Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

That, quite clearly, is simply not true. You disagree with us, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong.

Bold and audacious, but calling it "cancer" doesn't make it such. You may simply misunderstand the issues. But this fits in well with my earlier example about cancer. One is foolish to listen to someone who knows nothing about cancer talk about cancer.

My honest feelings are that if you think God has no opinion about how we talk about him in music, that you should take a break from ministry, get some schooling, and come back when you believe that you must have clear principles from the Bible to preach things.

You see, such arguments are nonsensical arguments. You can muster all the bravado you want, and it won't matter unless you have an argument that supports you, and you don't. There are many issues that you simply won't deal with. When I have time to respond to you, it will be fairly easy to show (even though it already pretty evident). It will show how many times you simply punted, rather than address the issue. And coming with strong words won't help.

Strong words don't make good arguments. Good arguments make good arguments.

 

Actually, it's quite evident.

 

You think it's quite evident that every time David went against God that he suffered for it? I don't think that is evident at all. First, it assumes what it is trying to prove. It says, in effect, that God's displeasure is always noted by judgment.

Yet many times David suffered and it had nothing to do with God's judgment or displeasure (i.e., Saul's jealous anger and attempts to kill David, chasing him across the countryside). So suffering cannot be the measure of God's approval or disapproval because at times suffering exists where no sin does, and at times sin exists where no evident suffering does (such as David's marriage to Abigail).

There is no biblical reason to think that God's displeasure with a biblical characters actions is always expressed. Biblical narrative leads us to conclude exactly the opposite.

You seem similar to Job's friends, that any time there is suffering it is the result of sin. If you admit (which I can't imagine you would not) that suffering sometimes comes even in righteousness, then you can't say that every time a person sins God's displeasure is expressed in suffering because you have no way of knowing whether that suffering is because of sin or not.

Furthermore, in the Bible, we have examples of people who did wrong who did not receive judgment for it. That's the point of Psalm 73 and a lot of examples could be brought out.

So the formula that "God's displeasure brings suffering" does not stand true. It may be ... it may be not be.

But alas, I am getting sucked back in and I need to respond to the other things before carrying on here. Sorry ...

 

Missed this post this morning. Sorry.

I didn't say David wasn't spiritual. I said the OT rites were carnal. David confessed that God did not delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings, but one did not dare approach without one. Now you'll say that was all about salvation, but the burnt offerings, meat offerings and peace offerings were not offered for sin. They were offered by faithful Israelites in good standing. They were burned on the brazen altar and were received as a sweet savor. The sin and trespass offerings were offered for sin and trespass, were not burned on the altar and were not sweet savor offerings.

I alluded to one early on where hymns and spiritual songs are contrasted with excess and riot, Eph. 5:18,19. Besides, as I said, the Scriptures assume you already know what music is. You're still thinking of it in terms of an object and not as behavior, and the Scriptures have much to say about the manner of our behavior.

I will point out that no particular act is identified in that passage, only the kinds of acts.

Now it's interesting that you would allude to this passage. Again, no particulars are offered, only characterizations. Art and music are thought. The root word of music means "to think." It is "muse-ick." (oops, I'm doing Luke's homework for him) This passage bears directly on the kinds of music a Christian should allow.

"All things."

That's right.

You just answered your own question, but I prefer the word "style" or "manner." Is the manner of music wild, or is it moderate and controlled? Is its manner consistent with the manner of conversation commanded of a Christian?

The Philippians passage actually argues against you. It puts forth those virtues as intrinsic, universal qualities—not subjective.

No he's not. He's talking about how stronger Christians should allow for the convictions of weaker Christians, who, newly converted from their Jewish or pagan superstitions still have a conscience toward certain days or foods as intrinsically holy or evil. And it's limited in its scope. It certainly doesn't allow for the pagan to maintain his Bacchanalian rites.

 

Um -- no, that's not what I would say at all.

I would say that if David was spiritual, then the example of his dancing unto the Lord would then have to be discussed further as to its spirituality.

Um -- again, no. I'm thinking of music as a form of behavior. Whether the behavior is excessive, as in rioting; or calm, or peaceful; parallels and principles can be drawn for all behavior, whatever type of behavior.

The kinds of acts are examples of behavior, are they not?

Isn't that subjective? For example, the way you respond to Luke, or the tone in which you once wrote something to me about doing my homework for me; was that with grace, and/or becoming of the gospel of Christ?

Agreed; so as an example, why is the song "Ready for the Storm" by Rich Mullins not pure, or honest, or peaceful?

Then I go back to something I stated to Larry some time back; are the hymns that were re-written by Fanny Crosby from old drinking songs things we should not be singing in our churches?

So now the emphasis is on you to define what music behaviors are Bacchanalian in nature, and where we should draw the line.

 

And now you're trying to broadbrush my response to a generalized application, when my only example was David himself.

 

As well as his plural marriage.

Then you've answered your own question.

Yeah. So?

No

It was fitting the tenor of debate and the manner in which you and Luke arbitrarily set the rules of evidence and the assign the burdens of proof.

I don't know. I don't know the song and am not going to listen to it. It's enough that you appear to agree that specific Scriptural principles can be brought to bear on the evaluation of music.

Which hymns, specifically, were rewritten from old drinking songs?

No, it's on you, too.

 

If you're attributing that to his behavior, then yes.

So -- why'd you point out that no specific behavior was identified, only the kinds of behavior?

So the way you respond, the way you communicate, your behavior, is dictated by others instead of Scripture?

That's never been the point of contention here. The point is where is the line drawn?

How do you define something as pure, and honest, and peaceable that is agreed by all as being pure, honest and peaceable?

Why? Are you disputing that she wrote songs to other tunes?

I'll concede this: It's on both of us.

However, I've already made my position clear in previous posts. So, your turn.

 

If a disagreement about music causes you or your brother to sin, drop the instruments, sing without them, and see what edifies the Body of Christ. Best advice I might have, as impractical as it may seem.

 

While I agree in principle (because your statement reads just like Romans 14, where we're instructed to neither eat nor drink, nor any other thing where we might cause a brother to stumble) -- unfortunately, this conversation isn't about a disagreement about music causing someone or their brother to sin. It's about what what music is sinful to begin with.

 

Well, no, I have in fact used David expressly to show that your understanding is inadequate by showing that David often suffered when sin wasn't involved and David did not suffer when sin was involved. So you cannot use the lack of suffering as evidence of God's disapproval. My point isn't even that God disapproved. My point is that you can't show it either way.

To Luke, you are simply not telling the truth. That's shameful, seriously. First, you didn't respond to every argument I made (unless you went back and added it later). Second, the fact that you don't understand something (which could not be more clear from your own responses that are absolutely a joke, and I think you know that) ... the fact that you don't understand something does not mean that the something is wrong. The fact is that you have not even addressed the issues. You gave some lame, unserious attempt at a half-hearted response that ignored some questions entirely and ignored other things virtually completely.

You are like a patient who tells a doctor they don't know what they are talking about because they listened to some neighbor down the street.

Leave off your silly personal attacks and dishonest statements. If that is all you are going to do, then stop posting. You can treat your church like that if you want, but don't insult our intelligence that way.

 

Too vague. I could call speech music with that definition. Would you care to try again?

 

To show that the Bible often does not deal in specifics concerning each and every activity under the sun that might fall under a certain category of behavior that is either hallowed or condemned. The earth couldn't contain the volumes that would have to be written.

Therefore, the presupposition that something is good and acceptable lacking an explicit verbatim of prohibition is unbiblical and irrational.

Let's move on.

The morality of music itself is the point of this thread.

Where to draw the line is not my point, but you can be certain that God draws it a lot closer to the toes than most do.

Consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality. Start by studying the general demeanor we're to exemplify as Christians.

Huh? You said she wrote hymns to drinking songs. I asked which ones.

 

In one post you ask: "Is its manner consistent with the manner of conversation commanded of a Christian?"

When I press you on that, and ask about your own conversation to others, you respond with: "Let's move on."

I've already mentioned the general demeanor we're to exemplify as Christians.

You should have taken the opportunity at that time to respond with, "Just as our conversation is not to be corrupt, is to be pure and honest, so is all our behavior -- including music."

And I asked why you're asking. The implication is, you doubt that it happened. Is that why you ask?

 

How about this? The scriptures contain 749 references to music and every one of them are in the context of worship. Ask yourself - is the sound designed to stimulate the flesh or minister to the spirit? Are the words ministering to God or something [or someone] else? Does the sound contain the hallmarks of the Spirit [love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,gentleness,self control]? Does the accompaniment drown out the praise? The true worshipers worship in Spirit & in Truth. If you investigate the scriptures it will give you the mind of God concerning music. Be blessed.:godisgood:

 

One has to know something about the issue he is presuming to debate. If you know so little about music, your case has very little merit.

 

Don, you keep wanting me to get into the specifics of music evaluation, and I've already said no. Here's the reason, one's view of music is not merely about music. We will not be discussion merely music, but the nature of God, the condition of man, and the nature of the Atonement. Maybe another time when I have more time, and certainly in another thread.

As to your interpretations of my statements about "doing your homework for you." I already said my statement was fitting.

Fanny Crosby and drinking tunes: who cares whether or not I believe it. If you know which ones are the drinking tunes, just list them.

But, we've degenerated into tedium, and I very quickly grow very tired of tedium.