Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Pastor Larry]

The point is that you and Aaron do not have any Bible for your position.

That, quite clearly, is simply not true. You disagree with us, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong.

When you are so flippant about the sufficiency of Scripture you infect the body of Christ with a cancer that will kill it in time.

Bold and audacious, but calling it "cancer" doesn't make it such. You may simply misunderstand the issues. But this fits in well with my earlier example about cancer. One is foolish to listen to someone who knows nothing about cancer talk about cancer.

My honest feelings about this is that if you cannot make a better case for certain types of music being immoral and you preach it any way- I think you ought to take a break from the ministry; get some schooling and come back when you believe that you must have clear principles from the Bible to preach things.

My honest feelings are that if you think God has no opinion about how we talk about him in music, that you should take a break from ministry, get some schooling, and come back when you believe that you must have clear principles from the Bible to preach things.

You see, such arguments are nonsensical arguments. You can muster all the bravado you want, and it won't matter unless you have an argument that supports you, and you don't. There are many issues that you simply won't deal with. When I have time to respond to you, it will be fairly easy to show (even though it already pretty evident). It will show how many times you simply punted, rather than address the issue. And coming with strong words won't help.

Strong words don't make good arguments. Good arguments make good arguments.

 

[Don]

That's the assumption I don't think we should make because it isn't evident.

Actually, it's quite evident.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, it's quite evident.

You think it's quite evident that every time David went against God that he suffered for it? I don't think that is evident at all. First, it assumes what it is trying to prove. It says, in effect, that God's displeasure is always noted by judgment.

Yet many times David suffered and it had nothing to do with God's judgment or displeasure (i.e., Saul's jealous anger and attempts to kill David, chasing him across the countryside). So suffering cannot be the measure of God's approval or disapproval because at times suffering exists where no sin does, and at times sin exists where no evident suffering does (such as David's marriage to Abigail).

There is no biblical reason to think that God's displeasure with a biblical characters actions is always expressed. Biblical narrative leads us to conclude exactly the opposite.

You seem similar to Job's friends, that any time there is suffering it is the result of sin. If you admit (which I can't imagine you would not) that suffering sometimes comes even in righteousness, then you can't say that every time a person sins God's displeasure is expressed in suffering because you have no way of knowing whether that suffering is because of sin or not.

Furthermore, in the Bible, we have examples of people who did wrong who did not receive judgment for it. That's the point of Psalm 73 and a lot of examples could be brought out.

So the formula that "God's displeasure brings suffering" does not stand true. It may be ... it may be not be.

But alas, I am getting sucked back in and I need to respond to the other things before carrying on here. Sorry ...

 

[Aaron]

Missed this post this morning. Sorry.

If that's a presumption that somewhere in the NT, we find that David was less than spiritual, I'll need you to point out where that is. Otherwise, I point out that he's counted among the others of faith.

I didn't say David wasn't spiritual. I said the OT rites were carnal. David confessed that God did not delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings, but one did not dare approach without one. Now you'll say that was all about salvation, but the burnt offerings, meat offerings and peace offerings were not offered for sin. They were offered by faithful Israelites in good standing. They were burned on the brazen altar and were received as a sweet savor. The sin and trespass offerings were offered for sin and trespass, were not burned on the altar and were not sweet savor offerings.

If there is *any* scripture or scriptural principle in the New Testament that applies to what kind of music is right/proper/decent, then it should be readily apparent and available.

I alluded to one early on where hymns and spiritual songs are contrasted with excess and riot, Eph. 5:18,19. Besides, as I said, the Scriptures assume you already know what music is. You're still thinking of it in terms of an object and not as behavior, and the Scriptures have much to say about the manner of our behavior.

I offer to you:
2 Timothy 2:22 - Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

I will point out that no particular act is identified in that passage, only the kinds of acts.

Philippians 4:8 - Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

Now it's interesting that you would allude to this passage. Again, no particulars are offered, only characterizations. Art and music are thought. The root word of music means "to think." It is "muse-ick." (oops, I'm doing Luke's homework for him) This passage bears directly on the kinds of music a Christian should allow.

1 Corinthians 14:40 - Let all things be done decently and in order.

"All things."

Now, the Strong's defines the word that's used in the KJV as "decently," "in a seemly manner," or "honestly."

That's right.

If a song is offered up out of pure heart (honestly), praising our Lord - what principle determines that it's the wrong "type" of music?

We could go back to Larry's argument about "genres"...

You just answered your own question, but I prefer the word "style" or "manner." Is the manner of music wild, or is it moderate and controlled? Is its manner consistent with the manner of conversation commanded of a Christian?

. . . but as has been pointed out, and was actually pointed out in a couple of Aaron's musical behavior citations, culture plays a factor in what's considered "pure" and "praise-worthy" music.

The Philippians passage actually argues against you. It puts forth those virtues as intrinsic, universal qualities—not subjective.

To which I return to my previous post regarding Romans 14: He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

So yeah, we might disagree on where to draw the line; but that disagreement is *exactly* what the author of Romans is talking about in that passage.

No he's not. He's talking about how stronger Christians should allow for the convictions of weaker Christians, who, newly converted from their Jewish or pagan superstitions still have a conscience toward certain days or foods as intrinsically holy or evil. And it's limited in its scope. It certainly doesn't allow for the pagan to maintain his Bacchanalian rites.

 

[Don]

Missed this post this morning. Sorry.

I didn't say David wasn't spiritual. I said the OT rites were carnal. David confessed that God did not delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings, but one did not dare approach without one. Now you'll say that was all about salvation, but the burnt offerings, meat offerings and peace offerings were not offered for sin. They were offered by faithful Israelites in good standing. They were burned on the brazen altar and were received as a sweet savor. The sin and trespass offerings were offered for sin and trespass, were not burned on the altar and were not sweet savor offerings.

Um -- no, that's not what I would say at all.

I would say that if David was spiritual, then the example of his dancing unto the Lord would then have to be discussed further as to its spirituality.

I alluded to one early on where hymns and spiritual songs are contrasted with excess and riot, Eph. 5:18,19. Besides, as I said, the Scriptures assume you already know what music is. You're still thinking of it in terms of an object and not as behavior, and the Scriptures have much to say about the manner of our behavior.

Um -- again, no. I'm thinking of music as a form of behavior. Whether the behavior is excessive, as in rioting; or calm, or peaceful; parallels and principles can be drawn for all behavior, whatever type of behavior.

I will point out that no particular act is identified in that passage, only the kinds of acts.

The kinds of acts are examples of behavior, are they not?

You just answered your own question, but I prefer the word "style" or "manner." Is the manner of music wild, or is it moderate and controlled? Is its manner consistent with the manner of conversation commanded of a Christian?

Isn't that subjective? For example, the way you respond to Luke, or the tone in which you once wrote something to me about doing my homework for me; was that with grace, and/or becoming of the gospel of Christ?

The Philippians passage actually argues against you. It puts forth those virtues as intrinsic, universal qualities—not subjective.

Agreed; so as an example, why is the song "Ready for the Storm" by Rich Mullins not pure, or honest, or peaceful?

No he's not. He's talking about how stronger Christians should allow for the convictions of weaker Christians, who, newly converted from their Jewish or pagan superstitions still have a conscience toward certain days or foods as intrinsically holy or evil. And it's limited in its scope. It certainly doesn't allow for the pagan to maintain his Bacchanalian rites.

Then I go back to something I stated to Larry some time back; are the hymns that were re-written by Fanny Crosby from old drinking songs things we should not be singing in our churches?

So now the emphasis is on you to define what music behaviors are Bacchanalian in nature, and where we should draw the line.

 

[Don]

You think it's quite evident that every time David went against God that he suffered for it? I don't think that is evident at all. First, it assumes what it is trying to prove. It says, in effect, that God's displeasure is always noted by judgment.

Yet many times David suffered and it had nothing to do with God's judgment or displeasure (i.e., Saul's jealous anger and attempts to kill David, chasing him across the countryside). So suffering cannot be the measure of God's approval or disapproval because at times suffering exists where no sin does, and at times sin exists where no evident suffering does (such as David's marriage to Abigail).

There is no biblical reason to think that God's displeasure with a biblical characters actions is always expressed. Biblical narrative leads us to conclude exactly the opposite.

You seem similar to Job's friends, that any time there is suffering it is the result of sin. If you admit (which I can't imagine you would not) that suffering sometimes comes even in righteousness, then you can't say that every time a person sins God's displeasure is expressed in suffering because you have no way of knowing whether that suffering is because of sin or not.

Furthermore, in the Bible, we have examples of people who did wrong who did not receive judgment for it. That's the point of Psalm 73 and a lot of examples could be brought out.

So the formula that "God's displeasure brings suffering" does not stand true. It may be ... it may be not be.

But alas, I am getting sucked back in and I need to respond to the other things before carrying on here. Sorry ...

And now you're trying to broadbrush my response to a generalized application, when my only example was David himself.

 

[Aaron]

Um -- no, that's not what I would say at all.

I would say that if David was spiritual, then the example of his dancing unto the Lord would then have to be discussed further as to its spirituality.

As well as his plural marriage.

Um -- again, no. I'm thinking of music as a form of behavior. Whether the behavior is excessive, as in rioting; or calm, or peaceful; parallels and principles can be drawn for all behavior, whatever type of behavior.

Then you've answered your own question.

The kinds of acts are examples of behavior, are they not?

Yeah. So?

Isn't that subjective?

No

For example, the way you respond to Luke, or the tone in which you once wrote something to me about doing my homework for me; was that with grace, and/or becoming of the gospel of Christ?

It was fitting the tenor of debate and the manner in which you and Luke arbitrarily set the rules of evidence and the assign the burdens of proof.

Agreed; so as an example, why is the song "Ready for the Storm" by Rich Mullins not pure, or honest, or peaceful?

I don't know. I don't know the song and am not going to listen to it. It's enough that you appear to agree that specific Scriptural principles can be brought to bear on the evaluation of music.

Then I go back to something I stated to Larry some time back; are the hymns that were re-written by Fanny Crosby from old drinking songs . . .

Which hymns, specifically, were rewritten from old drinking songs?

So now the emphasis is on you to define what music behaviors are Bacchanalian in nature, and where we should draw the line.

No, it's on you, too.

 

[Don]

As well as his plural marriage.

If you're attributing that to his behavior, then yes.

Yeah. So?

So -- why'd you point out that no specific behavior was identified, only the kinds of behavior?

It was fitting the tenor of debate and the manner in which you and Luke arbitrarily set the rules of evidence and the assign the burdens of proof.

So the way you respond, the way you communicate, your behavior, is dictated by others instead of Scripture?

I don't know. I don't know the song and am not going to listen to it. It's enough that you appear to agree that specific Scriptural principles can be brought to bear on the evaluation of music.

That's never been the point of contention here. The point is where is the line drawn?

How do you define something as pure, and honest, and peaceable that is agreed by all as being pure, honest and peaceable?

Which hymns, specifically, were rewritten from old drinking songs?

Why? Are you disputing that she wrote songs to other tunes?

No, it's on you, too.

I'll concede this: It's on both of us.

However, I've already made my position clear in previous posts. So, your turn.

 

[dawilson8655]

If a disagreement about music causes you or your brother to sin, drop the instruments, sing without them, and see what edifies the Body of Christ. Best advice I might have, as impractical as it may seem.

 

[Luke2427]

Define music. That's a simple enough request.

Music is an art form whose medium is sound.

To my knowledge the Bible does not define it. Neither does the Bible lay out the parameters for recipes of food dishes we should or should not partake of.

Nor does the Bible define art. It does not tell us what colors we should or should not use.

Do you know why, Aaron? Because the matter of what colors you use in a painting or what spices you use in a food dish is not a moral issue.

The same is true with music.

Though the spices you consume and the odors you inhale and the colors you view all have effects on the emotions- none of them are moral.

Though music has an effect on the emotions it is not moral just the same.

The Bible tends to be silent on amoral issues.

If it were a moral issue God would have said so. But you think you can speak for God so why we even need the Bible is beyond me. We should just ask you and Larry what we should and shouldn't do.

 

[Luke2427]

Strong words don't make good arguments. Good arguments make good arguments.

You have neither.

And you guys have used less bible to condemn something than I have ever seen in my life. Fred Phelps has more Bible for his beliefs than you do. He twists the Scriptures but at least he brings them to bear.

I have addressed every one of your arguments. Every single one of them. You just don't have any except these:

1. Go read my favorite website that I don't fully agree with.

2. There was music in the 1960' and there was sin in the 1960's so the music of the 1960's must have been sinful. Look up non sequitur.

3. "We are the Champions" should not be played at a wedding. Duh!

4. The Bible talks about communication so music can be sinful. Again look up non sequitur. You need to make a logical connection between the two in order for it to even begin to make sense. But what you do is what many IFB's do. You throw mess out there that you feel a certain way about and expect everybody to believe it because you say so. And then you are crushed when some thinking person says, no. This is called "begging the question" in debate. Another term you should study.

I have taken and am taking courses on apologetics and Argument and philosophy. I am pursuing a doctorate in philosophy and apologetics. And I am telling you that you don't know beans about debate.

Your arguments are riddled with faulty logic and non sequitur.

And when you repeatedly say things like "you obviously don't comprehend..." that is ad hominem.

Your 1960's argument is also "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

So really, I cannot think of a single rule in argument that you do not shatter in nearly every post you make.

This is ad hominem, I know. But since you won't listen to reason...

 

[Don]

If a disagreement about music causes you or your brother to sin, drop the instruments, sing without them, and see what edifies the Body of Christ. Best advice I might have, as impractical as it may seem.

While I agree in principle (because your statement reads just like Romans 14, where we're instructed to neither eat nor drink, nor any other thing where we might cause a brother to stumble) -- unfortunately, this conversation isn't about a disagreement about music causing someone or their brother to sin. It's about what what music is sinful to begin with.

 

[Pastor Larry]

And now you're trying to broadbrush my response to a generalized application, when my only example was David himself.

Well, no, I have in fact used David expressly to show that your understanding is inadequate by showing that David often suffered when sin wasn't involved and David did not suffer when sin was involved. So you cannot use the lack of suffering as evidence of God's disapproval. My point isn't even that God disapproved. My point is that you can't show it either way.

To Luke, you are simply not telling the truth. That's shameful, seriously. First, you didn't respond to every argument I made (unless you went back and added it later). Second, the fact that you don't understand something (which could not be more clear from your own responses that are absolutely a joke, and I think you know that) ... the fact that you don't understand something does not mean that the something is wrong. The fact is that you have not even addressed the issues. You gave some lame, unserious attempt at a half-hearted response that ignored some questions entirely and ignored other things virtually completely.

You are like a patient who tells a doctor they don't know what they are talking about because they listened to some neighbor down the street.

Leave off your silly personal attacks and dishonest statements. If that is all you are going to do, then stop posting. You can treat your church like that if you want, but don't insult our intelligence that way.

 

[Aaron]

Music is an art form whose medium is sound.

Too vague. I could call speech music with that definition. Would you care to try again?

 

[Aaron]

So -- why'd you point out that no specific behavior was identified, only the kinds of behavior?

To show that the Bible often does not deal in specifics concerning each and every activity under the sun that might fall under a certain category of behavior that is either hallowed or condemned. The earth couldn't contain the volumes that would have to be written.

Therefore, the presupposition that something is good and acceptable lacking an explicit verbatim of prohibition is unbiblical and irrational.

So the way you respond, the way you communicate, your behavior, is dictated by others instead of Scripture?

Let's move on.

That's never been the point of contention here.

The morality of music itself is the point of this thread.

The point is where is the line drawn?

Where to draw the line is not my point, but you can be certain that God draws it a lot closer to the toes than most do.

How do you define something as pure, and honest, and peaceable that is agreed by all as being pure, honest and peaceable?

Consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality. Start by studying the general demeanor we're to exemplify as Christians.

Why? Are you disputing that she wrote songs to other tunes?

Huh? You said she wrote hymns to drinking songs. I asked which ones.

 

[Don]

Let's move on.

In one post you ask: "Is its manner consistent with the manner of conversation commanded of a Christian?"

When I press you on that, and ask about your own conversation to others, you respond with: "Let's move on."

Where to draw the line is not my point, but you can be certain that God draws it a lot closer to the toes than most do.

Consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality. Start by studying the general demeanor we're to exemplify as Christians.

I've already mentioned the general demeanor we're to exemplify as Christians.

You should have taken the opportunity at that time to respond with, "Just as our conversation is not to be corrupt, is to be pure and honest, so is all our behavior -- including music."

Huh? You said she wrote hymns to drinking songs. I asked which ones.

And I asked why you're asking. The implication is, you doubt that it happened. Is that why you ask?

 

[Luke2427]

Too vague. I could call speech music with that definition. Would you care to try again?

It's the very definition encyclopedia's give for it, Aaron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music But I suppose since you and Larry's viewpoints are more authoritative than the Bible, I should not expect you to submit to the definition of any earthly literature.

 

[theberean]

How about this? The scriptures contain 749 references to music and every one of them are in the context of worship. Ask yourself - is the sound designed to stimulate the flesh or minister to the spirit? Are the words ministering to God or something [or someone] else? Does the sound contain the hallmarks of the Spirit [love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,gentleness,self control]? Does the accompaniment drown out the praise? The true worshipers worship in Spirit & in Truth. If you investigate the scriptures it will give you the mind of God concerning music. Be blessed.:godisgood:

 

[Aaron]

It's the very definition encyclopedia's give for it, Aaron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music But I suppose since you and Larry's viewpoints are more authoritative than the Bible, I should not expect you to submit to the definition of any earthly literature.

One has to know something about the issue he is presuming to debate. If you know so little about music, your case has very little merit.

 

[Aaron]

In one post you ask: "Is its manner consistent with the manner of conversation commanded of a Christian?"

When I press you on that, and ask about your own conversation to others, you respond with: "Let's move on."


I've already mentioned the general demeanor we're to exemplify as Christians.

You should have taken the opportunity at that time to respond with, "Just as our conversation is not to be corrupt, is to be pure and honest, so is all our behavior -- including music."


And I asked why you're asking. The implication is, you doubt that it happened. Is that why you ask?

Don, you keep wanting me to get into the specifics of music evaluation, and I've already said no. Here's the reason, one's view of music is not merely about music. We will not be discussion merely music, but the nature of God, the condition of man, and the nature of the Atonement. Maybe another time when I have more time, and certainly in another thread.

As to your interpretations of my statements about "doing your homework for you." I already said my statement was fitting.

Fanny Crosby and drinking tunes: who cares whether or not I believe it. If you know which ones are the drinking tunes, just list them.

But, we've degenerated into tedium, and I very quickly grow very tired of tedium.