This is my input… If the Music you listen to makes you feel like praising and worshipping God then I’d call that “Christian music”

    However, if you listen to some music that just makes you want to dance or distracts you from your walk with Christ then chances are it may be a “sheep in wolves clothing” kind of music.

    I’m not against Christian Rock. But we have to be careful. The Lord would never bring us into something that would veer us off course from His will. It’s just like the subtle act of changing one word in Gods Word. It changes the entire meaning and then it is no longer Gods Word but a lie.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Respectfully, this presumes that the sole purpose of music is or should be to praise and worship God. This would deny us the possibility of writing a love song for our wife or nation. This would deny us the possibility of a married couple having a special song… unless it mentions God. The book of Esther never mentions God and yet it is understood as a historical tale of God’s providence and watch care for His people. The Song of Solomon is a love poem for one’s betrothed. While theologians have attempted to allegorize it as relating to Christ and his betrothed, the plain meaning of the text is a relationship with another human being.

      As for dancing, it’s in the Bible and many saints of God danced, so I couldn’t disagree with you more on this unBiblical objection you propose.

      I do agree that we have to be careful, but I also think that we have to be careful about applying definitions of acceptable music which would condemn portions of the Bible if applied in a consistent, non-arbitrary manner.

  8. redeemed03 says:

    I’m a rock music fan (Worldy rock) but later found out that there’s really a christian rock music Third day was the first band I listened to. The message of their songs really created a great impact in my heart and in my life. It’s very personal. It brought me to tears and it draws me closer into getting to know Jesus. Now I listened to different kinds of christian rock bands and it’s so encouraging. Thank God for Christian rock. =)

  9. David Buzulak says:

    Third day….I checked them out. Same worldly sound. So what we have is worldly music and some talk about Jesus. Which Jesus? The rock n roll Jesus? Or the Jesus of the bible? Hymn music not enough? We have is a mixture of truth and error-always a mistake.

    A Dangerous Mixture
    By M.H. Reynolds, Jr.

    “Mixing truth and error is exceedingly dangerous, yet most people today seem very content with such a mixture, especially in the field of religious beliefs. The devil has made great headway in convincing the majority of people (including many Christians) that mixing truth and error is not only unavoidable, but can actually be beneficial. As a consequence, when God’s faithful servants expose error and demand absolute separation between truth and error, they are often looked upon as unloving troublemakers.

    The fact of the matter is that the Bible warns about the danger of allowing even a small amount of error to be mixed with truth. God says, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9). By contrast, the devil would have us believe that we are intolerant and bigoted if we insist on separating truth and error and putting accurate labels on each. The question is, “Will we believe God or Satan?” The choice should not be difficult! Satan is a liar, but God cannot lie!”

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Everyone agrees that mixing error with truth is bad; however, you have in no way established that Christian rock or any particular genre of music is prohibited by Scripture. The best you can offer me is that you feel its worldly.

      Define the term worldly please. Because I know what the Bible says that worldliness is. For example, it says not to judge someone after the rudiments of this world (Taste not, touch not, handle not) and associates worldliness with the traditions of men [Colossians 2:8]. You judge by appearances rather than with Godly judgment.

      You also seem to be harping on your old false equivalence argument that because Jesus sang a a 1st century Jewish hymn in Matthew 26:30 that this means we can only sing hymns. The Bible actually says we are to sing psalms, hymns, and spirituals songs [Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16]. In any case, hymns are not a genre. The hymns in your local church hymnbook are not written in the same genre of music as the one Jesus sang.

      Your argument is completely lacking in substance, Pharisee.

      I would add that if you condemn a band like Third Day for their music that you have no measure of discernment at all. I would be careful about condemning God’s servants, sir.

      1. David Buzulak says:

        Worldly-The condition of a Christian who follows the FLESHLY ways of the world (Tit 2:12).

        Webster’s 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]

        1. SECULAR; temporal; pertaining to this world or life, in contradistinction to the life to come; as worldly pleasures; worldly affairs; worldly estate; worldly honor; worldly lusts. Titus 2.

        Webster’s 1828 Dictionary [K-Z]

        WORLDLINESS, n. from world. A predominant passion for obtaining the good things of this life; covetousness; addictedness to gain and temporal enjoyments.

        In other words, Breeden, the SECULAR, FLESHLY sound is that worldly SOUND I speak of. And that sound: rock; jazz; country; blues; rap..etc ALL came from Africa…more specifically that voodoo music! That’s secular FACT. It’s an established FACT. In fact, your music came from African voodoo rituals AND the whorehouses; barrooms; juke joints from New Orleans to Chicago. That is also established FACT.

        To wit, you CCM’ers got your music from the WORLD-it’s WORLDLY, SECULAR, FLESHLY. You did not derive your music from the bible; church or GODLY people but worldly CARNAL people.

        This is why God commands you to sing psalms; hymns and spiritual songs. He warned you over and over again to separate from this world.

        2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

        Like backslidden Israel you have heaped to yourselves teachers having ITCHING EARS. This is why the CCM world has conformed to this world…not vice versa-Romans 12:2: long hair on men; short hair on women; tattoos; piercings; dressing like a bum; worldly speech…etc.

        I notice you are trying to get around being worldly w/ Col 1:21??? Haaa…are you kidding me? You can’t ignore God’s command to separate and not conform to this world w/ a verse your misapplying! Those verses apply to “will worship” as I pointed out before…a unsaved, unregenerated man’s attempt at “worship” via restrictions.

        Col. 2:20-23
        “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” – Col 2:20-23

        “Will worship” is the exercise of religion by the power of the will of unregenerated man–—fasting, self affliction, neglect, celibacy, silence, labor, study, proselytizing zeal, etc.

        From David Cloud’s Way of Life Encyclopedia

      2. Tony Breeden says:


        Your argument is all over the place. You’ve given me a commentary quote from some guy I’ve never heard of. A quick Google search reveals that Mr. Cloud is a KJV Only Christian rock/CCM hater like you, so kudos for the unbiased resource. Bias aside, Cloud misses the mark on what the Col 2:20-23 passage means precisely because he is imposing his theology and traditions upon the text rather than letting it speak for itself. Correctly interpreted, following the rudiments of the world shows will worship [we would say will power, these days, or discipline]. The rudiments of this world are defined as Taste not, touch not, handle not, which pretty much sums up the religion of the Pharisees, even modern-day versions like yourself and Cloud. These things are associated with the commandments and doctrines of men and with living in the world rather than being dead with Christ. Pharisees never seem to comprehend that this passage is actually condemning them.

      3. “Worldly” is too easily defined by Pharisees as, “Whatever *I* think a Christian should not do”. Do these people wear suits and ties? So do bankers, stockbrokers, lawyers, and so on. The definition these people make is too flexible to be worthwhile, consistent, or even livable.

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        On that note, I’ve often said that dressing in a suit and tie could be called worldly if these Pharisees were consistent in their application of their argument concerning “the world’s music.”

      5. David Buzulak says:

        Dressing in a suit and a tie??? Dressing well is a form of good manners. Dressing like the WORLD simply show us what you’re conformed to. Again-“any-excuse-will-do” crowd! Any excuse to look like a dope head; tattooed; long haired rock n roll singer! That’s what I said didn’t I You’re conformed to the W-O-R-L-D Romans 12:1,2

        Ro 12:1 ¶ I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

        Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

        Onto “quote mining”…I didn’t quote mine at all. You sound like an evolutionist trying to squirm out of corner where I have you! Haa…but you are of this world; dress like it? tattooed like it? talk like it? act like it? DRINK like it? Hmm??? You’re C-A-R-N-A-L!

        1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

        1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

        1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

        WORLDLY: (btw-doesn’t matter if any of you ever heard of any of these references or people. What matter is ….”is in in the bible”? ):

        Barnes agrees w/ me (and Cloud/Webster):

        That denying ungodliness and worldly lusts. “That by denying ourselves of these, or refusing to practise them, we should lead a holy life.” The word ungodliness, here means all that would be included under the word impiety; that is, all failure in the performance of our proper duties towards God. Cmt. on Ro 1:18. The phrase “worldly lusts,” refers to all improper desires pertaining to this life–the desire of wealth, pleasure, honour, sensual indulgence. It refers to such passions as the men of this world are prone to, and would include all those things which cannot be indulged in with a proper reference to the world to come. The gross passions would be of course included, and all those more re- fined pleasures also which constitute the characteristic and peculiar enjoyments of those who do not live unto God.

        We should live soberly. See the word soberly (swjronwV) explained Cmt. on Tit 2:2, Cmt. on Tit 2:4. It means that we should exercise a due restraint on our passions and propensities.

        Adam Clarke:

        Worldly lusts – Such desires, affections, and appetites, as men are governed by who have their portion in this life, and live without God in the world. Gluttony, drunkenness, lasciviousness, anger, malice, and revenge; together with the immoderate love of riches, power, and fame.

        We should live soberly – Having every temper, appetite, and desire, under the government of reason, and reason itself under the government of the Spirit of God.


        By worldly lusts may be understood those other vices of mankind, which are called the works of the flesh; (Ga 5:19,26.)—every thing contrary to the sobriety and righteousness recommended in the next sentence; the former of which consists in the right government of our natural appetites and passions, while the latter comprehends all the duties which we owe to our neighbours. Godliness or piety consists in that high veneration, and those just conceptions, which we should entertain of the Supreme Being, expressed by prayer and thanksgiving, by loving and fearing him, putting our trust in him, and submitting to him in all events.


        that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts; all impiety, or sin more immediately against God; or which is a violation of the first table of the law, as idolatry, WILL WORSHIP, superstition, perjury, and the like; and all sinful lusts, as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life; which fill the world, and are reigning lusts in it, and which are common to the men of the world; and they are under the power of: to “deny” these, is to abhor and detest them, and to abstain from them, and have nothing to do with them: and this lesson of self-denial, or of the denial of sinful self, the Gospel teaches, and urges upon the most powerful motives and arguments; and when attended by the Spirit of God, does it effectually: so that

        John Wesley’s:

        Instructing us – All who do not reject it. That, having renounced ungodliness – Whatever is contrary to the fear and love of God. And worldly desires – Which are opposite to sobriety and righteousness.

        That should do for now. You folks look up worldly; worldliness; world in your bible. Read your commentaries; your relevant verses.

        Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying UNGODLINESS and WORLDLY lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

        Notice how ungodliness and worldly go together?

      6. Tony Breeden says:

        Notice how self-righteous Pharisees and peddling the traditions of men as if they were the commandments of God go hand in hand?

        As I said before, when you call me worldly and carnal, you judge by appearances not with righteous judgment. I do happen to have a tattoo. It got saved when I did. Go ahead and condemn me for it, blind guide, but I encourage you to read Luke 18:9-14 as you do.

        I still note that you have in no way demonstrated how Christian rock is worldly. You simply presume it is so because it resembles secular music. A moth and a butterfly may look almost exactly the same, but we know they are fundamentally different; the same goes for goats and sheep, and secular rock and Christian rock for that matter.

        How long will you hold onto such bad and unBiblical arguments, David?

      7. David Buzulak says:


        Wrong. I judge you based on the scriptures not on man made traditions. And I gave you some of those commands.

        You have yet to be honest w/ yourself on rock music that so bitterly cling to. Where’d it come from Cowboy? Church? Bible? or the wicked world? Hmm?

      8. Tony Breeden says:

        Etymological fallacy. Music as a whole came from the ungodly line of Cain [Genesis 4:17-22, esp vs. 21], yet God commands us throughout Scripture to use it for His glory. Put another way, music came from the wicked world and God commanded us to redeem it for His glory.

        And what Scripture condemns any genre of music? Oh, that’s right. Not one. So how could you be quoting Scripture to back your assertion? All you’ve done is come up with a definition of worldly that’s based on appearances rather than a man’s heart and confirms your own musical biases.

        And please don’t start trying to claim that a hymn is a genre [again], blind guide; you know I’ve refuted that one over and over [even though you continue to parrot this error]

      9. Simon says:

        @ David Buzulak

        This is the question you can never answer. Why is explained as well. There we go

        ”the subborn, stiff-necked, rebellious Christian rock critic will invariably sink to an argument such as “well, it sounds satanic – that is enough for me”. I am sorry, but it is NOT enough to me. I have to ask – what exact combinations of instruments, pitches, rhythms, beats, musical note arrangements and vocal sounds are satanic, and which are not? What is the dividing line? Ultimately, the only answer they can come up with, and the only answer possible, is that it is subjective. The WORD OF GOD is NOT SUBJECTIVE. It is not experiential. It is transcendant truth, and all issues must be resolved through it – not subjective experiences. Period. I am not interested in somebody’s opinion of what a given piece of music sounds like to them”


      10. David Buzulak says:

        Simon’s here? Ha! Simon this is a really goofy format…so I won’t be responding until Breeden, yourself, Cowboy or one of you is honest enough to answer my questions I asked above:

        “Now…the challenge is to you and your followers-where’d you get your R-O-C-K music? The bible? The church? Or the world?

        Another question / challenge for you lovers of CCM-where’d rock music come from? Can anyone here give us an answer where this “music” came from?

        Be honest in your answers please.”

      11. Tony Breeden says:

        Wow. I answered that question twice already. Are you really so thick-skulled that I need to give it to you thrice?

      12. “I won’t be responding until Breeden, yourself, Cowboy or one of you is honest enough to answer my questions I asked above.”

        I hate it when people claiming to be Christians act like atheists. In this case, Buzulak is using one of the most common logical fallacies that atheopaths employ: bifurcation. Essentially, if we don’t answer his questions (never mind that they’ve been addressed!), we’re not honest. If we’re honest, we’ll answer his questions. Not only is that fallacious, but also a manipulative technique. Do not want.

      13. David Buzulak says:

        Now…the challenge is to you and your followers-where’d you get your R-O-C-K music? The bible? The church? Or the world?

        Another question / challenge for you lovers of CCM-where’d rock music come from? Can anyone here give us an answer where this “music” came from?

        Be honest in your answers please.

        Has yet to be answered.

      14. Tony Breeden says:

        No, you’re actually on the comment thread of the post that demonstrated why your question is an irrelevant thesis, David, so… the challenge for you is to defend your bad logic against the arguments I used to destroy your etymological fallacy concerning secular rock music versus Christian rock. Since I’ve demonstrated why it is as irrelevant and argumentative a thesis as the question, “Do you still beat your wife?”, it is up to you Christian rock deniers to answer my arguments against you.

        To make my point another way, [and since I know you maintain several groups on social media], Where did Facebook come from? The Bible? The church? or the world? Be honest in your answers please.

      15. YES, ungodliness and worldliness go together. So do judgmental attitudes and condemning something as “worldly” based on personal preferences and failing to give evidence that rock music is “worldly” just because it’s rock music. Beg the question MUCH?

      16. David Buzulak says:

        All over the place? I gave you what worldly means as you feigned ignorance about this.

        Then I gave you the occult and secular roots of your music you defend.

        THEN I showed you what will worship was. What you’re doing is trying to ignore commands on separation; worldliness by feigning ignorance on what worldliness means AND misapply and misunderstanding “taste not….”.

        I’ll even GIVE YOU the benefit of the doubt (which is silly because we have commentaries online that show I’m right) on Colossians. That STILL doesn’t mean you overturn the plain teaching of scriptures for a verse you think allows you to taste/handle/touch the occult!

        No matter where you turn, Breeden, you’ll have to ignore hundreds of bible passages on separation; worldliness. And that’s my point. CCM’ers are not ones with much bible knowledge. They prey upon those that are babes in Christ with little bible “under their belt”.

      17. Tony Breeden says:

        No, David,

        You quote mined a definition that agreed with what you believe worldliness is from an 1828 dictionary and gave us commentary from someone who believes what you believe [i.e., yet another Pharisee who judges people after the rudiments of this world and teaches the traditions of men for the commandments of God]

        I on the other hand gave you the BIBLE’s take on what worldly is. Now worldly lusts [your Titus reference] are a different sort of worldliness, more in tune with Paul’s “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” You haven’t demonstrated that Christian rock is occult or worldly. You’re just assuming it is and the only thing you can offer is the very etymological fallacy I refuted in the main section of this article.

        If we held with your definition of worldliness and separation, we’d have to avoid anything of secular origins, including things like forks.

  10. David Buzulak says:

    Cowboy!!! I see you poked you head in and mentioned Pharisees. It’s clear you’ve been bamboozled on what and who Pharisees were…are. Lemme help you out there my cattle rustling friend!

    Way of Life Encyclopedia

    Jewish religious sect in Jesus’ day (Mt 23:13-29). The proud, hypocritical Pharisees opposed Jesus Christ and were instrumental in His death (Mt 27:62). They had made the O.T. law into an unreasonable and unscriptural system of legalism and ignored the spiritual meaning God had intended them to receive. Many today label those who maintain high standards of Christian living as “Pharisees” and demean fundamental Christians as legalistic and pharisaical.

    NOTICE Cowboy:

    The error of Phariseeism, though, was not their zeal to obey the Word of God. They had no such zeal. They had zeal, rather, to make up their own religious system and to rule over the people. It is important to note that Jesus Christ did NOT rebuke the Pharisees for their zeal in obeying the details of the law (Mt 23:23). He rebuked them (1) for supplanting the Word of God with man-made tradition and thereby making the Word of God of none effect (Mt 15:1-9), (2) for rejecting Jesus Christ (Mt 12:22-24), (3) for perverting the Gospel (Mt 23:15), (4) for self-righteousness (Lu 18:9-14), and (5) for gross hypocrisy (Mt 23:23; Mr 12:15; Lu 12:1). The Pharisees were at the forefront of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and of the persecution of the early Christians. It is a deceptive slander to label a Christ-loving, Bible-honoring, Gospel-preaching, self-debasing, peace-loving Christian a Pharisee.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      So basically you’re saying that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for everything you and your Christian rock hating buddies do. Thanks for clearing that up, Dave.

      1. Simon says:

        Yep, that was pretty much an own goal from David….

  11. David Buzulak says:

    Tony…you said I was self righteous. I’m in no way self righteous. I’m righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ. So your Luke 18 chapter is speaking to those who are trusting in themselves and their works for salvation. You’re upset that I judge your music and yourself via the bible; reasoning; logic; history; reality; facts.

    Yes, I do call you worldly and carnal-and w/ good reason and judgement! You’ve heaped to yourself teachers w/ your itching ears; your fleshy heart; and your worldly mindedness. You admit to loving the rock music world – you have accepted it’s form in violation to many bible passages one being Romans 12:2. You say you have a tattoo…was that AFTER salvation or before? And if it was after…why are you exalting your flesh? (the flesh profiteth NOTHING John 6:63) And please give me that tradition of bible believers, before the era of rock music, getting tattoos (2Th 3:6 “…… and not after the tradition which he received of us.)

    Now…the challenge is to you and your followers-where’d you get your R-O-C-K music? The bible? The church? Or the world?

    Another question / challenge for you lovers of CCM-where’d rock music come from? Can anyone here give us an answer where this “music” came from?

    Be honest in your answers please.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      You are self righteous because you believe you are better than everyone else because you obey man-made ordinances, forsaking the grace that bought you for works-based merits that profit little. This is evidenced by the fact that you appeal to Old Testament Law that Christians are no longer bound by [such as those prohibiting tattoos] for we are now under the law of grace. Modern-day Pharisees never seem to comprehend this distinction… or do you never eat shrimp? [Remember: that prohibition against shellfish is from the same Law you cherry-pick your objection to tattoos from].

      That rabbit trail aside, I again remind you that all music finds its source in the ungodly line of Cain [Genesis 4:17-22, esp 21], yet God commands us throughout Scripture to use music for His glory, despite its ungodly source

  12. Simon says:

    @ David Buzulak

    yeah, Simon here…. Look, i have no clue, how many times i already answered this question…

    First of all, God created Music. And thus all of the 12 musical notes we have…. Aaaand, you can simply NOT pervert a musical note…. An A note is always an A note…. No matter on which instrument or in which pitch you play it….

    The only thing you can do wrong with music (musical notes) is, that you A-B-U-S-E it for the wrong purpose…. Example given…. Someone gives praise to Satan….

    Your argument does really not make any sense David… Rock music is simply a new musicstyle that evolved from other musicstyles….

    A musicstyle itself is not worldly….

    And when the bible talks about worldliness, it means much more things like behavior, attitude, faith, morals, lifestyle etc.

    Since God created all musical notes, there is not even such a thing like worldly music… I guess you mean worldly lyrics or worldly promotion, behavior etc.

    But ooooh well…. I guess, what i just wrote crashes against a stiff necked brick wall…..

    By the way, i knew that you could not (never) answer the question i asked in my previous comment. You know why? Because its not in the bible…

    1. David Buzulak says:

      Gentlemen you STILL have NOT answered my questions above! Haaa!! You can dribble on all you want about how silly this all is but know this: in your heart of hearts you KNOW you’re wrong on this. And I can prove in a few sentences:

      From above….still never answered:

      Now…the challenge is to you and your followers-where’d you get your R-O-C-K music? The bible? The church? Or the world?

      Another question / challenge for you lovers of CCM-where’d rock music come from? Can anyone here give us an answer where this “music” came from?

      Be honest in your answers please.

      Has yet to be answered.

      1. Tony Breeden says:

        OK, since you’re only repeating that false dilemma based on an etymological fallacy over and over, and I’ve answered that fallacy ad nauseam, let’s just instead pointing out that putting the word music [i.e. “music”] in the context of what you just typed strongly implies that you believe that CCM isn’t actually music [which it obviously is]; I think you meant to say “Christian” music or something to that effect. Honestly, David, if I have to make your arguments lucid for you, I really don’t see much hope for this discourse. ;]

      2. Tony-God made clothes. Are all clothes for Christians? God made things to drink. Are all drinks for the Christian? God made languages. Are all words for the Christian? God made the bible. Are all bibles for the Christian? God made faith. Are all faiths for the Christian? Tony??So…in NO way did you answer my question. Neither did Simon. Nor did Cowboy.

        I ask again-and you reading (if there are any-I thought there was some sort of following here) CCM’ers ask yourselves…what is the root of CCM? (Catholic Contemporary Music OR “Christian” Contemporary Music) Where did this CCM come from? It’s obvious as CCM’ers pattern (conform) themselves AFTER THE WORLD in mannerisms; speech; MUSIC; lyrics; etc). This is soooooooooooooo abundantly clear I must mock the answers (or lack thereof) when I ask-WHERE???? did this CCM come from? I know. The onlooking world knows. BUT for some reason Tony, Simon (seems to be the only 2 on here) don’t want to answer. (I know why)

        So…Tony; Simon, (I guess Cowboys out)….answer my question. The world? The church?(the bible)? Hmmm???

      3. Tony Breeden says:


        You are making another logical fallacy. In layman’s terms, you’re comparing apples to oranges; specifically, you are comparing things that were clearly stated to have been instituted by God in Scripture with something that wasn’t. Music [unlike that list you gave us] came from the ungodly line of Cain. The problem is that God told us to use music for His glory despite its ungodly origins.

        I understand it’s frustrating to realize this, but you really don’t have any Biblical argument that sticks. People aren’t answering you… well, they aren’t answering you AGAIN, if we’re being honest here… because you’re not engaging our arguments. Rather, you’re just repeating yourself and pretending as if we haven’t responded.

        The premise of your argument is invalid. I’ve demonstrated why. God told us to use music for His glory despite its ungodly source. That commandment would apply to newer genres of music just as much as they applied to the genres at the time God inspired the authors of Scripture to pen said commands regarding music. So it is irrelevant whether it came from the world. Just as Christians [even you] use Facebook because it is irrelevant that Facebook was created by an atheist, Christians use the rock genre for the glory of God as they were commanded to do, despite its ungodly origins. We’re not denying where it came from; we’re saying that, Scripturally speaking, the origins of any particular genre of music is irrelevant to the question of whether we’re commanded to use it for God’s glory.

        Meanwhile, YOU and other rock haters are actually patterning yourselves after the rudiments of this world with your taste not, touch not, handle not counterfeit religion.

    2. David Buzulak says:

      I have debunked this silliness in a few sentences above. Tony’s goofy format will not allow me to post my question AGAIN to you. But the question still remains:

      Where’d you get your ROCK music from?

      1. Tony Breeden says:

        You really didn’t debunk anything. You’re simply ignoring our responses and repeating yourself

  13. When you answer THEN I’ll be compelled to answer your questions. Please answer my question.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      So… I completely knocked out the foundation you built that ill-advised house of cards on but you still think some portion of your dependent argument is still standing in the air somewhere? Is that it?

      I told you BIBLICALLY where ALL MUSIC came from and since music itself came from the ungodly line of Cain, a situation identical to the roots of the rock genre, and yet God said to use music for His glory, we may deduce that your prohibitions on a certain genre are not based on the Bible but rather on your own definition of what worldly is… even if you have to call something [namely music sang for His glory in a genre you object to] unclean that God has declared clean [in that he told us to use music which came from the ungodly line of Cain for His glory despite its roots].

      Meanwhile we see that the fruit of Christian rock [as indicated by my testimony and even a few comments here on this site] is not corrupt but good, edifying believers to a stronger walk with God.

  14. Simon says:

    Tony, next thing he will say is this

    “music is spiritual in itself” and then he quotes the verse from david playing the harp, so that saul feels better again…..” Yeah right, that verse clearly tells us, that music in itself without lyrics or intentions etc. is spiritual hmm….? Dont think so….

    @ David

    How can someone like you be that extremely ignorant??? We already answered your questions. I even bothered to explain it AGAIN to you. Still you say, we didnt answer your question. I seriously doubt, what is wrong with you?

    Do you even read our answers?

  15. Simon says:

    I seriously wonder if David is mentally ill….. your question has been answered a few times already…. maybe its just your ignorance that totally blinds you…. as it is mostly the case with rock critics like you….

    Even if you dont answer it doesnt matter at all lol….

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      He’s not mentally ill. He’s willfully ignorant

      1. What was your answer? It is a goofy format-and I’m pretty sure Breeden didn’t choose this but was relegated to it via having a website on siriusknotts. So…don’t want to be too harsh here. Just as Facebook isn’t perfect.

        So…what was you answer gentlemen? I’m headed to Walmart so…get your collective heads together and tell me (I’m betting you won’t).

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        Actually, it’s a wordpress site [not a siriusknotts website; Sirius Knott is my pen name, something you’d know if you’d ever so much as read the About page on this site] and I’m sure you are fully capable of scrolling to where you need to comment like everybody else.

        Since I’ve already answered, over and over again, I’m guessing that my “goofy” format is just too much for a brainy guy like you to navigate. Do you think you could be bothered to pay a bit more attention?

  16. This is so sad, watch Tony’s reply:

    “Music [unlike that list you gave us] came from the ungodly line of Cain. The problem is that God told us to use music for His glory despite its ungodly origins.”

    Wuh??? Hymns, Psalms, and SPIRITUAL (how do the ungodly come up w/ SPIRITUAL music) came from the UNgodly line of Cain? Haaaa…this is your foundation??? What proof have ye?

    “God told us to use music for His glory despite its ungodly origins.” Scripture reference please?

    This is soooo convoluted and w/out foundation I’m shaking my head. Wait…wait…Don’t answer this Tony. I want your pal Simon to answer this one. Then when Simon fails I want Tony to answer this.


    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Genesis 4:19. [Which I’ve ALREADY quoted to you]

      And it’s my site, so you don’t really have a say as to when I can answer.

      1. Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

        I’m eating Jalpeno chips and watching you folks tap dance. Dance….dance (isn’t this what you folks do anyways?? this should be right down your alley!)

        So…Gen 4:19 is the foundation of your belief?? FAIL. Care to try again?

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        I actually meant Genesis 4:21, you butt.

      3. Okay folks… notice that Tony and Simon can’t control their spirit? Why the name calling? Just proof that the WORLDLY music you listen to does NOT feed your spirit but your flesh.

        Okay audience here’s Gen 4:21…

        Genesis 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

        Where does it say that the ungodly line gives us SPIRITUAL music?

        This is the typical, silly, shallow “exegesis” done by the worldly Christian. And this isn’t the worse…it only gets worse when you visit the CCM band on Facebook and run into the rest of the CCM crowd. The “judge not” crowd that has ZERO idea what’s in the bible. What Christ REALLY said and did.

        Sometimes I just shake my head…..

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        David, what the Buzulak are you smoking, sir? Are you seriously suggesting that calling you what you so obviously are [willfully ignorant] is mere name calling?

        In any case, that passage doesn’t mention spiritual music because, as any Bible commentator can tell you, it’s talking about the origin of music itself; thus, your point is invalid [again].

      5. Okay…so far…I see NO reference in Gen 4:21 to spiritual music. I see the father of all who handle the harp and organ. Somehow Breeden, in his own commentary, imagines this means all spiritual music was founded by a heathen. Boy what exegesis!

        Tony outright LIES and says I’m not judging a righteous judgment (Matt 7). I already explained that many times here. It’s simply ignored and NOW lied about …by the Pentecostal minister. Shame on you Tony. But, honestly? What is left for you to do when I post the commands of God NOT to conform to the world, Romans 12:2; Separate yourself from the world; etc. Eh??? So…I’m not at all backpedaling.

        I even showed you that God made lots of things for us: clothes; music; drink; etc. Is the Christian allowed ANY garb? Or…must it me a modest one not showing the nakedness of man? Hmmm??? How about drink? Can we drink ANY drink? Nope. Alcohol is forbidden as we are commanded as kings not to touch it-Proverbs; not even to look at it; and to be SOBER.

        So…what about music? Can we, like Romanists, bring in worldly things into our life and simply try to “sanctify” it? Haa…Romanist much? No…we are to separate from the world in music as well. You folks got your music from the world-even though Simon, Cowboy AND TONY refused to answer me where you got your music from!

        Repeat for clarity-Tony, Cowboy and Simon REFUSED to answer where you got your rock music from. See we all know where it comes from, how come these 3 won’t tell us? Why won’t they admit the OBVIOUS? Because it’s simply destroys their arguments.

      6. Tony Breeden says:

        Actually, Gill’s, Matthew Henry’s and several other commentaries agree with my rather obvious conclusion that this passage credits Cain’s descendants with the invention of animal husbandry, metalworking and music. But keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear.

        In the meantime, I point out that you LIE when you say I’m saying that all spiritual music was founded by a heathen. rather I said music was founded by Cain’s ungodly line and that spiritual songs are those redeemed from that ungodly source [Seriously, why is this concept so hard for a man allegedly redeemed by Christ to comprehend?]. These two statements are not identical. He is misrepresenting my position and thereby bearing false witness against me.

        The way that you practice separation is completely inconsistent with the way Jesus did so. Your definition and misapplication of the doctrine of separation would condemn our Lord, as I demonstrated in this post: Jesus & the Doctrine of Separation.

        I’ve addressed the clothing argument. Your repetition is getting quite annoying. That a Christian woman can wear a modest dress but not a scandalous dress is actually equivalent to MY argument that a Christian may listen to and perform rock music that glorifies God and edifies the church but not rock that is lewd, satanic or in any other way stands against the truth of God. But nice try.

        I care little for your arguments against Catholicism, especially regarding points in history in which no Protestants existed. When you do so, you incur Jesus’ condemnation of those who say they would not have committed the sins of their fathers in Matthew 23:30-31.

        And once again, we refuted the premise your question rested upon; your question is irrelevant to the question in that it utilizes the etymological fallacy.

        I never presume that a question is valid just because it is asked. As the Scripture says:

        “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
        Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Proverbs 26:4-5

      7. Tony Breeden says:

        Oh, you meant the fact that I called you a butt. I see that now. perhaps you’d prefer if I called you a more Biblical name, like a serpent, a white-washed tomb or a play-actor [aka hypocrite].

        That’s right, folks, if name calling means I can’t control my spirit, what must David Buzulak think of Jesus Christ??

      8. As for your name calling from you and your crew here? It’s normal. You folks cannot control your spirit. Even on my Facebook page…same thing happens there. I get cursed at on a regular basis from your CCM crowd. The latest was the fellow who said he helped convince Michael Sweet to perform songs by Slayer; MEtallica…etc. He cursed and swore the entire time! Nickolaus Pacione was his name. O

      9. Tony Breeden says:

        If I couldn’t control my spirit by calling you a butt [and you are a butt], what do you make of Jesus’ name calling religious hypocrites? I’m sure the Pharisees said very similar things about Him when He called them snakes and white-washed tombs and play-actors.

  17. I missed SPIRITUAL songs in my post above. You have to tell us how this ungodly bunch comes up w/ spiritual music for the use in worship…which we are to do in spirit and in truth! THis should be fun. Grab the popcorn and watch the tap dance begin!

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      The Bible says to sing psalms, hymns AND spiritual songs, so…. not all songs are spiritual. You’re making a false equivocation. Popcorn moment denied

  18. I’m witnessing to a Lib atheist elsewhere so….I’m off and on here.

    Tony says (and I shake my head):

    “The Bible says to sing psalms, hymns AND spiritual songs, so…. not all songs are spiritual. You’re making a false equivocation. Popcorn moment denied”

    Yes…it does say that. Notice it doesn’t say to run to the world and grab their music/songs? See that?

    We KNOW that some hymns and many many songs are not spiritual-I run right to those Xmass ones! And contemporary ones; or Catholic ones (wrong doctrine CANNOT be spiritual…so…I don’t sing Catholic hymns).

    If the song you’re singing is not a hymn or a psalm…then it must be a SPIRITUAL song. Not just any song…but a spiritual song. Hence why CCM cannot remotely be called spiritual because it’s from a WORLDLY foundation!

    Try again Tony? Simon? I eat my Jalapeno chips and watch the tap dancing.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Again. God said to glorify Him with music… and music comes from the ungodly line of Cain [Gen 4:21; there’s your worldly foundation], so I think I’ve sufficiently established my point that you’re using the etymological fallacy and you have zero Biblical warrant for your objection against Christian rock or contemporary Christian music.

      Now that we’ve gotten you to backpedal on that spiritual songs straw man and to admit that it is but one of several types of music the Scriptures command us to use for God’s glory, we must ask ourselves why you reject rock hymns without a Biblical warrant? Especially since we have established that using the etymological fallacy against Christian rock makes nonsense of God’s command to use music for His glory even though the Scriptures reveal it has a worldly source in the ungodly line of Cain.

      btw, you do realize that noting that one is consuming jalapeno chips, however delicious we might agree they are, does not constitute a point of argument. You seem to hope that simple mockery will do in place of a lucid argument; if you are under this misapprehension, I strongly encourage you to go elsewhere before it becomes even more obvious how hopelessly ill-equipped you are for rational discourse.

      1. First off let’s destroy this notion that music came from the ungodly line of Cain-Gen 4:21

        Genesis 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

        Go ahead…show it to me.

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        You really want me? to spoon feed it to you? OK then.

        Read the entire passage in context. This section of Genesis lists the line of Cain [vs. 17]. Pretty much every Bible commentary one can consult agrees with the obvious conclusion that this section credits Cain’s descendants as being the father of shepherds, musicians and metalworkers. But by all means tell us why this is not so…

      3. Okay…who’s disputing that? Not I. But, Tony, you said that Gen 4:21 proved that UNGODLY line of Cain gave us SPIRITUAL music.

        Where is that part at?

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        No, I said the ungodly line of Cain gave us music. period. And then God said use music, despite its ungodly origins, for My glory… which is where we even get a distinction between spiritual and secular music, btw, proving my point [not yours]. Did you follow it that time? I can use smaller words if you need me to.

  19. And show me the commentary saying that SPIRITUAL music came from the UNGODLY line of Cain.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Well, again, you’re misunderstanding me on purpose

      1. Misunderstanding you on purpose?? You made a very stupid statement to back up your excuse to listen to the world’s music.

        Cain’s line made musical instruments. They were musicians. And??? This does not give you license to listen to rock/satanic music.


      2. Tony Breeden says:

        I didn’t say that. i said that music came from Cain’s line, something everyone agrees on unless they have an agenda. Cain’s line was ungodly. You’re denying the validity of my point because it completely destroys every argument you could possibly make along those lines [one of many reasons the etymological fallacy is so ill-advised]

        Also, I never said it gives you license to listen to Satanic music. There’s no such thing as Satanic Christian music, despite your attempts to poison the well. As I point out in the article above [which you seem to pretend does not exist], comparing Christian rock and secular rock is comparing apples to oranges. You’re bearing false witness against these Christian artists because you don’t approve of their genre and you have no Scriptural or rational warrant to do so [as I’ve demonstrated above… of course, in any earlier Facebook discourse, you admitted you’ve never bothered to read it, which makes your endless repetition of debunked arguments understandable though not excusable]

      3. This is some really convoluted thinking from you:

        “No, I said the ungodly line of Cain gave us music. Period. And despite that ungodly origin, God said glorify me with music. My guess is spiritual songs came after folks started glorifying God with music despite its ungodly origins, something you don’t think is possible.”

        God…who can do all things…had those folks back then glorifying God w/ ungodly music? Haa..why? He can’t direct folks to create music to glorify him that’s not worldly? ungodly?

        You gotta be kidding me. That is unbiblical nonsense.

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        God’s omnipotence is limited by His revealed nature, which is why God can do anything that is possible but not something that is impossible [like make a round object with sharp corners] or lie [because Scripture reveals He is truth]. God is omnipotent but that doesn’t mean He has to do things with utmost efficiency. He created everything 6 days; He could have done so in an instant or used natural processes that take longer as He did with the Flood. Instead, He chose to take His time over 6 days. Scripture also reveals that God is by nature a Redeemer, so it is consistent with His nature that He would have men use music for His glory even though it has its roots in the ungodly line of Cain.

        I note that my argument comes from the Bible and you call it unbiblical nonsense based on what you think God should’ve done instead.

  20. No… you said that the UNGODLY line of Cain gives us our SPIRITUAL music.’s a stupid thing to say…I agree. But I didn’t say it-you did. IT says NOTHING about Cain’s line giving us SPIRITUAL music.


    1. Tony Breeden says:

      No, I said the ungodly line of Cain gave us music. Period. And despite that ungodly origin, God said glorify me with music. My guess is spiritual songs came after folks started glorifying God with music despite its ungodly origins, something you don’t think is possible.

      So, no. I don’t agree. You have a reputation for misunderstanding things on purpose. David, when you thatch together straw men and try to say that this is what I’m saying, you’re bearing false witness against me. You’re breaking a Commandment. You’re lying. So stop doing it. Now.

      1. Okay…you’re getting more honest now, “my guess”. Yeah…your guess and how silly is that guess???

        Let’s pretend the line of Cain had these wicked musicians. So? Could someone in this line and out of this line come up w/ Godly tunes??? Hmmm??? Did God restrict us to some ungodly music from an ungodly fellow?? C’mon…think think. Imagine us thanking Cain for “spiritual music”. Crazy.

        Why wouldn’t God use the WORLD’S music to glorify himself? Because we are a separated people unto him. The same music that glorifies sin/death cannot be used to glorify our holy, sinless Saviour. That is simply unbiblical nonsense. And this nonsense is manifested before our eyes and ears as the CCM’ers have flooded our Ichabod churches w/ their rebellion. From their long girl hair on the butch hair on women. From tatts…the to rebellious attitude.

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        No. Cain’s line invented music. Seth’s line used it for God’s glory. Comprehend me so far

      3. Spam??? Haa. This should be therapeutic for you as I’m giving you wise counsels from the bible.

        You’re giving me your opinion based in error. God…had those worship him in the spirit of ungodly music???

        So they worshipped him in a false spirit (from the ungodly music) and error?

        John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

      4. Tony Breeden says:

        Wise counsel has been reduced to poor logic, worse Bible knowledge and mindless repetition of such!

        It may interest you to know that John 4:24, part of Jesus’ discourse to the Samaritan woman at the well, notes that rather than worshipping God in a certain place according to man’s traditions, the time will come that people will worship God in spirit and in truth. This speaks nothing of genre but of one’s authenticity and sincerity.

        You suppose that singing from a church hymn book makes a song spiritual? If so, you have no understanding of this passage.

        Certainly you have no understanding of what I’m saying. You continue to bear false witness against me by claiming I am saying things I have never said. I said that they worshipped God with music, despite its ungodly origins, and when music was thus redeemed it was what we might today call spiritual.

      5. Show us all here Seth’s line using Cain’s ungodly music.

      6. Tony Breeden says:

        Well, let’s see. That shouldn’t be too hard. All music finds its origins in Cain’s ungodly line. Cain’s line died in Noah’s Flood, leaving only Seth’s line… Today Christians all over the world glorify God with music, despite its ungodly origins, redeeming it for God’s glory according to His commandment and their desire to worship Him in spirit and in truth… Did I miss anything? Cause that one seemed too easy, dude. I mean, if you were paying attention anyway

      7. Alright kids…you know how to contact me. I’m out of here for the night.

      8. Tony Breeden says:

        Maybe next time you could actually read the article before you comment on it. Just saying.

  21. I’m not sure why you don’t get your own Facebook page where this would be easier? Why don’t you do that?

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      I have a Facebook page. You have one too. Oh wait, you kicked me off it. Are you seriously going to beg off that you can’t possibly present a lucid argument because you don’t like the format or the website? Weak, David. Weak.

      1. Yeah I kicked you off-you couldn’t control your name calling. You couldn’t keep from spamming on my forum! That’s why!

      2. Tony Breeden says:

        Oddly, I’ve put up with your comments here even though everything you say is spam. Nevermind that this “spam” you refer to was a link to this very article that you’re currently commenting on without reading [a practice known as spam, practiced by folks termed internet trolls, but that’s a technicality of course]

  22. Any way you look at Genesis 4:21 you cannot get any excuse to listen to worldly, carnal music. And if you don’t think there’s a difference…do me a favor and put some Christian hymns into play at your local tavern. See what they think. Don’t do it at midnight, of course. Go in before the rowdy crowd gets there. Tell me what the tavern owners think.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      It’s not an excuse to listen to worldly, carnal music [btw, by saying this you are begging the question of whether Christian rock is worldly and carnal]; It’s a refutation of the entire premise of your man-made commandment against worshipping God in spirit and in truth with a genre Scripture never forbids.

      Your proposed experiment would prove nothing. Whether a secular crowd liked a Christian song in their genre is immaterial to whether the song may be legitimately be called Christian or not. That was an emotional appeal. Weak.

  23. Simon says:

    David, you keep saying that we didnt answer your question…. but we did it many times already… wondering if you actually read it….

    Since we answered your question, would you mind to answer a question from me? Thats the question, that absolutely no rock critic can answer (because it is not in the bible)
    Here we go

    what exact combinations of instruments, pitches, rhythms, beats, musical note arrangements and vocal sounds are satanic, and which are not? What is the dividing line?

    (i have a feeling, that he is not really answering it, but goig around it, ignore it, or asks a counter question)

    As to your favorite argument about worldly music…. Look at Psalms 150. All those instruments were used by the pagans as well to worship their gods!!! Yet, we are encouraged to praise God with the exact same instruments! And it does not even say, how it has to sound like. It does also not say, which rhytms, beats, musical notes, musical note combinations etc. we are allowed to play and which not, when we use the trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbrel, dance, cymbals, STRINGED INSTRUMENTS (!!!!!), organs, loud cymbals and high sounding cymbals…

    So, your worldly argument has no substance at all….

  24. James 4:4 A friend of the world is the enemy of God.
    1John2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

    Stop trying to justify your adulterers heart.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      I’m not really understanding where you’re coming from. Where are you getting the idea that I love the world when I should be doing the will of God? What about this post or anything else about my website gives you the impression that I’m not doing the will of God? Matthew 9:13

  25. Jeff says:

    I was doing some research on the origins on the infamous “rock hand” and I believe I have found it’s true origin: Gene Simmons, leader of the band KISS, stated the inspiration for his band’s appearance and personas were inspired by comic book superheroes. He says he wanted to have a signature hand signal like some of them did, so the “rock hand” was inspired by the likes of Spider-man and Dr. Strange

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      So it was inspired by the desire to brand the band nor by the occult

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s