I can't see much connection between today's Christian music and that of the 60s and 70s. Certainly, the people in the article proved their was a market for Christian music. But other than that, it's hard to draw comparisons because as a subset of popular music, Christian rock has never inspired itself as much as it has sought inspiration from the secular music that dominates the scene. These old-time bands, not surprisingly, sounded a lot like the top secular bands of their day. Today, it is even more pronounced, as nearly every major Christian artist bears an amazing resemblance to a secular counterpart, stretching beyond just their sound and into everything from hairstyles to fashion.

True, Christian rock has always lacked originality or uniqueness.

Followers want the best of the securlar world while trying to shun it at the same time. That's why Christian rock comes across as disengenuis at best and hypocritical at worst. Rock is based on angst, anger, frustration, sex, and violence. That's why it appeals to youth, especially teenage boys.

Christianity, on the other hand, is antithetical to the basis of rock. Christian rockers want to embrace the dark images and dark energy of rock but know that their theology shuns it. So, they try to have it both ways, which invariably results in lousy rock. It just doesn’t work, and never has. No "Christian rock" act has ever crossed over to secular success.

While I agree about the lack of originality in Christian rock, I have to disagree that "no 'Christian rock' act has ever crossed over to secular success."

While few Christian rock acts have had enduring secular success--perhaps Amy Grant being the exception--many artists who have (or had) at least one foot in the Christian rock world have had significant success in mainstream music. For example, Switchfoot, Jars of Clay, Relient K, MxPx, P.O.D. and Stacie Orrico have all had mainstream radio hits. Even right now, artists like The Almost/Underoath and Mute Math are building strong mainstream buzz and enjoying considerable record sales.

Sure, the artistic and spiritual/theological/whatever merit of most of these artists is questionable at best, but that's a different conversation.

While most Christian rock sounds like a fart in a paper bag, there have been a small handful of good, innovative artists who've come from Christian music. In my opinion, they include Derek Webb, Pedro the Lion, Bruce Cockburn, Danielson, mewithoutYou, Edison Glass and the aforementioned Mute Math. Interestingly, nearly all of those artists have been very criticial of the Christian subculture.

I will have to disagree that all Christian rock comes across as disingenuous or hypocritical. Rock may have been based on angst, anger, frustration, sex and violence, but anyone in the Christian community that expects anyone else (especially youth) to ignore those emotions is hoping for the impossible.

Everyone likes to put this iron curtain between the Christian world and the secular. While I agree that we are call to a higher standard and to set ourselves apart from the world, that does not mean that we do not struggle with the same emotional battles as non-Christians. Christian rock, in that sense, is anything but disingenuous. It is people who believe in and love Christ Jesus who, like all people, struggle with sin. The only difference is that they do not ignore sin, they clearly identify it as the subject of their struggle. The part of the Christian community that would shun all rock altogether is the naive part that, instead of helping their brother deal with real problems would rather ignore sin and pretend that all is well. I truely believe that if Christ were here today these would be the modern day pharasise. They would rather call attention to the speck in their brothers eye and ignore the log in their own.

The lyrics sung over early Rock may have been based on angst, anger, frusteration, sex, and violence, but that had nothing to do with the actual music being played. Rock is a style of music, and it's the same style of music regardless of whether you're singing out sex, frisbee golf, nature, Jesus, violence, or a sandwich.

Putting lyrics that are more in line with a person's morality/life-style doesn't make the music aspect of Rock any better or any worse. So, while I have little interest in Christian bands (and secular bands, for that matter), I think they should be judged first and foremost on how well they write music. Not the subject matter of their songs.

A good, Christian band for your consideration: Starflyer 59. They've consistently put out nearly 10 top-notch albums.

www.myspace.com/starflyer59

Re: bama's comment about what rock is based on and how Christian rock is hypocritical to that:

No; rock is also based largely on traditional black gospel (see quote from Lou Rawls in a different thread about difference between gospel and blues being the words). There's also a lot of joy, exuberance, power, confidence, simplicity and accessibility (which can be a good thing as in connectedness), all of which fit Christ's character. That said, there is a time for anger and frustration in music of social commentary, which a fair number of Christian musicians tackle (Mark Heard, for one). As architects say, form follows function, and rock can fit Christ's intentions.

To the rest of the thread and original article: the writer has a hard choice between writing about the average, the fringe, and the true roots of Christian music, and comparing them and the current Christian music, to the range of current non-Christian music. To say there's no connection/progression between one type of original Christian music and a different type of current Christian music is like saying gee there's no link between rockabilly and thrash and Lou Reed and motown: true but pointless.

Is all Christian music excellent? No more so than *all* non-Christian music. Both encompass a wide range of communicative intentions, it's pointless to compare those ranges like they were one thing. Christian rock had multiple origin(ator)s and intentions beyond those listed in the article. It might not all be great art (and a fair bit of it is) but the message has a truthful timelessness that transcends any schlock factor.

The article ends with a gratuitous dig at Christendom for "shunning" one cited founder. The point missed is, that founder found solace and forgiveness and regeneration in Christ, the only God who (1) really has any basis to say what the laws of life and the cosmos are and judge and (2) came off the bench and accepted a death sentence for anyone else. The writer shows a comparable intolerance for Christendom to what he accuses those Christians of. But again, there's forgiveness for that, and for anyone who qualifies under "nobody's perfect". And it's this grace and restoration that inspires great (and mere good) worship music (ie, love songs to God).

You make some good points. The CCM of today is certainly out of touch. I have noticed the tendency to imitate rather than innovate. Of course, there are innovators in this genre and groundbreakers who followed little but their muse. I would point to Daniel Amos, a band that has thrived creatively for the last 30 years with originality, creativity and innovation. While they certainly demonstrate their influences, they do bring their own sound to their music. Of course there are those who are built in pioneers and innovators..ala, Richie Furay, Michael Omaritian, T-Bone Burnett, Bruce Cockburn, Sam Phillips, Bob Dylan(for 3 albums), the 77's, Adam Again, and the list could go on and on.

Your argument would be air-tight true were it not for these and many others not listed above.

I really hope people don't get the wrong idea when reading this article. The idea that "Jesus is hip" or "Jesus is my homey" is pretty much wrong no matter how good the intentions are. It is like trying to water down our Almighty Lord and Savior to a more palpable and culturally accepted form. It's not right. Jesus is not our "homey" and he is not "hip," he is the servant and savior of man, and thanks to his love and grace our sins may be forgiven so long as we repent to God and accept him as our redeemer. Not to mention that hippies partly based their lifestyle on using drugs, and I am 100% positive that Jesus would not even think about doing LSD, or any drug for that matter. Drug use is like transporting your mind to another medium, which makes you susceptible and vulnerable to evil, AND the Bible forbids it (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). As for the music, more than anything it is the lyrics that determine whether a song is dedicated to God or not. But if you smoked a joint or took a hit of LSD while making a song, well that just goes to say who you're really doing it for. God likes all types of music because he enjoys variety, that is why all of us are unique, different, and unlike anyone else.