Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Luke2427]

Psalm 150.


Not so much I "admit"; it's never been my position that music is evil or good.

I agree about preaching against music.

Psalm 150 has nothing to do with condemning any style of music.

 

[Don]

Psalm 150 has nothing to do with condemning any style of music.

That's correct; your question was, does the Bible have anything to say about music being godly or ungodly? Psalm 150 indicates that music is commanded. Make your own inferences from there.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It has everything to do with the use of the instrument.

Seriously, Don, in your analogy, you used gun and music inconsistently. You’re analogy, as it stands, does not logically work. You are comparing two different types of entities. To ask if there is any kind of gun that is more sinful than others is not the same as asking if there is any kind of music that is more sinful than others because guns and music are two different types of entities.

Nah, I've said quite a bit about the analogy. "Use of the instrument."

Your questions should be “Is there any use of a gun that is sinful?” and “Is there any use of music that is sinful?” You are speaking of “types of guns” and “uses of music.” “Type” does not apply to gun in the same way that it applies to music.

I realize that this is more of a logical argument that doesn’t really address the issue at hand, but shows that your analogy is flawed and therefore of very limited use.
Exactly.

Why do you assume that I'm not?

Because of the way you are interacting with his argument. You lifted a single (still unlinked) line from him that none of us can trace to see what he is talking about. You don’t seem to understand what he is talking about because you seem to think that Crosby/Booth/etc disprove his point when he would argue that they actually prove his point.

What you're misunderstanding is that his writing of "modern music" still follows classical music principles, rather than what most of the rest of us identify as "modern music."

No I understand what he means, and I understand what you meant. And you are correct in this assessment, but here’s the rub: People want to use “modern” or “contemporary” in terms of time, saying things like “Watts was contemporary music” or “Luther used contemporary music.” I am not sure if you have said that, but many have. But that’s not true. Contemporary is a genre. So if you are using “modern” or “contemporary” as a genre rather than a time marker, you are using it differently than most people arguing your position use it, and you are using it correctly. I assumed you were using it incorrectly as most people who make your argument do.

Hey, Don, I appreciate the exchange. I am spending a lot of time here that I need to focus on some other more profitable things. So I will try to cut my participation back here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There were all types of music in Bible days. If God had felt like certain types of music were sinful then he would have recorded that in his word.

What good would that have done? Those types of music don't exist today. And if they did, you would claim that the Bible doesn't address your type so you are fine. So rather than doing that, God gives us principles of communication that are good at all times.

Since he did not we have no right to preach against them. Because once again

we believe in Sola Scriptura- that our only authority to speak for God comes from his Word.

We all believe that. That doesn't really help. What you are actually arguing for is what some have called nuda scriptura. Sola Scriptura has never historically meant that only the explicit commands of Scripture guide our life. It is actually a far different principle.

Again, see my comments to Swaimj on the Sermon on the Mount about Jesus use of the OT commands.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

Yes, I tend to think so, but that is a hard one. That's not the crux of my position.

 

[gb93433]

You'd better make disciples the way Christ said to make them "teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you."

Does your church send them out two by two?

 

[Luke2427]

Yes, I tend to think so, but that is a hard one. That's not the crux of my position.

What makes it sinful and what verse to you bring to bear to support this position?

 

[Luke2427]

What good would that have done? Those types of music don't exist today. And if they did, you would claim that the Bible doesn't address your type so you are fine. So rather than doing that, God gives us principles of communication that are good at all times.

We all believe that. That doesn't really help. What you are actually arguing for is what some have called nuda scriptura. Sola Scriptura has never historically meant that only the explicit commands of Scripture guide our life. It is actually a far different principle.

Again, see my comments to Swaimj on the Sermon on the Mount about Jesus use of the OT commands.

What principle of communication are you appealing to from the Word of God?

 

[Luke2427]

Does your church send them out two by two?

????? What does that have to do with the Great Commission from whence we are commanded to make disciples???

 

[Pastor Larry]

LOL, Larry. I think we have a semantic argument here, at least to a degree. Your statement is precisely why I would say music is amoral because the same musical sound might be "good at one time and bad at another". Yet, you are using this to say that it is "moral". Semantics aside, I agree with the above.

I think it is semantics to some degree. But I am saying there are basically two groups with one subdivided: Good music (appropriate at some times and inappropriate at others) and Bad Music (always inappropriate).

Now whether that bad is inherent or simply related to time and culture I am not sure. I think there are some serious questions about the music of the counterculture movement. I am not sure we are far enough separated from it to know if it is inherent or merely associational.

I just find it really problematic to say that a certain kind of music is bad because it "might be bad in all circumstances". In other words, it's definitely bad because it might be bad. That's very weak and falls far short of saying it's bad because "thus sayeth the Lord".

I think we have to live in the world we live in and view it through biblical eyes. The fact that something is accepted does not make it a good thing. I might have a weak conscience on some of this. I don't know. But I think there are some very significant arguments that are being made that have nothing to do with plants and trichotomy and all that.

Yeah, I watched some of that til my wife came down and didn't feel I should expose her to the language.

Yes, it was pretty raw at some places.

I think the key here is that the music and the culture and the drugs and free love were related. However, if you isolate one of those elements, is it necessarily bad or does it necessarily produce the rest? I don't think that you can say that it is bad authoritatively and I don't think you can say one produces another authoritatively.

But can you say it doesn't authoritatively? It just seems more than coincidental that that music was the voice of the counterculture.

It's not easy for sure, IMO. And I think some are taking it way too easy. Culture and Christianity is a difficult thing. We have to wrestle with it a bit more than I see some doing.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What makes it sinful and what verse to you bring to bear to support this position?

I think it communicates a mindset and way of thinking about life that is contrary to the way God tells us to think about life. And the verse that could be brought to bear on this are numerous. We are called to live differently and think differently. Music teaches us how to think and creates patterns of thinking in us.

What principle of communication are you appealing to from the Word of God?

About grace, honesty, kindness, peace, etc. Again, just loads of them.

So tell me how you understand Christ's comments on adultery given your position. Don't you have to say that Christ did the very thing that you say we should not do?

 

[Luke2427]

I think it communicates a mindset and way of thinking about life that is contrary to the way God tells us to think about life. And the verse that could be brought to bear on this are numerous. We are called to live differently and think differently. Music teaches us how to think and creates patterns of thinking in us.

Could the Amish not use the same exact type of reasoning to justify their position that modern amenities are worldly?

About grace, honesty, kindness, peace, etc. Again, just loads of them.

How do those scriptures have anything to do with music?

So tell me how you understand Christ's comments on adultery given your position. Don't you have to say that Christ did the very thing that you say we should not do?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Don]

Your questions should be “Is there any use of a gun that is sinful?” and “Is there any use of music that is sinful?” You are speaking of “types of guns” and “uses of music.” “Type” does not apply to gun in the same way that it applies to music.

Again, PL, you're splitting hairs where you don't need to be. The use of the gun is analogous to the use of music. You seem to be the only one who wishes to argue that.

I realize that this is more of a logical argument that doesn’t really address the issue at hand, but shows that your analogy is flawed and therefore of very limited use.

All analogies are flawed. There is no analogy that 100% correlates to the original premise being analogized.

Because of the way you are interacting with his argument. You lifted a single (still unlinked) line from him that none of us can trace to see what he is talking about. You don’t seem to understand what he is talking about because you seem to think that Crosby/Booth/etc disprove his point when he would argue that they actually prove his point.

His point is that certain styles of contemporary music -- hip hop, rap, etc. -- have their roots in sinful activities. Which is what Crosby and Booth are both guilty of, based on this argument.

No I understand what he means, and I understand what you meant. And you are correct in this assessment, but here’s the rub: People want to use “modern” or “contemporary” in terms of time, saying things like “Watts was contemporary music” or “Luther used contemporary music.” I am not sure if you have said that, but many have. But that’s not true. Contemporary is a genre. So if you are using “modern” or “contemporary” as a genre rather than a time marker, you are using it differently than most people arguing your position use it, and you are using it correctly. I assumed you were using it incorrectly as most people who make your argument do.

Contemporary is used to identify a genre that is based on a time period. Watts was "contemporary," to those around him that that wished to hold onto the music from the previous decades/century.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Well I just read all ten pages of this post. That's twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back!

ABC: You made most of the points that I would have made so I'll simply say "good posts!"

Music like many other things is not in and of itself sinful. It is the intent with which it is used that can make it sin. This is what I think.

Pastor Larry: I know I used the expression "I think." However since I have counted about a dozen uses of the phrase by you please let it slide.

 

[swaimj]

Well I just read all ten pages of this post. That's twenty minutes of my life I'll never get back!

Now go back and read everything in reverse. You won't get any time back but I think a secret message revealing the truth about this subject is backmasked in the thread.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Now go back and read everything in reverse. You won't get any time back but I think a secret message revealing the truth about this subject is backmasked in the thread.

Tried that with a Led Zeppelin album once, but didn't get anything out of it!:laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Now go back and read everything in reverse. You won't get any time back but I think a secret message revealing the truth about this subject is backmasked in the thread.

That's hilarious!:laugh::laugh: And applicable.:applause:

 

[Winman]

Years ago we had an evangelist come to our church and explain that music is composed of melody, harmony, and beat (rhythm), and that each one applies to our three part nature, spirit, soul, and body.

Traditional Christian music emphasizes melody, which appeals to the spirit. Modern music emphasizes beat which appeals to the body. It is fleshly, carnal.

This is well known among music teachers. Here is part of an article by a Christian music teacher:

Melodies should be attractive; that is, they should have variety, they should have smooth vocal progressions, they should often be sweet and always be sensible: they should resemble the melody of one of the songbirds of God's Creation.

Harmonies should be in accordance with the Highest Intelligence. Discords should be infrequent. Chord progressions should most usually be smooth. Chords built on as many different scale steps as possible should be utilized for the sake of variety.

Rhythms should usually be smooth and predictable, as are most of the rhythms in Nature. Only occasionally should an off-beat occur, as only occasionally in Nature does the rhythmic lapping of the waves on the seashore give way to a tempest.

As Nature provides tension and release in probably all its life forms and physical forces, so music should imply not all intensity and not all relaxation, but a balance of the two.

As the spirit of man should control his mind and both his mind and his spirit should control his body, so the melody (and lyrics) of music should be dominant over the harmony, and both the melody and harmony should be more prominent than the rhythm. Scientific studies have shown that the melody of music ministers to the spirit of a man, harmony appeals to his intellect, and rhythm appeals to his flesh. Therefore, a proper order of melody (and lyrics), harmony and rhythm should be integral in the thinking of a Christian who is concerned that he be spiritually, and not carnally, minded (Rom. 8:6).

I have been playing guitar for 40 years, so I think I have a little to say on this subject, and I agree with this teaching. Christian music should emphasize the melody and harmony, not the beat. Unfortunately, much modern music greatly emphasizes the beat.

 

[gb93433]

Years ago we had an evangelist come to our church and explain that music is composed of melody, harmony, and beat (rhythm), and that each one applies to our three part nature, spirit, soul, and body.

Traditional Christian music emphasizes melody, which appeals to the spirit. Modern music emphasizes beat which appeals to the body. It is fleshly, carnal.

I have been playing guitar for 40 years, so I think I have a little to say on this subject, and I agree with this teaching. Christian music should emphasize the melody and harmony, not the beat. Unfortunately, much modern music greatly emphasizes the beat.

Isn't that much the same thing folks said years ago about contemporary music then? From what I can tell the music in church at any given point in time came out of the world in which the generation came. I do not see piano and organ in the Bible. Yet there were folks claimed it as a church instrument. I had a friend in high school that played the organ fast in a secular band he was a part of at the time. It definitely sounded different.

 

[sag38]

Years ago we had an evangelist come to our church and explain that music is composed of melody, harmony, and beat (rhythm), and that each one applies to our three part nature, spirit, soul, and body.

And you bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Where's the Biblical support for this teaching? The man gave his opinion rather than proclaiming the gospel as he should have been doing if indeed he was an evangelist.