1 of 4

In our recent interview with Sinead O'Connor, she shared her spiritual beliefs—some of them in line with traditional Christianity (the Trinity, the nature of prayer) and some far out of step with it (God isn't perfect, all people go to heaven). The article drew a broad range of reader responses, many of them upset over her "pagan" and "pantheist" views.

But the responses that surprised me most were those that said there's nothing remotely "Christian" about O'Connor's music. I wondered if those readers had bothered to listen to her new album, Theology, or if they had simply focused on O'Connor's statements in the interview. After all, most of Theology's lyrics come straight out of the Psalms and prophetic books in Bible, with few revisions and never out of context.

Question O'Connor's personal beliefs if you want, but if the lyrics are straight from Scripture, how can they be un-Christian? Is the singer more important than the words being sung?

It reminds me of the debate over U2's place in Christian culture. The Irish band, born out of a small group Bible study, became one of the world's biggest pop/rock acts while making regular, clear-cut references to their Christian beliefs in their songs.

Still, many conclude that U2 is "not really Christian," either because the band doesn't take an evangelical approach with their artistry, or perhaps because certain band members enjoy an occasional glass of whisky or drop a curse word from time to time. Why then were U2's clear-cut songs about faith—like "Gloria," "40," "Grace," and  "Where the Streets Have No Name"—more acceptable when performed by Audio Adrenaline, Starfield, Nichole Nordeman, and Chris Tomlin for the In the Name of Love project? Because they're "acceptable" Christian artists? Does "Amazing Grace" become "non-Christian" when sung by a non-believer?

There's clearly a disconnect in Christian culture between artists and art. We have an entire industry called "Christian music," and yet Christians can't fully agree on what that really means. Can Christian music only come from Christian artists?

A few years back, we attempted to clearly define the editorial coverage policy for Christian Music Today. Part of that task included trying to define "Christian music"—a daunting, if not impossible, assignment. If we drafted too narrow a definition, we'd be omitting some great faith-inspired music. But too broad a definition might stretch well beyond our intentions—not to mention offending and/or confusing many readers.

We settled on three different criteria by which we felt we could define the genre; I call them the three Ls of Christian Music. Each works in its own way, but each also comes with some loopholes.

The first is label, referring to established record companies that seek out Bible-believing artists and market their music specifically to Christian culture through radio and retail. This principle is actually the simplest, because it assumes that label execs have already screened their artists (and by extension their music) to determine if they are indeed "Christian." In other words, we trust that the label has done the necessary "homework."

A fair assumption, but it's exactly that—you assume the music represents your faith based on a trusted label's expertise. This is a passive approach to defining Christian music. What about Christian artists who cross over to the mainstream—or those who started there in the first place? Are they no longer "Christian" if they're making music for a secular label? What about unsigned independent artists who aren't with any record label? Christian record companies are useful for verifying an artist's beliefs, but it only paints part of the picture.

next page... |  1 of 4