The soundtracks of Christendom…and post-Christendom.

This article is part of a series. Click here to read previous instalments.

Last week we saw that humans are designed to be musical creatures and that music is a powerful gift that can be used for good or ill. We saw that it is both an expression and a shaper of human culture – such that what is popular, musically speaking, will always reflect a society’s spiritual condition.

With this in mind, let’s step back in time and consider, in broad terms, how Western music has developed up to the present day.

The Sounds of Christendom

It is difficult to overstate the influence that Christianity has had on the development of Western music – and always in a way that has reflected the state of the Church. In medieval and Renaissance times, when the Bible was still in Latin and religion was largely the domain of priests and monks, a clear division existed between the [Catholic] Church and the people. Accordingly, music was also divided quite neatly into sacred (i.e. church) and secular (i.e. folk, entertainment) traditions, the latter of which varied in its reverence for God and often referenced pre-Christian, pagan themes.

With the Reformation, all of this changed: faith suddenly became available to the masses – a matter for communal discussion, meeting, sharing and singing. Europe’s culture was fundamentally reshaped by Protestantism – and committed Lutherans like JS Bach and George Frideric Handel carried this into their music, devoting their lives to composing expressly for God’s glory.

It is difficult to overstate the influence that Christianity has wielded on the development of Western music.

This meant that through the 17^th and 18^th Centuries, Europe’s musical landscape (just as with its art and architecture) benefited from a broad cultural backdrop of biblical belief. As such, both Baroque and Classical music¹ developed an appreciation for order and the beauty of form.

Music of those centuries reflected Enlightenment ideals, yes, but also the assumption that the universe was divinely ordered and designed to be both functional and beautiful, to the glory of God. Right up until the 20^th Century, the devil remained a macabre figure, referenced in jest or as a nemesis.

20^th Century: Post-Christendom

But as Europe abandoned its Judeo-Christian moorings particularly after World War II, so trends in art, philosophy, architecture and music all tended to reject the former beauty of classical order, in favour of the ‘postmodern’ and ‘avant-garde’.

In music, orderly and even phrases were rejected in favour of abstract forms. Harmonious chords were replaced with dissonance. Just like society, music became disillusioned and cynical.² Instead of music proudly composed to the glory of God, postmodern composers like Alexander Skriabin declared themselves god and dabbled freely in the occult.³

Meanwhile, as ‘popular’ music and culture departed from broadly ‘classical’ music into jazz, rock and pop, and from there exploded into innumerable sub-genres, so these too have become expressions of their background culture: a society embracing anything but Christianity.

Whatever the genre, as people have forsaken a biblical worldview, and as the mass media has exported music to millions in a very short space of time, so the enemy has moved in to fill the spiritual vacuum and wield music’s power to influence the lives of people all over the world.

1960s-1980s: The Popularisation of satanic Music

There has been much debate about how first blues and jazz, and then rock and roll, formed part of a wider rebellion against Christianity and its moral moorings. However, I will jump on here to the deliberate infusion of occult themes into popular music from the 1960s onwards, in tandem with post-war ‘liberation’ movements (political, sexual, drug-related, etc).

Through the 1960s, thanks to celebrity interest in occultists such as Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley, the idea of paying homage to satan through popular music really took off.

Through the 1970s and 80s, in a drug-fuelled haze and helped along by the new age influence of Brian Eno (a self-confessed ‘evangelical atheist’ with a hatred for Israel but a big influence in the music industry), occult imagery and new age/satanic references in pop and rock music became quite fashionable.

As Europe abandoned its Judeo-Christian moorings particularly after World War II, so trends in art, philosophy, architecture and music all tended to reject the former beauty of classical order.

Whether or not artists really believed in what they were referencing (I think both God and satan have taken it very seriously, even if they didn’t!), there is plentiful evidence to suggest satanic influence on many high-profile bands and artists, ranging from 60s rock-and-rollers like Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard to iconic groups like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin; from rock bands like The Eagles, U2 and AC/DC (of Highway to Hell fame) to megastars like Jimi Hendrix and David Bowie.

Led Zeppelin logo, making use of occult imagery. See Photo Credits.Alongside this rose heavy metal and ‘death metal’ music, with bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and Black Sabbath, and later Metallica and Megadeth, all professing occult allegiances. By the late 1980s, this part of the music world had grown so dark that it involved on-stage rituals and the glorification of satanic violence, including rape and murder.

As part of this, there are many stories of musicians genuinely selling their souls to the devil to ensure success, ‘channelling’ demons whilst onstage and ‘receiving’ songs whilst on drugs. Just a few examples:

• "Someone else is steering me. I'm just along for the ride. I become possessed when I'm on stage." (Angus Young, AC/DC)⁴
  
• “I was directed and commanded by another power, the power of darkness, the power of the devil, satan.” (Little Richard)⁵
  
• “I can explain everything better through music. You hypnotise people and when you get people at their weakest point you can preach into their subconscious what we want to say.” (Jimi Hendrix)
  
• “I wanted to marry Lucifer. I don’t consider Lucifer an evil force. I feel his presence in the music. I feel he comes and sits on my piano.” (Tori Amos)
  
• “I’ve sold my soul to the devil. But my joy is when you’re like possessed, like a medium…I’ll be sitting around and it’ll come in the middle of the night or at a time when you don’t want to do it – that’s the exciting part. I don’t know who the *** wrote it, I’m just sitting here and the whole *** song comes out. So you’re like driven and you find yourself over on a piano or a guitar and you put it down because it’s been given to you...” (John Lennon)
  

How far we have fallen since Handel’s Messiah!

There is plentiful evidence to suggest satanic influence on many high-profile bands and artists.

Millennial Pop

Through the 1990s and 2000s, heavy occult rock grew less fashionable as an expression of youthful rebellion against the status quo (though it has never lost its cult following). It was replaced by narcissistic pop, hip-hop and R&B club tunes, pushing messages about personal indulgence, sexual consumerism and, latterly, aggressive feminism – again, reflecting the spirit of the age.

However, through the superficial glitz of 21^st Century me-centred, licentious pop, occult overtones have not been absent. Mega-stars like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Nikki Minaj and Iggy Azalea are just a few household names, followed avidly by millions of teenage girls, who have carried occult or pagan themes into their music and videos. And who can forget Beyonce’s pregnant performance at last year’s Grammy Awards, when she ‘channelled’ a variety of African and Indian fertility goddesses onstage.⁶

Alongside this, electronic dance music (EDM) genres such as house, drum-and-bass and trance have continued the satanic themes of earlier heavy metal, including intense volume (said to induce depression, rebellion and aggression), repetitive rhythms designed to empty the mind, and builds and releases intended to mimic sexual activity.⁷ These kinds of music have carried late-20^th Century rave and drug culture into the millennium and beyond.

Whether we are considering the satanic rock music played at the Bataclan Concert Hall in Paris in 2015 (and, according to Pastor JD Farag,⁸ a recurring influence in the lives of American teen shooters), or the disgracefully immoral lyrics of pop stars like Ariana Grande (who performed at Manchester Arena before the attack last May), we begin to see just how extensive the satanic foothold on the music industry is – and how intently focused it is on shaping the minds of children and teenagers.

Whilst not all music written and performed by non-Christians is necessarily evil, it is certain that the enemy has been given plenty of room within the industry at large. This is simply a result and reflection of the spiritual state of wider society.

There are many stories of musicians genuinely selling their souls to the devil to ensure success, ‘channelling’ demons whilst onstage and ‘receiving’ songs whilst on drugs.

Discernment Needed

This has been a very sweeping analysis and I am aware that there are plenty of anomalies that don’t fit with the broader trends outlined here. That’s why there is great need for discernment in these days, for ourselves and for our loved ones.

The average Briton listens to 3,500 songs per year and spends more than 1/10 of their waking hours listening to music, according to a recent study.⁹ For 18-24 year olds this rises to a whopping 3½ hours of music per day. Christians need to wake up to the music we are allowing to become the backdrop of our lives.

We know that how we use our bodies is important (1 Cor 6:19-20). With our bodies we can glorify God, or we can rebel and be defiled. Just as it matters what we let pass in front of our eyes (Ps 101:3) and what we let come out of our mouths (Matt 15:11), so it matters what we allow to go into our ears (and the ears of our children and grandchildren), how we dance and, if we are musical, what we play. God calls us to focus on “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable…excellent or praiseworthy” (Phil 4:8).

With this in mind, next week we will consider how the spirit of the age has infiltrated modern worship music.

References

1 Generally accepted dates for the Baroque period in music are 1600-1750, and for the Classical period 1750-c.1810.

2 E.g. see here.

3 See here.

4 Hit Parade, July 1985. Quoted here.

5 Taken from JD Farag’s update of 18 February, Youtube. All subsequent quotes likewise.

6 For a detailed analysis of the symbolism employed in Beyonce's performance, click here.

7 I am indebted to this article for the details about rock music's components.

8 See note 5.

9 See here.

How the charismatic movement took on the characteristics of its social surroundings.

Last week we looked at the social and cultural characteristics of pop culture as it developed through the 20^th Century. This week we move on to see how this shaped the Church.

Youth-Dominated

Many of the founding fathers of the charismatic movement in Britain were men of deep spirituality, personal commitment to the Lord Jesus and with a passion to share Christ with others. Many of them, such as Denis Clark, Arthur Wallis, David Lillie, Campbell McAlpine, Michael Harper and Tom Smail - to mention just a few - were steeped in the Word of God and utterly committed to the promotion of New Testament Christianity. This, indeed, was their major objective, namely the restoration of authentic New Testament principles to the life of the Church.

There were many other men from conservative evangelical or Brethren backgrounds whose study of the Word of God led them to believe that the 20^th Century Church had strayed woefully from the New Testament pattern. They longed to see the restoration of the five-fold ministries, of the recognition of baptism in the Holy Spirit and of the exercise of spiritual gifts within the Church. Their witness within their denominational institutions often stirred heated opposition and many were ejected from their fellowships.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s a few house church groups began to be formed, although this was never the intention of those who longed to see the restoration of New Testament teaching and practice in the Church. In the early days there were men in leadership of these new fellowships who were of sound biblical scholarship and considerable spiritual maturity. But, as so often happens in a new movement, it is not the thinkers who prevail but those who are the most convincing 'charismatic' personalities, popular speakers and natural leaders.

Young men rapidly took the initiative, both in forming new fellowships and in taking leadership. This was fully in line with the prevailing mood in Western society. These young men owed no allegiance to traditional Church or denominational institutions. They were untrained for leadership and most of them had no theological education. They rapidly developed new styles of worship using guitars, which were ideal for home groups, and new styles of meetings and leadership.

As so often happens in a new movement, it is not the thinkers who prevail, but those who are the most convincing ‘charismatic’ personalities. 

Anti-Tradition

The new house fellowships soon attracted those who were discontented with their traditional denominational churches. This, of course, is inevitable with any new movement. When David was outlawed by King Saul and took refuge in the hills, it is recorded that, “All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered round him, and he became their leader” (1 Sam 22:2).

Something like this happened in the early days of the house church movement. Many who were dissatisfied with the lifelessness of the denominational churches were attracted by the informality and freshness of the house church fellowships. The early days saw many groups split away from a parent group and form new fellowships. These splits often occurred on the grounds of teaching or practice, but in reality new young leaders were arising to challenge an established leader and form their own fellowships.

The emphasis was upon all things new in response to the new experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was a new day. God was doing a new thing. Old established practices in the denominational churches were considered stumbling-blocks to what God wanted to do among his people. The Holy Spirit was sweeping away the dead wood in the Church and there were many calls for people to come out of the mainline churches because God had finished with the denominations.

These calls did not come from mature Bible teachers such as Denis Clark and Campbell McAlpine, who never formed new fellowships and whose ministries were trans-denominational. They came from the young men who eagerly seized the opportunities for leadership presented by new teaching and the impatience of many within the traditional churches to move faster than their pastors deemed to be wise.

In Brighton, for example, when Terry Virgo founded the Clarendon Fellowship he was joined by a large proportion of the congregation from St Luke's, Brighton and Hangelton Baptist as well as individual members from churches in the surrounding area.

Young leaders eagerly seized opportunities for leadership presented by new teaching and the impatience of many within traditional churches. 

Similar things happened in many other parts of the country, where house fellowships sprang up and rapidly attracted members of the mainline churches. These congregants were longing to experience new life in the Spirit and felt constricted by the traditions which bound them in the churches they had attended for many years.

It was a time of splits, of fission and fusion, as house fellowships multiplied, outgrew their drawing-room bases and began worshipping in scout huts and school halls. There were many cries of sheep-stealing and counter-charges of being blocks to the Holy Spirit. There were many hurts, but it is now a long time ago and most wounds have healed. The new fellowships are an established part of the Church scene. Their leaders are prominent in the charismatic movement alongside those in the mainline churches.

Most of the new fellowships planted in the 1970s or early 1980s have now aligned themselves with one or other of half a dozen streams such as Pioneer, New Frontiers, New Covenant or Ichthus, each of which is now an independent sect or a mini-denomination.

At the time these new fellowships were being formed, a significant renewal movement was taking place within the mainline churches themselves. Many ordained ministers quite independently experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and began to lead their congregations into renewal in the Holy Spirit. Many suffered considerably in doing so while others saw quite spectacular results. Colin Urquhart in Luton, Trevor Dearing in Hainault, David Watson in York, David Pawson in Guildford and many others each attracted large congregations and saw the renewing of the spiritual life in the churches they led and the exercise of spiritual gifts among the people.

It is questionable in hindsight whether it was ever right to fragment the Church by the formation of numerous new fellowships, or whether it was God's intention to renew the existing structures. The new eager young leaders reflected the spirit of the age, both in their impatience to get on with the new thing, and with their anti-traditionalism which regarded all things of the past as only being fit for ridicule and rejection.

Certainly the Church was in need of a radical shake-up and spiritual renewal, but was it really necessary to tear apart the Body of Christ so wantonly and create such division? Would a little more love and patience have enabled renewal and a new unity to run right across the denominations? Was this God's intention for his Church?

It is questionable in hindsight whether it was ever right to fragment the Church by the formation of numerous new fellowships, or whether it was God's intention to renew the existing structures. 

We shall never know the answers to these questions, but it is a fact that the decade of the 1970s which saw the greatest fragmentation of the Church was also the decade of the greatest social unrest, the height of the social revolution.

A spirit of rebellion was running right through the nation with numerous strikes in industry and a vast increase in marriage breakdown and sexual promiscuity, with all the accompanying evidence of the rejection of tradition and the eager pursuit of new social and moral values.

It is perhaps a strange quirk that the young rebel leaders who caused great division in the 1970s and who became the leading 'apostles' of the charismatic movement are now the very ones condemning as 'divisive' those who question the biblical validity of their teaching and practices.

Individualism

20^th Century evangelicalism has tended towards individualism due to its emphasis upon the personal nature of salvation. The seeds of individualism have been there since the Reformation, but 20^th Century Western culture has greatly encouraged this. By the time the charismatic movement was born, individualism in Western society was rampant and the new renewal movement embraced it wholeheartedly.

Unlike the corporate experience of the disciples on the Day of Pentecost, the renewal movement was entirely personal. Its emphasis was upon the personal relationship of each believer with the Father. This, of course, is perfectly biblical and in line with the promise of the Lord, but the Hebraic background to Jesus' teaching has been lost over the centuries and with it the understanding of the place of each believer within the corporate community the Body of Christ.

Charismatic renewal is highly 'me-centred'. Each individual is encouraged to discover their spiritual gifting. Indeed, the gifts are regarded as personal possessions rather than together making up the spiritual attributes of the community of believers.

This individualistic concept of the gifts has led to some erroneous teaching, highly dangerous for the health of the Church, such as the 'positive confession' or 'faith movement' which has emphasised physical and materialistic values such as health and wealth. Its proponents have taught that God wants all his people to prosper, to be healthy and wealthy and that through faith or 'positive confession' these things can be obtained.

This teaching is fully in line with the desires and ambitions of Western acquisitive materialistic society which no doubt accounts for its popularity among charismatics, despite it being the very opposite of the teaching of Jesus!

Much of the preoccupation of charismatics with the exercise of spiritual gifts has been me-centred: me and my health, my wealth, my family and my personal relationship with God. The exercise of spiritual gifts thereby tends to meet the personal needs within the fellowship. The servant nature of discipleship - saved to serve - tends to become lost.

Much of the charismatic renewal movement has been me-centred: me and my health, my wealth, my family and my personal relationship with God.

Charismatic worship has both reflected this me-centredness and helped to reinforce it. A very large number of worship songs and choruses use the first person singular rather than plural. One of the great benefits of the renewal movement has been to heighten each believer's awareness of the presence of God and thereby to heighten each individual's active participation in worship and deepen their spiritual apprehension of God. This is wholly good, but the danger of an overemphasis on individualism is a loss of the corporate and thereby a loss of the essential nature of the New Testament Church as the Body of Christ.

Personal Involvement

If you walk into a strange church, you can usually know instantly whether it is charismatic or traditional. If it is traditional, the congregation will fill up the back pews first; if it is charismatic they will fill up from the front. In the traditional church the congregation is passive, the people are there to be ministered to by choir, readers and preacher; in the charismatic church the people are there for active participation. They want to be fully involved in worship with the freedom to wave their arms, clap, dance and give physical expression to their emotions.

This DIY worship is very much in line with the spirit of pop culture. Amateur musicians, worship leaders and singers give a performance at the front which is enthusiastically supplemented by the active participation of the congregation.

In the new sects which arose out of the house church fellowships, the preachers and pastors were also untrained. Hardly any of them had any formal theological training in a theological college or university theology faculty. A few had been to a Bible school although many of the younger leaders had received some sort of training from schools set up within their own sects. These were non-academic and simply pass on the limited teaching of the leadership.

This represents one of the greatest dangers of the charismatic movement, where the emphasis has been increasingly on experience-centred or revelationary-centred leadership with increasingly less emphasis upon biblical scholarship.

One of the greatest dangers of the charismatic movement is its emphasis on experience-centred leadership over and above biblical scholarship.

As the charismatic movement has tended to become increasingly driven by the leaders of new sects in concert with a handful of leaders from the mainline churches, few of whom are men of outstanding scholarship, the gap between biblical truth and current charismatic practice has widened.

The anti-professionalism of pop culture has been present in the charismatic movement from the beginning although leaders have been quick to assert their own authority. The excesses of heavy shepherding, which scarred many people's lives during the 1980s, have largely disappeared, although the authoritarianism of sectarian leadership has left its mark. Individual believers are encouraged to be fully involved in worship and the exercise of spiritual gifts, with the exception of the gift of prophecy, which is permitted as long as it is supportive of the leadership.

Next week: The final three characteristics of pop culture are compared to the Church: sensuousness, lawlessness and power.

First published 1995. Revised and serialised November 2017. You can find previous instalments in this series here.