Music is one of many unnecessarily controversial topics within the Church. Some people are quite content to live and let live, whereas others are extremely strict in what they see as acceptable both in worship during a service, and anything outside of a service.
Perhaps one of the most amusing things about this controversy is that, at one point in history, what is now seen as traditional was seen as innovative and obscene. For example, a lot of older churches include organs as standard. It's just "the done thing", and I've never seen anyone say an organ should never be played in church (though I can all but guarantee you someone holds that view). However, a quote attributed* to Abbot Ethelred in the 12th century reads "Whence hath the church so many organs and musical instruments? To what purpose, I pray you, is that terrible blowing of belloes, expressing rather the crakes of thunder than the sweetness of a voice?"
As Ethelred allegedly objected to organs, today we hear more of "whence hath the Church so many guitars" or "whence hath the Church so many drums" etc. Instruments are a major point of contention, and some people even attribute them to devils. "This culture uses drums in this pagan ritual, therefore drums themselves are demonic." "Guitars produce this sound, which is too loud, so it's bad." "My husband didn't like this worship service and stormed out of church, so the songs clearly don't glorify God." "The early didn't use electricity." (!!!) These are all simplified versions of arguments I have genuinely heard against what is commonly called "Contemporary Christian Music". Rap, rock, and metal are especially commonly attacked.
Now, to some extent, I understand this. A church service is not supposed to be chaotic, and so fast-paced music that only a few people have the skills to produce, such as rap, is not appropriate. I also don't think it would be the best idea to have a congregation stand and sing something like Toby Mac's "Hey Devil". As good as it is to tell Satan to get his junk out of here, because we don't need him, a church service is more designed to praise God than cast out demons. But there is such a thing as too much regulation.
See, the problem with the question "whence hath the Church so many..." is that such things have been present in some form in worship of the true God since before the Church existed. For thousands of years, people have been worshipping God freely and joyfully, with all kinds of instruments, including instruments some may consider demonic. I often like to point out that the Bible endorses the sistrum (2 Samuel 6:5), which is an Egyptian instrument, of all things. Not only is it an Egyptian instrument, but it was specifically used in the worship of the goddess Hathor, whose image can often be found on sistrums. The point I make from this is that if God is happy to be worshipped using an Egyptian pagan instrument, even before Christ came to fulfil the law, what could He possibly reject now that the law has been fulfilled and we are no longer under it?
Vain traditions. That is what He rejects now. See, pure and undefiled religion before God is not ornate buildings and monotonous hymns sung by people wearing bedsheets next to a rusty old organ. According to James 1:25-27, "But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
We see, then, that God is very much a libertarian. He does not value the appearance of religiosity. The Pharisees certainly had that, but where did it get them? No, what God values is obedience and love. If you have these two things, everything else is optional.
And this is what makes contemporary Christian music true and acceptable worship. See, "traditional" hymns (though these, too, were once contemporary Christian music) are all well and good, but when they are enforced as the one and only way to worship God, they become vain. The appearance of holiness is valued over love and obedience. But contemporary Christian music is raw worship, unrestricted by the personal tastes of the older generation.
One thing you won't be told about contemporary Christian music is the depth to which it goes. Many people who struggle with modern issues get through their struggles using Christian songs that are meaningful to them. Perhaps they are not so meaningful to you. And my brethren, that is absolutely fine. No one is permitted by God to dictate what sort of music you are required to like, nor can they forbid any specific style to you. If you prefer traditional hymns, that's fine. But when you're recovering from an addiction, when you're fighting suicidal or self-destructive thoughts, when depression overwhelms you, sometimes the best coping mechanism is to lock yourself away with just yourself, your God, and a comforting playlist. The last thing you need is some closed minded bigot demanding you conform your worship style to their personal tastes.
When worship is conformed to the personal tastes of specific Christians, it becomes vain and cold. There is no love in ritual. The struggles I mentioned, and indeed the struggles I did not mention, are very real. Christians, of all people, ought to care about them. Imagine, for a moment, you are babysitting a child. The child falls and gets cut. You take him into the house, pull out the first aid kit, clean the cut and put a plaster on it. When your friend comes to collect the child, they are horrified. "How dare you put Mickey Mouse on my child's arm?" What do you think of that parent? What I think is that such a parent is a disgrace. You're not pleased that I cleaned your child's wound, you're upset about the design on the plaster I used to cover it while it heals? This is not the God we serve! He doesn't care how our wounds are dressed, only that they are adequately taken care of.
To object to contemporary Christian music is akin to objecting to a Disney plaster. The truth is, while hymns are great, and certainly appropriate for a church service, they are limited in their scope. While some people may take comfort in certain hymns, others may not. It is even possible to hate a specific hymn, whether it's just the tune, or maybe it's tied to a bitter memory. I know personally, there are hymns I sing rather begrudgingly. It's part of the service, and it would be very rude to just remain seated while everyone around me stands and sings. When that happens, I try to focus on the words, and so long as the theology is good, I mean them. But other songs, I can really get on board with, but someone else in the congregation might be really hoping the song falls out of popularity. And that's ok, because at the end of the day, it's not about what you sing, but who you're singing to.
Now, let us remember the words of James. "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble..." Let us suppose that these orphans, or these widows, happen to take comfort in a certain Christian song. Theologically, it is solid. But you don't like the tune. Suppose you catch them listening to it. "Oh no, you can't listen to that! It uses this instrument! The singer comes from this background! Let me just nitpick this specific line from the song that could be improved, but at the very least doesn't sin in its minor inaccuracy...", my brethren, this helps no one. The kind of person that does that is so cold, they could blow out the sun like a birthday candle. If someone takes comfort in a specific Christian song, shut up and leave it between them and God.
Again using myself as an example. There is a band called Skillet who are particularly popular, both to be listened to by those who struggle, and to be attacked by overly-zealous Pharisees. One of their songs is called "Out of Hell". Now, I certainly would not advocate for this to be integrated into a Church service. However, pay attention to the lyrics: "Can you hear me screaming for you? I'm afraid I'm gonna die down here. I need you because no one else can get me out, get me out of Hell. I'm suffocating waiting for you, 'coz the angels don't fly down here. I can't save I can't save myself, get me out get me out of Hell!"
To me, this reads like a genuine prayer. A Psalm, even. How often do we hear men of God practically begging God to turn His ears to them? Go and read Psalm 88. This Psalm correlates so well with Out of Hell that when I last wrote about it, I included Out of Hell as a recommended song at the end. To me, this song is unbelievably meaningful. No matter what I'm struggling with, if I put on that song and pray along with it, I can feel God's presence. If I'm in a rough situation, I see God's hand on it. If I'm feeling hopeless, I see a reason to praise God anyway. Even if I have sinned, I feel God's forgiveness, and I am empowered in my resolve to repent, because I know that I am not a slave to sin, like the unbeliever. I am set free in Christ! The Lord's freed man.
Now tell me, where is the sin in this? Where is the evil? Where is Satan in this picture? Under God's boot, that's where! With this song, as with many others, the worship comes not from the will of man, but from the heart. It's not some religious chore, it is a child of God hanging out with his Heavenly Father. Is this a problem? In the minds of some, yes. But what is their justification? What verse can they bring to the table? Which prophet can they cite? I see scripture overflowing with exhortations to sing new songs, make joyful noises, skillfully use a wide variety of instruments, but I see nothing restricting music. Even where we would expect God to place restrictions, He instead removes them and dances along with it. So what can be said against our favourite Christian songs? Nothing that comes from God's word. And so my brethren, however you praise, praise hard. Save the legalism for those who don't know Him.
*In the interest of transparency, I wish to declare that I have been unable to verify the quote, having only seen it cited in books, none of which I happen to be in possession of.