“Holy is rolling.”

With diversity and steadily increasing frequency, it’s rocking. … behold, all things are being made new, or rather, contemporary. … holy is as holy does. A recent national report shows gospel outselling jazz and classical music …, and joining country music as the only recording category to turn a healthy profit.” l)

“…toes will tap and heads will bob just as readily to a chorus of ‘Praise Him, Thank Him’ as they will to ‘Oh Baby, Yeah, Baby’. Provided, that is, that the beat still pounds … As one fan was overheard to say: ‘They could have been singing ‘Praise, Chairman Mao’ with that music and I would have liked it!’” 2)

” ‘Fireworks’, a contemporary Christian rock group…will perform…sponsored by the Sunshine Christian Reformed Church.. .

… Among many Christians. ‘God rock’ is the hottest thing since the ‘Bee Gees’. … The image of … gospel-singers praising God in unison above a majestic church organ, slowly began to change with the coming of the musical ‘Godspell’ and a new musical style labeled “Jesus Rock’.”3)

“A congenial Christ in coveralls is dispensing homilies (sic) set to the rhythms of rock, jazz and ragtime in a wonderfully bright production of ‘Godspell’: … The energetic and talented young (performers) … Give mischievous interpretations to Matthew’s report on the teachings and times of Jesus Christ.

… the jazz, blues, ragtime and disco numbers have a drive that makes it difficult for the audience to sit still.”4)

“Jesus.. . being portrayed as a confused and doubting revolutionary in ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ (and) as an imbecilic clown in ‘Godspell’.” 5)

“In ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’. Jesus is presented as a hippie-type who is followed around by a covey of harlots. Mary Magdalene, dressed as a harlot, sings suggestively: ‘I Don’t Know How to Love Him’. The last supper is portrayed as a picnic, and the real hero turns out to be Judas. ‘Godspell’ depicts Christ as a clown, complete with a Superman sweatshirt.”6)

“Many years ago, as a then young non-Christian dance band musician, I enjoyed playing in ballrooms and night clubs. If anyone had suggested to me then that this same music would someday be heard in evangelical churches as the ‘now’ sound, I would have regarded their suggestion as the best joke of the day.”7)

Christian music has come a long way. From the pure, almost ethereal, sounds of plain song and the Ambrosian and Gregorian chant of the early centuries of the Christian Church to the swinging sound of rock, jazz and blues of much of today’s Christian music – is a long way indeed!

Judging from your comments and questions, quite a number of you are concerned about this issue, and, while there may be a certain amount of confusion and even difference of opinion among you young people, I believe this can be cleared up if we submit to this principle: Music about God must be in harmony with who and what God is; it must be in harmony wish the attributes of God. It is with this principle in mind that we would like to examine the subject of Christian rock, on the basis of origin, association and music per se.

What is the heritage of (Christian) rock?

In the first place, the main roots of rock are African tribal music, blues, ragtime, jazz, swing, boogie-woogie, country, and rhythm and blues. In the second place, the environments where the music has generally been played are pagan Africa, “red-light” districts, brothels, saloons, bars, dance halls, gambling joints, nightclubs. In the thud place, among those who have been the performers and listeners of this music are pagans, pimps, prostitutes, patrons of “red-light”-districts, pool-sharks, dancers, drinkers, drug abusers. In the fourth place, the music has been associated with idolatry, sexual immorality, booze, drugs, rebellion, perversion.

That is the heritage of rock, whether we add Christian words to it or not.

But, just as importantly, what of the music itself? What are the implications of the beat, the driving syncopated rhythms which are the dominating factor in rock?

If we were to describe the rock beat and were allowed only one word to do so, that one word would be SEX. First, the term itself points to that: rock ‘n’ roll is a term borrowed from the ghetto referring to illicit sex. Secondly, there is the reaction of both performers and audience. and here we are faced once again with the greatest problem a Christian encounters in writing about rock: to get the facts across without transcending the limits of decency and good taste which we must observe. The hysteria, the screaming, brawling, rioting and fainting we can report: but we have read of reactions by audiences described by reporters and writers and accounts by rock musicians and singers about their reactions to the music while performing to which we can only say in the words of the apostle Paul: “For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them…”, no, not any longer “in secret” but openly and without any shame what ever! (see Ephesians 5: 1-12)

Thirdly, that rock music spells SEX has been admitted by numerous and diverse sources.

Time magazine, Feb. 22, 1971, wrote of “the shattering volume …, a new form of violence.., coupled with the anarchic, brute-sexual rhythms and lyrics of rock ‘n’ roll.” (emphasis mine)

Nik Cohn in his book “Rock from the Beginning” writes: “What was new about it (rock) was its aggression. its sexuality, … and most of this came from the beat.”

Bob Larson in his book “Rock” quotes composer/producer Johnny Bristol, “Sex is where it’s at in music … and I like it”; and singer John Oates that rock ‘n’ roll is “99 per cent sex”; and Debbie Harry of “Blondie”, “the main ingredients in rock are … sex and sass”; the lead guitarist of the same group. Chris Stein, agrees, “Everybody takes it for granted rock ‘n’ roll is synonymous with sex.”

Bob Larson also quotes a clinical psychologist on rock, “The music is in a way … a kind of sexual expression. The beat has genuine sexual implications… “8)

We could go on in this vein but, for the sake of brevity, will let this suffice.

The reasons for the sexual implications of the rock beat are to be found in the fact that the beat is the dominating factor in rock music. And here, by the way, we find the most striking similarity to African tribal music: in the “Term and Origin” installation of “What’s Wrong with Rock?” we quoted from the book “Jazz – A History” by Frank Tirro, “The most significant aspect of African music… is its rhythms and syncopations. ” (emphasis mine) Exactly the same statement could be made about rock music.

Rhythm is that factor in music which affects the physical: it is rhythm which stimulates muscular action, causing us to tap our feet, bob our heads, or even sway our bodies slightly. In good music, with its balance of melody, harmony and rhythm, there is an appeal to the mind and intellect. “Rock, with its almost total emphasis on the beat bypasses the mind and works directly on the body.”9) This is also brought out clearly by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of “The Rolling Stones” when they state that rock ‘n’ roll as art or music is “not worth bothering about”. Why? Because “rock ‘n’ roll starts from the neck down. ”

This is not to say that rhythm in itself is evil. If that were the case we would have to condemn all music as we know it. But in rock, in the first place, rhythm is the overriding factor; in the second place, it is monotonous and repetitious, and heavily (electronically) accented; most significantly, it is driving, syncopated rhythm. Syncopation is stimulating to the senses: it tends to evoke sensuous response from the human body, the natural response is sensuous movements. This is borne out by the erotic, even vulgar, body movements which have always been associated with rock (remember Elvis the Pelvis). Also, dancing inevitably becomes erotic when done to a syncopated beat. To get the full impact of this, one would have to be able to observe the startling difference between the way people once danced to the minuet and waltz and the way, in our day, people dance to the disco rock beat.

Now the question is, in view of the obvious evil of rock in every aspect we have considered in this article – term, origin. association, music per se – how is it possible that there is even such a thing as Christian rock – putting words about God to the music of the world and that not the best that the world has to offer, but the worst?

There are a number of contributing causes, of course, but we will limit ourselves to what we believe to be the basic cause for the paradoxical phenomenon of Christian rock: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Music about God must be in harmony with who and what God is, but our age is characterized by an appalling lack of knowledge about God. Even a superficial examination of the lyrics of most Christian rock will bear this out. In some cases, the words are a terrible, deliberate distortion of the gospel; for an example of this, I urge you to read some of the words to the rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar” as quoted by Rev. G. Van Baren in “Guest Editorial”, Standard Bearer, May 15, 1971. The rock musical “Godspell” is another example of this blasphemy of the worst kind.

In many cases, the words are not as obviously and probably not intentionally a distortion of the gospel but they are nevertheless. The message is often vague; the sovereignty of God is the most obviously missing truth; lyrics are increasingly man – and feeling – oriented, less God-oriented. Lowell Hart in his book “Satan’s Music Exposed” writes that, in comparing a contemporary Christian songbook with one published 20 or more years ago, one finds that “mostly deleted from many modern songs are the words that characterized hymns of the past: sin, redemption, salvation, blood, Savior, cross, holy and repentance.”

We are not saying, of course, that all contemporary gospel music is wrong or that all of it is rock: we can and do enjoy some of it. We cannot at this point give you any concrete guidelines as to what and whom we ought to listen to in the area of contemporary Christian music because this article would become far too lengthy and also because this would take some careful research into the subject. What we do want to impress on your mind is this: In order to properly evaluate Christian music, you must know God both intellectually and experientially. We must have a thorough objective knowledge of the Word of God so that we see God as He is: so that we see His sovereignty, His unfathomable greatness, His wisdom, power, majesty, justice, goodness and faithfulness. But we must also know Him personally as the God of our salvation in the way of seeing ourselves as we are in the light of His holy law, sincere repentance, and faith in the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, resulting in a walk of thankfulness and consecration to God.

Dear readers, we may not join those who attempt to dress the Lord God Almighty with the filthy rags of rock. Rather, let us reach for the best, the most excellent in music to “magnify the Lord and exalt His name together.”

1) Detroit News, May 15, 1981, “Gospel on Tour”, Jim McFarlin, News Staff Writer.

2) Detroit News. October 1981, “Bonnie and English rockin’ on for God”, Laurinda Keys, Associated Press.

3) Grand Rapids Press, Feb. 27, 1981, “The Charge of God rock”, Mark Newman.

4) Grand Rapids Press, July 27, 1981, Review of performance of “Godspell” by Dave Nicolette.

5) Bob Larson, “Rock”.

6) Lowell Hart, “Satan’s Music Exposed”.

7) Lowell Hart, Op. Cit.

8) Phil Harbach, “Modern Entertainment and the Christian”. Beacon Lights, Feb., 1975.

9) Lowell Hart, Op. Cit.