"And not all music affects ALL PEOPLE in the same way. This is the point"
People have preferences. People also have enough fundamental similarities that music which inspires lust in one person is *not* going to inspire reverence in another.
Some music facilitates constructive intellectual activity. Other music prevents it entirely. Some music inspires reverence, other music makes you want to dance.
People are similar enough that *nobody* is going to react to rock in the same way that someone like me reacts to a beautiful Mass written by one of the greats. Even if--EVEN IF--they are associating their reaction with religion, the rock music is not inspiring the same spiritual response as beautiful music.
Could Satan use classical music to ruin souls? Well, as he can quote scripture to his own purposes, almost certainly. He's that intelligent. But how much easier and more efficient to ruin souls through music that speaks directly to the lowest in us, instead of music that appeals to the highest in us!
"A clear statement of personal preference, just don't require God to always agree with your reaction."
I don't require anything of God; I try to remain in agreement with Him, as best I can.
Maybe I shouldn't write about this yet, as I haven't discussed it very much, but I am coming to think that, just as there are absolute standards of morality that derive from God, so are there absolute standards of beauty that derive from God.
Calm down, now, I'm not proposing such narrow standards as, say, skinny women are beautiful and plump women ugly, or red roses are beautiful and yellow roses ugly. Nothing like that. Clearly, if such standards exist, the "beautiful" side would extend infinitely, but still be demarcated from the ugly side.
I do not think that the principle, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," is infinitely applicable. Very widely, yes; infinitely, no. I think that corrupt spirituality can lead one to prefer the ugly to the beautiful, but the fact of one's preference does not alter the status of the things preferred or deplored. Beauty is still beauty, and ugliness still ugliness, regardless of their respective popularity.
With regard to music, that might be related to the effect on the human consciousness independent of cultural conditioning.
I think part of the problem with thinking about this issue is our tendency to assume that what we *like* is "good" and "beautiful" and has "value." But a person of corrupt spirituality--which is to say, everyone--is certainly at risk of liking that which is bad and ugly and destructive.
Many Christians like rock music, and hold that this form of music can be as spiritually uplifting as any. I hold that they are mistaken. Rock music with Christian lyrics may be a step up from rock music with depraved lyrics, but it is still bad and ugly and destructive, and many levels below beautiful music.
I would agree with you that a Christian should retain a strong sense of beauty, derived from God's nature, as evidenced to us in Scripture and in nature. There is a deep and eternally abiding union of the soul and body, all a part of a beautiful tapestry woven by the hand of God, woven in the initial image of God, and woven anew and in far greater splendour in Christ. God's glory is ours in Christ, through our sharing and participation in the divine nature. God's holy beauty is also ours, and should be expressed here on earth. We are already in heaven, so to speak, for our lives are bound up in Christ there, and during our corporate worship heaven and earth intersect in a glorious way. From this one easily draws the conclusion given in Hebrews that we should worship God with awe and reverence, "for our God is a consuming fire." We should be careful that our worship is not consumed by His glory, but rather, like the Burning Bush, is a vessel of His glory and holy fire, "burning but not consumed".
Thus a deep and abiding reverence for holy beauty should permeate our worship: enveloping body and soul. In my humble opinion, colour, smell, sound, bodily position, and the like are all elements of worship, and should be conducted in accordance with God's holiness and beauty.
Now, the question arises, who establishes the standards of Christian beauty- and who establishes what qualifies as holy and reverent worship, reflections of "love and awe"? I do not think my personal musical preferences shoul; for one thing, I am enjoy all sorts of music from jazz to Scottish to classical to Gregorian chants to bluegrass- however I do not expect anyone to cater to my particular styles. While I find all these forms of music reflective of beauty, and, directly or indirectly of the Source, I do not think them all well-suited for the purposes of divine worship- if for no other reason than there is little hope of obtaining any sort of catholicity within most styles. Some people cannot stand bagpipes, and some people down right despire anything resembling rock (and even fewer probably enjoy the vibrant euphony- or cacophony!- of bagpipes and driving beats combined). Nor would I consider that sort of music particularly reverent or fully reflective of God's love and awe and all His other attributes. Reflective of life, perhaps, but not of awe.
Btw, if sensuality (not necessarily an evil word) is ruled out, then surely Jesus was wrong in praising Mary's act of pouring oil on His feet-which Jesus declared a beautiful thing, to be spoken of with honor until the end of time! Sensual, in its beniegn connotation, carries the idea of relating to the senses, the body- and Mary's action certanly was, but it was directed from the depths of love, of selfless and beautiful love, directed in a beautiful, sensual manner: I think of John's description of the lovely odour of the ointments wafting through the room. But it was not seen as such by many others in the room, who could only perceive a waste of money on a silly action- by a women, no less, cleaning Jesus' feet with her hair! And yet it was, and is, intensely beautiful, and resplendent in love and awe.
Which is a rather disjointed way to say, developing Christian aesthetics, specifically for worship, is not a simple thing. It must be examined and considered carefuly. Scripture is our first guide, then the traditional worship forms of the Church. One should not be overly static, but one should not either simply conform to cultural standards and ask no questions. The beauty and splendour and love and majesty and glory of God- all these must be before our eyes.