Warren’s formulation is clean and provocative: “There is no such thing as ‘Christian music,’ only Christian lyrics.” Style, rhythm, tempo, and instrumentation are culturally shaped, not theologically determined.
The historical evidence is extensive. Luther borrowed tunes from German drinking songs — the melodies that carried congregational worship in the Reformation were drawn from secular tavern culture. Calvin hired professional secular songwriters (Bourgeois, Marot) to write Psalter settings. Handel’s Messiah used the musical idiom of Italian opera, which the religious establishment of his time considered vulgar entertainment. Early gospel music drew from African American blues. Contemporary worship drew from pop and rock.
In every case, the pattern: the new musical form was condemned as worldly, inappropriate, and disrespectful. Then it became the tradition that the next generation was condemned for departing from.
The theological implication is freeing: a congregation doesn’t need to choose between faithfulness and cultural accessibility in music. The accessibility question is about style; the faithfulness question is about lyrics and intention. Both must be answered, but they’re separate answers.
For Unificationist worship, this opens space for genuine musical creativity. Holy songs are valuable not because their musical style is sacred, but because their lyrics embody Heavenly Parent’s shimjeong and True Parents’ heart. New musical forms that carry that same lyrical content are equally valid.
Warren’s corollary: “To insist that one particular style of music is sacred is idolatry.” Strong claim — but the logic holds. If God requires a specific cultural form of approach, you’ve made the form into God.