How Do you teach on music?

[Rubato 1]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I have researched this, and you are answering snippets of my page that I have posted. This other stuff you are saying is already answered on there. (see link in above post). As for pornography; here's another section that originally began here as a response to ol' mr Aaron:

But pornography is a totally different story. God tuned our senses to be aroused by the oppostite gender. This comes from a universal principle God instilled at Creation, and was marred by the Fall, so He was always strict about it. (i.e. we are only to be aroused by the person we marry). So this is why such pictures will always lead to impure thoughts, and indelibly feeds our "flesh". (Because this is not our partner, which is what makes it impure, not the physical "pleasure" in itself, which would be pure in another context —if it was from our mate). Thus, this act of "feeding the flesh" is an act of "sin". The same is not so with music. Some things may influence us in various ways, and some may use it for evil, enticing the masses with the beat that is pleasant to them, (and then adding sinful words, sexual sounds, etc), but there is no such universal principle for pleasure in music as there is with sexuality, and it's only the Platonists who have elevated it to that level. Listening to some song you like, and even enjoying the rhythm, [including dancing] in itself, is not the same as the thrill of lust one gets from looking at a dirty picture. It violates no command of God by itself (i.e. if not wedded to something universally sensual like sexual sounds, or you are using it for a sinful purpose). All of this does not address how much the [various] sounds criticized in music (such as the accents of the beats) are indelibly associated with sensuality. They are simply used for it sometimes, like anything else. But they can also be removed from that context, unlike passionate moaning or pornography.

So "Affecting the physical responses"+"the rock musicians used it for evil and knew what they were doing" does NOT equal "all contemprary music is bad". That is merely the "cycle" argument I mentioned.

Your page is very impressive. Unfortunately, it travels the road of "itching ears" i.e, arguments of the intellect and philosophy, rather than being built on scriptural evidence. Many misquotes are presens. For a quick example, "only hymns and classical music are acceptable..." Who said that? What, do you think some believe that Wagner's Tristan makes a good role model or something? There is plenty of good contemporary music out there. Good music does not have to be hymns, nor is most classical music fit for church (many times, not even fit for Christians). Do a BIBLICAL study of music in the Bible, how it is used, and how it affects us. Hundreds of pages of research can be done. Don't argue ideas-argue scriptural evidence. The fact remains that rhythm affects the physical-ask a physician, phsychologist, musicologist, or Preacher-and music that is OVERLY-RHYTHMIC is also OVERLY physical. Why do you think there are no mosh pits at a Debbusy concert?
Don't look too deep-the evidence is there, before your eyes.
Don't argue pornography with me. The point is that we can take any of God's creation and use it in the wrong way-pornography is just a case in point. The words you speak are not bad unless used wrongly-the car you drive, etc. nothing is inherently evil-we humans have a knack for twisting things for our own pleasure.

 

[Rubato 1]

By the way, Eric, your page says many wonderful things, and it is true that some, in their zealousness to defend right, use some faulty reasoning.
This is why I insist on using only basic scriptural principles in any debate.

 

[Rubato 1]

Is the debate helping, mnw?

 

[Eric B]

If my page "travels the road of itchy ears and philosophy and intellect", it's because it is answering conservative critics, who are the ones lacking scriptural evidence, and instead arguing a bunch of ideas. That is what you are seeing reflected by my defense. There is no scripture that says "music that leads you to move your body is bad, and only music that leads you to sit and contemplate is good". It is the critics, who insinuate that, using philosophy and intellect ("it makes you move" + "that's physical, and therefore 'of the flesh'" + "others use it for evil" = therefore it must be something intrinsically evil in the music. The music does not make people mosh; it is people' own lack of self-control, and they simply find styles of music that are easier to use for that. And while I acknowlege certain finished products do carry an evil sound or connotation, that is not enough for the critics; they try to break it down to "elements" such as beat accents, and then it ultimately boils down to which culture or even continent it came from!

And it's so funny you mention "musicologists, psycholgists, etc" when saying that I use too much "ideas" and other things beside scriptural evidence. Sorry, but that is not scriptural evidence either, but precisely the kind of substitute for scriptural evidence you accuse me of. It is all overhyped, and misinterpreted at that, for one thing. I have covered that on the page as well. Like the 'study' on rats that used random drum beats and called it a 'rock beat', which was then snatched up by critics as the ultimate proof. Sorry, but that is not scriptural evidence. So, unfortunately, my page is more about what the scriptures don't teach than what they do teach, because so much stuff has been wrongly read into them, and critics have made such a major issue of it.

The closest thing you have to scriptural evidence, and the true historical evidence is that the Hebrews were miseastern, and much of mideastern music was rhythmic. Just look at the fact of how David danced, and God accepted it. All of this is on the page. They did not use symphonic music.

As far as there being 'good contemporary music', most of the CCM critics I am responding to do not seem to see it that way, and there are different degrees of what individual people will accept. Most will not admit that only one style is good. But by the time they get through ruling everything else out; that is basically what you are left with. Basically, a contemporarily written song can be good, but only if done according to "traditional" or classical "principles" to most of these critics.

Anyway, thanks for the compliments that you did make.

 

[mnw]

I am enjoying the debate.

On the one hand I am trying to stay unbiased on the thread, though I do have a definite belief.

I have taken a few steps back, re-evaluated my stand and am still not far from where I started.

The whole aspect of the beat does seem pretty clear. A whole genre of music that is named after the physical reaction it generates, Rock & Roll, and which has 100% relation to physical intimacy, cannot have any redeeming value. Can it?

The behaviour of individuals at a rock conert and the contrasting behaviour of those at a concert with classical or any concert lacking a rock beat, is pretty decisive.

I have been to Christian Rock concerts and the behaviour is identical to many secular rock concerts. The beat, to a large degree, charges the behaviour.

Would any here argue that by Christians using such methods they can redeem the bad music and make it good? Can something which is intrinsically wring be made good?

As for the Rock beat it has permeated many other genres. Certain beats do generate definite physical reactions. The issue of dance is one that inevitably comes up in a study of music because of sounds inherent effect on the body.

I think good music 1000 years ago will be good music now because of the building blocks of music. Conversly, music that was morally wrong 1000 years ago will be morally wrong now.

 

[Eric B]

Oh really? We forget how truly neurotic culture and the Churc really were in that past that we so romanticize. Much of the "traditional" and even classical music we look up to today was once similarly condemned in the past. Since I am posting from a phone now, I'm not up to copying the references from my page, but they are on there. Even all instruments were once banned in favor of monotone chanting.
You guys are focusing so much on 'physical movement', as if that was automatically bad by itself. And you have music making people sin. This is actually the Platonic view of music, and it is not scriptural.

And if you think classical fans are always so well behaved, MCK or soomebody here had an example of some sort of riot breaking out at a classical concert. Even whan that doesn't happen, there is still sin present, if nothing more than smugness and pride (which could be attributed to the music's contemplative nature, if we take your line of reasoning). And once again, what you call the Christians "acting like" secular rock fans; if you're talking about just physical motion, that is not bad in itself. Just because sinful people named the music after sex doesn't mean that is so. To the impure, all things are impure because even their conscience is defiled. And once again, people centuries ago thought the music you call good was "sensual" as well.

 

[mnw]

The fact that there is a single example says a lot.

And as for them rejecting the music before what are their reasons?

You take drugs - you get high - you commit a sin.

You listen to wrong music - you are influenced - you commit a sin.

I see nothing unscruiptural about outside influences leading to sin.

 

[Eric B]

Drugs are a physical substance that directly affects the brain. The sin is that they are harmful to us (in various ways), and people disregard that fact just to get the thrill they bring. The sin is NOT 'pleasure' in itself, but the means in which it is attained. (Else, enjoying any physical pleasure would be sinful)
Music may affect us, but since the medium is not physical, it is very different. It is more emotional, and any physical reaction is a response to the emotion. (E.g. Tapping or dancing to a beat you find catchy. If you were in a bad mood and heard the same piece, it might not work). To prove your point, you would have to show that all physical motion and pleasure is bad, and none of you can do that; especially not from the scriptures. Once again, this is nothing but Platonic philosophy.

And the reason they rejected things in the past is the same reason people reject things today. People read their own hangups into scriptures and project them onto everyone else. Then, other people bring in the new styles anyway, and in time, it becomes accepted, and some other style is then condemned. Man has not changed over the centuries, and this debate today is no different from back then.

 

[mnw]

ISaac Newtown did not debate music on an internet forum... but I know what you mean.

No one has said physical motion is all bad. However, listening to sexually or violently provocative music that leads to immoral sex or violent and rebellious physical behaviour is wrong.

Not all beats are wrong, in fact all music has a beat.

Here is what I do not understand. The rock musicians in the world say it is all about sex. The country western singers who incorparate rock beats say it is all about sex. More and more I am finding secular scientists who say the beat is destructive and sexually provocative. Those invovled with witchcraft and so forth admit some beats they use are for the purpose of devil worship and incantations. The communist leaders would not allow rock in any language because they realised that the beat led to disruptive and rebellious attitudes and behaviour. And the only ones who seem to be saying the beat is neutral or can be made good by the musician are the Christians invovled with combining rock beats and Christian lyrics.

On the radio the other day a secular scientist was giving a lecture on how music does cross over into the physical realm. You can certainly "feel" bass when it misused.

 

[Eric B]

Here's the problem in this debate. You hear some scientist acknowledge that music has some sort of "effect" on people. That is all most may say. There is no consensus among mainstream scientists that all rock neats are bad. That is basically one of those conjectural tabloid stories that was snatched and hyped up. Then you see immoral rock musicians, occultists, and others say how they are using a beat for evil purposes. So then you deduce it is a certain beat in itself that "causes" sin. But the problem is, is that the only 'effect' this beat has by itself is physical motion, such as tapping. It is other factors involved by which this physical effect is pushed further than that into sensuality. Yet, the critics focus on certain beats (and their "accent") in themselves; not just "sexually or violently provocative" music. This criteria rules out way more than just this. But we see here that the argument is built from pasting together various claims.

And since when do we use the communists as support? We were at the same time saying rock music was their attack against our society. When will we cease being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

 

[rbell]

Originally posted by mnw:

More and more I am finding secular scientists who say the beat is destructive and sexually provocative. Those invovled with witchcraft and so forth admit some beats they use are for the purpose of devil worship and incantations. The communist leaders would not allow rock in any language because they realised that the beat led to disruptive and rebellious attitudes and behaviour.

Bold assertions, with no proof. Documentation, please.

Not all beats are wrong, in fact, all music has a beat.

Give me scriptural proof of "wrong beats" so I can stay away from them. Is ba-BOOM-BOOM wrong? How about BOOM-ba-BOOM-ba? How evil is a cymbal crash on the upbeat of 2 in a 4/4 shuffle? How evil is the kick drum when it is struck on the upbeat of 3 in a fast 4/4 tempo? Is 4/4 time more godly than 6/8? And what does Jesus say about a 5/4 jazz rhythm? At what tempo does the beat begin to generate lustful thought? 96? 120?

I eagerly await your response.

 

[mnw]

This is what I was trying to stay out of as I am still researching it all.

Here is the thing. If I play marching band music for a bunch of kids they start marching, no one tells them or explains. If I play folk country western, they start doing the movements you see in the older barn dancing. If I play Beauty and the Beast they kind of waltz around. Now I did this a while back and the kids were too young to have picked it up anywhere. They did it instinctively.

Now, going way into my past, I watched movies that were not pornography, but they did have sex scenes. There was a distincitive type of music used. They never have a sex scene with Mozart playing in the back ground.

Is it deliberately this way or is just coincidence.

My comment on the communists was just one amongst many others. They did have somethings right after all.

I have a number of books and internet resources that point toward the moral and immoral effects of some music. I am not going to sit and type them here because I know for a fact you guys know about them already. You just choose to ignore the evidence.

What I cannot find is anyone except certain believers who say music is neutral and has moral or immoral effect.

And even if that was said, I would trust my personal experiance more. Granted you could do the same. But the vast, vast majority will point toward music being moral or immoral.

Now, weekends are pretty busy for me so if I don't get back to this thread don't feel neglected. Also, I am more interested in passing on what I learn to people around me, so I am not going to thrash out something on this board that has been done a million times before.

Really, my main point on this thread was how to communicate truth about music. I somehow thought it would get distracted.

It seems we disagree, but I do appreciate your responses.

 

[Eric B]

Well, I'm not disputing these points per-se, or really even saying music is "neutral". It's just people's criterion on beats being the determining factor in the good or evil I am getting at. Perhaps the reason much of the modern Church feels so much safer saying it is neutral, is because Church leaders in the past were so unreasonable about it, (and it often wasn't even at least biblical), and as it turns out, were only projecting their own hangups on everyone as I pointed out. This creates a sort of backlash effect, as all of society also took, against the old Church's unbiblical rigidness.

 

[mnw]

So what would you say is immoral music? I genuinely do want to know. I realise the church in general has certain hangups and I want to make sure the stands I take are the right ones.

 

[Aaron]

mnw,

The book I recommended, Music and Morals, will direct you to the research about music and it's effects on the brain, but that's not the route to take with these folks.

You need to begin by defining the terms. Folks aren't all speaking of the same thing when they speak of music.

Music is an intelligent, ordered and usually premeditated act as opposed to being a thing. It is the communication of a thought, "a feelin'." So don't think of music as mere noise or vibrations. Don't think of it as holes in a CD or the alignment of dipoles on magnetic tape or the little black dots on staff paper.

Music is communication. It is thought. It is muse-ic. It does not exist where there is no listener, and often the listener and the performer are the same person.

Once you define music correctly, then you will see that a good knowledge of the Bible is all that's really needed, for it has much to say about the decorum becoming of a Christian.

For instance: Eric et al will defend rock music saying it's association with drugs and illicit sex is irrelevant. (Or worse, make up their own history about the church, as Eric did above.) But the Bible says plainly that only those things that are of good report should occupy our minds.

See how easy the debate can be when the basic definitions are established?

 

[Rubato 1]

 

[Eric B]

I never said "irrelevant". However, it can also be overhyped, while the sin of other cultures is ignored . And yes, this ultimately boils down to which culture and/or generation produced which style). Once again, ask Jews who lived during WWII in Europe whether the marching style is "of good report". Or those here who were forced to sing it in Church every week, and the people's hearts were cold, and they were then hating and persecuting others the next day. But of course, that's making up Church history, right? Your whole mindset is "Our culture did everything of good report back then, and you rebels today have thrown it all away") But when I say that, then you still say I am making things up. So which is it? You can't have both. If there was sin back then, then it too is just as relevant as any sin you point out in society today, and disproves your whole premise against contemporary Christian music.

Nobody in this discussion as far as I know or remember so far) even said anything about music being a "thing", or it not being intelligent communication. That's a debate you were having with others in the past. Now you are seem to be using it as a straw man, as if it actually answers anything I've said. (or is it just a memorized response when there is no other answer?)

And your science citings are still no substitute, nor even a complement to scripture. Science is not unanimpous about that stuff, but rather this is just handpicked studies, that are most often misinterpreted, that you are trumping up.

mnw, to answer your question, I would say the same thing you earlier identified as immoral: "sexually or violently provocative music". But we must be truthful as to what this is, and not identify just a beat, and based on the shoddy logic that "a rock star said he used it for sexual purposes", "a science study said it was bad for the brain", etc. That does not make it "sexually or violently provocative", and is not why something is scripturally wrong. It may be evidence when something actually does turns out to be scripturally wrong, but the scripture stands on its own without having to be propped up by all of this conjecture. That is all borne of a lack of scriptural evidence.

 

[mnw]

Aaron, I have listened to some sermons by Frank Garlock and am going to read Music and Morals this week. Thanks for the recommendation.

As far as Scripture backing up Science. I do not know that any verse specifically says what about music it is that is positive or negative. But it does indicate, by the words definitions and the context, the reaction and usage of the music.

Looking for a verse that specifically states some elements on music is like looking for a verse that specifically states do not go into a nightclub. It is not there, but principles certainly do exist that are taught by Scripture.

I am enjoy the debate and appreciate you guys posting.

 

[Eric B]

Another excerpt to address that last point:

A good principle to follow is that any issue this important will be clearly delineated in scripture. Don't you think God would have specifically condemned rhythmic beats if they were so offensive to Him, and as destructive as these critics make them out to be? (Especially if it was so specifically associated with the demonism and idolatry of pagan tribes, who often came into contact with and affected both Israel and the Church!) Salvation, new birth, the doctrines about Christ's birth, death, resurrection and return, and the Christian life are all directly taught, and repeated throughout scripture. The Ten Commandments plainly outline what God considers sin. Of course, Jesus expanded upon the spirit of the Law, and certain details may not be present as they did not exist, and then we have to extend principle to judge them, as the critics will claim. (e.g. any arts, technology, etc. that feature immorality are definitely anti-scriptural, even though they may not have existed when the Bible was written). The critics make a big point of this, as pornography, drugs and abortion are not mentioned ("are they OK then?") But these are just variations of certain sins, that do directly violate the commandments against those sins. (This includes Christ's "magnified" definition of sins such as adultery and murder, in Matt.5). Christ had said "who ever looks on a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"(v.28). Here we have the sin of pornography directly implicated. He did not differentiate whether it was a live woman or a picture that would constitute "lust". So all we have done is added a new medium, and gave it a new name. Mind altering drugs would fall under the same category as drunkenness in such scriptures as Eph.5:18. That is why it is sinful; because they basically do the same type of thing as alcohol, and are thus taken for the same reason; selfish pleasure. (The well known, proven short and long term negative physical effects are also similar). Once again, basically another new medium. (It actually is also the "sorcery" (Gk.pharmakia) of Rev.9:21, and thus is "directly" implicated). Abortion is the bona-fide murder of a conceived person, though much of the secular world won't admit it. But it's the CCM critics' attempts to prove that the music in question is "immoral" because of its rhythm that do not have enough support, judging from the charges made so far. Rather than being a direct variation of any particular sin, they are remotely connected by indirect "associations" and hypothesis.
-----------------

Also, to point out a big problem with this teaching; Garlock is from BJU, and BJU interpreted the "separation" of 2 Cor.6:14 and other scriptures to include race! Talk about the need to "separate from error"; the way this movement and its leaders is so admired and quoted from by some. That right there ought to show you where this whole music philosophy is really coming from, and it also should call into serious question their usage of scriptures (exegesis, interpretation) for all of these issues.
Some people really need to lay off of the "new evangelicals" and CCM for awhile and get their own act in shape first.

 

[mnw]

Also, to point out a big problem with this teaching; Garlock is from BJU, and BJU interpreted the "separation" of 2 Cor.6:14 and other scriptures to include race! Talk about the need to "separate from error"; the way this movement and its leaders is so admired and quoted from by some. That right there ought to show you where this whole music philosophy is really coming from, and it also should call into serious question their usage of scriptures (exegesis, interpretation) for all of these issues.

I have quite a few ties with BJ and have never known them to be racist, which is implied here. From what I have read there has never been a feeling of superiority/inferiority but rather recognition of difference. But that is another story. Anyway, that is history.

As for music being taught in Scripture. The Psalms often mention the "new song". Perhaps in contrast to an old one?

In the New Testament we are exhorted to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Christ said we are to worship in spirit and in truth. Much new music, because of the domination beat and repetition, generate a very physical response.

So what is the guideline for determining if music (sound only) is moral or immoral?