MMF - Music Seminars

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
If that's how you view listening to music, then you must defer to those who have a conscience toward it. That is the message in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree totally! So please let me know if you are ever going to visit my place. I'll make sure there's no Dire Straits or Third Day in the stereo to give offense to the weaker brother.

 

&lt; ...show me where Paul said, that this only applied while you were in the presence of the weaker brother? &gt;

This opens a load of questions. The primary focus of the passages is eating meat. In deference to Christians who are vegetarians by conscience, do you never eat meat at anytime, anywhere? Do you do no work on the 7th day of the week (or any other particular day) in deference to sabbatarians? Blood transfusions, birth control, war.... do you refuse to have anything to do with these things, among others, to avoid offending a 'weaker brother,' his presence notwithstanding?

 

Good post Forrest.

Since we have strayed onto this subject (again)...two questions:

1. I listen to a lot of classical music (Verdi, Mozart...some contemporaries) and instrumental jazz. Any problems?

2. Is there room in anyone's theology for music for pleasure?

artofstone

 

&lt; The focus of the above passages are not eating meat &gt;

Romans 14:2-3 -- One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Romans 14:20-21 -- Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

The overriding specific issue in these passages, by which one's brother may be caused to stumble, is eating meat. But true, that is a subtopic to not offending another's conscience. I have argued so much with 7th Day Adventists, 7th Day Baptists, UCG's, as well as with others who advocate Sunday closing laws and such things, about Romans 14:5, to have them slap back that "the context here is *eating meat*," that perhaps the meat of this passage is on my mind.

&lt; , Paul is clearly admonishing those with knowledge that love requires they adjust their lifestyles, public and private, to accommodate the consciences of the weaker brothers....
The issues you raised are incidental once that point is understood. &gt;

Your last statement is ambiguous. If the 'issues' raised-- observing days, blood transfusions, birth control, war-- are "incidental," must they be carried out according to the wishes of the 'weaker brother--' as opposed to one's own conscience-- or not?...In both public and private, as you said.

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

 

This entire debate, "weak conscience verses strong conscience" Christians is moot, in my opinion. It seems to me that the entire argument is based on somebody wanting to do something which another Christian does not do on the basis of a bible based conviction. It seems to me it is always the "strong conscience" Christian who is wanting to crowd or even cross the line of good conduct, and the "weak conscience" Christian who desires to live a holy separated life. It is, in reality, just another form of name calling.

If we would bother to read the text in question, Paul is not talking about eating meat, but of eating meat which had been offered as a sacrifice to idols! There is obviously a spiritual element to the passage which seems to have been largely ignored. Paul is saying that, in his opinion, it is okay to eat meat purchased from the shambles which he knew had been sacrificed to idols, even though he was, indirectly, supporting the idolic temple by purchasing that meat. The other person refused to purchase the meat for he would not, even indirectly, support the idolic temple. Paul then says he too would refrain from doing so, as it was so questionable a practice, that he may cause his brother to stumble.

There are some things in this life which we don't do, even though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Jesus called this "Going the extra mile." For example, I don't go to movie theaters, not because I believe there is anything intrinsically wrong about a movie theater, but because many people would be offended by my presence there. The same can be said for many things we do, or don't do, in our Christian lives.

Another example is how we dress on Sunday. Every Sunday morning you will find me dressed in a suit, dress shirt, and tie, when I am preaching in the US. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with not wearing a suit, dress shirt, and tie while preaching, but in this country it is expected of preachers to look their best as a sign they are taking their preaching ministry seriously. However, when in foreign countries, I conform to the cultural norm for that country. I do it to avoid offending a brother in the faith,, not because God has established a specific dress code for preachers. By so doing, I am not claiming to be stronger than my brothers, nor am I showing a weakness. I am showing love for the brethren. It is that love for the brethren which seems, in my opinion, to be missing from this argument!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Not so fast, Ransom! I don't see anywhere in those chapters the "if I'm at your house" qualifier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it your contention that Paul is saying one ought to abstain from any and every activity that might offend some brother, somewhere? Whether you will ever encounter this person or not?

Doesn't sound a whole lot like "liberty" to me. In fact, it turns Paul's teaching right on its head.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by artofstone:
Good post Forrest.

Since we have strayed onto this subject (again)...two questions:

1. I listen to a lot of classical music (Verdi, Mozart...some contemporaries) and instrumental jazz. Any problems?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, yes! Mozart was a Freemason and a rather vulgar man. As for jazz, it brings to mind smoke-filled nightclubs, lascivious and sensual vocals, and unusual rhythms and chords that God never intended his people to play.

So, in the name of Christian liberty, I must request that you abstain from such music and its less-than-savoury associations.

&lt;/irony&gt;

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
This entire debate, "weak conscience verses strong conscience" Christians is moot, in my opinion. It seems to me that the entire argument is based on somebody wanting to do something which another Christian does not do on the basis of a bible based conviction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shall we turn this on its head? Suppose I find the "bible based convictions" of some other Christian personally offensive because based on my study of the Bible, I see no clear injunctions against listening to popular music? Yet, nonetheless, I am being treated as spiritually inferior or even a questionable Christian (I have, in fact, faced both accusations personally for this very reason).

Now it is I that is being pressured to sin against my conscience, to abstain from an activity that the Bible does not condemn. "What is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23) cuts both ways, Thomas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we would bother to read the text in question, Paul is not talking about eating meat, but of eating meat which had been offered as a sacrifice to idols!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed he is - and, in fact, this is the very same issue he takes up in 1 Cor. 8, where he says: "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?" (vv.9-10). It is implicit in Paul's teaching that believers may eat meat bought on the open market with a clear conscience, no questions asked . . . except where it might become a stumbling block to the weak. Paul says "[w]e know that an idol is nothing" as though he understood that his readers would, for the most part, take that for granted - it was for those occasions where a "weak" Christian might not understand this self-evident truth that Paul requests that they be accommodated.

It is clear from this passage and Romans 14 that restricting one's freedom for the sake of the "weak" is not the norm - liberty, exercised with discretion, is the norm.

Perhaps, rather than being doormats for the sake of every arbitrary whim that some hypothetical "weak" Christian, whom I do not know, have not met, and have no dealings with, might be offended by, our efforts would be best spent teaching such Christians the truth about liberty. Paul's use of "strong" and "weak" to describe such people implies a certain immaturity which the Christian is expected to outgrow, does it not? Are we to spend our lives mollycoddling the ignorant, or building them up?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul then says he too would refrain from doing so, as it was so questionable a practice, that he may cause his brother to stumble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be precise, he would refrain if he might be seen by a "weak" Christian (1 Co. 8:10). How does listening to rock music in my car, or on a Walkman, or in the privacy of my own living room when I am alone, violate this principle?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
My contention is for a proper reading of the Scriptures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so the question being posed, you avoid it. I repeat: Do you contend that Paul is saying that if someone, somewhere might be offended by what we do (which is not, in itself, sinful), we should never, ever do that thing again?

Yes or no?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As long as Ransom lives for himself, he will never know what it is to walk in love.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now you're talking about me! I'm flattered, but how does this explain Paul's teaching on Christian liberty?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]Where the issue is a mere matter of personal preference, my answer is yes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for admitting this.

I take it, therefore, that you drive only a black car, so as not to offend our conservative Mennonite brethren who view any other car colour as immodest?

I take it, therefore, that you abstain from drinking coffee, as I understand it is taboo in some European Christian circles.

Do you abstain from wearing neckties and shirts with buttons for the sake of our Amish brethren?

And, of course, to keep this on-topic, I'm sure that in your church assemblies you sing no human-written hymns, but only Biblical psalms, in deference to our Presbyterian and Reformed brethren who regulate their worship according only to what the Bible positively prescribes for public worship. (And those a capella, of course!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You started out by submitting that music is simply a matter of personal preference, but when I responded you threw in the red herring of blood transfusions and other matters . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was not me. Check your attributions. (Is your study of Scripture as careful as your guess at who wrote what?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have a Scriptural example we can use to help us discern how to apply this principle. If you study the reasons that Paul had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending some Jews, yet refused to have Titus circumcised though it resulted in offending other Jews you will be on the road to a right application of his admonitions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an excellent example. Paul had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending some Jews, yes. But Luke qualifies which Jews, doesn't he? He says it was "the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that [Timothy's] father was a Greek" (Acts 16:3) In other words, Paul didn't circumcise Timothy to hedge against offending some Jew, somewhere - it was for the sake of those Jews who knew Timothy's family and whom it was likely they would encounter!

So rather than prove your point, this episode proves mine: guarding against "stumbling" others applies to those with whom one might possibly interact and to whom one might credibly give offense.

As for the example with Titus, Paul calls those Jews "false brothers" who were trying to bind the Gentiles to the Law. They were hypocrites! Titus' uncircumcised condition did not give offense; those Jews [/i]took[/i] offense.

Again, this episode proves my point, not yours. We are certainly in agreement that I am obligated to restrict my exercise of my liberty for the sake of those to whom I might give offense. So I won't play popular music in my living room when I am entertaining guests who are not comfortable with it. But I am under no such obligation when I encounter Pharisees who are not tempted to sin by the playing of rock music, but simply take offense at it and call it "evil" (with no objective proof from the Word of God). I owe them no deference, any more than Paul owed the hypocritical Jews a circumcised Titus. As he later says in Galatians, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want to apply these Scriptures to music, don't make the ludicrous assertion that they are adomonishing you to live one way in secret and another way in public. That is classic hypocrisy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I never said any such thing. I believe I have said that I will simply not do what might give a brother offense if he is there to be given offense. That is not hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical to pretend I never listened to rock music when in fact I often did in secret. But there is a difference between that and simply not doing so under some circumstances where the welfare of a brother is involved. That is not hypocrisy, since there is no deception and no intent to portray myself as something other than I am.

If I had a friend that was uncomfortable around rock music, and I knew he was coming, I would not have it playing when he arrived. If he surprised me at home while I was listening, I would turn it off. In neither case would I pretend it was never on. Nor would I rearrange my furniture to get the "offensive" CDs out of the room where they couldn't be seen. That would be hypocrisy, you see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If they knew it was his practice then it would put a stumbling block in their way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So when Paul says he was as one without the law to those without law (1 Cor. 9:21), he actually meant he was always under the law?Because, no doubt, the Jews knew it was his practice to be out of the Law for the sake of the Gentiles, and they would have been offended by that practice, right?

Obviously Paul is saying that he modified his behaviour, as the situation warranted, for the sake of those with whom he associated. When he was with Jews, he acted like a Jew; when with Gentiles, like a Gentile. I am saying no different.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore, since you vaunt yourself as one who has knowledge and is stronger, it is your duty to Jesus to live, publicly and privately, for the sake of the "weaker" brother.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not said anything different. I do, however, dispute what you call living for the sake of "weaker" brothers.

 

&lt; But then, isn't self-centeredness the chief characteristic of CCM? &gt;

What? "I'm, happy, so happy, as onward I go..."... "I'm saved, saved, saved!"..."A higher plain than I have found"..."And he walks with me and he talks with me"..."But that thy blood was shed for me"..."And the burden of my heart rolled away"...

You probably recognize these phrases of "self-centeredness," and they do not come any 'CCM.'

Furthermore, you continue to emphasize the point that living a life which does not offend a brother in Christ is difficult, but you do not answer the specific questions (dress, car color, food, et al, and call blood transfusions a "red herring" [you got the color right on that one, anyway]). To avoid offending any brother or sister at anytime goes beyond difficult to impossible. All these taken together show why I cannot follow the reasoning which says contemporary music should be disallowed, but blood transfusions, meats, style of dress, et al, are not subject to the same denunciation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
If that's how you view listening to music, then you must defer to those who have a conscience toward it. That is the message in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about those who have been indocrinated into believing that it is sinful and morally corrupt, and have never had a chance to as you infer "develop their conscience" toward it. We are than back where we started, some great and Godly people believe it is sinful and some do not. Your "consicence" on the matter is determined by which of the above groups influenced your decisions as a child, or as a new christian. There is not definitive proof text on musical style, since my Bible didn't come with a cd in the back giving examples of Godly music, or examples of what to avoid. Bummer