Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

It certainly comes out of an attempt to respect what you say. It is just seems apparent, based on what you say, that are not familiar with the issues in the discussion. Sorry, Luke. There's no way around that. You may be familiar with it, and just disguising it here.

Um, yes, I did. You asked six questions, four of which I addressed, the first two by an example, the fifth by an explicit statement that we all agree on, and the sixth I did not give explicit answers but I imagine that you yourself can give a list of places where the Bible addresses communication.

I imagine as well that through common grace and God-given intelligence that you can tell when your child's tone of voice communicates something far different than respect and love; it communicates rebellion and resistance and disrespect.

And you don't need a verse of Scripture to recognize that tone of voice.

The only question is, Why don't you understand and apply that to other forms of communication?

Because it's simply not that type of argument. Again, I think the fact that you ask this this way reveals a fundmental misunderstanding of some key issues.

Did you by chance take a look at the site I recommended? If you are serious, look at it, because he will address the very kind of questions you are asking me. It will take some time to read and understand (which is one reason I won't do it here ... too much time for me); and it will take some serious thought. But it will be worth your time if you are interested in anything besides exchanging one liners.

 

I've heard this argument before and it doesn't make sense to me. Music (I'm talking about instrumental music without lyrics) can enhance our mood, true, but it does not CONTROL us. Wearing pink makes me happy. Black makes me depressed. Both colors influence my mood, but that doesn't make one godly or the other sinful.

Smells can influence me to either relax (lavender) or run away (cigarette smoke, dirty dog smell.) Certain tastes make me want to gag or savor my food. That doesn't make it right or wrong or in control.

Music is pleasing (or not) to our sense of hearing. We can take pleasure from it. It's not a sin to enjoy it and want to move to the rhythm, and the simple desire to do so doesn't give it CONTROL in our lives.

 

I agree ABC. Nodak you make it sound like there's some kind of conspiracy happening. A couple of weeks ago we had a full band in the worship service. The drummer, bass, 80 year old pianist, guitarist, organist and I colluded together to lead the congregation in worship (gasp!). We sang two hymns from the Baptist Hymnal with full band, a welcome song ("He Is Lord"-also in the Baptist Hymnal) and for the special we did the old 70's contemporary song, "You've Been Left Behind." The organist sang lead and I sang back up. I don't recall anyone of us conspiring together to use the music to manipulate anyone, to turn anyone on or off, anger anyone, etc.

 

By the way Pastor Larry, I've read arguments as to why rock style music is so evil and I used to buy into it until I began to realize that what was being taught could not be substantiated. You can take bunk and dress it up spiritually and but in the end it's still bunk.

 

Okay, since you asserted that music isn't moral and does not communicate morality, then prove it. After all, you are the one who claims that the one making the assertion has the burden of proof. I don't have to prove to you that music is not sinful.

You see how silly that argument is? Of course you do. So let's dispense with that one too.

Can you please tell me where I have made that claim? I want to see exactly what you are referring to.

First, I thought you were going to talk about my tone of voice illustration? If so, then why refer to grunting?

But second, you say "A child can communicate anger by grunting"? On what biblical basis do you say that? Is this another place (like the marijuana) where you are borrowing from my position to try to make a point? You know that there is no place where God says "A child can communicate anger by grunting." Yet you believe it, and you would address it with your child.

And if your child says, "Where did God say that?" you wouldn't have a place. But you wouldn't let that child off the hook for it because you know that grunting in anger violates biblical principles of communication on a number of different levels.

This whole line of attempted argument is an exercise in missing the point. The point is that groaning is evil. That's absurd. The point is that the sound communicates something. And the something that it communicates is sinful.

No it doesn't, unless you are referring to something other than the traditional tune.

Au contraire, my friend. Again, this shows that you are simply not engaging my argument. You are engaging someone else's argument.

It is ironic that I am having this conversation with you today because tomorrow I am preaching on Mark 7:1-13 about those who establish as doctrine the traditions of men, who exchange the commands of God for the traditions of men. You seem completely unwilling to interact about the commands of God. You want to appeal to (a relatively recent) tradition of men that all music is acceptable to worship God. That is not the historical position of the church. The idea that music doesn't communicate is not the position of most trained musicians. But of course you wouldn't know that if you haven't done any study and reading on it and simply rely on the legalistic traditions of men.

So your contention is that God does not address communication? So do you correct your child's tone of voice? If so, on what grounds? You have no biblical grounds, according to you (but of course you don't actually believe that, I imagine).

That's not really the proper use of ex cathedra, but whatever. No need to start making good arguments at this late point, right?

Think about this: If God is silent on music (as you claim), then on what basis you believe you can speak for God to say that all music is okay? Do you not see how utterly absurd that is?

Once again you are showing that you have no idea what my philosophy is.

Again I ask, have you gone and done some reading on the website I suggested? You need too. Your comments here clearly are uninformed as to the issues. They are not rooted in any knowledge of music or musical forms, culture or cultural forms, or expression.

 

Not knowing what you've read, I have no idea how to respond. And still not knowing your qualifications to pass judgment on this, I have no idea how to assess your assertion that the arguments (whatever they were) could not be substantiated. The fact is that you may simply not have had the background and tools to assess the arguments. The fact is that there are numerous arguments that can legitimately be made about the communicative powers of music, and they must be entertained.

I totally agree, and I think we are seeing this in play here. We have people pretending that all forms of music are spiritual and can be used in worship of God. But that's spiritual bunk. Dressing it up won't change that.

You see, as with Luke, that's a silly argument that isn't an argument at all. It is a bald assertion hoping to gain some points without actually having to make an argument. You say my argument is bunk. Does that really make it bunk? Of course not.

Of course, as with Luke, I am not sure you even know what my argument is.

You too should spend some time reading on the website I posted earlier. As I said, I don't agree with all of it. I am actually probably nothing like you imagine me to be with music. We are all guitars at church. We sing a variety of stuff from Sovereign Grace, from RUF, from various other sources. We sing Watts and Wesley and Luther alongside of Getty, Townend, Kaughlin, Tomlin, etc.

But the fact is that some here are not even aware of the issues in the discussion. And that does a disservice to the worship of God.

This is the type of statement that just misses the point. The point is not about intent. It is about reality. Uzzah intended to do something good. And he died. Korah intended to worship God, and God killed him. And there are numerous examples. So let's dispense with the sentimentality of it and deal with Bible.

 

I think you are reading too much into what nodak said. IMHO, he/she is saying that music CAN affect you ---- whether you yield to the emotion is still a choice you make.

I can fully identify with the idea that music(?) can affect you, cuz my S-I-L used to be a part of a "Praise Band" that loved to play that loud raucous contemporary stuff, that I had to listen to when we went to visit.

The sound of those instruments made me feel like I would want to feel if I were getting ready to go into battle. IOW, that noise made me want to just start a rampage of destruction.

I was responsible for managing my emotions and not yielding to that urge, even tho' the "music"(?) made me feel otherwise.

Now if I were not a Christian, and tended to give feet to my emotions, I would probably have been in jail not long after they started playing, but---!

Point being that music can and does affect people emotionally; probably some more than others, with me being one of the easily affected.

I just found a radio station that plays hymns on the piano on Sun AM, a little more upbeat than most hymns are played. So I listen to this just before going to church, and it's amazing how much more relaxed, peaceful and tuned to worship I feel.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. My point was that it's not necessarily a bad thing to be affected by the sounds of music. I think if it were, God would have cautioned us somewhere in scripture about the dangers of music. We are cautioned not to have corrupt communication, etc. so obviously certain LYRICS are wrong, but I've seen nothing in scripture to condemn certain music.

I think the biggest problem people have with music is the MESSAGE (lyrics) and the MESSENGERS (musicians, singers) involved, not the arrangement of musical notes or instruments used.

 

Weren't Uzzah and Korah disobeying deliberate instructions, though? Do we have deliberate commands concerning musical styles in scripture?

So far the only scripturally based argument I've heard about music is that we should not be "worldly." That is, "rock" music and certain musical techniques used by ungodly entertainers should not be used (even with Christian lyrics) because the association could make a brother stumble.

 

Why do you so easily omit music from communication? You equate "communication" with lyrics alone, but no one believes that communication is limited to words. Everyone understands that communication is far more than words. You understand it when your spouse communicates with you through a certain look, or your child communicates through a tone of voice.

Yes, we have deliberate and express commands regarding communication. Since music is a form of communication, it applies.

Think of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus talks about the commandment against adultery. Was Jesus adding to it? Should we really suppose that under the OT it was okay to look on a woman to lust since it wasn't expressly stated, and now Jesus was raising the bar? Of course not. That is absurd. It is clear that involved in teh commandment against adultery was lust from the beginning. The legalists, the Pharisees, had weeded it out and set up a wrong system. Jesus was restoring it, showing by several examples, that naked "wordism," that is to say a total fixation only on explicit commands, is incompatible with the ethics of kingdom life in Christ. The command to not commit adultery did not need to explicitly exclude looking with lust. It was included in the very idea.

So in the same way, the naked "wordism" that Luke and others want to apply here clearly does not match the pattern of Scripture. It doesn't match up to anything else in our lives. It would never work in our jobs or families. And we all instinctively recognize that, as Luke did when he admitted that children can communicate anger with a grunt, even though he has no verse for it.

Those are two different arguments. One is good (the first), the other is decent but not as good (the second).

What does it mean to be worldly? And how does that express itself in culture? Worldliness is the expression of fallen values in culture. How are fallen values expressed in the culture around us? How were the fallen values expressed in the 50s and 60s? 70s and 80s? etc? How are fallen values expressed through dress? How are fallen values expressed in art? etc?

Again, this is where a simplistic approach simply doesn't work. People don't want to think about it. But we have to. We don't all have to answer the questions the same way necessarily, but we need to think about the questions.

 

I think it is a weak argument to say that music (minus lyrics) can be evil because it is communication or that God ever intended it to be understood that way. There is no clear teaching in scripture on this issue.

I have never in my life received an iota of communication from music without lyrics. Without lyrics there is no communication.

Anything can be used for evil or for the Glory of God including words and lyrics. And just because it is predominately misused in some sub-cultures does not mean it should not ever be used for God's glory or even cannot.

We have to be careful that once our prejudice has been established based on things being used for evil that we do not dub it no good for God's glory. That would be a fallacy.

Having said that there is certain types of music that are associated with ungodly forms of dancing. If one cannot control themselves while listening to such music then they need to stay away from such things. If music is ever a motivation for ungodly behaviors of any kind then it needs to be kept out of the church.

 

I like your definition of "worldliness." It's the best I've seen yet.

Yes, we should think about the questions, but you are right that we won't all have the same answers. Cultural expressions change and may mean one thing to one generation and something completely different to another generation. For example, my parents vividly remember the 1960's rock music and believe ALL rock music is of rebellion and wrong, no matter what the lyrics, who is performing, who is listening, and no matter what the music conveys to that particular listener..

I don't see how we can judge, across the board, that a certain style of music is always sinful for everyone simply because it meant something in one era. But then, that brings the argument back full circle to the "intent of the heart" which you seem to think doesn't apply. I find that confusing.

 

Why should we care what you think? Seriously ... Why is that any better than what I think? Do you really think that your thoughts or my thoughts are somehow important or authoritative? Not sure about you, but I know myself well enough to know that my thoughts on a great many topics are greatly inadequate.

The idea that music communicates apart from words is so patently obvious it is indisputable. Again, as I said before, imagine these two situations with two very common musical selections:

1. A wedding in which Queen's "We Are the Champions" is belted out as the bride walks down the aisle.
2. A championship game in which Pachelbel's "Canon in D" is played as the final buzzer sounds and the winning team jubilantly celebrates.

By imagining the incongruency of those two situations, you will see very easily that music communicates, and that not all music fits all circumstances.

Or consider a nightclub in which the Moonlight Sonata is being played. It just doesn't work. Why? Because music communicates.

Again, this is patently obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

That's simply false. Why do you think there are lullabies and marches? Because they communicate different things to people. Why do you think movies have music? Because music communicates to you. Why do you think there is a company called Musak who produces music for certain atmospheres because it communicates certain things.

Imagine the cultural rebellion of the 1960s taking place to Bach's organ concertos. Of course you can't because you recognize that music communicates something. It makes you walk fast or slow, eat fast or slow, relax or be agitated. It expresses things within us and communicates things to people around us.

No one is suggesting that we cannot use music for the glory of God. We are in fact commanded to.

But it is not true that "anything can be used for the glory of God." For instance, it is impossible to lust for a woman not your wife for the glory of God. It is impossible to use the Lord's name in vain for the glory of God, even though God has not given us an express list of all the ways in which God's name can be used in vain.

Yes exactly. That is a key part of my point. People have prejudices that cause them to think certain ways about issues that is not good.

We must also be careful that our ignorance about things doesn't cause us to say things that aren't true.

Why do you think this is? Interact on this point for a bit.

Interact for a bit why you think the music of the 60s and the culture of the 60s rose up together.

Think about a carousel. Tell us why a carousel uses a particular type of music.

Let's get serious about discussion and quit making these absurd statements that are obviously untrue.

If you notice in this discussion (and the previous ones) no one seems to want to talk about actual issues like the last three questions I posed above, or the three scenarios I posed above. Why do you think that is?

Why doesn't someone here explain these situations?

 

PL Saying "I think" in no way implies some sort of authority. It simply means that is what I think or believe. And honestly, there was no reason to believe it did.

Sounds can be used to communicate (eg. music, buzzer etc) when associated with specific events or ideas. But sounds are not communication in and of themselves. Such is not the same as a genre of music. Sounds whether it is music, a bell, a buzzer, a drumbeat, all have to be associated with and idea outside of those sounds. And that is what music is without context oridea. Just another sound with no value (1 Cor 13:1)

 

Don't you think that certain sounds can prompt a certain response? I cannot imagine praising God with music that is depressing. In Ps. 150 I see certain kind of instruments used in praising God. I do not cymbals used as a type of instrument to prompt depressing thoughts.

 

You know, the biggest problem with Pastor Larry's arguments, and subsequently, the reason I think people are not agreeing with him, is Pastor Larry's continued retreat to "what are your credentials?" While not using those words verbatim, over the course of 4 pages, he's reverted to that position several times.

In other words, Pastor Larry believes that he is more of an authority on this subject than anyone else who has posted here. Or, at least, gives the impression that he believes such.

I myself studied music at the college level for 4 years, intending to graduate with a degree in music; my plans changed.

I understand what Pastor Larry is attempting to say about music being used to communicate. A Sousa march, for example, will get the blood pumping. Music in a horror movie will influence a feeling of dread. Bagpipes at a funeral can elicit tears.

The problem is that the exact same song, played different ways, can elicit different responses. I can use "Amazing Grace" as a running jodie while I jog; speed up the music, and clap my hands, and use it to motivate myself the extra half mile.

Does that make Amazing Grace ungodly?

If I play Nothing But the Blood using only drums (it can be done), does that make it ungodly?

In other words, if I focus on the communicative power of the music, then *any* song can be ungodly.

This is where Pastor Larry needs to educate the rest of us, if he's truly more of an authority than we are, on what constitutes godly or ungodly music.

 

I didn't think it implied authority. My point was actually much simpler than that. It was about the basis for judgments. Why should your thoughts be taken any more seriously than anyone else's?

Not at all. You put a three year old in a room with march music playing and what the reaction. Then put him in a room with a lullaby and watch the reaction. He doesn't have anything to associate with that music. Yet he responds to its communication.

Again, it's self-evident.

And again, I wonder why you ignore the very direct questions and illustrations in my post? Would you please address those?

 

That's actually a very small position, designed to bring out the authority by which people offer these opinions. They are asking us to believe something. I think there should be some ground on which they base their statements that give them credibility.

Based on those who have posted here, I think it is obvious that I know a bit more about it than those here. I don't know how much more, but the conversation has been pretty basicl.

Good. So you have a little background.

So what are the various responses to Stars and Stripes Forever? Or to the Moonlight Sonata?

You speak of music in a horror movie. But you recognize that "Stars and Stripes Forever" in a horror movie is a laughable proposition, just like "We Are the Champions" are a bridal procession, or Pachelbel's "Canon in D" at a championship celebration.

My guess is that there is no way to change Canon in D to make it appropriate for a championship celebration, and there is no way to change "Stars and Stripes Forever" to make work in a horror scene.

And BTW, here you are getting very close to making an argument that is worthy of consideration.

No, but the issue is not the tune itself necessarily. That is only one component of it. You can also sing Amazing Grace to Gilligan's Island (or a couple other tunes). But even if you have never seen Gilligan's Island, the tune is a laughable fit to the words. It just doesn't go together becuase the music says one thing and the tune says another.

I think the issue is a very complex one, and I certainly don't have all the answers. But so far we aren't even in the ballpark of admitting that music can communicate in and of itself. But right now, there are mothers all over the place singing their babies to sleep, and you better believe they understand the communicative power of style of music. The really funny thing here is that people are still trying to deny it.