#STRask - Is It Problematic for a DJ to Play Songs That Are Contrary to His Christian Values?

Episode Date: July 10, 2025

Questions about whether it’s problematic for a DJ on a secular radio station to play songs with lyrics that are contrary to his Christian values, and what approach a musician should take toward royalties he’s still receiving from music that had less-than-Christian lyrics.   As a DJ on a secular radio station that plays music from the ’60s through the ’90s, is it problematic for me to play music with lyrics that are contrary to my Christian values? What approach should I take toward the monetary royalties I still collect from music that had less-than-Christian imagery and lyrics?

This is Stand to Reason's hashtag STRask podcast. I'm Amy Hall and I'm here with Greg Koekel. Hello Amy. Hello Greg. And today I have some practical questions for you. Not like those, all those theoretical ones we deal with most of the time. You know what, it's... This one is really useful today.

What's funny is we get tons of practical questions of people asking, what can I do in this situation, which is really interesting. I don't know what that means, but maybe I'll figure it out someday. Well, we're glad to be here to help if we can. So this one comes from Roger. I am a DJ on a secular radio station that plays music from the 60s through the 90s. Is being a DJ that plays music with lyrics that are contrary to my Christian values problematic? Well that's a good question and I'm not I think this is going to be

a question that is going to be an individual question. Part of, I was born in 1950 so I love the 60s stuff all right and I still sing the 60s stuff and we not long ago had the Bob Dylan movie out and it was very touching to revisit that time and now I got those songs going, that time's there, you know, going in my head. But a lot of that was rebellious stuff. When I listen to that music, and even when I sing some of that stuff, I don't feel like I'm participating in the sentiments that are being expressed, as for myself, when I sing them. And I think in many cases, even people listening are not participating in the sentiments. They are responding to a melody and a cadence and a euphony of the words.

And sometimes, especially romance, there are words that really capture the feelings of our heart. But I'm not exactly sure what kind of music, except for this nasty rap stuff, rap that is nasty. I'm not saying it's all nasty. But I'm not sure what music from that period of time, the 60s, did you say through the 90s? 60s through the 90s. Well, it gets a little bit more questionable, I think, in the 90s. But most of the stuff then, I think compared to today, was a lot more innocent. Now if you have an ability to choose, Roger, the music that you play, you can just choose not to play things that you think are going to be really bad. And sometimes things that are, they deal with a topic that might be

questionable, but they do do it in a truthful fashion. So you might have some song that is, you know, deals with something dark, but then presents it as dark and dangerous and destructive. I mean, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Uh, and so I guess my answer would be not necessarily, but if you find yourself playing music that you just feel wrong about, then you may have to either not play that particular music or quit your job. I mean, I don't know what else to say. I think it's going to be a judgment call. And I don't

listen to a lot of music, but I don't listen just to music that comports with my theological view but I don't listen just to music that comports with my theological view or my worldview. I like the 60s stuff. Even the Simon and Garfunkel stuff from the late 60s and early 70s, that was a lot of stuff that appealed to me as a non-Christian because of the, you know, being footloose and fancy free kind of thing, doing what I want, being my own. But even in some of those songs there was this edge of melancholy because of the dissatisfaction that that was bringing. It was captured in Paul Simon's words in the music and it was great. So I guess I wouldn't say definitely not.

But I think that there are some songs that you might not want to run because they just tell a lie in a forceful way, in a persuasive way. Or if you find that a whole lot of stuff is like that and it really bothers you, then maybe you need to find a different line of work. Yeah, it's not clear if his main issue here is, I mean, he's probably worrying about how this is affecting others. It could be that he's worrying about how it's affecting him, which is also, you know, you're listening to something all day long.

It does have an effect on you. But so I guess I would start with what you ended with, Greg, which is if it is bothering your conscience, then I think you need to leave. Whether or not it's right or wrong, if you cannot, if it is bothering you and you feel like it's wrong and you're still doing it, now there's a problem. And Paul talks about this. There's so many paths. It's either Romans 14 or Corinthians, 1 Corinthians, what is it? Nine, ten, somewhere around there? I'm so sorry. Probably ten, eight and ten maybe. It's talking about meat sacrifice to idols in that section. But there is the key there

is, and this is the moral, the objective moral principle there is the thing that is not moral or immoral necessarily, if it wounds your conscience, then that's the objective concern. Don't wound your conscience. But then from there, I do have a couple things to say. I think almost everyone in our culture who is in a workplace is in your position at least somewhat. How many places where people work don't have something about what they're doing that you would disagree with?

It's hard to imagine. If you're in, maybe you're in a coffee shop, there's nothing wrong with coffee, maybe they give money to some bad cause or maybe you see some practices going on there that you disagree with. So I think there's always going to be something there and where the line is where you're not willing to be part of it anymore, I think depends on too many factors for me to factor in here. But I think you should be aware that I think we're always going to be a little bit uncomfortable in working in the world. I don't think there's a way

around that. Now I will say I worked in the film industry for ten years for a miniature effects company. So I worked on plenty of things that I would disagree with. In terms of worldview. In terms of worldview. But let me say that what you can do in your position is you can do your work with excellence, you can be creative. As a DJ, you can show people what it means to have joy and humor without being rude.

You can treat people with dignity. You can be someone who reflects Jesus in your position and does your work with excellence. Everything that you're doing in there is affecting people too. And the way you do your job is affecting the people around you. Doing your job Christianly is important and I think it's valuable. And so I wouldn't necessarily think that you have to leave. And in my case, there was only one time when my bosses were bidding on a movie where I actually said, if we get this movie, I cannot work on it.

And it was the Golden Compass. Oh, really? Which is written by an atheist. It's an apologetic for atheism, basically. It's like the Narnia for atheists. And it's so ugly and horrible. And there's the hatred towards God in that is so bad that I said, that was my line. I said, I cannot be a part of this because this is a direct apologetic for atheism and I just can't do that.

So how did they respond to that? I was trying to remember and I don't remember what happened, but I was serious. Yeah, but you didn't lose your job either, right? No, I didn't. But it was a small company and we were all friends, so it's not like I was worried about how they were going to treat me. So maybe what you could do, Brian, or Roger, sorry, is think about where your line is. And at least then you have some ideas. Come to think of it, I think we had a question about this, about the film industry years ago, because I remember asking a friend of mine what his thoughts were.

So maybe you could do a search on our website and look for that. But figure out where your line is, and then at least you can be prepared if something comes up that you don't want to be part of. So I have another thought, and it just occurred to me when you were talking. In the Hebrew Scriptures, there is a servant to a king who has some dealings with a prophet. And the servant comes to the prophet and says, do you remember this? And says, Amy's smiling like she probably knows chapter and verse on it. I just remember in general.

The servant comes to the prophet and says, I have responsibilities with my king that I have to fulfill. And I'm basically asking for your permission, blessing, or something, or at least no retribution, when I against my conscience have to do with my king has me do. And so, and that, that, that, in a sense, blessing was given to him. So who was that? I think it was, I'm looking right now, I think it was Naaman, the captain of the army of the king of Aram. I'm looking it up right now, 2 Kings 5. And I think he takes some of the earth back with him. Oh, yes. If, let's see, he takes back some of the earth from there.

He's healed by, let's see, who is it, Elijah or Elisha? I can never remember and I can't see it. Elisha! Jesus made reference to him actually when he was in Capernaum. And then he says, in this matter, may the Lord pardon your servant. When my master goes into the house of Rimon, the Lord pardoned your servant in this matter." And then Elisha says, go in peace. So it is interesting that Naaman in that circumstance realizes that there's a moral compromise involved.

But he is tied in a very, you know, a significant way to the behavior of the king because he could be executed for not doing his duty there. And so he's looking for a blessing and he's offered a concern in which he is successful. I was smiling because I think that's a great passage to think about when it comes to this. And so maybe, Roger, that's— Offer the reference. Oh, yes.

It is 2 Kings 5. So, Roger, there's something you can think about as you're trying to work through this. Okay, and here's a similar one. This one comes from Brian. Over years of becoming a Christian, nominally Christian, though not following through with my convictions, I was a professional touring slash recording musician with less than Christian imagery and lyrics. What approach should I take about the monetary royalties that I still collect from that music?

Send them to stand to reason. Oh, wow. Gee. These are tough questions, I think. Yeah, I'll say, although that was a very useful product. I don't, I'm just trying to think if there's any analog in scripture to this, I remember when I was in Thailand with a missionary group there, and the missionary was telling me, this was after I'd served my time in the refugee camp, I was in Chiang Mai, which is the northern

capital, and there's a lot of missionary groups working in the Golden Triangle. And of course, there's a lot of silver up there in a lot of the I don't want to say native groups or whatever, Karen and Lahu and Rawong, and these are all the tribals, okay? And they have lots of silver built in. And he said he knew of a place where, a cave where a bunch of silver was, but no one would go there because of the demons. So it was like up for grabs. He said, we ought to go there and get the silver.

He was talking about that. I don't know if he ever did, but he was talking about it because we're not scared of demons. There are no demons that are going to hurt us. So why don't we go get the silver? You know, and he had the best of intentions. I'm sure he would have used it.

An incredible story of this family and their life up there in that section of the world, multiple generations. So he would use it for good purpose. But he wasn't making any judgments on its source or where it came from or anything like that. He saw it as being useful. It was available to him and useful for noble purposes. I mean, that's not a Bible verse, right? But still, I think that there is, if somebody, okay, let me back up. I was kind of joking

before and I'm not speaking seriously now. But if, Brian, you decided to give that to some Christian organization or ours, I wouldn't have any difficulty receiving that regardless of what the ultimate source of the money was. Now it's being used for a good purpose, all right? Well if I could receive it in good conscience, I don't know why you couldn't receive it in good conscience. Whatever work has been done is done. Now it's just producing income. It reminds me a little bit of the difficulty or the moral dilemma that was faced scientists with work that was done in Auschwitz on Jews that had to do with hypothermia.

And they actually, using human subjects illicitly, obviously, they learned a lot about hypothermia's effect on human bodies. And there was some question, can we use this research for good now, or is it forever tainted because of its source? And my view has always been, yes, you can use it now. You're not participating in that thing that happened, you know, 75 years ago, but you are taking what resulted from it. And what I mean is you're not currently participating in what happened 75 years ago, but you can take what resulted from it, and what I mean is you're not currently participating in what

happened 75 years ago, but you can take what resulted from it and leverage it for good. So there's a redemptive element that's involved there. Now there's a split decision there. There are others who just simply disagree. We can't use it at all because of its origin. But my view was, why not? I mean, I know their argument, but I just don't see that the use of it is somehow morally clouded because of the source. It can be used now in a good and redemptive way to help people even though it came from questionable

origins. And I guess the same principle might be considered here. Way back when, when you did this, that was done and gone. And maybe you, I don't know, what you think about your involvement then, but now you're not involved. Now you are benefiting from what you had done. They're gonna send you the check.

That's the way royalties work. What are you going to do with it? If it's okay to give that money away to someone else for good use, it seems to be just as okay for you to keep it for your own use. What do you think, Amy? I don't know. Well, I thought of two passages and they have different outcomes. So I think probably I might need to know more about

his situation to say anything definitive. A lot of these things, let me just say, it is hard to live in this world right now. These things are hard. But you know what? A lot of the early church was in the same position because they were coming out of situations where they had to figure out what to do. They were pagan. So there was, and I just thought of another one, the people who were converted burned their scrolls. Right, I was just going to write that down.

And those were, and he says how much those were worth. Those were worth a lot of money. They didn't sell them, they burned them. I don't think that means you have to reject the money that's coming in. But that's an example. What you might want to do is go through the New Testament and see if anything applies, because you might come across something that applies. So the first one I thought of was Zacchaeus. So he was a chief tax collector, which means he probably cheated people out of money. And then when Jesus comes and he just, you know, Jesus welcomes him and he comes to Jesus

and he says, Behold Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much. So that was his response to the wealth that he got in a bad way. Well, he was stealing and now he's returning it basically. Now he's returning, yeah. Defrosting people. That might be a little different circumstance than this. This one's a little closer, but I think there might be more involved here than what is in your situation.

So this one is in Deuteronomy 23, and there's a law, let's see, starting in verse 17, "'None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.'" for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God." So there was a sense in which God didn't want them to use that as an offering, but you've got to remember, these are probably people who had not left. It's not like they left, they were continuing to live in this and this was the fruits of their illicit behavior. Yes, and they're using it as an offering as if that's going to make up for the behavior.

So I, though this can sound like maybe it applies, I don't think it applies to your situation because you're not just saying, well, I'm going to do these bad things and the money, I'll just give offerings to God and then everything will be fine. I think that could be what this is about. Do you think that sounds like what this is? I do think it's not quite parallel and there may be other things going on. Like you said, as if, okay, I'm going to do this immoral behavior but I'm getting paid for it so I'll make an offering with the payment of it and that somehow justifies or covers

me, but I'll continue in the behavior. What I was thinking about was meat sacrifice to idols because the idols were pagan and that was a pagan enterprise and that's why a lot of Christians said you can't eat meat sacrificed to idols. And Paul said, well, an idol is nothing. They're sacrificing to demons, the idol's not anything. And the meat is not tainted because it's part of that ceremony. You can eat it,

except if somebody else knows that it's been there and it bothers them and they think it's bad and you're doing it, and then that's a problem with regards to the brother that you're offending in the process, but nothing with the meat itself. So there's a circumstance where you have the, what you call it, the material coming from this bad situation that itself is not tainted for use. The meat you can eat, okay, even though it was part of a pagan

service sacrificed to a demon god represented by that idol, nevertheless, the meat itself is usable, useful, you can take that. You're not participating in that event if you eat the meat. Now there was a split decision in the early church, but Paul's making it clear where the moral issue on that circumstance would place out. I think ultimately, if I were in your situation, I think what I would do is just be wise with the money as you are with the rest of your income. I wouldn't say you have to give it all away necessarily. I would just be wise with it. Use it to help others. Use it to serve God. Use it to take care of your loved ones. Be wise as

you would the rest of your income. You're not using it to make up for what you've done. You're not using it to cover up anything you've done. You are using it to the glory of God, to the best of your ability, like we do with everything. And just know, this is a fallen world and we have grace. So, we do our best to give glory to God in every way we can, and Jesus covers us if we're doing something that we don't realize is wrong. By the way, there's no walking away from this in this circumstance because the money is going to come in in your name. It's a royalty. Now you have to decide what you're going to do with it. I think Amy's advice was really good. All right, Well, these are all tough questions. But thank you, Roger and Brian. We appreciate hearing from you. Send us your question on X with the hashtag STRask. This is Amy Hall

and Greg Kockel for Stand to Reason.