The Non-Sequitur of "Christian Music"

Disclaimer: I am a music snob. I admit it. I’m one of those people who “knows” that my own taste is intimately linked to some objective standard by which music ought to be evaluated. I often argue with some of my friends about whose aesthetic taste is more developed in this area. And of course, the answer is “mine.” I’m convinced of this. So much so that if at some point in my relationship with someone I find that that person is really into some band or musician that I deem “unworthy” of such devotion, it is often legitimately difficult for me to resist the temptation to then question this person’s position on matters totally unrelated to music. I realize this is not good. I’m working on it. Sort-of.

That said, there is something about the way evangelical Christians in our culture have approached this particular art for some time that strikes me as counter-productive and, frankly, a little offensive. Strong language, right? Hopefully what follows will show clearly what I mean.

The issue I have in mind has bothered myself and many other like-minded “snobs” for a long time, and it has created no end of tension within the evangelical community. Many otherwise level-headed members of this community—a community I proudly claim, mind you—have for years judged one another to varying degrees over this issue. Some call others “compromisers” for listening to music that is deemed too “secular,” while others label their brothers and sisters “legalists” for attempting to restrict the freedom of the believer. Rarely, however, have I seen anyone offer (much less defend) a clear explication of his or her reasons for holding such a position. My hope is that by taking both sides seriously, we might approach a perspective that is informed biblically and in keeping with the Spirit of Jesus.

I want to make the rather strong claim that the “Christian/secular” distinction in music is a false one, and further that the term “Christian music” is actually a non-sequitur. If you’re not familiar with the term, it is Latin for “does not follow.” It’s used to refer to ideas, arguments, etc., which begin with a set of assumptions and then derive from those a conclusion that does not follow logically. More generally, it refers to ideas which are paired together as though they belong that way, but which actually have nothing to do with one another. So what I’m saying is that the assumptions which lead to the Christian/secular divide do not in fact entail any such thing, and that the term “Christian music” is a pairing of mutually irrelevant ideas.

I was once at a concert and heard an artist generally thought of as being on the “Christian” side of the divide say something like this (paraphrasing): “I don’t make Christian music. There’s no such thing as Christian music. There’s good music and there’s bad music. I try to make good music.”

While I can’t speak for that artist’s intentions, what he said intrigued me and I’ve thought about it a lot since. What I suspect he meant is that what separates good and bad music is not whether it mentions Jesus. Rather, it is what virtually every non-Christian—and every Christian when they’re not wearing their religious hat—knows it is immediately: talent, originality, depth of feeling, honesty, soul, an ability to express what is common to humanity in a way that takes seriously our condition…in short, whether or not it’s art. Whether or not it talks about Jesus or even makes you feel good (for somehow, the latter has almost become sufficient for the label “Christian”) is just irrelevant.

It seems to me that we have taken the term “Christian,” redefined it, and then applied the new, watered-down version to our music. By “Christian,” we mean that the lyrics are “clean,” and that they speak of some aspect of a theistic worldview, though not much emphasis is placed on which aspect of this worldview—the basics generally suffice. By “clean,” we (apparently) mean that it avoids cussing and anything sexual, though some take it even further to mean that it must be in some sense “encouraging” or “uplifting.” In this way, even bands whose members in no way profess a Christian faith publicly, or who live lives any different from your average moderately successful musician, get radio play on “Christian” stations.

Conversely, any music which does not qualify for the new definition of Christian is labeled “secular,” which as far as I can tell is roughly synonymous with “immoral,” “wicked,” “carnal,” or even “liberal.” Whatever it means, it is strongly implied that the real Christian has no business listening to it, and that if they should be caught with Radiohead on their iPod, it’s reason to question their commitment.

I was once myself a victim of this misunderstanding. Like many others I know, I had the legalistic phase during which I got rid of the majority of my music library. My criteria for keeping something was roughly whether or not it was “Christian” in the above sense. Needless to say, I later regretted many of those decisions.

But of course, this definition has nothing to do with historic Christianity. There is nothing in the Christian message that is opposed to strong language or honest talk about sexuality and suffering. There’s also nothing that implies that the themes of our art must be limited to the specific revelations of our faith. Rather, the term “Christian,” as with so many things, actually refers to something much deeper, much less rigid, and much more profound. It refers to the rather astonishing claim that at the center of everything—our world, our values, our existence, our life, our death, our sex, our happiness, our pain, our meaning, the very universe itself—is the God-man Jesus Christ. And this is so whether or not we acknowledge or recognize His place there. Further, it is the claim that in creating us, God put into us something of Himself and His own creative capacity. It is His intention and His pleasure that we utilize this ability to its fullest extent. We are restricted only by the bounds of love itself, which is of course no restriction at all, but freedom.

Because we are made by Him to be like Him and in relationship with Him, when we encounter Him in our lives (whether or not we realize it’s Him), it resonates in us deeply. This is what happens when we experience true art, true creative expression. It literally feeds our soul, and speaks to us—if we will hear—of Him.

But what we have done in creating this Christian/secular distinction is limit the areas over which He has influence. We have, to quote another blog I read recently,¹ made our music about the message rather than the art. But this is to misunderstand both the gospel itself and the nature of reality: the art is the message. Or at least part of it. To offer Jesus to the world wrapped in three chords, a hook, and a style borrowed from whatever “secular” musicians happen to be making money at the moment, is a bit like handing out tracts to hungry people. They’ll never grasp the message until they are fed. When we take the central truths of the Christian faith and dress them in cheap clichés, overproduced pop music, and vague sentimentality, the result is anything but Christian. It’s just bad music.

In his essay “Christian Apologetics” in God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis says, “What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects--with their Christianity latent.” His point here is that the Christian apologist will make much more progress if she can get the non-believer to discover through the sciences and literature that God may in fact be at the center of everything, than she will by writing a book on apologetics. He continues, “…it is not books on Christianity that will really trouble [the materialist]. But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian.” I think that the same goes for the arts. If the best music on the radio or iTunes is being made my committed Christians, then that will go a whole lot farther toward advancing the Kingdom than bad music that preaches.

But of course there’s a flip-side to all this as well. There is a great deal of music—even some that might qualify as art—that the follower of Jesus has no business listening to. Music that glorifies violence, substance abuse, or unhealthy sexual activity. Music that objectifies women, or reinforces their status as second-class citizens. Music that encourages harmful stereotypes or destructive behavior. In short, music that is not compatible with a life ruled by love. In this sense, there are several bands that I never regretted giving up during my ‘phase.’ But it’s important to note, I think, that this list should not only be off-limits to Christians. The thoughtful non-Christian has no business filling her mind with such junk either.²

And all this hints at a deeper problem within popular Christianity, which makes it especially relevant for me and for this blog. The attitude that many well-meaning Christians take to this issue typifies a more general attitude that I’m afraid still pervades much of the church. Put simply, it is a contentment with a shallow and largely impotent Christianity. One that replaces genuine transformation with pop psychology and pseudo-scholarship. The culture’s distinctions and definitions are accepted and Jesus is thrown into the mix. The result is a list of do’s and don’ts (mostly don’ts), with little room left for any real depth of spiritual fulfillment or the life of the mind.

So the next time you turn on your radio or buy a CD, be critical of what you hear. Ask yourself, not if it’s “clean” or “encouraging,” but if it’s in tune with the creative Voice at the base of all things. Does it feed your soul?

That should be your new standard. That is Christian music.



¹ See this insightful post by one of the musicians that I take to be transcending this false dichotomy.

² Though, she will have a very difficult time explaining why this is the case. For more on this, see my posts on the moral argument for God here.

The Argument from Special Revelation: Jesus Christ (Part 7)

Note: see parts one, two, three, four, five, and six.


Finally, how does the Christian account stack up against the naturalistic explanations of the resurrection, when evaluated by the criteria for assessing historical explanation? We have reviewed what I take to be the four strongest naturalistic candidates and found them all wanting. But does the Christian claim fare any better?

Remember, the facts that are being explained are 1. the empty tomb, 2. the appearances of Jesus after His death, and 3. the belief of Jesus’ disciples that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The Christian explanation of these facts is that God in fact raised Jesus from the dead, and that He subsequently appeared to many of his disciples.

Like all the rest, the Christian account easily satisfies the first criteria. Regarding the second, explanatory scope, we see easily that it is broad: it is intended as an explanation of all of our facts, and it applies easily to all of them. As for explanatory power (3), this hypothesis works rather well. It provides a simple and effective explanation of all three of our facts. The tomb was empty because Jesus actually left it; no body need be accounted for. The appearances of Jesus after His death are explained because they actually happened. No appeal to conspiracy or hallucination is needed. Finally, the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection is explained, because this is what their collective experience told them was the case. Indeed, nothing other than this could have put the idea of an individual, bodily, pre-eschatological, resurrection into their minds. What they experienced violated all of their former categories. So they made a new one.

Criteria (4), plausibility, is where this explanation has the most trouble. Here it must respond to the critiques of the miraculous by folks like Hume, who maintain that miracle (e.g. resurrection) is inherently implausible. In fact, given the sum of our experience, it is the most implausible sort of thing there is.

A full treatment of such a view is far outside the scope of this post, but I’ll just say here that in order for this to be an adequate critique, one must begin with the assumption that theism is false, which is of course to beg the question. For if theism is true, then it isn’t much of a step to assume that God could intervene in His creation in a very direct way if He wanted. Also, even if something is prima facie implausible, that does not mean that one is never warranted in believing it. If sufficient evidence were provided to tip the scales toward belief, then no matter how implausible it might seem on the face of it, one might very rationally accept the truth of such a proposition. Here, that evidence comes in the form of our minimal facts, coupled with the insurmountable failure of every non-miraculous explanation. So, unless one assumes from the get-go that the Christian claim can’t be plausible, we have no reason to assume that this explanation fails the fourth criteria.

The hypothesis is not ad hoc (5), since it begins by taking seriously the claims of the historical writers. Nothing outside of their own claim is added to explain our facts. Also, the hypothesis is not disconfirmed by any accepted beliefs (6), since nothing in our intellectual history since has shown conclusively the impossibility of resurrection. Science has not done this, nor has technology or accumulated experience. On the contrary, such an explanation is strongly suggested by our increased knowledge of first century Jewish categories of thought, our better grasp of human psychology, as well as by our improved understanding of medicine and the possibility of a human surviving what Jesus endured.

Finally, the Christian hypothesis fulfills criteria (1) through (6) far better than any of its naturalistic rivals. Therefore, it is only rational to conclude that it is far and away the most likely explanation of our facts.

Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that that fact changes everything. And we have good reason.



* I owe much of the structure and content of this series to work by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, N.T. Wright, and Greg Boyd, especially Craig's discussion in his Reasonable Faith.

The Argument from Special Revelation: Jesus Christ (Part 6)

Note: see parts one, two, three, four, and five.

So how do the two most likely naturalistic explanations of the facts surrounding the resurrection hold up under scrutiny? Remember, the facts we are considering—agreed to by nearly all historians, Christian or not—are 1. the empty tomb, 2. the appearances of Jesus after His death, and 3. the belief of Jesus’ disciples that Jesus had been raised from the dead. And again, the criteria we are using to evaluate these explanations are listed in Part 2, linked above.

The Legend Hypothesis

The legend hypothesis says simply that there were no resurrection claims, at least not originally. Much like the childhood game “Telephone,” rumors of Messianic expectations grew rapidly until, before you know it, there were full-fledged resurrection claims, which were then promptly written down and preserved in the New Testament. This hypothesis obviously explains present data and so passes criterion (1), but what about the rest?

Its scope (2) is limited to the appearances of Jesus after His death and the disciples’ belief in the resurrection; it does nothing on its own to explain the empty tomb. Regarding how well it explains the first two (3), it must maintain that the disciples’ belief in resurrection was based on the rumored appearances, which were themselves either just mistaken or invented. However, given the extreme implausibility of the resurrection accounts being simply mistaken (they claim not just to have “heard,” but to know—some of them even claiming eyewitness status), the defender of the legend hypothesis is left claiming that they were invented. This hypothesis thus easily reduces to the conspiracy hypothesis (already discussed), and so suffers all the problems of that one as well.

The legend theory is also highly implausible (4) on its own. First, Jews were inherently resistant to legend, particularly about a divine man; 1st century Palestine would have been entirely the wrong environment for such a legend to grow. Second, there was simply not enough time for legend to grow. All the evidence suggests that from the very beginning, the disciples preached the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Our earliest accounts date back possibly to within 5 years (or even earlier) of the crucifixion itself, and even the very latest are still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and those who knew them. Third, legends generally reinforce the values of the culture in which they are birthed. The resurrection “legend” did not do this, but rather created a brand new concept of resurrection, defying all Messianic expectations. Finally, legends tend to make heroes of their founders (think Muhammad or Joseph Smith). The five accounts that we have of the resurrection do not do this; they even rely on the testimony of women, which as we have seen, was virtually without value at the time.

The legend hypothesis avoids being overly ad hoc (5), unless of course it reduces to the conspiracy hypothesis, in which case it will need all the same assumptions to function. It is also disconfirmed (6) by our knowledge of Jewish culture and Messianic expectations.

The Hallucination Hypothesis

Interestingly, this hypothesis is probably the most common among non-Christian scholars. In that sense then, it represents the best explanation we have of the facts in question, other than the Christian claim.

As usual, this hypothesis meets the first criteria but then immediately has trouble. Its explanatory scope (2) is rather narrow, since it is really only useful as an explanation of one of our facts: the appearances of Jesus after His death. Neither the empty tomb nor the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection is explained, so this hypothesis would need to be paired with another for its full strength. But even considering the appearances of Jesus post-crucifixion—the fact the hallucination hypothesis is supposed to explain—many holes remain. For example, how can hallucination account for the variety of appearances that are claimed? Perhaps if only one or two of Jesus’ closest followers had ‘seen’ Him risen once, then some sort of psychological phenomenon might be sufficient. But the accounts we have are from multiple, independent sources, and take place in different locations at different times. It might be tempting to claim some sort of connection between the claims, so that only one actual hallucination is needed, and the rest of the disciples merely picked up the story. Such a theory, however, ignores the fact that some of the claims come from skeptics, namely Paul and James, and it also does nothing to account for the diversity within the reports themselves. So much for explanatory power (3).

Regarding plausibility (4), it must rely on either highly suspect psychological theories and read a great deal into the text, or it must again assume that what the disciples are describing are mere visions, a category of experience that we have already shown in the last post would be clearly distinct from a bodily resurrection to a 1st century Jew. Also, we know from years of case studies that hallucinations tend to reinforce expectations (however delusional); however, as we have seen, no Jew expected a resurrection of the sort described. So, as William Lane Craig puts it, “with respect both to its psychoanalysis of the witnesses and its reduction of the appearances to visionary experience, the Hallucination Hypothesis suffers from implausibility.” *

The hypothesis is also ad hoc (5), in that it must invent out of thin air complex psychological explanations of the disciples’ straightforward claims, in order to provide reasons for such powerful hallucinations. Given its reliance on outmoded theories, and its ignorance of the relevant cultural data, the hallucination hypothesis also fails criteria (6), disconfirmation by accepted beliefs.

For all these reasons, it is at best only slightly more plausible than any of the other naturalistic theories. And of course, we have not yet reviewed the Christian explanation.



* William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 386-7.

Women in Apologetics (Part 7): Having a Heart for the Mind

The following is Part 7 of the series on women in apologetics from Apologetics 315. See parts one, two, three, four, five, and six.

Apologetics and Women's Ministry: Having a Heart for the Mind - Sarah J. Flashing

Knowing what you believe and why should be a requirement for everyone, no matter their worldview. And as Christians, there is a direct correspondence to the gospel we proclaim and the components of the worldview we say we represent. So as a young mother over 13 years ago, struggling with all kinds of trials, I found myself no longer satisfied with the very sincere and genuine consolations that “God knows your struggles” or “Jesus loves you” or “I’m praying for you.” Of course, I appreciate such affirmations and continue to do so today, but these were statements that, when left unpacked, made a little impact in my spiritual growth. For instance, without or with little understanding of Christ’s substitutionary atonement, “Jesus loves you” offers little more solace than being told by a friend that she loves you.

As I began to probe deeper into the depths of the theological meaning of my faith, I began to ask other questions, like “why Christianity?” “What makes Christianity the superior worldview?” It was from this point of inquiry that I launched into the field of apologetics, the first year or so gathering information while investigating. This was a search for truth, not so that I could feel good about myself but so I could be confident about what I was claiming to know.

The struggles I faced in my life were not unique to me, nor were they the worst possible thing I could experience. But my relationship with God was seriously lacking substance, and over the years as I have learned to give an answer for the hope within, it has helped me in my ministry and friendships with other women. As a ministry leader, I offer no pretense of a “charmed life” and find myself shocked by very little these days...

Read the rest here.

Women in Apologetics (Part 6): An ApoloWhat?

The following is Part 6 of the series on women in apologetics from Apologetics 315. See parts one, two, three, four, and five.

An ApoloWhat? - Judy Salisbury

I think most of us will agree that men dominate the Christian apologetics ministries. I am perfectly comfortable with this fact, and I thank God for these wonderful gentlemen. They produce excellent materials so that many of us can stand on their shoulders in our attempt to lead people to Christ.

Yes, most apologetics ministries are predominantly male; so when a woman states that apologetics is the focus of her ministry, folks scratch their heads and ask, “How did you become an apologist?” I chuckle when people ask me this question since I never set out to become one. It happened by listening to one of the best apologists as he offered not simply an answer, but the answer to my greatest question and obstacle to conversion: Was Jesus truly God?

I must return to 1991 when I traveled as a salesperson and spent considerable time on the road. Driving and surfing through various radio stations one afternoon, the Lord used one radio broadcast in particular to pique my curiosity and settle that longstanding question. The answer became clear as I heard the late Dr. Walter Martin’s debate with a cultist. It was an embarrassing defeat for the cultist, but it was a big win for me as I finally heard evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ.

Back in my hotel room, I immediately reached for the Gideon Bible tucked in the nightstand drawer. It was late in the afternoon when the Lord – in His grace and mercy – led me to the book of 1 John and revealed my lost condition. At that very moment I fell to my knees and gave Him my life, my ambitions, my dreams, my sin—everything. By the time I got home, my husband had a brand new wife… and a year later, the Lord gave us both a brand new baby girl. Goodbye corporate world – hello full time, stay-at-home mom!

During that first year of my spiritual infancy, I devoured the Bible along with tapes and CD’s from learned apologists, Bible teachers, and other resources. What struck me the most was the fact that there were actually answers to the questions that plagued me. Nagging concerns were finally settled in my mind; questions that others were previously unable or unwilling to address were now answered. I rejoiced to know that when my daughter would eventually have spiritual questions of her own, I would be able to answer them. In fact, that was the main reason I became equipped: I did not want some neighborly cultist (or occultist) to beguile my little girl with a lie – promising her a good life that would actually lead to her spiritual death.

By April 1993, the Lord gave me an opportunity to share a talk with my local congregation during a Sunday evening service. My presentation was based on 1 Peter 3:15 and the basic evidences for Christianity. Yes, my first speaking opportunity as a Christian was as an apologist.

About a month after my apologetic talk, I went to our local Pregnancy Resource Center to donate baby clothes and to see if there was a way I could serve them. I met the director at the door with my bag of blessings and confessed, “Not long ago the Lord Jesus Christ saved me from my sins and from myself. Silver and gold have I not, but maybe you need someone to clean your toilets?” She gingerly informed me that they already had a person who handled that; then she suggested I attend an upcoming counselor training seminar. Through that training, I learned so much about those wonderful ministries – the women who serve in them and what they are up against. The Lord also showed me that I was not to become a PRC counselor; instead, I would train individuals who had a desire to educate their communities on matters of human life. My work would be to help impart skills that would equip them to communicate their message effectively, powerfully, and with love...

Read the rest here.