Originally posted by Daniel:
As for giving up certain music for the truly weaker brother, yes, I would. Within my own family there were differences. I was very willing to be gracious and sensitive to those family members who disagreed with my music postion by not playing/listening to certain forms of CCM in their presence. This was the gracious spirit of courtesy that we are commanded to exercise in the scriptures.
Is it really? Let's switch the subject from music to wine, which is one of the things actually addressed by Romans 14. (vs 21)
Let's say your wife has a genuine conscience toward drinking wine. She feels it is a sin. She feels you are sinning when you do it, though there really is nothing evil about the temperate consumption of alcoholic beverages. She understands how you feel though, but just can't shake the feeling that you are offending Heaven when you inbibe, and it hurts her.
Can you really say that you are demonstrating unconditional love for her if you merely abstain
in her presence, or worse, if you hide it from her? Could you honestly be saying that you are laying down your life for her when you refuse to sacrifice your wine for the sake of her conscience?
In fact, wouldn't be more of a slap in the face? Yes, it would.
The point in Romans 14 is not courtesy, it's genuine love. What kind of love is courtesy?
What do ye more than others? The guys where I work abstain from cussing in my presence. That's no Christian thing.
Honestly, all you're doing is showing the same kind of courtesy that practically any worldly, cold-hearted non-Christian shows every day. There's nothing Christian about it, and is no where near the love commanded in Romans 14 or anywhere else in the Bible.
Where the focus of my detractors in this thread is on how they should be treated by others, the weight of Romans 14 is laid squarely on the shoulders of the stronger, more knowledgeable Christians.
What, then, is the good thing for the stronger to do?
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Now, just substitute "drink wine" with "listen to rock music." Hey,
you're the ones that say it's the same kind of thing. (It isn't, but I'll explain later.)
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor listen to rock music, nor any thing whereby they brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
And where is the "in their presence" clause in this chapter anyway? Paul's sentiment was that he wouldn't eat meat as long as the earth stood if it caused his brother to offend. The "in their presence" condition is neither understood nor implied in this passage or any other concerning Christian liberty. It's a desperate attempt of the carnal mind to rescue pride and self will.
Since the Bible graciously did not address musical styles, there is the gracious exercise of liberty allowed in this area of Christian music. That's how we operated and kept respectful of each other.
If your family was truly grieved by your musical choice, I doubt they would consider you respectful if you persisted in your indulgence. So I doubt it's a real issue of conscience with them. I'd say it's more in the area of preference.
But...
The Bible
does address musical styles. Paul mentions psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Though there might be some unknowns concerning the particulars, all the universally recognized authorities agree that the names indicate particular
styles.
And, the reason that Romans 14 doesn't apply to music is because music isn't a thing. It is not a time, like a day, nor is it food nor any other naturally occurring phenomenon.
I said this before, but it bears repeating, because some here are dull of hearing. You can't pluck music from a tree or find it washed up on the beach somewhere. You certainly can't kill it and eat it. It is an act. It is a willful, intelligent act, and is therefore either good or evil.
Music is thought, mood and demeanor, about which the Bible has much to say.
