"Scientific" Studies and "Natural" Effects
Of course, there's another argument they have to fall back on: "negative natural effects" which are too subtle to be noticed.A big highlight of many of their arguments now is the appeal to "scientific" studies to prove "rock's" bad influence on everything from the heart to houseplants. This supposedly "proves" that nature favors odd-beat accented rhythms over the "twisted" rock beat, for instance.
But as with the idea that the music hampers worship, you cannot prove it in a classroom or book, and one cannot readily disprove it either. So, unchallenged, they can proclaim this with such supposed divine "authority", as if the scriptures directly dealt with the issue. As was mentioned before, to even dispute any of this, you are criticized for disputing all of these "accomplished experts" who are more "wise" than Christians who have the witness of the Spirit.
I remember first hearing something about music's effect on the heart in the late 70's. It was one of those TV news stories stuck in the middle of the broadcast that was not a top story (as if it was really a significant discovery), but was nevertheless a bit sensationalistic and designed to catch one's attention; basically a "tabloid" story. It was a speculatory study that "
could" be true, but it was still just being studied; like recent stories you might hear such as "Scientists Think There May Be A Good Chance of Finding Life on Mars", "[such and such] can cause cancer" (based on lab studies with rats), or the latest diet theory.
The song featured was Glen Campbell's "Southern Nights", but unfortunately, I didn't remember what the exact findings were, or whether it was a rhythm or other elements, or a whole style that was supposedly bad, or which elements or styles were said to be bad or good. I heard nothing about this again until a full decade later when I became aware of fundamentalist rock music critics using the argument to trash all rock music and other related styles.
Rather than some universal truth, it looks more like something they heard (like I did) and seized upon in their argument, but is neither proven nor unanimously accepted. Sort of like the other myths that spread among Christian culture, that cannot be readily proven or disproven, and thus may or may not turn out to be true. (Remember the one that claimed Proctor and Gamble would add a satanic symbol to their product labels in 2000?)1
As I mentioned above, the moral impact of violence on TV and movies or the effects of overly loud music is more universally agreed on, and is also more observable, and fits more with common sense. Another one of those kind of news stories I heard recently suggests that too much TV watching may impair children's attention span, but this was another common sense effect that really figured to people all along, and now simply has more documented observational support. Certain common elements of diet also. And of course, there are the old substance abuse issues such as tobacco, alcohol and drugs. These you hear about all the time.
Once again, people may ignore these findings and still continue what they are doing, but nobody seriously denies the findings to "justify" their habits, so why would Christians deny these theories on music, if they are really as credible?
Because this particular issue is
not universally known, and not unanimously proven like the others. Not all such scientific "studies" and theories are as credible as others. You can't just take anything a scientist proposes (and that the media grabs) and use it in an issue as serious as the CCM critics are making this; let alone a spiritual, moral or scriptural issue by which you denounce other Christians for erring in!
Experimental science is based on [SIZE=-1]THEORY[/SIZE], and very little is concrete; it is subject to differing interpretations. (Fundamentalists like this should know better, from their battles with evolutionism and psychology, which are also said to have been "proven" or "demonstrated" in lab studies!).
The fact that it is not documented that every listener of rock has a house full of dead plants or messed up heart rhythm shows that there are more factors to this than what is being presented here. Just
how much of this syncopation, and other aspects of jazz and rock cause these effects, and how great are the effects?
How loud was the rock that killed plants?
These are
variables, which are by nature,
relative.
(It's so ironic to use relative data to try and debunk relativity in music!) The dangers of fat and sugar are well documented, and you would think just from reading, that any amount of them were poisonous, and that you should never touch the stuff. But that is not the case.
Too much of them is what causes problems. That's why I would agree that extreme situations like acid rock or super-fast "thrash" need to be reconsidered, but it's actually the more mellow stuff (Amy Grant) that these critics focus on.
In fact, the popular music they criticize is very diverse in sound, and a lot of music in the categories of jazz, blues and even rock are mellow and relaxing, and even melodic. But they still find some reason to trash it; "associations" being if all else fails, or "it will lead you to the hard stuff" (But it has never led me or many others into the hard stuff!).
And even "quickening of the heart rate" and other stresses mentioned are not always bad. They occur in
exercise, especially aerobic, which is
good for you (and notice; rock, disco or jazz are often used in workout programs, being a good accompaniment for it). This includes many forms of dancing, as well as running, biking, sports, and regular gym calisthenics.
So just citing findings doesn't mean anything if you don't consider all sides of the picture (and this goes for the citing of scripture as well).
[FONT=Microsoft Sans serif, Helvetica, Arial] Rather than some universal truth, the "Science" studies look like a "tabloid" story CCM critics heard and seized upon in their argument, but is neither proven nor unanimously accepted. The findings, are in fact, often misinterpreted [/FONT] Another important reason it is not good to stake so much on findings like this is that they are easily misinterpreted. One study pitted the effects of "rock" against classical. Fisher cites this study making sure to point out that the scientists "originally began these experiments with the idea of
disproving that rock music had a negative effect on the listener". They showed that "some musical rhythms help synchronize an organism's natural biological rhythms, thus enhancing its functioning, while other rhythms tend to clash with, or disrupt, those internal rhythms"2. This sounds like the ultimate objective, irrefutable case against rock, doesn't it?
But what was being called a "rock" beat was actually chaotic drum beats that had no rhythm at all. Of course, something like this would be likely to have a negative effect on mice, yet it was snatched up without a thought as "proof" that rock was detrimental. Is this what we call "truth"? Also, another study that said rock was "weakening" to the body also showed the same effects from wearing clothes made of synthetic material, reading silently, and just the note of C5 by itself.
This branch or research is known as "behavioral kinesiology", and is based on psychology, and lurking behind it is all sorts of New Age "holistic" concepts, similar to Chi. As I will mention again later, this is a big double standard, as fundamentalists normally reject New Age occultism along with psychology and especially "behaviorism". Yet we see they will use them to try to win this debate! This reveals something seriously wrong in the issue. They are trying to win an argument at
any cost, including that of truth! Where's the "separation from error" they so criticize new-evangelicalism on? Talk about "using the world's means" to advance the Gospel!
Other studies found no difference in the different styles of music, and some even demonstrated that exercise was improved by listening to music one liked, including rock, and was distracted by listening to music one was not familiar with, including classical. (See Steve Miller,
The Contemporary Christian Music Debate, p.9-21)
A couple of authors really stretch scripture by claiming Jesus condemned "vain repetition", even though He was referring to often recited
long prayers, not the rhythm of music. (It's actually many traditional hymn-singers who are guilty of this.
Another cites the scripture's reference to "melodies" as proof that it is teaching that the music itself should always be simple.
Right here, if this is the way people are reading Scripture, then can we trust these conclusions they are drawing?)
The concern with repetition is a supposed "hypnotic" effect. But once again, you have to take into consideration how fast the rhythms are or how frequent the measures. I can sense this hypnotic sound in styles like techno (90's electronic dance), but most other pop is not that bad.
Bob Larson in
Larson's Book of Rock provides a balanced treatment of the subject of the beat and its influence, acknowledging that heavy beats can greatly capture children's minds, but without trashing all pop beats as evil in themselves. (He also gives a balanced view of CCM. Of course, he is now criticized by Cloud and others for abandoning their universal rejection of contemporary styles).
[FONT=Microsoft Sans serif, Helvetica, Arial] The factors cited in studies are variables, which are by nature, relative. It's so ironic to use relative data to try and debunk relativity in music! [/FONT] Amazingly, one author,3 after citing all of these moral, physical and scientific arguments ("you've heard it all before"), counters his own reasoning, saying that "the real issue is holiness" and that by focusing on all of these effects instead of holiness, people are actually focusing on man rather than rock's offensiveness to God: ("many are more interested in what God might permit than in how He might be pleased").
But if the whole proof of its offensiveness to God is it's negative effects (leads men to sin, plus is unnatural to boot, so it must be contrary to God), then we are right back to the question of what determines its offensiveness to God in the first place, if these aren't the right issues.
This is circular argumentation. (And it's not the CCM fans who are citing scientific studies, but the critics, —i.e. this critic's own side of the debate; so who is he accusing of "focusing on these affects"?).
So it seems like these critics can't even decide amongst themselves what the real issue against rock is. They just know that God is against it for some reason or another. Conflicting arguments like this, pasted together into a grand scheme, are signs of an ultimately weak premise.
[SIZE=-1]1) The fact the Christians often fall for and pass around such myths truly makes us look foolish to the world. In this, we can say that "The Children of light" are truly often "less wise" than the children of the world, as Woetzel had earlier cited. But it's conservatives like his circle that are actually the biggest purveyors of such nonsense. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2)Lipkin, Richard, "Jarring Music Takes Toll on Mice";
Insight 4/4/88; cited in Fisher, p. 81 and Miller, p.15) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3) Peck,
Rock: Making Musical Choices p.7, quoted in Fisher,
Battle For Christian Music p.88-9[/SIZE]
