Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[abcgrad94]

I think the issue is a very complex one, and I certainly don't have all the answers. But so far we aren't even in the ballpark of admitting that music can communicate in and of itself. But right now, there are mothers all over the place singing their babies to sleep, and you better believe they understand the communicative power of style of music. The really funny thing here is that people are still trying to deny it.

I'm still not convinced that music (by itself) can communicate anything. It can influence, yes, but I don't believe it actually COMMUNICATES a message to us. Watching children march around a room to a band tune shows that music can have an influence, but then, so can smell, sight, and other sounds. Put those same children in a dark room and they will get quiet or scared, put them in a sunny place with lots of bright colors and they will become noisy and happy. Walk them past the garbage dumpster and they will wrinkle their little noses in disgust. I don't think anyone here would argue that the influence of other senses, like sight or smell, actually communicate, so why the sense of hearing with music?

 

[Jim1999]

I believe music communicate an emotion in and of itself. We take the common wedding march and we develop a very good emotion relating to here comes a bride. The actual song to that tune is that of a prostitute in the original arrangement....Yet, the music itself, in our setting, communicates the absolute opposite.

I think words do play a vital role in the music as well.......whilst the sound of the music can also develop an independent feeling.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

I'm still not convinced that music (by itself) can communicate anything. It can influence, yes, but I don't believe it actually COMMUNICATES a message to us. Watching children march around a room to a band tune shows that music can have an influence, but then, so can smell, sight, and other sounds. Put those same children in a dark room and they will get quiet or scared, put them in a sunny place with lots of bright colors and they will become noisy and happy. Walk them past the garbage dumpster and they will wrinkle their little noses in disgust. I don't think anyone here would argue that the influence of other senses, like sight or smell, actually communicate, so why the sense of hearing with music?

There are certain kinds of music that will lift you up and others will bring you down. Not one of them have any words. However you will have loads of emotion. It is much the same as seeing colors.

If music by itself had no value then advertisers and movie producers would not put so much time into music.

 

[Luke2427]

Okay, since you asserted that music isn't moral and does not communicate morality, then prove it. After all, you are the one who claims that the one making the assertion has the burden of proof. I don't have to prove to you that music is not sinful.

You see how silly that argument is? Of course you do. So let's dispense with that one too.

Can you please tell me where I have made that claim? I want to see exactly what you are referring to.

First, I thought you were going to talk about my tone of voice illustration? If so, then why refer to grunting?

But second, you say "A child can communicate anger by grunting"? On what biblical basis do you say that? Is this another place (like the marijuana) where you are borrowing from my position to try to make a point? You know that there is no place where God says "A child can communicate anger by grunting." Yet you believe it, and you would address it with your child.

And if your child says, "Where did God say that?" you wouldn't have a place. But you wouldn't let that child off the hook for it because you know that grunting in anger violates biblical principles of communication on a number of different levels.

This whole line of attempted argument is an exercise in missing the point. The point is that groaning is evil. That's absurd. The point is that the sound communicates something. And the something that it communicates is sinful.

No it doesn't, unless you are referring to something other than the traditional tune.

Au contraire, my friend. Again, this shows that you are simply not engaging my argument. You are engaging someone else's argument.

It is ironic that I am having this conversation with you today because tomorrow I am preaching on Mark 7:1-13 about those who establish as doctrine the traditions of men, who exchange the commands of God for the traditions of men. You seem completely unwilling to interact about the commands of God. You want to appeal to (a relatively recent) tradition of men that all music is acceptable to worship God. That is not the historical position of the church. The idea that music doesn't communicate is not the position of most trained musicians. But of course you wouldn't know that if you haven't done any study and reading on it and simply rely on the legalistic traditions of men.

So your contention is that God does not address communication? So do you correct your child's tone of voice? If so, on what grounds? You have no biblical grounds, according to you (but of course you don't actually believe that, I imagine).

That's not really the proper use of ex cathedra, but whatever. No need to start making good arguments at this late point, right?

Think about this: If God is silent on music (as you claim), then on what basis you believe you can speak for God to say that all music is okay? Do you not see how utterly absurd that is?

Once again you are showing that you have no idea what my philosophy is.

Again I ask, have you gone and done some reading on the website I suggested? You need too. Your comments here clearly are uninformed as to the issues. They are not rooted in any knowledge of music or musical forms, culture or cultural forms, or expression.

You missed the whole point of the entire post.

Let's try this.

I'll ask you a question. You answer it in a brief paragraph or preferably a brief statement.

Then you, in the same post put a question to me and I'll do the same.

We have too many things going on at the same time to get anywhere.
There are about ten different things I need to respond to or correct your interpretation on and I don't think that would be fruitful.

So if you are willing to try this, here goes my first question:

Is there a musical "construction" or genre that without lyrics of any kind that is innately sinful in your opinion?

 

[Luke2427]

I'm still not convinced that music (by itself) can communicate anything. It can influence, yes, but I don't believe it actually COMMUNICATES a message to us. Watching children march around a room to a band tune shows that music can have an influence, but then, so can smell, sight, and other sounds. Put those same children in a dark room and they will get quiet or scared, put them in a sunny place with lots of bright colors and they will become noisy and happy. Walk them past the garbage dumpster and they will wrinkle their little noses in disgust. I don't think anyone here would argue that the influence of other senses, like sight or smell, actually communicate, so why the sense of hearing with music?

No, I'll give him that. Because everything communicates something. Color scheme communicates things. But here is the issue- is there a color scheme that is sinful?

 

[Luke2427]

There are certain kinds of music that will lift you up and others will bring you down. Not one of them have any words. However you will have loads of emotion. It is much the same as seeing colors.

If music by itself had no value then advertisers and movie producers would not put so much time into music.

Sure, but is it sinful?

 

[Luke2427]

Why should we care what you think? Seriously ... Why is that any better than what I think? Do you really think that your thoughts or my thoughts are somehow important or authoritative? Not sure about you, but I know myself well enough to know that my thoughts on a great many topics are greatly inadequate.

The idea that music communicates apart from words is so patently obvious it is indisputable. Again, as I said before, imagine these two situations with two very common musical selections:

1. A wedding in which Queen's "We Are the Champions" is belted out as the bride walks down the aisle.
2. A championship game in which Pachelbel's "Canon in D" is played as the final buzzer sounds and the winning team jubilantly celebrates.

By imagining the incongruency of those two situations, you will see very easily that music communicates, and that not all music fits all circumstances.

Or consider a nightclub in which the Moonlight Sonata is being played. It just doesn't work. Why? Because music communicates.

Again, this is patently obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

That's simply false. Why do you think there are lullabies and marches? Because they communicate different things to people. Why do you think movies have music? Because music communicates to you. Why do you think there is a company called Musak who produces music for certain atmospheres because it communicates certain things.

Imagine the cultural rebellion of the 1960s taking place to Bach's organ concertos. Of course you can't because you recognize that music communicates something. It makes you walk fast or slow, eat fast or slow, relax or be agitated. It expresses things within us and communicates things to people around us.

No one is suggesting that we cannot use music for the glory of God. We are in fact commanded to.

But it is not true that "anything can be used for the glory of God." For instance, it is impossible to lust for a woman not your wife for the glory of God. It is impossible to use the Lord's name in vain for the glory of God, even though God has not given us an express list of all the ways in which God's name can be used in vain.

Yes exactly. That is a key part of my point. People have prejudices that cause them to think certain ways about issues that is not good.

We must also be careful that our ignorance about things doesn't cause us to say things that aren't true.

Why do you think this is? Interact on this point for a bit.

Interact for a bit why you think the music of the 60s and the culture of the 60s rose up together.

Think about a carousel. Tell us why a carousel uses a particular type of music.

Let's get serious about discussion and quit making these absurd statements that are obviously untrue.

If you notice in this discussion (and the previous ones) no one seems to want to talk about actual issues like the last three questions I posed above, or the three scenarios I posed above. Why do you think that is?

Why doesn't someone here explain these situations?

I still want to do the question and answer thing but I posted that before I read the above. I will respond to this and then if you wish we will try to bring the conversation down to simpler terms as I proposed.

But- The problem I am addressing is when guys preach against:
shorts
and Christian Contemporary
and missing Sunday night service,
and chewing tobacco
and birth control
and going to the movies
and attending public school
and teaching at a public school
and mixed swimming
and other English versions
and pants on women
and playing with face cards

and the like of which they have no clear biblical principle yet they speak for God as if they were the pope.

It seems to me that we have a great many Baptist popes in our midst.

On one end of the spectrum we have antinomians and on the other end we have the Amish.

But many of our Baptists are about as bad as the Amish about making up junk to be against without clear biblical principle.

The answer is very simple- preach the Word.

 

[gb93433]

Sure, but is it sinful?

I would say yes if it incites emotions that are not healthy. I could not imagine the Holy Spirit moving a worship leader to play music that would incite emotions that would promote evil. I see in Ps. 150 that there is a message about music there in praising God. It is talking about particular instruments that produce certain sounds.

 

[gb93433]

But many of our Baptists are about as bad as the Amish about making up junk to be against without clear biblical principle.

The answer is very simple- preach the Word.

The answer is not quite that simple. If it was all about preaching then there would be no need for personal discipleship.

If it were that simple then James 1:22 would not be necessary. Preaching to hard hearts has little affect. When the preacher is not a doer of the word then his own words condemn him.

James 1:22, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

 

[Don]

....But here is the issue- is there a color scheme that is sinful?

And that, Pastor Larry, is the entire crux of the argument.

Is any particular gun more sinful than others? Or are all guns sinful? Or are guns sinful at all?

Is any particular musical instrument more sinful than others? Or are all musical instruments sinful? Or are musical instruments sinful at all?

I could give you examples of New Age music, and "death metal"; is the music by itself sinful?

Or is is the way we use the tool that makes it sinful? Whether that tool be a gun, or a hammer, or a trombone, or a harp?

Aren't *we* the ones capable of sin, not the tools we use or creations we make? Isn't the use of the tool, or the creation, a reflection of us and our nature?

 

[Don]

That's actually a very small position, designed to bring out the authority by which people offer these opinions. They are asking us to believe something. I think there should be some ground on which they base their statements that give them credibility.

Last time I checked, this was a free-for-all discussion & debate forum that didn't require "credentialing" before posting on certain subjects.

And the last time I checked, even the most uneducated person can occasionally come up with a gem of knowledge.

In fact, it's been my experience, in my short time on this planet, that we can sometimes educate ourselves right out of intelligence.

 

[Don]

I would say yes if it incites emotions that are not healthy. I could not imagine the Holy Spirit moving a worship leader to play music that would incite emotions that would promote evil. I see in Ps. 150 that there is a message about music there in praising God. It is talking about particular instruments that produce certain sounds.

Actually, I don't see that it says "use certain instruments"...so what "particular instruments that produce certain sounds" are you thinking about?

 

[gb93433]

Sure, but is it sinful?

I have never seen black represent life and goodness. Have you? Black would be typical of Satanic worship and darkness though. Certain colors are associated with particular feelings and emotions. I cannot imagine the Holy Spirit leading someone to make conflicting statements using colors.

 

[gb93433]

Actually, I don't see that it says "use certain instruments"...so what "particular instruments that produce certain sounds" are you thinking about?

150:3, “Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre.
150:4, “Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
150:5, “Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals.

All of those instruments make distinct sounds.

 

[Don]

I have never seen black represent life and goodness. Have you? Black would be typical of Satanic worship and darkness though. Certain colors are associated with particular feelings and emotions. I cannot imagine the Holy Spirit leading someone to make conflicting statements using colors.

Other countries may have different aspects associated with colors; for example, Afghanistan uses black in their flag to indicate martyrdom/sacrificing one's life for the country. White is used in China, I believe, to represent mourning (whereas we in the United States use black).

As for the instruments: Are you indicating that you believe only those instruments, producing those particular sounds, are the ones that we should be using?

 

[gb93433]

As for the instruments: Are you indicating that you believe only those instruments, producing those particular sounds, are the ones that we should be using?

No. What I am saying is the sounds produced are ones used in praising God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I'm still not convinced that music (by itself) can communicate anything. It can influence, yes, but I don't believe it actually COMMUNICATES a message to us. Watching children march around a room to a band tune shows that music can have an influence, but then, so can smell, sight, and other sounds. Put those same children in a dark room and they will get quiet or scared, put them in a sunny place with lots of bright colors and they will become noisy and happy. Walk them past the garbage dumpster and they will wrinkle their little noses in disgust. I don't think anyone here would argue that the influence of other senses, like sight or smell, actually communicate, so why the sense of hearing with music?

I wonder what you mean by communicate.

And I also think that for all Don's illegitimate complaints about "credentialism," this shows why people need to know who to listen to. The idea that music doesn't communicate in and of itself contradicts everything that we know about life and communication and music. But most of us have not been taught to think critically about the world God has given to us. It is the "experts" that people hate ... the ones who have actually taken the time to think about things that are able to voice what we all know. Your examples of colors, smells, etc. are further evidences that you get the point, you just don't appear to understand what communication actually is.

Think about it: If you play lively march music, you are communicating to people that they should respond in a certain way. That's why mom's don't play Sousa for naptime. It doesn't communicate to the baby that it is time to relax. And that has nothing to do with words. But it is so instinctive that it usually doesn't even get discussed outside of marginal discussions within Christianity.

Why is it that now, six pages into this discussion, no one is answering my basic questions about the issues? I have asked a number of questions and no one is willing to even offer a point of discussion about them. Strange that you want to discuss the issue but you don't want to actually discuss the issue. (Not your personally ABCGrad).

Why didn't the LA Lakers fill the arena with Pachelbel's Canon in D when the Lakers won the NBA championship?
Why is it that mothers instinctively know what kind of lullabies to sing to their children (not words, but style of music)?
Why is it that people instinctively know when a tone of voice or body language contradicts the words that are spoken?
Why is it that Luke says that a grunt can communicate anger when he has no Bible verse for it? Isn't he contradicting his own stated position?

There were others and these are being ignored.

 

[abcgrad94]

I wonder what you mean by communicate.

Living organisms communicate, things do not. Our words, actions, and music are just tools. They do not have a will or intellect and cannot be sinful by themselves. Just like letters printed on a chalkboard, musical notes are are just "there." We can arrange them to make a song, add rhythm and intonation, and WE communicate, using them as tools.

Musical notes written on a page are a tool used by the songwriter for communication, but the communication is from the writer who arranged the song to sound happy, sad, etc. A mother singing to her baby is the one communicating, using the music as a tool.

Maybe that's splitting hairs, I don't know. But that's what I mean by communication.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Last time I checked, this was a free-for-all discussion & debate forum that didn't require "credentialing" before posting on certain subjects.

Of course, but who are you more likely to believe? Or rather, who should you be more likely to believe? Someone with education, training, and experience or someone without?

Again, it's so obvious that it hardly requires asking, but apparently it does.

The freedom for all to participate in a conversation doesn't mean that all have valid or intelligent opinions. All voices are not equal. That's the point.

And the last time I checked, even the most uneducated person can occasionally come up with a gem of knowledge.

Well, sure, but how do we know it is a gem? by having something to compare it with, right? And we get that by education and training.

In fact, it's been my experience, in my short time on this planet, that we can sometimes educate ourselves right out of intelligence.

No, not really. It's possible to be educated wrongly, or to fail to think clearly. It's possible to be unable to communicate clearly. But you can't really educate yourself out of intelligence.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I still want to do the question and answer thing but I posted that before I read the above. I will respond to this and then if you wish we will try to bring the conversation down to simpler terms as I proposed.

Great. I will look forward to it.

But- The problem I am addressing is when guys preach against:
shorts
and Christian Contemporary
and missing Sunday night service,
and chewing tobacco
and birth control
and going to the movies
and attending public school
and teaching at a public school
and mixed swimming
and other English versions
and pants on women
and playing with face cards

I am troubled by many of these things ... in fact, all of them except mixed swimming which I think deserves some real cautions. Our difference is not that you think we should preach the Bible and I think we should not. I think we should preach only what the Bible says. But I think we need to consider something like the Sermon on the Mount as a model for the fact that sometimes there are issues built into statements that are expected to be believed and practiced.

It seems to me that we have a great many Baptist popes in our midst.

I agree.

The answer is very simple- preach the Word.

Again, I agree.