BOOK REVIEW: They Sold Their Souls for Rock-n-Roll & Rock-n-Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution

They Sold Their Souls for Rock-n-Roll & Rock-n-Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution


Pastor Joe Schimmel is founder of Fight the Good Fight Ministries and pastor at Blessed Hope Chapel in Simi Valley, California. His main area of concern, exposing the evil behind pop music (mostly rock), is reflected in a video series which comes in various packages which vary by age or length (the largest is a full ten hours!). I watched two of them, and there is much overlap, but I put them both on here because their titles differ (“R-n-R Sorcerers” is an older version of the DVD presentation). The videos consist of Schimmel’s commentary followed by clips demonstrating his points about various artists and the effect he believes their music is having on the world today.

Good Points

For an anti-rock “expose'” the arguments are not as bad as many have been in the past. Schimmel avoids some of the more cliche (and, I believe, absurd) arguments such as rock’s alleged “demonic drumbeat,” or the idea that some music styles are evil in and of themselves. He also states that music can be used for good or evil. This admission of neutrality on the style end of things is refreshing. Instead, he focuses on the lyrics, lifestyles, and statements made by the artists as evidence of his points (see Music and the Christian).

Schimmel also admits that Satan has many tools of deception and is not limited in his influence to rock music, or even music in general. Schimmel does think that Satan can inspire music based on a popular (but questionable) understanding of Isaiah 4 and Ezekiel 28. (Many people think these verses refer to Satan, although they do not actually mention him. See Commonly Misunderstood Verses).

Further, the videos provide enough examples to leave little doubt in the viewer’s mind that there is much evil in the music business (whether or not this is really relevant remains to be seen).

Bad Points

You might notice that I devote the majority of this article to “the bad points.” Please realize that it takes a lot longer to explain these than to simply list them (as I have the good points, which require little in the way of explanation or examples). Although there is a lot of good information here, there are so many problematic issues that only a very careful viewer will get much good out of them without also imbibing the bad. There is a lot to this production and I wrote over 6 pages of notes as I perused the series. While a whole book could be written in response (and would be required if it went point-by-point), it will have to suffice to point out some general categories of problematic issues that repeat throughout the presentation.

End Times Speculation meets New Age Conspiracy Theory

Schimmel links the evils in the music arena to Satan and the coming New Age rule of the Antichrist. While New Age conspiracy theories have become rather passé in Christian circles since the mid-90’s, end time mania has not let up (and the ridiculous and embarrassing success of the Left Behind series will probably keep it going for some time). Schimmel attempts to link both of these pop theology themes to pop music.

He cites verses concerning the end that have been true in every generation as evidence that this generation is “exactly what prophecy predicts about the end times” (like musicians being lovers of money – was this never the case with anyone else before now???). And, like most end-time speculators, Schimmel grasps at any connection (real or imagined) to make his points. He even states that the Internet (WWW) = “666” in Hebrew, as do bar codes, in his attempt to show how the taking of the mark is “right around the corner.”

* Note that the number of the beast is not “six-six-six” – three sixes, it is “six hundred sixty six” – the amount. Apparently Satan has not read Revelation closely!

Poisoning the Well

Schimmel claims early on that his video collection will show clearly to anyone who has eyes and ears that the claims he makes are correct. However, he then resorts to what is called “poisoning the well” in debate circles. To poison the well basically means to set up your opposition to look bad before they get a chance to represent themselves. Schimmel’s commentary that he gives prior to each piece of evidence is really pre-interpretation. It sets up his audience to “see” his particular understanding rather than allowing the material to speak for itself. If what he is exposing is so “obvious” and “clear” and “incredible” (as he states over and over again), then why all the pre-commentary? Many of the “clear and obvious” evidences that Schimmel brings to the table would be useless without his “priming of the pump.” For example, he says Jimmy Page is invoking Satan by pointing his bow at the crowd in four directions during a live guitar solo because this is similar to an Aleister Crowley ritual. Then shows the video. But, could it be that Page simply wanted to include the whole audience in his pointing? But according to Schimmel, all of his examples are undeniable if you just open your eyes and ears.

segasseM sdrawkcaB

Nowhere is Schimmel’s pre-interpretation tactic more apparent than in his demonstration of backwards messages (these are different from intentional back masking, as Schimmel agrees). He plays segments of rock songs that have long been “known” to contain backwards messages to link these artists to Satanism. He attributes the alleged backwards messages to Aleister Crowley, who instructed his followers to learn how to do things like walk and talk backwards. What is interesting is that Crowley was clearly not talking about the speech reversals that Schimmel uses for his evidence. In the very passages Schimmel cites, Crowley writes that one should practice saying, “Eh ma I,” instead of “I am he.” But this is not a backwards message! “Eh ma I” reversed does not sound even remotely like “I am he.”

The fact is that without a script most people cannot decipher these so-called messages in the first place, and the number of different “obvious” interpretations of these alleged messages bears testimony to the fact that they are really the product of one’s imagination. The most famous of these is from Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven. I have found three different “messages” claimed to be present in the same passage. None of them match, and Schimmel’s is the least popular of them all (yet all sound equally plausible when you listen for them).

So-called backwards messages have been found in songs from Popeye the Sailor Man to the laughing song in Mary Poppins. The obvious conclusion is that these speech reversals are common . . . and meaningless. Further, even if our minds could somehow grasp these hidden messages while unprompted and played forward (which has never been shown to be the case), how could something so ambiguous be of any use to Satan anyway? Even if these “messages” were somehow understood, they would still have to find their way into our intellect in order for us to act on their suggestions (which few are even said to contain) – and in that case we would still be free to choose (and responsible for our choices).

Questionable Use of Juxtaposition and Assumption of Causality

Schimmel often edits song and event footage together to show what he thinks are causal connections. The first chapter of the DVD overlays video footage of the Columbine shootings over lyrics to songs that he believe inspired the acts. Now, it would be difficult to argue that there is no connection between the music people listen to and their actions if they are very similar. Some people directly claim that music was, in fact, their inspiration. However, this is a classic mistake in thinking. In fact it is so common that it has several names (post hoc ergo propter hoc being my personal favorite!). The problem lies in two areas: causality and its direction.

First, in order to show that two things are in a causal relationship it takes more than merely showing that they are both present, near in time, or even vary with one another. For example, it is true that as ice cream sales increase or decrease, so do drownings. Does this demonstrate a causal connection? No, because there is a third cause of both – heat. The hotter it gets the more people buy ice cream and go swimming (and thus drown). There is no causal connection between the two. Schimmel does a good job of showing connections, but provides no arguments for causality.

Further, the direction of causality (if present at all) must also be demonstrated, not simply implied as if it is obvious. It may be that evil people simply enjoy evil lyrics. Perhaps the lyrics even provided an outlet for the person’s evil. But in this case it was the person’s character that caused them to choose that music – not vice-versa. Schimmel makes no attempt to prove any of these connections, he merely asserts them and then plays emotional music with evil lyrics juxtaposed with MTV style footage of actions that he claims were caused by it. More argument is needed if one is going to blame a song for an action.

Hasty Generalization

Schimmel makes other classic blunders while arguing his case against rock music, primarily that of the Illicit Minor, which is concluding a certain universal truth about a subject with only particular proofs. This type of fallacy occurs when one derives a conclusion that says more than the premises of the argument will allow – thus invalidating the argument. For example, if I state that my dog is black, and my neighbor’s dog is black, it would be illicit to conclude that all dogs are black. In order to validly make a universal claim I have to say something universal in the premises of my argument.

Now, it would, of course, be unfair to ask Schimmel to survey every artist in every possible genre to make his case. In fact, he wisely attempts to get his examples from mainstream, popular artists, and in this he is fairly successful (although his choices for heavy metal are mostly fringe). However, he repeatedly takes these cases to be evidence for the whole of popular music. “Rock-n-Roll” is not indicted as a genre by even a majority of evil artists. In order to validly conclude that the rock genre is to be avoided as evil, Schimmel would have to argue something that is true of all of it – but he does not.

Special Pleading

Special Pleading is taking only the evidence that supports your case and ignoring that which does not, or would work equally well against your own case. Schimmel makes sweeping judgments of bands based sometimes on a single reference. Pink Floyd, for example, has one relatively unknown song that distorts a Psalm in its lyrics. Schimmel concludes from this that they are a satanic band. Is this fair? Apparently, according to Schimmel, if a band has a single “evil” song he believes this is enough to slap on the satanic label. But if this is the case then following the same logic I could find a single “good” song and conclude that the band is Christian! Instead of focusing on Iron Maiden’s rare controversial songs (e.g. The Number of the Beast*), why not list their many morally upright songs (such as Powerslave, their song about an Egyptian pharaoh who realizes that he is not really a god, or the musical version of Samuel Taylor Colleridge’s epic poem The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, or the nod to C. S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet ?). Do these songs make Iron Maiden morally upright?

*This song , by the way, is simply a report of a dream the bass player had, and is not promoting the taking of the number as Schimmel implies. The lyrics indicate quite the opposite in fact, as the subject of the song is specifically said to be working evil in the taking and giving of the number – in fact, isn’t that sort of like what the Bible says about it too?

Ignorance of Context and Significance

In a similar vein as above, another questionable tactic comes from Schimmel’s “proof-texting” practices with lyrics and statements. Often there is simply not enough context given to adequately judge the significance of the artists’ passages. Now, it must be admitted that he already has over ten hours of material, and this could easily be hundreds if full context were shown in every case! However, it must also be noted that it would be very easy to cite things far enough out of context to present an inaccurate picture.

The Christian band Saviour Machine has a series of songs concerning the end times that include songs about the antichrist. One of their projects, Legend, has several songs with satanic themes – one that even distorts the Lord’s prayer. But they do this to show the evil of the antichrist (something Schimmel would appreciate!). But as this is a musical drama made up of several songs, there is not enough context in any one of them to show that the band is trying to make true statements about evil and not trying to promote it. If I played only these songs (and primed the pump a bit before letting someone hear them) it would be easy to conclude that Saviour Machine was a satanic band when they are in fact the exact opposite.

In one example Schimmel attacks U2 for singing the Beatle’s Helter Skelter because this was the song Charles Manson referred to when he spoke of his version of Armageddon. But the the song is just about playing on a slide, and in concert U2 specifically said that their reason for playing the song was to “take it back” from Manson! Even artists employing sarcasm to make a point, or simply to lampoon, are lumped into the same category as those who are serious about what they are saying. Weird Al Yankovic spoofs many of the artists that Schimmel quotes simply by singing their lyrics to polka music, so he could be made to look pretty bad himself! Or consider Schimmel’s example of the KISS song God of Thunder. It was written as a joke by Paul Stanley to make fun of Gene Simmons being so “scary.” How many other examples like these might Schimmel be citing?

Bad Hermeneutics

Schimmel quotes many songs throughout his presentation that he claims make his points obvious, but many times he is actually doing injustice to the artists (as well as the art and science of interpretation). His well-poisoning tactics come on strong here, as he gives his pre-commentary before showing the lyrics as evidence. Schimmel reads his own interpretation into the meaning of a given song or statement and then blames the artist for his misunderstanding.

For example, Schimmel states that the 80’s world hunger benefit song We Are The World is a satan-inspired description of the one world new age empire under antichrist. He claims that the phrase “we are the world, we are the children” is speaking against the biblical truth that we are supposed to be children of the light – not the world. This is an equivocation on the word “world” – the song clearly does not have the world / Church distinction in mind here! When the song says we should be “bound together as one,” Schimmel makes reference to the kings of Rev. 6 who were “bound together” against Christ. As to feeding the hungry (which we are commanded to do in Mt. 25 – an “end time” text no less!), Schimmel thunders, “Man shall not live by bread alone!” to the wild applause of the audience (who apparently did not notice that it still takes bread to live, and that’s all the song is asking for). When the song says we can “save lives” Schimmel says we cannot. But he is speaking of everlasting salvation versus temporal, physical life. This is not what the song is saying!!! He even mistakes the reference lyric “love is all we need” to be promoting that idea when the song is actually against it!

Christians would never allow this kind of practice when it comes to a skeptic’s understanding of the Bible! But many will swallow it hook, line, and sinker so long as it seems to support their pre-conceived conclusions. There are two more categories of this kind of poor interpretation that are so prevalent they deserve their own headings:

“Christianizing” the Artists’ Statements

Schimmel makes the claim that when it comes to his conclusions of demon possession and the like, that we don’t have to take his word for it because we can just listen to what the artists say about themselves. However, as he does with many of his song examples, Schimmel will often lay a “Christian spin” onto the meaning of a given song or statement and then blame the artist for this misunderstanding. For example, when Madonna speaks of having “lots of demons in her,” is it really fair for Schimmel to quote this as an admission from Madonna of being demon possessed? Or is it more likely that she is simply repeating a common phrase to speak of inner struggles?

Any time an artist claims that they were “given” a song, or that they were inspired by voices or spirits, Schimmel makes the (un-argued and unsupported) deduction that these must be demons.* Therefore, he concludes, the artists themselves are admitting to being demon possessed! In another instance Schimmel blatantly twists the words of Jim Morrison who thought Indian ghosts or spirits gave him his lyrics. Schimmel restates this as an admission of demon possession. It is simply not fair for Schimmel to impose a Christian understanding (even if technically true) on someone else’s words and then blame them for what he believes is behind what they said.

*Oddly, these claims are really not that much different from many Christians’ claims of “inspiration” from God. How many Christian artists give God credit for their work? Does this really mean that God inspired them? Doubtful. Why, then, trust the secular artists’ explanations? It seems safer to say that many artists (Christian or non-Christian) think their material comes from outside themselves and that their label for this phenomena depends on their world view.

“Satanizing” the Artists’ Statements

Many of the statements Schimmel uses as evidence carry no necessarily satanic overtones, but are merely secular ideas that any non-Christian might embrace. But Schimmel seems to equate any similarity of practice or language with a satanic conspiracy. So, for example, when Aleister Crowley says, “‘Do what thou wilt’ shall be the whole of the law,” then anyone who promotes a “do it your own way” message is not only non-Christian (which this message certainly is), but is actually a Crowley-disciple (or at least an occultist). This is flawed thinking. Is it really fair to accuse someone of satanic practices when they are just doing yoga down at the YMCA? Just because occultists practice something, that does not mean all who practice that thing are occultists. When satanist Aleister Crowley promotes walking and talking backwards is this really an indictment of Michael Jackson’s moon-walking? (Yes, Schimmel actually makes this connection!) Is “me-centered” rap music simply echoing Crowley’s satanic “Do what thou wilt” law? (And if so, what does this say about most of “Christian” music today?)

Urban Legends

Schimmel also buys into urban legends and quotes them as facts. He cites, for example, one of the more famous ones: that the Eagle’s song Hotel California is about the Church of Satan. He cites as clear and unmistakable evidence the fact that the Church of Satan was on California street in San Francisco and the fact that it was founded in 1969 (this year is mentioned in the song with reference to the absence of wine – clearly a reference to Christ of course!). Now, this reveals an ongoing problem in the interpretation of art. Good songs will rarely just come out and say something in a way that is obvious – it’s simply not artistic. Thus, in many songs there are many different possible “interpretations.” In these cases the artists alone have the authority to explain what they were referring to. The Hotel California legend (as well as the claim that the Church of Satan’s founder, Anton Lavey, is pictured on the back cover) has been debunked time and time again. The song is actually about the crazy California culture that the band discovered as they rose to fame. But Schimmel claims his interpretation as authoritative.* And this is not the only urban legend Schimmel cites, he also includes the Beatles’ alleged “Paul is dead” myth as well as their “butcher cover” of the Yesterday and Today album (see for the exposure of these legends).

* It should also be noted that even if the song is interpreted in this fashion it is certainly not promoting the Church of Satan. The “Hotel California” is a bad place that the singer wishes to leave.

Libel and Slander

Many of the above problems lead to a place no Christian should ever go – the sin of libel or slander. Both concern false statements made about a person or persons whether in writing (libel) or in speech (slander). To paint many of these artists with such a broad brush based on Schimmel’s own questionable interpretations of their work is extremely dangerous and could easily lead to bearing false witness (one of the “big ten” in the sin list). In every case where Schimmel makes false assertions like calling artists “satanists” based on less than good evidence he would be committing this sin (and his practices as outlined above make it likely that this could often be the case).


The fact is, as Schimmel succeeds in showing, that the pop/rock music culture has a lot of evil in it. I don’t think any knowledgeable person would deny that. But so does country music. And Hollywood. And books. And painting. And professional baseball. And politics. And construction work. And . . . you get the picture. Why is this the case? Because people are responsible for doing these things, and people are, to various extents, evil.

Why pick on music and movies as most do? Because they are expressive. We cannot usually tell by looking at a farmer’s field whether or not he is a practicing Satanist because farming does not express the farmer’s character or thought life. Music is able to communicate what is inside someone, and what is inside someone is not often Christ-like. But this does not mean that all music or movies or books should be condemned simply because Satan has succeeded in twisting some of them to his glory.

So long as we keep this in mind, and our assessment of individual examples are accurate, we can make good judgments. One who has the ability to do this will find much of They Sold Their Souls for Rock-n-Roll or Rock-n-Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution useful. But those who have not been trained for critical thinking or are ignorant of the facts should be extremely careful in accepting what Schimmel tells them to conclude.


11 thoughts on “BOOK REVIEW: They Sold Their Souls for Rock-n-Roll & Rock-n-Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution

  1. well, I just finished reading your blog backwards, while squinting. I have strange urges to worship the devil. Thanks a lot.

  2. Speech reversals are very uncommon. I have been a recording engineer for 20 plus years and at the time Zeps Zoso album was made we didn’t have the technology required to create reverse speech. I watched a few hours of this documentary, some of it is dead on and some of it is nitpicking. However having been around rock musicians my entire professional life there’s no denying that some are Satanists. There’s also no denial that they use Sex in the lyrics to sell more albums to impressionable teens, but come on who isn’t aware of this fact? I felt he spent too much time on this topic. However his point was valid about there being so much horrific stuff being produced that parents are desensitized to the milder sexual stuff.

    I didn’t like his Pink Floyd reference because I think it was taken out of context. I believe Floyd’s Animals album was pointing out the plight of domestic animals from a entirely unique and warped point of view. I don’t think blasphemy was intended.

    Your review is as biased as the documentary, maybe more so.

  3. You dedicated way too much time to your rhetoric as to why you think Joe Schimmel was wrong in his interpretations, but once you revealed why you thought so, it became apparent that your reasons were unconvincing.

    Such as, saying that “I am he” is not the same as “Eh ma I” because the sound is different. The point of saying words backwards is to re-program your brain.

    Disregarding points simply because of “juxtaposing imagery” is foolishness. You must realize that the entertainment industry, and specifically music, is built on imagery. Thus, you must “juxtapose” the images that musicians intentionally use, in order to illustrate the effect that it has on a person, subconsciously.

    The images used by musicians is not accidental, it is intentional.

    Also, Joe Schimmel stated that music can be used for good — by God, not by you. To generalize Schimmel’s statements and say that music can be good or bad is to suggest that music still is what you make of it, when the whole purpose of the documentary was to illustrate that popular music in the 20th century is not what you make of it — the organic feelings created by that music is only an illusion of evil to dupe you into thinking that you’re a God.

  4. David, your post reveals some major confusion. I assume you have never seen the video or else maybe my post would be more understandable to you. For example when you said , “Disregarding points simply because of “juxtaposing imagery” is foolishness” you seem not to realize that it is Schimmel’s imagery and not the musician’s I was referring to. Further, his point was most certainly not that only God can use music for good. And I can’t even begin to follow your thinking on the backwards message issue.

  5. Why do you have the cross with the circle around it on your page?

    You do realise that is a pagan symbol of the Zodiac and absolutely nothing to do with Christianity?

  6. It’s from the Celts, not the Astrologers.

    The cross itself did not become a common symbol of Christianity until the 4th century. One source thinks that the early Chi-Rho monogram of Christ eventually morphed the diagonal cross members of the Chi into a cross with the vertical stem of the Rho (making a full circle on the cross). There is also a story that St. Patrick was shown a sacred standing stone that was marked with a circle symbolic of the moon goddess. Patrick made the mark of a Latin cross through the circle and blessed the stone making the first Celtic Cross. Many see the circle of the Celtic Cross as a symbol of eternity that emphasizes the endlessness of God’s love as shown through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

    In any case, the symbol is not pagan when used in a Christian context. One source notes that, “Some Christians, especially fundamentalists, are terribly afraid that they might be right and want nothing to do with it if it is tainted by Pagan associations. . . . All the historical examples of actual “Celtic Crosses” are from indisputably Christian contexts. . . . Ironically, the Pagan Roots of the Celtic Cross is essentially a Christian legend in its development. It is only in the last quarter of the 20th century that the “Christians stole it” spin of the story has become widespread, promoted mainly by those who make no secret of their distrust of Christianity. But there is more irony yet. The negative version of the story is also spread by some Christians, who unaware of the Celtic Revival version, believe the Neo-Pagan version of the story as true and feel compelled to spread the alarm, lest their fellow Christians unwittingly offend God by use of a pagan symbol.” (

    Anyway, I do not care what astrology uses for its symbols or anyone else. The very idea that a symbol can be forever designated as pagan is itself an occult idea.

  7. For one thing that concern me is the material that is use,Although the aim of the production is to point out the wrong,it have the capacity to create an excitement for evil and eventually lure young people in satanism. I do find it unnecessary to show some of these satanic songs in the full. Further more a lot of these images and catchy tunes can infiltrate the sub conscience. This is what Satan’s music are capable of doing. It looks for an entry point to the mind and we have created an entry point plus a audience.Brothers although I don’t believe you have bad intent,but in short what I am saying, you are helping satan to send out his deception. No where in the Bible it tells us that we ponder our minds on the things of Satan but says put your minds on the things above,where your heart/mind is there is your treasure,where is your mind on the things above or is your mind on the playground of the devil,who ever plays with fire will get burned

  8. Pingback: They sold their souls for Rock and Roll - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

  9. In manuscripts Alexandrinus (A), P47 (papyrus #47), manuscript #051, other minuscule Manuscripts, and in some of the writings of Iranaeus, and in Hipplytus, the reading is 666. But in Ephraemi Resriptus manuscript (C), as well as P117 (3rd-4th Century) and some other manuscripts of Iraneaus, the reading is 616.

    This is in regards to the question, “why would a variant number 616 have entered into the manuscript history?” It seems that the best answer is that John was using Nero as a “cypher” or as well-known tyrant who persecuted the believers, and who there would stand as a good illustration of the last days tyrant who would likewise persecute the believers in Yeshua. Even as Daniel used Antiochus IV (Epiphanies) as a portend of the end-times “anti-Messiah” ruler, so John uses Nero in the same way. For the two numbers, 666 and 616 could well be a variant based upon the Hebrew and Latin spellings of Nero’s name, respectively.

Comments are closed.