Featured Christians, Music, and the Occult: What Should We Believe and Practice?

Let us know what you find out when you're done with your study.

 

It would be more valuable for you to do your research and share it with us.
We will wait for your report.

 

Don’t use human skulls or participate in occult activities.

 

Acceptable worship is characterized by the worshipper approaching God in spirit and in truth (candor and honesty) as Jesus teaches in John 4:23-24. It has nothing to do with location, accessories, personal morality, or even biblical knowledge (see full context of John 4). Even infants worship God in their vocalizations (Psalm 8:2 and Matthew 21:16).

So the obsession with the “correct” instruments has more to do with pagan ideas of appeasing the gods than anything to do with the God revealed in Jesus.

 

Can I wack a living human with a skull? Just checking to see if the law is clear on the subject.

 

That’s a good point. I was thinking about personal “morality” the way it is often expressed in churches (impropriety, especially sexual) and the way the Samaritan woman was in a life situation considered sinful.

But you are absolutely correct that God does not accept worship from those who commit the major sins (taking advantage of the poor - Amos 5:11; taking bribes subverting justice - Amos 5:12) and are rejected until the worshipper becomes an advocate for social justice (Amos 5:21-24).

Of course, social justice and the message of Amos is not popular around here, so you’ll get attacked if you agree.

 

It’s clear you have no idea what my views of sexual morality really are, but the accusation does serve to change the subject from the clear requirement of a worshipper to engage in social justice, as stated in Amos 5.

If you were familiar with the John 4 passage and the cultural issues around the plight of women in the culture of divorce, you wouldn’t jump to a ridiculous conclusion. I pointed out that the Samaritan woman was being judged as a sinner according to cultural propriety. Jesus did not condemn her (“fiercely” or otherwise) nor the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11).

You need to look at ‘scripture more accurately’ and deal with what is actually there, not what you want to be there.

Getting back to your excellent point about morality in worship, wouldn’t you agree that Amos 5 is quite clear of the need for personal and corporate engagement in social justice before we presume to worship?

 

In regards to the OP:
"Is such musical activity pleasing to God? Should Christians use Tibetan skull drums in worshiping God? Should Christians in their worship of God use the distinctive kinds of music that the indigenous people of Tibet play on their Tibetan skull drums?"

No, I don't think that can be pleasing to God. Music made of dead humans is an insult to God as we are made in His image. We are not made to be instruments. That music cannot be used in the Worship Service for the same reasons.

I would even go further and say that given a case where a band has one half of their catalog as "Tibetan Skull Music" and one half as Christian Music then you cannot use the Christian music due to royalty problems by which a Church would be funding paganism/heresy.

 

I knew the Liberal would come out eventually.

 

I want to respond to your assertions carefully and faithfully, but I hope you realize I am not trying to debate you or “win” an argument. I simply want for you to see some things from a fresh perspective and decide what you want to do with that information. Then I would like to get back more of the original subject and deal with the very explicit teaching of Amos 5, regarding the biblical requirement of true worshippers of God to engage in social justice.

Your best point came nearly at the end of your post:

This is an outstanding insight into the way God understands sinners (men and women).

While I know that it is allegedly a sign of spiritual maturity to express “fierce condemnation” of ‘sinners’ (especially lack of sexual propriety or non-heterosexual behavior), we need to notice what God actually condemns. God is full of compassion because He remembers that we are made of dust (Psalm 103:13-14).We also know that God did not send Jesus into the human-order (aka, “the world”) to condemn the human-order, but that it might be saved through Him (John 3:17). So any ministry philosophy or practice that has as its default position a condemnation of the human-order as its default stance is anti-Christian by definition.

Yet at the same time, God DOES condemn sexual-oriented sin. How can this be, knowing what I previously pointed out? The condemnation of sexual sin (and every other sin) is aimed at those who are in positions of power, who use their power to oppress and abuse others. This involves rape, selfish sexual use of women (as Onan did in Genesis 38:9-10), sexual violence such as gang rape (Genesis 19:3), the sexual abuse of slaves and pederasty (which was common in the Greco-Roman world).

Now back to your point. You wrote:

This is true. However, it is not as simple as many think.

In the New Testament era, when the fledgling church was spreading through Asia Minor and into Europe, many slaves heard the good news of Jesus and came to faith. Unfortunately, that did not automatically change their circumstances of enslavement. If you have ever though deeply about slavery or read any accurate historical accounts of slavery in the ancient and modern world, you know what slaves are routinely used sexually. In the first century, Paul preached to, discipled, and encouraged many new believers who were slaves. We can be confident that many first-century Christians who were slaves were also engage in sexual (both hetero- and homosexual in nature, including pederasty – the sexual abuse of prepubescent boys by adult men) under compulsion from their earthly masters. (The terms of Baptistboard’s rules don’t allow me to elaborate much more than that.)

Shifting the focus back to women in Israel and Samaria for a moment, religious practice – even by the Pharisees – held that women could be divorced for any reason (Matthew 19:3). If a woman was divorced by a man, she was in a grave situation. In a society where women had very few rights and fewer options for employment, she would have to depend upon family members to support her, or otherwise find a new husband. But finding a new husband was difficult when there is a moral/social cloud over the woman. She could not be choosy. In the event where a divorced woman did not have a male relative to take her in, she would likely have to live as a beggar or prostitute to survive.

So what do you think God’s attitude was/is toward those who are caught in sexual slavery or those in desperate straits as a “divorced woman?” Would God have compassion on them, or “fierce condemnation?”

Let’s take a look at what Jesus did.

In terms of the woman caught in adultery, we have very little context for the circumstances EXCEPT that the man involved in the tryst was not dragged before Jesus.

Yes, she apparently had some level of guilt for the situation, but Jesus did NOT condemn her, or “fiercely condemn” her.

I think we need to be very careful about assuming what Jesus would do in a hypothetical when we – as you stated previously – we do not have the insight that Jesus had/has and whether or not this woman claimed to be part of the Jesus movement. Remember, Jesus was not sent for condemnation of the world, but for rescue and restoration.

Let’s move on:

I don’t actually see anywhere that Jesus called her a sinner. It seems that Jesus asked the question about her husband to show her that He knew all the things that she had done (John 4:39).

I’m not sure we can claim that she was morally-culpable for her living arrangements, when it is likely she did not have any alternatives. We know that she wasn’t claiming to be part of the Jesus movement yet (although I think we can see that she converted and became the first evangelist to the Samaritans). We just don’t know the whole story, so we need to have great humility when taking “lessons” from passage about confronting or “fiercely confronting” others.

In fact, we should always be extremely humble when confronting someone about their alleged sins. We often don’t know the whole story, and our goal should always be compassion and restoration, if possible. There are few situations where “fierce” condemnation is appropriate.

So, who did Jesus condemn? He condemned those in positions of religious power, those who oppressed the powerless, and men who casually divorced their wives. Paul condemned those who claimed to be part of the Body of Christ yet mistreated other persons inside and outside the church. Paul condemned those who sexually abused others (there are several passages that are likely addressing pederasty), and those who refused to recognize the value of those who had lesser worldly status and influence.

And that is consistent with Amos 5, regarding God’s DEEP concern for social justice.

 

Don’t you have the book of Amos in your Bible?

If Amos is a true prophet of God who is speaking for God, then God is “the Liberal,” and Alos is confirming his life to God’s character.

When I was an agnostic and reading through the Bible cover-to-cover several times in 1985, I was struck how different the Bible was from the religious culture in which I had grown up. When I eventually came to faith, I knew I had to conform my life and opinions to the character of God and be concerned about the same things He is concerned about. I did that because I believe the scriptures and I encountered the Living God.

Concerns about whether something is “liberal” or “conservative” in terms of what the God clearly demands in the Bible demands reveals a disregard for God and the authority of the scriptures.

if you disagree with my understanding of Amos 5, then by all means, make an attempt to correct my understanding, but don’t just try to slap a label on it to shut down conversation.

 

Is this really a burning issue where you are from?

 

Liberals always claim they follow The Bible. Amos in proper context does not support liberalism in any way.
Systematic Theology can be your friend. It guides you to what passages are really saying.

 

It certainly is a common claim. But the proof is in actually doing it. Otherwise it is just wishful thinking, at best.

“Liberalism” is not the issue. The issue is social justice and that Amos, speaking for God, tells us that God is not interested in our worship or religious ceremonies unless we are engaged in social justice. That seems to be explicit in the passage.

It can be, but it is often used to downplay passages that we don’t like in order to create a religious system that conforms to our own fallen preferences.

Have you ever wondered why God didn’t simply give us a systematic theology instead of the Bible? That clearly indicates that systematic theologies are not sufficient for faith and practice.

Systematic theologies are built around the opinions of human beings as to what the key elements of belief should be. If someone has a prejudice against social justice (for instance, equating it with “liberalism” which is equated with everything they hate), they are unlikely to build a theology that seriously explores what the Bible has to say about social justice. They can become idols for us to exchange the truth of God for something created in our own image.

I appreciate systematic theologies, but I am not fool enough to believe they are essential to understanding the scriptures or to be faithful to Jesus. In fact, a poorly prepared systematic theology can be a stumbling block to biblical faith.

You can’t understand the plain language of Amos? Even children can understand it.

Your unwillingness to even engage with me regarding Amos 5 tells me you are afraid or unwilling to confront the truth of God’s word.

You are simply screaming “liberal” and running away like a child.