Christian music, an exposé.

Wow...it is 8:09 and I still haven’t eaten dinner. Writing is a leech...once you get into it and get wrapped up in it, you don’t want to stop until you’re done.

Of the plethora of objects/roles/actions in life to which the adjective “Christian” may be placed before in an attempt to sanctify or redeem the entity into something more holy, there is one that looms above all the rest, evoking various emotions from various people: from closed-mindedness to annoyance to flat-out embarrassment.

Christian music.

Some people love it. Some people hate it. Some people will listen to nothing but it. Some people will listen to everything but it. Where do I fall? Once again the maxim from a former post rings true: shades of gray, not black or white. The seesaw balances somewhere in the middle, rather than touching the ground.

May I pose an interesting observation, which actually applies to a lot more areas in life than just music. Many times, when a cult has been formed in favor of something by a certain group of people, and another group of people is not so peachy about said cult and really dislikes their fanatical zeal, they may (contradictably) form a counter-cult that is just as fanatically zealous, only in exact opposition to the original cult. Funny how we do this. “You’re being too closed-minded, so I’m going to be closed-minded in retaliation to your closed-mindedness.”

This post was inspired largely by my youngest brother, who, while he embraced Christian music with open arms just 3 years ago, decided to completely disown it as a whole at a certain time in 2009.

Before I say anything further, I will summarize everything I am about to say below, my own personal beliefs. And know that when I repeatedly say "we," I am not really referring to all Christians but the extremist minority when it comes to Christian music (who sadly, most believe represent all Christians because they are so extreme and loud about their beliefs). I just think it is a good habit to say "we" instead of "you" as a precaution to falling into pride and elitism (it all starts with pointing fingers).

I believe that “Christian” and “secular” music DO NOT EXIST, because everyone draws the line in a different location at where one ends and the other begins. “Christian” music was an endeavour that started out with a good heart and mission, but over the years things have gone horribly wrong, and for many people it has caused more harm (legalism, judgmentalism, musical closed-mindedness) than good. Nevertheless, as Martin Luther once said, we fall off one side of the horse only to get up back on it and fall off the other side. Some people reject Christian music with just as much fervor as they accepted it at an earlier time in their life. Once again, the dividing line has caused more harm than good.

The positive-encouraging syndrome

Many people who are raised in a Christian family will be introduced to Christian music at a young age. Before they are old enough to drive they may be taken to a Christian bookstore when their parents are shopping, at which they will scout out the music and familiarize themselves with it. Their parents will always play a CCM station like K-Love while they are driving somewhere in their car. Their young friends at church may discuss which bands they’re into, and soon enough a small cult mentality may have formed in which Christian music is the only music that effectively exists, rife with the “positive-encouraging” syndrome.

Fast-forward 5 years. The young posse has now grown up. One by one, slowly but surely, they have begun to ditch the music they used to listen to and have embraced “secular” music almost entirely. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not. I myself personally hate how the word “secular” slithers off some people’s tongues as if they’re imitating the serpent in the Garden of Eden and trying to convince me that secular music leads us down the wide road to destruction. There is a simple reality that any open-minded person realizes: there are some “secular” bands that have no equivalent “Christian” counterparts! Jimmy Eat World is one such band for me. There is no replacing them, they are who they are. I’ve gotta have the real deal.

It is GOOD for young people to shake off the I-can’t-listen-to-secular-music-no-matter-how-good-it-is-musically-because-it’s-evil mentality. It’s not Biblical. BUT! It is also not good for young people to accept an equally ridiculous I-can’t-listen-to-Christian-music-because-it’s-lame-and-I’m-a-musical-connoisseur type mentality. It’s okay to look back at your early Christian life and see little legalistic sins you’re now mature enough to be ashamed of (such as listening to only Christian music and judging others who don't), but to cast Christian music off completely in order to distance yourself from that past foolishness and give yourself a cool, mature reputation is not okay. It’s just as legalistic.

But the question lingers, a very very important question. WHAT THE HECK IS CHRISTIAN MUSIC? It’s a definition that apparently all Christians are supposed to know innately, but when it comes time to actually define it, a universally accepted definition cannot be arrived upon! I don’t know about you, but things that have no definition have no place in my mindset, because things with no definition are just that: meaningless. An objective framework built on a subjective foundation is still subjective.

Years ago I was a regular forum member on JesusfreakHideout.com. This is a great website for tracking and keeping up with bands/artists who are signed to records labels run by Christians (notice I did not say “Christian labels” but “labels run by Christians”) and other bands/artists who are not signed to such labels but whose members have professed to be Christians. However, you cannot post on their message boards without quickly coming across the legalistic mindset with regards to music. ONLY Christian music is allowed to be discussed. A secular song posted in a “What are you listening to?” thread will be deleted upon first sight by a moderator. Some Christians engage the world with their Christianity, while other Christians cordone themselves off in a “Christian bubble.” A quick visit to JfH’s message boards always makes me feel claustrophobically confined in a small, airtight religious bubble that seals off the rest of the world like Truman Burbank’s world in the movie The Truman Show. Nobody talks about what exists beyond the walls, so it comes to effectively not exist in their minds.

Now, is there anything wrong with limiting the conversation on a forum to a certain designation of music? Not at all, at least in a balanced, respectable manner. It is good for forums to establish a central theme for their topics, otherwise there may be an information overload of anything and everything, and the original purpose of a forum will be defeated: bringing people of a common interest together for discussion. You find a forum that is for your specific interest, and you post there, whether that interest be knitting, Greek mythology, or beagles.

But once again I must raise a questioning cry: what on earth is Christian music? Let’s take some stabs at a definition.

"Christian music" definition attempts

Perhaps it is artists who create worship music and whose lyrics are always about God and our relationship with Him. These are songs that connect you with God, causing you to remember His character and what He’s done for you. These songs produce thankfulness, awe, joy, faith and peace in your heart. I can accept such a definition for “Christian music”. However, everyone knows that Christian music is not just relegated to this small sect. There are bands who do not always sing songs of praise, and yet their music is deemed “Christian.” Relient K’s newest album consists almost entirely of breakup songs, and yet JfH and others would still label it “Christian.”

Perhaps it is artists who are signed to a “Christian” record label. (Ugh I hate using “Christian” as an adjective. Who decided a noun and a rarely used adjective could become a common-as-all-get-out adjective used for anything? Shame on you.) Tooth & Nail is the behemoth of Christian record labels, complete with all of its subsidiaries (BEC, Solid State, etc.). Again, this can’t be true, because bands such as Lifehouse, Anberlin, Red, Relient K, and Switchfoot are not currently signed to such labels and are still listed as Christian bands. (Lifehouse is the most important band in that list in light of this discussion, since they have never been signed to a Christian label for a day of their lives.) And the word “currently” in the preceding sentence brings up an even more perplexing conundrum. What happens when a band leaves a Christian label? Does that band lose their “faith” and commit apostasy? Did Anberlin cease to be a Christian band after Cities, if they were ever a Christian band to begin with? We are just beginning to see exactly how ridiculous and legalistic this false dichotomy is.

Perhaps it is artists who profess to be Christians. What about bands such as The Classic Crime, in which at least one member is not a Christian? Is it majority rules or should such a band correctly be called 60% Christian? Wow, 60% Christian. Maybe we need to create a database with pie charts showing how Christian every band is? Then we run into the same brick wall: we have to define what percentage is enough to be a Christian band. We keep chasing absolutes and ending up in the whims and fancies of our own minds.

Perhaps it is artists who wish to be labeled as “Christian artists.” Nope. Mute Math is a band (an awesome one at that) who got quite upset when Warner Bros. Records decided to market them as a Christian band on their Christian sub-label Word Records. Mute Math eventually sued Warner for advertising them in a way that they never agreed to, which they believed would close many doors on the audience they would be able to reach with their music (understandable). The ethics of this decision of theirs as Christians (filing a lawsuit) is an entirely different discussion, but for the present discussion, it will suffice to say Mute Math won their lawsuit. Their self-titled album was re-released solely on Warner’s “secular” parent label. And yet, visit JfH and surprise surprise, you will see (much to Mute Math’s chagrin), Mute Math is still listed as a Christian band.

The lead singer of Mute Math used to be in the Christian band Earthsuit, so perhaps it is that once you are a member of a Christian band any future bands you are in will also be Christian bands. I don’t want to even humor that one because it’s so incredibly (pardon my unscholarly language here, not that I always use scholarly language in my posts) stupid.

Edit: As of my visit on August 30, while Mute Math's albums are still listed on JfH, the band is no longer listed in the artist database (I know they were listed several weeks ago, with their band pic being the one in front of a large tree). Could be coincidence, but makes me wonder if someone from there read this post!

Being a Christian band, whatever the heck that might possibly entail, is something you can’t even decide for yourself. It is decided for you, and you cannot shake it no matter what you say or do. I suppose it is a lot like having a royal heritage: there’s nothing biologically or noticeably different about you, you just have a blood that people have deemed to be royal.

Granted, in a topic posted 4 years ago on JfH, a moderator did write this:

Please feel free to check our Artist Database first as a starting point. We are by no means the "final authority" on the subject, nor do we profile every Christian artist, but it is a good place to start.

Sadly there is an underlying assumption in that confession that most people will not recognize they’re accepting, namely that a final authority DOES exist on the subject (and therefore Christian music definitively exists). Nevertheless, read what is said later on:

Sorry, but this thread is to ask and answer about specific bands being Christian (and yes, for the sake of the discussion and this website, bands can be "Christian").

Whoa, for the sake of this discussion and this website bands can be Christian? What about in reality?!? For the sake of a discussion, solipsism is a rational point of view. If you’ve never bored/excited yourself with a small dose of philosophy (whatever the case might be for you), solipsism is the belief that the only absolute truth that exists is that you yourself are alive. You may be hallucinating the entire world around you, or you may just be dreaming it all up. That is something you can never prove is false. Therefore the only thing you can accept with full certainty is that you yourself exist. Everyone and everything else you know may be figments of your imagination. But of course, it is very self-evident and apparent to our very nature that the world we are living in exists, as well as other beings. Sorry for the philosophical tangent, but hopefully I’ve made my point. For the sake of discussion, ridiculous points of view can seem credible. That doesn’t mean anything about how true they actually are.

What I hear from that second excerpt from JfH is this: “We don’t all agree that bands can be Christian, but we will make judgments and enforce rules to keep the discussion only about Christian bands.” Kind of contradictory, eh? Especially in a Christian context, where there are absolutes. It’s like me saying that pelicans don’t exist, but I’d like to tell you all about the reality and anatomy of pelicans and how to capture one if you see one. It’s a useless conversation, to try to talk absolutely about non-absolutes. You might as well be teaching a college course about Star Trek or Lady Gaga. (Which, sadly enough, both exist. Though Lady Gaga does exist, so that course isn’t non-absolute, it’s just sad.)

Let me make the most important point first.

1. There are two distinct functions of music. One is spiritual, and one is purely for entertainment. BOTH have places in the lives of the people of God.

All Christians should agree on the first function, worshipping God.

Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
Psalm 150:3-5

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

Music is a very important way for us to bridge the supernatural gap between us and our wonderful King. There is something unearthly about music, indescribable, in how it invokes emotion from our hearts. Never do we mean something so deeply as when we sing it. Why else have men written love songs to their ladies over the millennia? When we sing to God, our hearts are professing one big “Amen” to everything we’re singing. We are singing to our first Love Who has captured our hearts with His beauty and grace. Worship does not consist only of singing and making music, far from it. But music is a form of worship that we cannot afford to ignore or give up, because it is something that is built into our very nature and therefore something that has the most potential to be used for communion with God.

However, this is not the only function of music, just as a microphone may be used for preaching or for performing stand-up comedy. The other function is art and entertainment. Art and entertainment are also built into human nature and something that we know very well. Expressing our creativity, making others laugh, admiring a great work of art, letting our feelings out. All of these are peculiarities that make us human and separate us from the animals and are often best tapped into through the use of art and entertainment. As I said in my last post on physical beauty, everything in creation tells us something about our Creator. The reason we love art and music and being entertained by them is because there is love in our Creator, in Whose image we were made, for these things as well. So we should be able to conclude that being entertained by music is a different function, though not an inherently heathen or sinful one.

I would imagine that 99% of Christians who listen to nothing but Christian music watch (gasp) secular movies. That is inconsistent. If you're going to be okay with one form of "secular" entertainment, you can't shoot down another for not being positive or encouraging enough. The question at stake is a philosophical, ethical one. "Is entertainment without spirituality sinful?" The answer to that question will tell us in what ways we can and can't judge Christians who are musicians.

We bring in many unnecessary and unBiblical problems when we try to cross these two categories or reduce everything into the first category. Does all music need to be worship music and serve the first function? Is it okay for Christians who possess talent and interest in music to pursue non-worship music? Not everyone is called to be a Chris Tomlin or a Matt Redman. Do we really believe we should force all Christians to be worship artists, even if they do not really have a knack or blessing for it? No wonder people don’t want to be labeled as Christian artists! They know that the second they are, the judgment comes crashing down on their heads!

Let me bring in an important example, Mat Kearney. Mat Kearney released his debut album Bullet in 2004 on Inpop records, a Christian record label. The album caught the eye of much larger labels and music big shots, and Kearney was eventually signed to Columbia Records, with which he has released 3 albums. Not once has Kearney professed to be a Christian artist.

But look at this post from a user at, where else, JesusfreakHideout. The language use referred to is the word “hell,” used in three songs on his newest album.

While I don't have any problem with Kearney's language use, I do question how his spiritual journey's going. It seems much too common for a Christian artist to start making it in the secular scene and soon after, God's nowhere to be found in that artist's lyrics (that said, all the more credit should go to Christian bands who persist in their obvious Christian message, even after making it in the secular airwaves - e.g., Flyleaf, NEEDTOBREATHE, Switchfoot, etc).

It is not fair to make allegations against someone for not filling the shoes of a role we ourselves decided to place them in. Kearney was referred to and held to the standards of "Christian artist," something he never claimed to be. If I were a musician, I don't think I would ever claim to be a Christian artist, because I know that I'd be walking a tightrope from then on, with people like the one above poring over my lyrics and then casting judgments on me.

Hear the levelheaded response from another user:

Why question someone's faith and the things that are "in his heart" on the basis of song lyrics?

I doubt that Mat Kearney is trying to reach anyone. You shouldn't expect that from an artist (who is a Christian) if he or she doesn't feel the need to. Music might be a ministry for some, but for most it is not.. thank goodness.

Poor Mat! His faith is being judged because of his music and lyrics! People like the first user are slapping his wrists like a nun with a ruler saying “Bad Mat, bad Christian.” How terrible for him to be judged this way! That makes me angry and sad at the same time. Christian non-musicians aren’t required to write music to God, so why is it demanded that Christian musicians do? Yes, worship music is a wonderful blessing and we should never deny that. But not every Christian musician is able to create that specific type of music, and we should NOT judge their faith by the music they make, so long as their music/lyrics are not dishonoring to God!

One of the most life-changing books I’ve ever read is called Creation Regained by Albert Wolters. (He's quite a smart and literate fellow, as you will see below. The quote I post from him actually only consists of three sentences, two of them being 92 and 86 words long.) In it Wolters talks about how before the Fall, everything was good. Sin was the introduction and source of evil. (Duh, you’re thinking.) Therefore, why do we now, after the Fall, act like everything that is not inherently spiritual is evil? A “secular” song, not containing sinful lyrics, would have been good before the Fall. And guess what? It’s good after the Fall. Wolters discusses the “cultural mandate” in Genesis 1:28, in which we are commanded by God to “be fruitful...and subdue the earth.” He goes on to say:

We are called to participate in the ongoing creational work of God, to be God’s helper in executing to the end the blueprint for his masterpiece. . . .

If we fail to see this, if we conceive of the historical differentiation that has led to such institutions as the school and the business enterprise, and such developments as urbanization and the mass media, as being basically outside the scope of creational reality and its responsible management by the human race, we will be tempted to look upon these and similar matters as fundamentally alien to God’s purposes in the world and will tend to brand them as being inherently “secular,” either in a religiously neutral or an outright negative sense. . . .

However, if we see that human history and the unfolding of culture and society are integral to creation and its development, that they are not outside God’s plans for the cosmos, despite the sinful aberrations, but rather were built in from the beginning, were part of the blueprint that we never understood before, then we will be much more open to the positive possibilities for service to God in such areas as politics and the film arts, computer technology and business administration, developmental economics and skydiving.
-Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained, pg. 44-45

To me, this was life-changing to read. It’s something I should’ve known already, but I didn’t. The areas of life I used to consider “secular” I now know are not, for they were created by the hand of the One Who is good in everything He does. When you manage a business, you are fulfilling the cultural mandate, subduing the earth, and glorifying God. When you cater a lunch for an event, you are fulfilling the cultural mandate, subduing the earth, and glorifying God. When you mop floors as a janitor, you are fulfilling the cultural mandate, subduing the earth, and glorifying God. It relieved so many perplexities in my soul to learn this! No more do I just consider ministers and missionaries as having jobs that glorify God. Yes, their jobs are very important and they have a special level of responsibility in shepherding the people of God in light and truth, but they’re not the only ones who glorify God through their work. IT administrators glorify God in their work. Photographers glorify God in their work. Engineers glorify God in their work. Each one of us is able to display the glory of God through some aspect of creation. Yes, we should use those things to praise Him and lead others towards Him. But there are many, many jobs that do not have a spiritual connection at first glance, but spiritual doings would never be possible without them! How can you be missionaries to a foreign country without transportation and the people who make transportation happen? If everyone were ministers, there would be no pilots or flight attendants. Pilots and flight attendants do their part in subduing creation and bringing glory to God.

The fact of the matter is this: people are Christians or non-Christians. Things are not. I remember a dissenter on JfH back in the day who challenged the idea of Christian music by stating that his toothbrush was neither Christian or non-Christian, but merely a toothbrush. While I do not remember the guy's screen name, the "Christian toothbrush" has stuck with me to this day. One of the few times in which I believe the word Christian may acceptably be applied as an adjective is when it is used to define the actions and attitudes of a person, such as in Christian living, Christian beliefs, or Christian morals. These words may have the word Christian placed before them, because Christianity in its truest form provides definitions for each of these areas. Now, a t-shirt can’t be Christian. A t-shirt is an inanimate object. Even if it were animate, it wouldn’t have a soul. Something that doesn’t have a soul doesn’t have the possibility of having a relationship with God. A t-shirt may promote Christianity or it may mock it, but then again it’s not the shirt that’s Christian or non-Christian, it’s the shirt’s message. A message is something that can be Christian or non-Christian, because it is inextricably tied to human beings and their doings. Only people can be Christians (noun) and their characteristics Christian (adjective). The sacred-secular split is entirely manmade, as my pastor once wisely said.

2. We hold musicians to a higher (or rather more legalistic) standard than everyone else.

Do we demand that our garbage men be “Christian garbage men?” Or that our electricians be “Christian electricians?” Or that our roofers be “Christian roofers?” No! What would those fictitious positions even entail? Would the electricians wire every circuit in the shapes of the words “Jesus saves?” Would the Christian roofers only use cross-shaped shingles? It becomes so ridiculous when you think about it. We are okay with them being garbage men, electricians, and roofers who are Christians, who live like Christ with their lives as they do their jobs. And yet, for musicians, we demand more of them. They must be Christian musicians, and must do their jobs in a way that fits into our little Christian-ized box. While it isn’t required of me that the sentences I write in an engineering report at work be “Christian sentences,” Mat Kearney’s lyrics must be “Christian lyrics.” The Christian world can be so judgmental with a standard that doesn’t even apply to everyone, and therefore is probably not a righteous standard.

Why stifle someone’s outward expressions and talent and stuff them into somewhere they don’t fit? That would be like telling all authors who are Christians that their books must have a spiritual message. That would be stifling a lot of God-given creativity and juices! And the result would be a lot of forced hands and books that aren’t genuinely written, possibly cliché and lifeless in content. I am glad that we have authors who are Christians and write spiritual books, and I am glad that we have authors who are Christians and write novels. They both glorify God, but in different ways and through different abilities. Please, PLEASE, let’s stop trying to force the second function into becoming subsumed by the first one. We do ourselves no favors by trying to resist what is part of our nature, given by God, and in the end it only leads to confusion and restlessness of heart.

Conclusion: stop casting lightning bolts of judgment

As we saw earlier in my post, an exact definition of Christian music cannot even be agreed upon. The line is thick that divides Christian music from secular music, and most of us would say there is no line, just a gradient blending the two. If no dividing line exists, how can any separation exist? Sure, there is music that we know is dishonoring to God, that is sexually immoral, vulgar, full of angst, etc. There is also music that God's people use to commune with Him and praise Him, worship music. But what about everything in-between? To make sweeping statements is quick but will result in a faulty view on the matter. To make a careful examination will be lengthy and require a lot of time (as you have seen) but will be much more balanced and therefore less full of false judgments.

There are no such things as Christian musicians, but musicians who are Christians. Musicians who are Christians perform the duties of their jobs just like plumbers who are Christians. They do it to the best of their ability, without sin as much as possible, with lovingkindness and gentleness like Jesus had. They have a personal relationship with Jesus that you cannot (and should not) judge the measure of by the content of their job. Yes, by the way they do their job, but not the content of their job. Otherwise we will be telling the plumber his pipes can only carry holy water. We can't look at their resumes to gauge their spiritual maturity, for their true state of heart is just that, in their heart and therefore hidden from our eyes. Keep your eyes on your own two feet, and know that a person's salvation and standing is ultimately between them and God.

Music serves two functions, and one of them is just entertainment. Watching the virtuoso violinist furiously conquer a melody with so many notes the sheet music he's reading from is almost entirely black, hearing a harpist perform a celestial tune at a wedding reception, listening to your little brother play his first piece at a piano recital. All of these are music used for entertainment, but that does not make them sinful. It is merely different from worship music in the way it glorifies God, but alas, we are so quick to declare difference as decadence.

To the pure, all things are pure...
Titus 1:15

That which is undefiled by sin, God looks upon it and honorably decrees, "It is good." That which has been defiled by sin, God looks upon it and declares, "I can impart redemption and make it good again." Encompassed by one of these two categories, nothing is truly secular.

The Ugly Face of Beauty

Working in the real world and having your own place sure make it harder to blog...especially if you like to write about deep subjects that require long, prolix posts to dig into. It’s been a long time since my last post. I was very pleasantly surprised to not be disowned by many people for that post. (Woohoo!) There are only two, actually, who seem to have severed all bonds with me. That means that most everyone who disagrees with me let me have my opinion and not let it affect our relationship. That’s the way it ought to be. :) Anyways, it’s time to whip out a topic that’s been churning in the ol’ noggin’ for months now, slowly cookin’ away like a roast in a Crock-Pot.

There is an age-old question lurking in the back of every guy’s mind, one that most Christian guys will not even acknowledge is there, let alone attempt to answer. For me, even mentioning this question makes me uncomfortable, and I want to move on to the next topic or suddenly start making idle chitchat about the lovely weather we’ve been having in Denver (even though this summer the weather consisted mainly of monsoon rains for several weeks on end).

The question is this. “Does physical attraction matter in a girl?” Of course, the way in which questions are posed often limits the range of answers that can be given to satisfy them. This is a logical fallacy, a trap, called “plurium interragationum,” known in layman’s terms as a trick question. Notice that the way I phrased the question allows only two possible answers: yes and no. If you answer yes, you are deemed by many as a shallow and superficial person. If instead you answer no, you’re left standing there scratching your head, because physical attraction is an innate, fundamental trait of human nature given to us by our Creator: women desire to be recognized as beautiful, and men desire to be the recognizers of that beauty. To deny this is to deny reality, a facet of human existence that is self-evident. Sometimes it can be hard to know what exactly to believe, but when something contradicts what is self-evident, that belief must be rejected.

Let’s try rephrasing the question. “How much, or to what degree does physical attraction matter?” Now we’re talking, or talking it out, rather. An unhelpful yes-no question has been opened up for discussion, and an honest answer can be sought. This is not an easy question to answer, but like all important questions, we must seek to answer it as best as we can. This is my best shot.

On the one side of the fence we have the world in all of its superficiality. The world, through the use of media, tells us what it thinks we ought to look like. Men are dashingly handsome and women are stunningly beautiful. Never are they overweight, but always fit as a fiddle. They have no blemishes in their complexions. Men will have ripped abs and women a perfect hourglass figure. In Hollywood, people get numerous plastic surgery procedures done on themselves to keep themselves in accordance with these “beautiful” standards, and fake has become the new definition of most real to many. People, especially women in the eyes of men, get reduced to mere objects that are nice to look at (yes I used “that” instead of “who” as the relative pronoun for effect).

On the other side of the fence we have certain people, regardless of religious background, who will tell you that physical attraction does not matter at all. “It’s what’s on the inside that counts,” they’ll tell you. They try to convince themselves and others that paying any attention at all to beauty makes you a shallow person. Such people are few and far between, but when you run into them you always remember it, because you feel horrible about yourself afterwards. If you’re a guy, you go home and set a resolution for yourself for the future: you will disregard physical attraction completely from now on. How long does that last? Until the next time you see a pretty girl. Again, disregarding physical attraction completely goes against the way we’re wired, our DNA.

As with most things in life, the correct answer does not lie on the extreme ends of the spectrum but somewhere in between, a shade of gray. Finding that shade of gray is very difficult and time-consuming, and as faulty, sinful human beings we can’t even be 100% sure we’re right when we find it. Although just because we know imperfectly does not mean we give up knowing and thinking altogether. We were given minds to think as our Heavenly Father thinks, to the best of our (limited) ability.

A very well-known Scripture verse on this topic comes from I Samuel, chapter 16. “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” In a very direct manner, we are told what God cherishes most: our hearts. And what God cherishes is what is best, because God is the epicenter of all that is good. But notice what the verse has established: the heart is more important than the outward appearance. It outranks it. But does this mean that the outward appearance doesn’t matter at all, or that it is bad and something to be cast away? Ahhh it does not.

Let’s jump over to Song of Solomon. If ever you wanted to find a missive in the Bible where the physical beauty we identify by nature is presented, this is it. All throughout the book, he is gushing over his lover’s appearance; only one chapter does not refer to her as beautiful, and in several instances in the other chapters it is “most beautiful among women.” In chapter 7 he compliments her feet, thighs, navel, breasts, neck, eyes, head, and even her belly and nose. This chapter makes me breathe a sigh of relief. Beauty is NOT something we necessarily need to shun and abstain from admiring! From this we know that there is a way for beauty to be handled rightly, that we don’t necessarily need to become ascetics and reduce God and all of His world to colorless, drab monotony like nuns in black robes.

But what is this balance? It seems to be sitting on a razor edge.

Do I believe in love at first sight? Absolutely not, because love is not sight. Love at first encounter, however, is something I’m willing to accept. Deep down I know that love goes beyond appearance, and what matters most is who people are and what they live for. We are told, again by Solomon, in Proverbs 31 that “charm is deceitful and beauty is vain.” Gosh, how many guys have experienced this? Every one of us. We’ve all come across a girl who is outwardly very attractive, but even just a quick glimpse at her personality and character reveals a person that we might not even wish to have as a friend, let alone as our wife. I want to be accepted and loved for who I am, regardless of how I look, and I know from the Golden Rule that that is exactly the way I should treat others, especially women since I’m a heterosexual male.

But while physical attraction must take a back seat to character and inner attraction, it is not completely nullified. I myself dream of having a wife who is, in every respect, through and through, without remission, DROP DEAD gorgeous. When she walks into the room, even without makeup on and her hair all frizzled after she’s just woken up, I want my breath to be taken away. Literally. I want to be in awe every time I see her and never lose that sense of awe. I want to be unarmed with my knees weakening upon mere sight of her.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with dreams like this. After all, the reason we appreciate beauty at all is because 1) beauty exists (it was created from the mind of God, and any creation reflects some quality of its creator) and 2) our faculty to appreciate beauty exists (it was created so that the beauty could be enjoyed, otherwise the beauty goes unnoticed without beholders to behold it). We’re not misfiring on all cylinders when we notice physical beauty.

But how important is it that my wife be drop dead gorgeous? This is where I must talk to my mind and slap some sense into it. I wish for a drop dead gorgeous wife, but that quality is expendable. It doesn’t break any deals. Love is not diminished in any way in its absence. Who she is, and therefore my love for her, is not affected by how she looks. Sure, her face will come into my mind every time I hear her name, but that’s just because we put faces to names. We can’t really visualize someone’s soul, who they are inwardly, so the best we can do is to picture their face.

It saddens me when I realize how many girls I write off simply because of how they look. Conversely, I will notice an attractive girl and think to myself, “man, I wish she could be my wife.” What do I know about her? Nothing other than how she looks! I know just as much about her as I do about the girl next to her, but I’m only paying her attention because I admire how she looks. That’s me being shallow. Yes, I wish to have a beautiful wife, but I can’t let that overtake my discretion and become mandatory. If I can’t even tell someone what type of personality she has (i.e. I’ve never spoken to her or even been around her), how can I say I like her? I know nothing about her. I only like her image. Even if I do know her, I may still only be interested in her because of her image.

That’s a realization I think a lot of guys need to come to and accept. The first time you meet your future wife, the first thought that goes through your head may not be “man she’s pretty.” She may just be average-looking. But that’s okay, and you need to accept that. I need to accept that. Because while you wait around endlessly for that girl whose appearance meets your standards (your ill-imposed, unreasonable standards), you may be missing some great, great girls, who while they are not over-the-top beautiful on the outside, are inwardly as beautiful as they come. And when you fall in love, beautiful becomes redefined. Beauty becomes not so much “what” but “who.” You stop describing beauty by components (eyes, face, clothing) and define it by identity (character, personality, faith). As long as it has something to do with “her,” it’s beautiful to you. It’s beautiful the way she smiles with bubbling joy, or dances to her favorite song, or prays to God from the bottom of her heart, expressing her love for Him. The world may never recognize her as beautiful, whether they see these things in her or not, but does that really matter? We shouldn’t accept their standard anyway, so we really can’t give two hoots about what they think.

So unfortunately the answer to the question is not a sentence long, or even a paragraph long. The full answer would probably take a chapter to flesh out, possibly even a book.

In any case let me try to summarize it:

1. Outward beauty is not meaningless.

On the contrary, everything in creation gives us some insight into the character of God. It serves some purpose and, with the right disposition of heart and mind, is a good thing.

2. It is okay to appreciate outward beauty, as long as it is not done in a sinful, excessive manner.

Shallowness is not synonymous with recognizing beauty, but it is its own separate response that proceeds it.

3. It is not okay to award beauty the gold medal of highest importance.

We must fight the current and go against the grain of the skin-deep, plastic-minded fixations of the world we live in that we are bombarded with every day.

4. Like many things in life, sin occurs not simply when an action is present (admiration of beauty), but when that action is taken out of its proper order and placed above something truly more important (loving people for who they are).

It would take a long dissertation to argue for and I’m no theologian, but I propose that the following statement about sin is true: it never introduces anything new, it only rearranges the order of levels of importance. As long as everything is in the right order and receives the correct amount of our devotion, we are not sinning.

My challenge to guys is this. Keep on appreciating girls’ beauty, but loosen your grip on it when it comes to your future wife. Don’t morph into someone you’re not around beautiful girls and be all charming and benevolent but then suddenly turn into a cold, lifeless brick wall when a less attractive girl is around. If your eyes are open too much, blind them some, though you needn’t blind them completely.

Keep the eyes of your heart open enough to acknowledge and appreciate beauty as something carved from the fingers of God, but closed enough that they do not become covetous over an inferior beauty that is in some cases deceitful and vain, and in all cases fleeting and fading away.