The impulse to create music is as old as humanity itself.  Human beings have always needed to express themselves through rhythm, melody and harmony, using both voices and instruments.  Different cultures have widely varying tonal scales, melodic patterns, harmonic combinations and instrumentation, but there has been much sharing of these musical characteristics as humans have travelled, explored and conquered throughout history.  I believe that various musical forms arise spontaneously and organically out of a need that exists in a certain time and place, among a certain group of people. 

Sacred music has a long and important history in virtually all cultures, because the belief in a higher power and the need to worship through music are also deeply human impulses.  Medieval Gregorian chant, the very formal musical structure of the Roman Catholic Latin mass, Mozart's Requiem, the wonderful hymnal traditions of the various Protestant religions, slave spirituals, and southern gospel, are but some examples of western sacred music, and all are necessary, important, and organic in their genesis.  They came about to fill specific needs, and some of these musical forms continue to serve those purposes.

Then there is secular music.  In the United States, there are various folk music traditions that have arrived with each wave of immigrants who have come here to make a life.  There are also the uniquely American musical forms like jazz, swing, bluegrass, r&b, country & western, the blues, and many others.  And we also have rock 'n roll, arguably the most influential and financially lucrative form of secular music in the last 60 years.

I believe that all of these secular musical forms, even though some of them have borrowed to some extent from sacred music, arise from a completely different impulse than sacred music.  (And, of course, some rock 'n rollers, most notably Elvis Presley, never really left their gospel roots behind.)  Rock 'n roll in particular began as an expression of youthful energy and rebellion in the post-war era, a time when youth culture was created and even necessitated by the baby boom and the economic conditions that allowed adolescence to last longer than ever before.  It was never about religion.  And I believe that there is nothing wrong with that.  Even in a very religious country, which the United States certainly is, not everything has to be overtly religious.  We don't live in a theocracy.

Heavy metal, as an offshoot of rock 'n roll, seems to appeal more specifically to young guys (although there are quite a few female headbangers out there).  Admittedly, there is some heavy metal that focuses on "Satanic" imagery, but the main appeal is its speed, its volume and its thumping rhythm.  You don't have to know the lyrics to Black Sabbath's "Paranoid" to appreciate the visceral impact.

So what's the problem if there are Christian versions of this music?

What I object to is the lack of originality in Christian rock and heavy metal.  I believe it is nothing more than the repackaging of secular rock and heavy metal music and image with different lyrics.  The bands look and sound practically the same, but there aren't any of those "troublesome" concepts to have to deal with, like, say, sex.  In other words, the Christian music industry has co-opted these two musical forms that were never intended to be sacred, and is marketing them to young people because that's who buys the majority of recorded music.  I have my doubts about the motives here.  With this amount of money at stake, I am not sure I believe that Christian rock and heavy metal are about saving souls (and even if that was the motive, I believe it is completely untrue to the intent and spirit of rock 'n roll).  In this instance, isn't evangelism just another way of increasing market share? 

Ka-ching!  Jesus is now a commodity, and one with a pretty short shelf life, if it is based on the fickleness of the average teenager.

Which brings me to the word "cynical".  One of the definitions of "cynical", and the way I am using it here, is as follows:

•           "Cynical implies a contemptuous disbelief in human goodness and sincerity."

It is obvious that my opinions about Christian rock and heavy metal are, in themselves, more than a bit cynical.  I will own that.  But, I also think that the belief that Christian rock and heavy metal will keep kids "safe", that secular rock and heavy metal (and, again, secular is what they were intended to be) are somehow morally impure regardless of their subject matter, and that the mere act of listening to secular rock and heavy metal is going to lead to a rejection of faith and a life of sin - these ideas are also quite cynical.  And yet, many mainstream Christians believe just that. 

If a parent really believes that his or her teen is going to be enticed into a life of debauchery because of rock music lyrics, how secure is that faith to begin with? Instead of demanding that Christian kids shun secular artists, shouldn't their churches and their parents talk to them about everything they're listening to, and have a discussion about what the lyrics mean?  But, I would imagine it's a lot easier to just pick from a list of pre-approved artists.

Green Day a little too subversive?  Here, try Relient K!  (Because questioning authority is wrong, isn't it?)

Metallica too threatening?  Here, download this Temple of Blood CD!  (Please.  The urge to headbang doesn't come from Satan - it comes from being 15!  And isn't it weird that a secular band is called "Metallica", while a Christian band is called "Temple of Blood"?)

Christian heavy metal lyrics are especially interesting.  There is every bit as much of an obsession with blood, demons, skulls, gore and death, but it gets a pass because it's all about Jesus' torture and execution, and the  slaying of demons.  I guess that makes it all OK!

Yes, this is a Christian metal band.

It seems like just about every secular rock act has a Christian doppelganger.  Again, I think this is nothing more than the industry keeping an eye on what sells and repackaging it in "Christian" form.  If rock 'n roll and heavy metal didn't already exist, would there be Christian rock and heavy metal acts?  Somehow, I don't think so.  If the music of choice for young people was bossa nova, there would probably be a Christian bossa nova industry.

Does Christianity really need this to survive?  And, if so, what does that say about Christianity? 

I see this as a continued attempt by some Christians at separating themselves out of a secular world.  But, I think that Jesus was very  much a man of the world, and I see the reliance on Christian rock (along with other things like Christian radio, Christian home-schooling, the Christian Yellow Pages, etc.) as a retreat from the world.  It's like there is a parallel Christian universe, but there is a price for entering that universe, which is shunning anything that doesn't have the Christian seal of approval - the ichthys symbol or "Jesus Fish". 

Please don't read this as me bashing religion, saying that Christian rock and metal should be banned, or that no one should listen to this music.  I am simply stating why I think it is both redundant and cynical to repackage these two secular forms of music for a Christian audience.  (NOTE:  I think I probably have the same concerns as above about Christian rap - I just don't know enough about rap music to comment.)

I just wonder what the point is, ultimately, other than for some people to make lots of money, while providing a false sense of righteousness and security. Not that there's anything new about that.  

In the end, I think I might have to go along with Hank Hill, who said of Christian rock in an episode of King of the Hill, "You people are not making Christianity any better.  You're just making rock 'n roll worse."

And besides, the existence of The Beatles is more than enough proof for me that God/god loves us all.