Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have never talked about a "given musical genre." I have specifically stayed away from that point to talk about the broader point of the communication of music.
I'll give you that, and certainly undrestand the fortitousness of refraining from discussion of the more generalized genre topic.
The fact is that a scriptural case can be made against sinful things. That is the point here.
No one argues the concept that a scriptural case can be made against sinful things. What is at issue here is the existence of a sinful thing. It is notably absent.
...your assertion is highly doubtful. IN more than 20 years of studying [the] music issue, reading wideliy from both sides, I have never seen that assertion.
As a person with a minor in sacred music, I can tell you with authoritative certainty that the hymn "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" took its tune from is a love song called "
Are All My Feelings". It is historical fact. Many hymns today have secular origins.
... it is irrelevenat because the music in question is not currently a love song, which distinguishes it from Apologetix.
It was still known to be a love song when the hymn was penned. Many of the classic hymns we enjoy had, and some still have, secular usage. If your assertion holds any water whatsoever, then you would at the very least have to condemn the use of these hymns during the time their secular usage was popularly known. Additionally, you have no choice but to acknowlege that, by your own set tandard, Apologetix tunes will cease to be sinful when the secular popularity of the tunes dies out.
...[O Sacred Head Now Wounded] is simply good music. Apologetix may use some music that is good, but it associations render it inappropriate.
By your own subjective standards alone. Not by any scriptural objectivity.
YOu have confused two issues: 1) The inherent morality of music and 2) borrowing from the world to preach the message of God. These are two differnet issues.
I have done no such thing. I have claimed correctly that a tune (sans lyrics) is in and of itself amoral. As far as borrowing from the world ot preach the message of God, I have abundantly established that this has been regularly done with acceptance with regards to many of our currently established hymns, thus nullifying your case against doing so.
You won't find one Scripture verse that addresses pornography directly.
Any person who looks at another lustfully has committed the sin of adultery. Pornography fits the category of lust and fornication without any inference at all, though one is welcome to use inference to draw the same conclusion if one wishes. In the case of the topic at hand, there is no scriptural inference that can be objectively applied.
I have shown from 1 Cor and 2 Cor that use of the popular is inappropriate for the communicatino of the gospel.
An inference that falls flat on its face when one recognizes the fact that several of our own classic hymns share secular tunes that were popular in their day. So, in order to be consistent, you must judge those hymns as well, at least to their use when the secular tune was popular.
They never have been. Weddings are about two people getting married. Aren't you the one that had a Star Trek wedding? Was that worship?
Yes, our wedding ceremony was absolutely worship. The officiant lead us in prayer, shared the gospel with our guests, read scripture, and joined us in the Godly union that is the marital covenant. The fact that it was on the Enterprise-D bridge (which was absolutely cool and unforgettable) did not diminish from the worship exsperience at all.
to fail to acknowledge that music is moral is a key failure of theology and music philosophy.
Use of music
can be moral, immoral, or amoral. Emphasis on
use of.
... Seriously, there was nothing in the least arrogant about it.