Essay: The Jesus Freaks - The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of the Contemporary Christian Music Industry Music

Music has the ability to transcend the tangible limits of humanity and reach listeners in a way unlike any other form of art or media. Because of this unique characteristic, song has always been a way mankind has responded to the presence and goodness of God. From simple melodies to masterfully crafted works, worship is an intrinsic part of human existence. Unfortunately, as time has progressed, more efforts to commercialize praise music have been made, shifting the motivation behind songs from praise to profit. Biblically-based artists create music that changes culture, but presently, culture is changing the worship industry––for the worse. This is best exemplified through the rise of the Christian music industry and the cracks in its veneer, while hope is provided by those who are resisting the shift in industry.

Before diving into the body of the paper, some background information relating to the pre-Christian music industry is necessary to thoroughly understand the topic at hand. Like all forms of media, music reflected the attitudes and outlooks of the masses in the 1960s. This is best exemplified by the teen-rock-idols of the time, The Beatles. According to Jeff Greenfield, a New York Times music columnist, this revolutionary group dazzled fans worldwide and promoted the popular hippy way of life that can be summed up to these three tenets: love, peace, and togetherness.

According to Kathrine Begaja, a writer for the TCNJ Journal, The Beatles sought to create songs that emphasized the concept of “free love.” This ideal is often simplified to free sex; however, while unrestrained love-making played a significant role in this concept, it was more than that. Free love was the “universal love, shared between all people out of respect for their basic humanity” (Begaja). Love was more than an action to the hippies; it was a lifestyle of humanizing others and acknowledging their existence. In sharp contrast to the class-ridden society of the day, the flower children sought to level the playing field by loving all––usually through the means of sex (Greenfield). Seeing this, The Beatles looked to encapsulate this movement by producing and performing songs all about this version of love.

One need only look at the song “All You Need is Love” to see how much this group was under the grasp of this principle (Lennon and McCartney). John Greenfield, a New York Times columnist, claims that The Beatles repeated the word “love” over sixty times in this song in order to discuss the inept ability of violence to solve the problems of the day. This was namely the polarizing hostilities emerging from the Cold War amongst America and the Soviet Union. Seeing the inefficiency of pushing ideologies onto other nations, the hippies promoted love as the universal unifier, rather than violence. The Beatles put it simply: in this world of strife and violence, “all you need is love” to overcome (The Beatles qtd. in Lennon and McCartney).

Seeking not just to love others well, the flower children desired to bring peace first to America and then to the globe. The United States was in a state of turmoil as the reality of Vietnam raged across the nation. Consequently, John Lennon, a member of The Beatles, saw the pursuit of peace as the central concern of the day. After meeting Yoko Ono, a peace activist, and his future wife, his advocacy for harmony and unity amongst the nations skyrocketed. Writing hippy peace anthems such as “The Word” and “She Loves Me,” Lennon heavily promoted the idea that being loved results in the promotion of peace in society (Golsen). The hippies, like Lennon, saw war as an evil that brought about only relational strife and death.

Peace, however, was not just about earthly harmony for the hippies; instead, it encapsulated all aspects of existence––primarily the metaphysical. Seeking to release their minds and find “nirvana,” flower children turned to “marijuana and hallucinogens” to free their spirits from the confines of mental reason (Greenfield). Mikal Gilmore, a writer for the Rolling Stones and Beatles mega-fan, states that as creatures of culture, the band turned to these drugs as a way to find calm while touring but also to create their musical masterpieces. After being introduced to cannabis in a hotel room by Bob Dylan, the group regularly smoked the substance, seeking to achieve an artistic high. This is seen in “Got to Get You Into My Life,” a song written by McCartney that at first sounds like a ballad of love. However, deeper inspection reveals a more profound meaning––this song is about weed (The Beatles). All band members were users of these substances and consequently promoted drug usage; many of their listenership felt as though “Beatles albums could not be understood fully without the use of drugs” (Greenfield). The Beatles, echoing the concept of freeing the mind and finding spiritual peace, promoted substance use in their music as many members of the band felt as though these stimulants were the only means to achieve earthly nirvana or bliss (Gilmore).

Along with promoting love and seeking peace, The Beatles sang about the hippy principle of togetherness. Simply put, this was the ultimate goal of communal living. In their song “With a Little Help From My Friends,” the artists sang of a lifestyle marked by sharing and interconnectedness with those around them (The Beatles, “With a Little Help From My Friends”). It was a simple tune, partly because the lead vocalist on the track was drummer Ringo Starr and partly because it was intended to sum up the core part of the hippy culture: “communal identity” (Begaja). The hippies dreamed of a world in which peace and love were the law; thus, in the hearts of many, there was a deep desire for utopian-like societies to emerge within their respective communities. Artists like The Beatles sought to unify people from all walks of life and all socio-economic backgrounds to promote the codependent world the flower children dreamed of (Greenfield).

The Beatles’ popularity exploded in the United States due, in part, to the timing of their first American tour. Funneling fifty grand into the sheer promotion of the tour (about four hundred thousand today), everyone knew about those shows. The promotional funding poured gasoline over the sparks lit by their hit records. Further fueling the fire, their first concert came “[one hundred] days after the assassination of John Kennedy,” thus everyone was looking for an escape from this nation-shaking tragedy (Greenfield). As a result, the Beatles’ songs were the perfect form of musical escapism for the nation. Glorifying themes of “play and fun,” the Beatles produced happy hippy music, and the nation fell head over heels for their unique songs (Greenfield). Connecting over their love of the same tunes, the Beatles became a unifying factor in the United States. From the horrors of Vietnam to the assassination of John Kennedy, America was in a state of despair, so the masses turned to music; The Beatles’ songs comforted and distracted the crestfallen nation.

The Beatles’ music was not only filled with the ideology of the flower children, but it also encompassed the sound hippy musicians were creating. Initially, many music historians categorized the group’s collective sound as “soft rock,” with many finding it to be a “softer, safer version” of the heavy metal and rock ‘n’ roll of the 1960s (Greenfield). The group did not directly criticize political structures or use their platforms to push agendas; they created happy little ditties that were musically ingenious. However, as time went on, The Beatles could no longer keep quiet. Realizing the wide range of their listenership, this group discovered that if they desired, they could have a voice in not only the cultural sphere but the political one as well (Begaja). Debatably one of the most influential catalysts for the active protest against the Vietnam war and adoption of bohemian attitudes of the 1960s youth was the album Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The Beatles' music defined the culture of the time, and their songs became anthems for the hippy lifestyle and youth culture.

The rock band was not the only producer of counterculture music during the time; another culture-defining artist in the sixties was a musician named Bob Dylan. Indeed one of a kind, his sound is often described as the collision of rock and folk music. Sean Wilentz, an American history professor at Princeton and the writer of “Bob Dylan in America,” discusses how “Dylan’s work is indelibly linked to the [sixties]” (qtd. in Barkhorn). Because of the tumultuous nature of the time, he was able to compose music that spurred social rights movements. In essence, he sang what he wanted to sing, but “people caught onto it as an expression of what they were feeling, what they were thinking” (Wilentz qtd. in Barkhorn).

Inspired by civil activists of the day, Dylan paired acoustic sounds with lyrics that called for change (Hitchcock). According to Occidental College Political Science professor Peter Dresier, Bob Dylan’s first “protest” song was “The Ballad of Emmett Till,” which was about the horrific murder of a fourteen-year-old black young man in Mississippi. He constructed the song as an urgent call to action for those living in silence while dangers facing black Americans raged on. Performing at many notable and impactful events, such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee voter rally and the March on Washington, Dylan continued to use his voice for change. Instead of shying away from hard questions, the artist produced music that accentuated the inequalities of the day, and his boldness helped civil rights activists reach a larger spectrum of people (Barkhorn).

Along with advocating for social change, Dylan was a vocal critic of American involvement in the Vietnam war. Like many Americans at the time, he felt there was no reason behind fighting the war, so he wrote songs about it. This collection included his first breakout song, which put him on the map: “Blowin’ in the Wind” (Dreiser). With lyrics like “how many deaths till he knows too many people have died” and “how many ears must one man have before he can hear the people cry,” he called out the US government for ignoring the people’s cries against the war (Dylan qtd. in Bob Dylan & The Band). Americans were tired of seeing their sons, husbands, and friends sent overseas only to die or return forever tainted by a needless war (Rodda). Seeing the masses’ widespread anger about the war, Dylan wrote them an anthem.

Bob Dylan, like The Beatles and other artists of the time, sought to connect people by singing about their current realities (as seen in his protest songs). He did this by singing to the individual rather than the collective. At first, his method sounds as if it would be more divisive. However, by “focusing on the feeling of the individual rather than social groups,” Dylan united people as they bonded over his music, with many realizing that they shared more with each other than they had previously believed (Hitchcock). Resulting from the unity evoked by his songs, a culture shift emerged, which brought about a move from blindly trusting leaders and remaining silent about social issues towards holding institutions accountable. In time, people would refer to this culture shift as the counterculture movement.

The songs of both The Beatles and Bob Dylan stirred up a desire for civil change in the 1960s, and as in many societal revolutions, the counterculture began with the young. Music has always been directed toward this demographic, as many artists who produce this music are part of it. Therefore, the majority of music put out during the 1960s held themes that reflected the following viewpoints of teenagers: counterculture and distrust of adults (Greenfield). The same ideas are clearly seen in both the music of The Beatles and Bob Dylan, as both the sound and lyrics were rebellious in nature.

The music began to reflect this as the youth rebelled against societal structures like the government, religion, and class. Growing up in the age of Vietnam, these young people were afraid. If change did not occur soon, they too would see their friends or themselves shipped overseas to fight in an aimless war. They saw the effects of World War II on the older generations and were frightened by the possibility that the trauma that haunted their parents would haunt them as well (Greenfield). So, the young took every opportunity to speak against Vietnam, and the music became intertwined in the movement.

As seen in the lyrics of Dylan and The Beatles, music was inflammatory and filled with criticisms of societal issues. The counterculture crusade had taken hold of the major artists of the day, and thus, the listenership of popular artists continuously heard the movement’s messages, thus shaping a generation. Fueled by the beatniks and bohemians of the counterculture, the era’s music was highly secular in nature and encouraged the youth to reject the religious morals held by the older generations (Greenfield). For example, look to The Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper album. Librarian of Congress Katie Rodda expounds that when this composition was at the pinnacle of its popularity, there was a mass “opening [of] minds” and “inspiring [of] mainstream kids to turn on to LSD and hippie culture.” This music had a way of reaching kids in ways that no other form of media could. Inspired by the music they heard on the radio, young adults, leaving their parents behind, began to flock to communes that were filled with “free love” and LSD usage, such as the Haight-Ashbury district in San Francisco (Rodda). Spurred on by the hippie songs of the time, the music flamed the fire that eventually combusted in the Summer of Love––most notably the music convention commonly known as Woodstock. The notion of an entity, movement, or item being countercultural implies that there is a defined culture to begin with. In the case of the 1960s movement, this was the older generation's style of life. The youth decided their ways were right, and their parent’s opinions must be wicked (Greenfield). This attitude had been brewing since the fifties, with adolescents beginning to dip their toes into the musical genre of rock and roll and many subconsciously believing that “if [their] parents hated it, it had to be good” (Greenfield).

For many young listeners, the whole appeal of rock music was the act of rebelling against authority. By the sixties, many kids had come to believe that they were the moral ones, inflicting fear in the hearts of the older generations as the youth of the era possessed a deep desire to experiment with substances and their sexualities. Seeking ways to establish themselves in a manner that differed from their parent’s way of living, adolescents began to say “‘no’ to the autonomized lives their parents had so feverishly sought” (Greenfield). The adults of this time remembered the effects of World War II; thus, many operated in a manner that reflected their fears. Believing in the simple truths of “God, country, work, and family,” this generation acted in a way that many refer to as the stereotypical American (Origins). The children of this time feared that they would be trapped in their parents' seemingly dull lifestyle. But it was not only that: the older generations were allowing the Vietnam war to rage on and sending the young to fight the battles. Many adolescents did not want to fight, and this impending breach of their free will and well-being caused them to rebel and turn to the counterculture movement.

Emboldened by the music they listened to, juveniles began to speak up about their opinions, and the adults of the time grew to despise the rock ‘n’ roll sound their children listened to. The themes of this music aroused fear in the hearts and minds of the older, wiser generations, as the lyrics and artists of this genre viewed sharing and commonality in society as more important than independence. The kids bought into the message of the music and began to believe in the possibility of societal change during their own lifetime (Greenfield). They rejected the belief system of the adults in their lives and instead promoted the ideas of their favorite artists who preached that “[they would] get by with a little help from [their] friends” (The Beatles, With a Little Help From Your Friends).

The counterculture and hippy music’s impact on the youth of the 1960s is most clearly seen in the event of the Woodstock festival. Considered the zenith of the flower child revolution, the gathering was held in Bethel, New York, in the Summer of 1969. Marked by “drug use and illicit behaviors,” this music festival epitomized the bohemian lifestyle (Ashburgh). Professor Peter Kropf of Queens University sees the importance of this event and dubs Woodstock as the “culmination of a decade of unrest and marked the awakening of America’s youth.” The festival allowed thousands of active proponents of the countercultural movement to engage in anti-establishment activities and recreational drug use freely. The young adults of the late 1960s had clearly rejected the lifestyles of their parents, and their music only affirmed this choice.

As seen in the brief history of the pre-Christian music scene, the songs circulating in America promoted the ideals of the hippy lifestyle as many prominent artists were entrenched in the countercultural movement. The United States was on the brink of change as the flower child lifestyle was unsustainable; thus, an alternative way of living emerged––the Christian way. Coinciding with the emergence of the Jesus movement of the 1970s, a new song genre was introduced to the industry: contemporary Christian music.

The Jesus movement was a response to the counterculture movement of the sixties. As the bohemians grew older, they began to realize that a wholly sinful and limitless lifestyle left a hole in their hearts; some hippies began to look to Christ as a means to save themselves from the sin that was quite literally killing them (Ashburgh). As time progressed, a plethora of the beatniks began to turn away from their hyper-indulgent and secular ways to form a new shade of Christianity. Simply put, these converts were hippies aflame for the LORD.

These flower children turned followers of Christ often kept some parts of their old life as they began their new road with the LORD. These believers removed themselves from the unrestrained sin that marked the counterculture revolution but remained hippies in dress and habit, which caused some issues with their acceptance into the present Christian church (Camp). The church of the time was marked by what some would refer to as stiff traditionalism, and there was little desire to change this amidst the congregation (Ashburgh). Thus, the churchgoers were disgusted by the “barefoot... blue-jeaned” believers that were beginning to infiltrate the church body (Ashburgh). The church began stonewalling the hippies' attempts to join the church out of fear that the bohemians’ faith was not genuine.

While some of the hippies wanted to join the pre-established church, many came to realize that “the church was [not going] to accept them” as they were (Ashburgh). Acknowledging that they were not welcome in the Christian institutions that were in place, some of the new converts created hippy ministries that welcomed the beatnik believers into their midst and congregations. These outreach organizations were extremely successful in their evangelism efforts as they resembled many of the favorite spots of the bohemians, such as coffee shops and record stores (Camp). Non-believing hippies would come in simply to see what made these establishments different from their non-Christian counterparts; in turn, there was a profusion of hippies who became inspired by the truths of the Bible and dedicated their lives to Christ. This cycle continued throughout the 1970s, and the Jesus Movement continued to prosper as more beatniks “preach[ed] the gospel everywhere” (Ashburgh).

As the life-giving truth of Christ began to profuse throughout the ranks of the counterculture movement, some of its major agents began to convert to Christianity––the musicians. These creatives were incredibly talented not only in both their vocal and instrumental abilities but also in their aptness to tell stories and convey messages (Ashburgh). This skill set proved to be an instrumental skill in evangelizing to the flower children as music was one of the main ways they spread their own opinions; as the music grew to sound more like the art they liked and listened to, the more hippies began to consider Christianity (Camp). The converted creatives, however, did not just create music to spread the gospel; they created it for themselves as well. Others who had been held captive to the chains of the sinful nature of the hippie lifestyle wanted music that resonated with their stories, this being music filled with themes of darkness but redemption through Christ’s light.

Christian hippy artists were pioneers in their fields as there was an unspoken assumption in the pre-existing Christian genre: Christian music must be happy music. The bohemians were about to turn that belief on its head. Creating music with deep lyrics and somber truths, this new Christian sound was filled with themes of “the end of the world, racism, and the emptiness of drugs and sex” (Camp). These songs were not simply little happy-substanceless ditties but impactful and rich orchestrations of a newfound hope that these artists found after coming to Jesus Christ. The music was a call to action for new converts to examine not only their hearts but also the world around them (Ashburgh). The music that resulted from the Jesus movement were not light compositions; they carried great weight regarding the proliferation of the gospel message throughout the bohemian non-believer community.

Seeing the deep impact song had on the lives of those living in sin, some pastors began to incorporate music as a primary factor of their evangelism efforts; take Chuck Smith, for example. Randall Roberts, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, states that as a California local, Smith had seen the effects of the hippie movement on the people who bought into the lies of the counterculture movement. As a result, he became a pastor/evangelist to share the hope of Jesus Christ with those he saw were lost in their sin. As time went on and the Jesus movement began to flourish, Smith noticed the newly converted Christians were a “highly zealous and spiritually-hungry” group; most importantly, however, some of these believers turned their emotions into songs (Ashburgh). Like David, these believers took the outpourings of their hearts and transformed them into heavenly music. The hippies needed creative outlets to release their feelings in a healthful and God-honoring way; for many, this was found in music. These compositions were often straightforward, pointing back to the folk sounds of Dylan, but their lyrics were what truly mattered. They were different from traditional hymns and instead were transparent and repetitive. Crafted in a way that all could understand, this music was powerful (Ashburgh).

As an outsider, Smith noticed the importance of song for the hippy’s faith life. The songs' sound construction was extremely similar to what the bohemians were used to, but the lyrics were radically different. These songs had truly meaningful messages to share as the hippies saw that Jesus’ intervention in their lives had saved them not only spiritually but in every way possible (Roberts). The music reflected the transformation the artists had gone through in order to live a life that was more pleasing to the LORD. Hippies would sing “these songs for hours on end,” and Chuck Smith could see how important the music these believers created was to “hippy Christian culture” (Ashburgh).

Seeking to preserve these songs, Smith created a new recording label in 1971 called Maranatha! Music that specialized in producing and promoting Christian records (Roberts). What Smith did not realize was that he had created the first label for the genre classified as Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). This hippy preacher turned producer permanently ingrained himself into the creation of the industry and was one of the first groups of the time to engage in the commoditization of Christian art.

As this genre grew in the popular conscience, the art produced became more culturally influential. This is seen most notably in the music festival that Campus Crusade held in the summer of 1972 called Explo ‘72. This gathering came about because of Bill Bright’s dedication to transforming the younger generation’s hearts through ministry outreach opportunities (Camp). Ironically, however, at first, Bright was a vocal agent in protest against the Jesus music. However, after seeing that he could better evangelize to the youth of America through this form of media, he embraced Christian rock and folk music and decided to create Explo. The youth of that day wanted something real, and so he brought artists and speakers that would give it to them (Ashburgh).

Explo ‘72, which was quickly dubbed Godstock, became the pinnacle moment of the Jesus movement regarding its impact on the CCM industry. The unprecedented opportunity to reach the hearts of over 80,000 members of the younger generation was presented through the festival. This was one of the first times that music was seen as a specific way to reach young people’s hearts in America and was also respected as a well-founded means to do so (Roberts). Because of the artists and speakers chosen to lead the masses in worship, the event proved to be highly successful in the effect of its evangelistic intent.

The artists chosen were all outwardly-professing Christians, but not all of the artists produced strictly Christian music. Some of the secular big names were Johnny Cash, Rita Coolidge, and Kris Kristofferson, while the non-secular artists were Love Song and Larry Norman (Cru). The event was designed to encourage the Christians in attendance through all different forms of music with the hopes that this revival would inspire the faith movement outside of the festival; through Bill Bright’s and other leaders' inward convictions to hold support and facilitate the concert the newly converted younger generations had an opportunity to be spiritually encouraged in a manner that resonated with them––music (Camp).

However, though the organizers of the event saw that music would be the draw for most, it was important to them that those in attendance would hear some sort of pastoral message, so they asked one of the most influential evangelists of the era to be the primary speaker, Billy Graham. During the event, Graham publicly announced his support of the Jesus music movement and gave the genre what it needed most: legitimacy. By giving CCM his stamp of approval, Graham showed that the younger generation’s form of worship was valid and credible, spurring the production of more music (Ashburgh). In his sermon, he informed the crowd that he believed that “true faith ought to be applied to the social problems of [the] day,” from poverty to racial tension, Graham wanted Christians to stand out in a way that made others stop and consider what made them different (Camp).

Godstock was a success, but it did not come without its faults. As essentially the antithesis to counterculture’s Woodstock of ‘69, Explo ‘72 attempted to inspire Christians as well as advocate the conservative American position to those in attendance. This was done through pro-Vietnam presentations, the very war the pacifist-natured hippies of the sixties had spoken out against, and a paid for pro-Nixon presentation, the presidential candidate for the Republican party for the upcoming election (Ashburgh). The event had clearly been politicized, but that does not condemn the festival in its entirety; in reality, the conference was most definitely spiritually beneficial for most in attendance. However, by introducing politics into the agenda of the festival, it left a tarnished image of Explo ‘72 as due to these displays, it is impossible to definitively say that this event was held for the sole purpose of stimulating Christian revival amongst young folk and hippies of the ‘70s. This issue of alternative motivators in the Christian music industry will remain a constant theme throughout the genre’s existence.

The non-secular performers of Explo ‘72 were some of the most influential of the time; consider one of the main acts of the event, Larry Norman, who is viewed as the “father of Christian music” (W. Smith). He single-handedly pioneered the concept of being a Christian rockstar and is “unquestionably one of the best” (Ashburgh). He set the tone for the industry and what it would look like to achieve success as a faith-based artist. Many view his first album, Upon This Rock, as the first contemporary Christian rock album. However, due to the incredibly sensitive themes boldly discussed in his music, there was a profuse amount of initial backlash and criticism directed toward the songs on the record (W. Smith).

Some of the topics he courageously and brazenly sang about were racism and racial violence in America, subjects that most anyone prior to the Jesus music movement would have deemed unfit for an inherently Christian song (Camp). People expected music about Jesus to be cheerful, upbeat, and hopeful; nobody wanted to be reminded of the harsh realities of the America they were living in, but Norman did just that. He showed the darkness so that he could present the light, he was a realist, but one filled with the hope of Jesus Christ (W. Smith). However, in time the labels began to censor the songs Norman produced, and these edited songs were simply not as poignant or moving as the original songs he had put out. Seeking to create art in a way that allowed him to express Christianity and its relationship to the United States freely, Norman created his own personal label. Though as an artist, Norman was a genius, his business abilities were less than baseline; his label ultimately failed, but his impact on the music industry would not be forgotten. Larry Norman had given the CCM a face and thus established artist legitimacy in the genre (Ashburgh).

As the genre continued to develop and rise in repute during the Jesus movement, the category desperately needed a way to be classified. Through creating a new label due to expressive censorship, Norman highlighted a key characteristic of the CCM genre: the importance of lyrics. Andrew Mall of God Rock, Inc defines Christian music as “less by its musical characteristic...than by its lyrical content, representing a Biblically grounded Christian worldview” (qtd. in Seo). As a lyrically defined genre, the words of the songs are supposed to hold greater value than the sounds that go along with them. While the sound is still important, the music is intended to complement the lyrics, not the other way around. Christian music does not have a set guideline describing what musically fits into the genre; thus, this opens the door to a wide variety of different worship styles being represented. Because of the emphasis placed on the lyrics, doctrinally sound songs have tremendous power over the listeners' spirits. However, the inverse is also true. When CCM songs lack depth, it often feels like the lyrics promote the ever-present prosperity gospel (Seo).

By definition, the genre is supposed to be characterized by the depth and quality of lyrics, however, critics of Christian music often cite lyrical over-repetition as one of the main issues facing the industry as a whole. Many feel as though the aggregate of current worship music is filled with catchy pointless songs that repeat the same three words over and over into eternity. However, the songs they promote as the solution to this crisis, namely hymns, are also filled with repetitive phrases and lines; the key difference in these two examples of repetition is the purpose behind them (Smith). Hymns and older compositions are liturgical in nature, meaning that these songs were designed to reflect the doctrinal beliefs of the denomination (Wolf). They were intended to share ideology and statements of faith as a means to bolster the congregation. However, due to a shift in service styles, CCM tried to make worship music centered around the concept of “experienc[ing] the presence of God” and having a truly emotional encounter with the LORD (Smith). Contemporary Christian music allows worshipers to extract small doses of doctrine in a manner that is comfortable for the listener, but in the process, the lyrical content is often truncated. For instance, instead of creating additional verses where the majority of context and depth is located, many artists opt to simply repeat the choruses over and over again. Listeners often approve of this decision as the style induces spiritual occurrences for audiences as it is easier for them to lose themselves in the music. Newer church services are more focused on emotionalism and feeling, and the repetitive nature of the songs reflects the desire of the congregation to “feel something” (W. Smith). In contrast, service styles of the old church included a more liturgically structured series of events which allowed for worship to be more repetitive as a means to bolster the congregation (Seo).

This desire to evoke emotions in the hearts of listeners was emerging in the CCM genre as many artists began attempting to create music that allowed audiences to have religious encounters with God. By focusing on their fans' feelings, the original intent of the Jesus music, conviction and intentionality in worship, was lost. Creatives began to focus on crafting “holy moments” for congregations and crowds as this, ultimately, allowed people to forget the messiness of their realities and instead experience euphoric musical highs (Seo). Like many other aspects of American culture, the industry laid itself down on the altar of entertainment in the name of success. As artists began to focus on entertainment worship, the genre grew increasingly focused on emotionalism and the profits able to be made off of a song (Powell).

Christian music, especially worship music, became all about drawing an emotional reaction out of listeners. Essentially, this new music was more about feelings than faith. As anxiety and depression rates grow in the population, this is becoming more of an issue. Instead of writing songs that come alongside struggling listeners, many Christian producers started to intentionally craft these songs to create mini-highs that can be addictive to listeners who struggle with these mental health issues. Christian artist Keith Getty describes in an interview that he sees the euphoric experiences CCM promotes as a corrupted sense of Biblical joy. In doctrinally-lacking music of the genre, the artificial joy points listeners to earthly happiness and directs the hurting inward rather than upward. Getty believes that the high this music invokes in listeners can take up to “six months” to withdraw from completely (Clark).

The industry saw its first evidence of success after the Explo ‘72 event, with this festival not only demonstrating what Christian revivals would look like but also earning CCM a place in the popular consciousness. The event was selected to be the cover story of Life Magazine in 1972, only proving the growing popularity or at least legitimacy of the new genre (W. Smith). In the late seventies and early eighties, the industry gained its first true female force in the artist Amy Grant. Idolized as CCM’s little princess, her album Age to Age became the industry’s first platinum album. Furthermore, just a few years after her groundbreaking success, the value of Christian record labels skyrocketed. Her success pushed Christian recording companies’ net worth into the millions (Camp). However, Grant’s stated goal for her music is interesting to the onlooker. She held the belief that formerly produced Christian music was about the individual singing to the LORD, and she wanted to create songs the people “[sang] to each other” (Grant qtd. in Camp). The artists’ attitudes in the industry were changing.

Attitudes were not the only facet of the industry shifting; around the time of Amy’s popularity, the measure of success began to rearrange as well. Dwayne Chambers, one of the first Christian record and bookstore owners, believed that the success of Christian media was determined by “changed lives,” however, after the creation of the FM radio, Christian music began to be more accessible to the public. The measure of success quickly changed to a more worldly unit––profit (W. Smith). During the 1980s, the CCM genre had become a tried and true industry, and by the 1990s it was a full-fledged empire. To keep up with the demands of the radio, artists began to prioritize the sound of their songs over meaningful lyrics. In seeking to remain relevant, these musicians began to create well-produced songs with uninspired lyrics; as the commodification of the genre occurred, profit grew intertwined with evangelism (Powell).

In 2001, the contemporary Christian music industry was faced with its first real tragedy that was capitalized off of both spiritually and monetarily. Music categorized as CCM that year was responsible for one billion dollars in sales, a total twelve-percent increase from the previous year. This was a remarkable number considering that the music industry took a heavy hit that year (Powell). Many attribute this success to the hopelessness the masses felt due to the horrific September eleventh terrorist attacks. They needed comfort, and so the Jesus freaks gave it to them.

Some artists have attempted to get around the confines and monetary fixations of labels by promoting and producing their own music. Take TikTok creative Montell Fish, for example. He is a creative who also identifies as a Christian who chose to produce music separate from a label. In doing this, he became part of a new wave of believing musicians that are “explor[ing] and redefin[ing] what it means to be a successful ‘Christian’ artist” (Seo). In his early years, his songs could be described as slightly worshipful. As an artist, he did not want to be confined by the constraints of being a solely Christian creative, and so his music, like many Christian artists in the music industry, provided glimmers of Christ’s hope. His song “fall in love with you” went viral on the social media app TikTok in 2021 and granted him a relative amount of fame. While some say it could be worshipful, it reads and sounds more like a romantic love song than a song written about his Savior (Seo). Fish shows that for most to be considered profitable as a Christ-believing artist, it is challenging to produce solely worshipful art.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, many artists/worship leaders have aligned themselves with popular mega-churches in order to maintain financial stability while also producing music. This concept of churches being on tour has led to some severe disrepute of artists as mega-churches are often littered with the sin and scandal that comes with being a major corporation. Some of the most profitable and successful churches on tour are Hillsong and Bethel (McGinnis). However, not all artists have had to merge with churches to remain fiscally stable and prosperous. Take CCM legend TobyMac, for example. Bloomberg Media’s Lucas Shaw cites in his article “The Year’s Biggest Concert Belongs to a Christian Rapper” that in 2019, Mac sold over “253,715 tickets and generated over $9 million in sales,” and in 2020, he outperformed monolithic artists such as Ariana Grande, Shawn Mendes, and Bob Dylan (Shaw).

As seen in the events of 2001, the pandemic crisis caused a longing for hope amongst the masses, and Christian artists like ‘Mac profited off of it. Another example of a CCM superstar is Christian pop creative Chris Tomlin. His recent Worship Night in America tour stirred up a generous amount of controversy due to his inclusion of a VIP package in ticket sales. Marketed as a night of prayerful song and glorifying the LORD, many questioned why there would be a one-hundred-twenty-nine dollar reserved VIP section, with package inclusions reminiscent of a popstar concert. People saw this as a poor way of placing profit over the original worshipful intent of the night (Anew). When touring or performing, Christian creatives should consider what is driving their art––profit or promise.

The Jesus music of the 1970s exploded into a full-force powerhouse in the music industry. As a lyrically-defined genre the sound of the music was never clearly determined, providing flexibility for the artists to experiment in. Seeking to create potentially profitable spiritual moments for their listenership, artists began to abandon doctrinally-rich lyrics in exchange for emotional sounds that caused their audience to experience or “feel” the presence of Jesus. As time went on, the industry grew more fiscally successful and proved that the genre was legit. However, as the genre grew more financially profitable, the cracks in the veneer began to show.

The first feature to go in pursuit of profit for many CCM artists was doctrinally-sound lyrics. Instead, many songs became music with religious themes packaged inside, and this trend has begun to infiltrate the worship set lists of churches today. Initially, worship leaders took their music from hymnals: take the Methodist denomination, for example. Their hymnal was curated by their founder, John Wesley, who not only prayed over the songs selected but gave his congregation clear directions for how and why they should sing them. He did not prohibit other Christian music but instead strongly encouraged his congregations to learn the ones found in the hymnal as they were spiritually nourishing (McGinnis). He simply provided a guide for their worship, not a law.

The United Methodist Church has recently come out and attempted to create an online hymnal of sorts for new contemporary worship music that would alleviate worship leaders' hunt for songs for their setlists. These songs are all under the licensing rights of Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI), which is a company that collects money for artists, as churches sing their songs, as in order for “churches [to] use these songs, [they] must pay a licensing fee” (W. Smith). The church leaders attempted to judge the value of the song by ranking each song in categories such as singability, doctrinal value, and sound. The song that originally took first place on this list was Pat Barrett’s “Build My Life,” which is a song that aligns with the doctrine of the Methodist denomination and promotes the truths of the gospel. Unfortunately, many of the songs that are under the jurisdiction of the CCLI are not nearly as spiritually beneficial as Barrett’s song. And without rankings like the one created by the United Methodist Church, many worship leaders often will choose songs that are singable and that are more pleasing to the ear. Worship director at Valley Church Jake Ferell states that he “hates to say it...but a lot of [song selection] is just preference” (qtd. in McGinnis). Without the assistance of tools like hymnals or catalogs, due to the preponderance of doctrinally-weak music, worship set lists can be filled with lackluster song choices.

Though not all denominations have access to CCM rankings, all portions of the Christian “congregation [have] a hymnal” (McGinnis). These valuable resources are not often utilized as many have come to find hymns antiquated and undesirable, however, hymns hold something that contemporary worship does not, and these songs are in the public domain. In stark contrast to contemporary worship music in the CCLI, every time these songs are sung, no one is getting paid. While old, they were not produced in the era of the profit-driven CCM industry, which has inhibited the ability of artists to write rich lyrics with potentially mediocre sounds (W. Smith). The artists are no longer on this Earth and have no need to profit from them, and they are simply in the public domain.

It is important to note that not all of the impacts of the CCM industry on the church have been negative, however, in many cases, the presence of this entity has only brought about conflict; one of the main points of conflict: denominational identity. Adam Perez, a worship scholar who is studying at Duke Divinity School, states that now more than ever, “big brands [i.e. Hillsong, Bethel, Jesus Culture] have more power over congregations” than their denominational leaders and beliefs (qtd. in McGinnis). By way of illustration, look at the Methodists’ CCLI music catalog. The majority of the music on this list is derived from charismatic, Calvinist, or Pentecostal groups, and therefore the producing artists/church may not even align with some of the core beliefs that the Methodist denomination holds. In turn, by using this catalog, churches may compromise or reject their own theological standpoints in choosing others’ sound (McGinnis).

Worship leaders cannot be blamed for choosing melodic songs over doctrinally-backed music; many in the church congregation go along with poor song choices because they want worship to be something that it simply is not. Many desire for praise to be all about the emotions and their own experience, and while, yes, worship is not meant to be a stoic, completely unemotional act, it is meant to be an act that is about worshiping the Father, not the worshiper (W. Smith). Some examples of popular praise music that perpetuates this are “Do It Again” and “Reckless Love.” The former of these two focuses on how the LORD has done great miracles for his people and will continue to bless them. The song repeats phrases that show how the Father eventually will make all circumstances good, but there is no mention of this good being the LORD’s sovereign good. Instead, it echoes the prosperity gospel (Elevation Worship). The latter of these two songs focuses on how God recklessly chases after his people and insinuates that the LORD is begging the people of this Earth to choose Him over their sinful ways. However, because the LORD is inherently wise and thoughtful, he cannot be a reckless God (Passion). Both of these songs are lovely sounding and carry a partially solid message, however, the doctrine found in the lyrics is simply incorrect at times.

Currently, believing artists are under marketplace pressure to produce music that sells. According to Ponder Anew, a Christian website that considers the direction of praise music, the worship industry has “weakened the churches’ ability to fulfill its God-appointed mission in the world” as it is currently focusing on pushing out a product instead of writing music that assists Christians in the sanctification of their souls. Conflicted artists are facing the same issues that Larry Norman and other CCM pioneers faced: happy music sells, but it is not always what the people need. Music is a commodity, but Jesus and Christianity are not, and the merger between the two has led to a diminishing in theological content in contemporary worship music.

When radio entered the sphere of the CCM industry, a deeper shift towards the prosperity gospel occurred. According to Mark Geil, a writer for Christianity Today and professor at Georgia State University, because the radio’s profit is directly correlated to the number of people that tune in, there has always been pressure to appeal to the masses in this arena. In the sphere of Christian radio, executives and analysts found that believers did not always want to hear spiritually profound songs on the radio and instead preferred religious music that was not too intense. Thus, as Larry Norman faced at the beginning of his career, there is a propensity to filter found in religious radio. Even talk shows, such as Focus on the Family, have faced censorship issues on Christian radio as the content, its stance on same-sex marriage, was too graphic of a conversation to draw listeners to the platform (W. Smith). By increasing the filtering placed on music, Christian radio has led to a greater shift from Biblically-based songs.

The gilded nature of the industry has shown not only in the abandonment of theologically profuse songs but also in the behaviors and lifestyles of the artists who create this music. In radio, this is clearly seen through the Christian radio executives' creation of “Becky.” Because the radio owners’ profits are dependent upon the number of listeners their programs receive, management teams try to create precise demographic descriptions, in Christian music, this description's name is Becky. Joe Paulo of WRCM/Charlotte describes her as a “thirty-five-year-old female [who] has two kids. She drives a minivan and is married, but her marriage is not all she dreamed it would be. She goes to church pretty regularly, but not every Sunday...” and the most important part about Becky is that she exclusively listens to the Christian radio (W. Smith). Becky helps Christian radio stations all around America determine if the songs they are considering playing are acceptable and desirable to the masses. According to Paulo, if you understand Becky, you can understand the purpose of Christian radio. This demographic tool determines the ad choices and the morning talk shows; in reality, it guides selection of all aspects of the radio programming. The creation of Becky introduces a plethora of issues for the CCM industry, one of the main being the music it promotes. Artist Keith Getty worries that in the “quest for cultural relevance modern worship [on the radio] is de-Christianizatizing people” (qtd. in Clark). By attempting to please the demographic tool, the diversity of song choices and the diversity of listenership is simultaneously limited.

The behavioral issues are not limited to the radio’s generation of the ideal Christian radio listener but extend to the church as well. Take megachurch Hillsong, for example. As a global church/worship super-force, its had sway in the CCM industry since the mid-1990s. With millions of streams and domination of the Christian radio, this Christian church worship corporation has produced its fair share of popular songs. Some of the most famous are the following: “The Goodness of God,” “What A Beautiful Name,” “Who You Say I Am,” and “King of Kings” (Hillsong Church). Whether they know it or not, almost any churchgoer has heard one of these songs in their worship setlist. However, as headlines began to run about the internal abuse and toxic structures inside the church, Christians worldwide began to question the goodness of the music the scandal-ridden institution produced (McGinnis).

One of these believers was Katie Thrush, a long-time follower of Christ and a listener of Hillsong music. As a worship leader, she had used these songs repeatedly in her Sunday morning services as they reminded her of the goodness of her Father and who she was in Him. However, as a survivor of sexual assault, Thrush immediately lamented the worship songs she had loved and began questioning whether she should continue supporting the group after the church revealed what it stood for (McGinnis). Her story highlights an emerging question in the genre: should megachurches have recording artists connected to their name? In the case of the songs from Hillsong worship, the debate would not have even emerged if the collective was not connected to the scandal-ridden church in the first place. Many feel as though in order to protect the song’s integrity, an artist should have ownership of the art, not a corporation such as a church. Listeners like Thrush have begun to call for stand-alone worship and CCM creatives, as unfortunately, churches that can afford to fund these groups often are filled with corruption.

Another mega-church and worship powerhouse that has recently been under siege for its questionable behavior is Bethel church. As described in an article written by The Associated Press, the organization was founded in Northern California, the non-denominational church was one of the first major church-based worship collectives that produced music for the industry. However, the group has not always acted in a conventional manner. In the case of one of their most recent scandals, the church attempted to resurrect a worship leader’s child through nights of prayer and praise. Shouting “come alive, come alive” the worshipers in attendance sang out praying that the LORD would breathe life into the dead child (The Associated Press). The main issue for many believing onlookers is that the leadership in this church not only spurred these events on, but they were also the ones who had created the concept of the night in the first place (Bethel). It was simply an event inspired by false theology.

The impact of this scandal was similar to that of Hillsong’s, people began to question the inherent goodness of not only the church, but also the music the entity was producing. Not helping itself in the slightest, the church only flamed the sparks of controversy when it released a statement that read “as a church, we have been contending for, singing about, and witnessing God’s power to save and heal for over fifty years” which only made onlookers feel as though the church leadership had been corrupt or at least insane since the get-go (Bethel). Christians and non-Christians alike were concerned that a church that shared its name with its major music powerhouse had taken such clearly extremist measures regarding the resurrection. Feeling that the family of the child was unable to properly grieve the child, the skeptics voiced their disgust at the church that gave these parents a sense of false hope (The Associated Press). The scandal caused a movement away from the music the church had put out and led to confusion amongst the greater church body.

As the CCM’s veneer begins to crack, the doctrinal and behavioral stumbling blocks are rising to the surface. From sources inside the church, such as the unveiling of religious scandals and rejection of theologically rich songs to externalities, such as the radio and the market, the music took a sharp turn from the motivations and sounds of the seventies. However, in the industry, there are those who are actively resisting this shift and are attempting to return Jesus back to Jesus music. Some artists and churches alike are beginning to say no more to the tarnishing of worship.

In regards to artists that are actively trying to reform the industry look no further than Keith and Kristen Getty. The writing and composing couple are attempting to restore Christ’s involvement in music as well as intentionality in worship. One of the main concerns the group has is that while “seventy-five percent of what are called great hymns of the faith talk about eternity, Heaven, Hell, and the fact that [Christians] have peace with God. [L]ess than five percent of modern worship songs talk about eternity” (Getty qtd. in Clark). The husband and wife team feels as though worship music today is more about looking outward at the Earth and worldly pleasures than looking upward towards the Father and hope of eternal life with Him. Seeking to change this, the couple has created a Christian music conference that is intended to draw the church closer together and encourage artists that are dedicated to doctrinal accuracy (Clark). The couple hopes that through these efforts their music as well as the works they have helped create will better glorify the LORD through song. Another creative seeking to bring glory to the LORD through worship is California local Sarah Juers. The singer-songwriter longs to connect Christians through music that is edifying and exulting to God. As a creative, she has taken the difficult but creatively-advantageous route of being a bi-vocational artist. When asked about her music she stated that she “prefers not to rely on her creative work as a means of economic survival, but instead sees it as a way for her to connect with people and glorify God” (Juers qt. in Seo). For Juers, she sees her art as art and not as her means of survival; this way the words and messages she feels the LORD is leading her to sing can be written without the fear of being unprofitable. As a ministry-centered artist, she realizes that the number of “people [that] listen to [her] and follow [her] does not matter” as, ultimately, she values the LORD’s call for her life over all else (Seo).

Another prominent artist that has attempted to return the CCM industry back to its lyric-defined roots is Andrew Peterson. Drawing a wide listenership in regards to his impactful and rich lyrics, his music and albums are packed with “Biblical allusion and scriptural imagery” that points listeners back to Christ as Peterson’s words directly correlate with the content of the Bible (Wax). Because God’s creation points back to the LORD, Peterson tries to create songs that point believers back to their Father. Because he does not stay away from complicated subjects and passages, his music does not get much time or attention on the radio or in churches. However, many of Peterson’s listeners find that music he produces is more fulfilling and enriching than the more popular praise songs on the radio. Like artists before him, Peterson is attempting to bring Christian music back to its origins and is actively trying to change it from the inside out (Wax).

In relation to the reform movement inside the industry, some churches are beginning to make small changes to their Sunday morning setlists. Worship leaders are starting to acknowledge that praise music is a form of communion amongst the body and is to be a response to therevelation that Jesus Christ is LORD and Savior. Song has the opportunity to edify the church body and bring transformation in the hearts of non-believers as music has a way of reaching the lost in ways no other form of evangelism can (Wolf). The Bible is filled with the music from the Psalm to the song of Moses, worship leaders are beginning to use these passages as content for their set lists on Sundays. By selecting hymns and songs that are backed by scripture, the church is better encouraging its congregation to heed the word of the LORD and allow it to “do its work in [the body’s] hearts and minds” as the Holy Spirit sanctifies them (Wax). Finally, many churches are questioning worship leaders on their intent in conducting Sunday morning praise. Seeking to bring about renewal in worship, elders are establishing that Sundays are for the LORD and not for those on stage to shine. Leading others in song is a pastoral position and many inside the church are finally instilling this concept.

Overall, contemporary Christian artists have succumbed to the vices of profit and entertainment due to the increased commoditization of the industry. Much has changed since the rise of the Christian music scene; artists like Larry Norman and the other pioneers of the genre could not survive in this industry––their music would be too moving. As Christian doctrine waned in song and artist’s lifestyles lessened in godliness, the pearly white veneer covering the worship industry cracked. Ultimately, through the commoditization of praise music that occurred after the first platinum album CCM genre regressed to a repository of upbeat, merry music with little to no theological benefit. However, there are those who are actively resisting the industry shift and attempting to stay true to the musical calling the LORD has put on their hearts. As more spirit-led artists emerge in rebellion against the industry, an increase in the number of doctrinally-based music is occurring. Essentially, in order to save the CCM genre, the Jesus freaks must emerge once more. *