Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Pastor Larry]

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.

It's unfortunate that I am perhaps the only one arguing that (thought I doubt it ... I am the only here arguing that). The point is that you didn't say "use of guns." You said, "type of guns." And compared it to "type of music" by which mean "use of music." Those are two dissimilar things. A gun is not good or bad. The use of it is. Music is not good or bad. The use of it is. So just like you can use a gun badly, you can use music badly. But music is a different kind of entity.

All analogies are flawed.

Incorrect. All analogies are limited. They are not all flawed. An analogy works because A is like B in some way. An analogy is flawed when it says "A is like B" but in fact A isn't like B.

His point is that certain styles of contemporary music -- hip hop, rap, etc. -- have their roots in sinful activities.

Do you dispute that? If you do, I think you are perhaps the only one who would.

Which is what Crosby and Booth are both guilty of, based on this argument.

First, if you accuse Crosby and Booth of using contemporary music, you are equivocating on the word "contemporary." They did not use "contemporary" music. That is a genre that did not exist in terms of "Christian contemporary music." Second, that author would in fact say that Booth and Crosby are guilty of that. I would not say that.

Watts was "contemporary," to those around him that that wished to hold onto the music from the previous decades/century.

No, that's incorrect. Watts was "contemporary" but not in the sense of CCM. You are equivocating on the definition. CCM is not about time. It is about a genre.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

First, I don't think the Amish were entirely wrong in their basic approach. I think they wrongly applied it. But my reasoning is quite different than the Amish reasoning. But even if they could, that doesn't make the reasoning wrong.

How do those scriptures have anything to do with music?

Becuase they are about the way we communicate and music is communication.

I don't understand the question.

Your contention is that we cannot condemn anything that Scripture does not explicitly condemn. You have already contradicted yourself by condemning marijuana, but that aside, think about Christ's statement about adultery in the Sermon on the Mount:

You have heard it say You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that anyone who looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart.

The first part of that is clearly in the OT (ten commandments and elsewhere). The second part of that about lust is not in the OT. But Jesus is clearly making the point that those who limit the command about adultery to the naked words (no pun intended) have not understood the SCripture. Lust is a category that, while not stated in the OT, is clearly a part of the command that should have been understood.

So Christ did the same thing with lust that you say we should not do ... That is, he extrapolated from a clear statement to others things that are a part of that command even though they are not explicitly stated.

This is what you did with marijuana earlier. The question is, Why don't you do it with music?

 

[swaimj]

So Christ did the same thing with lust that you say we should not do ... That is, he extrapolated from a clear statement to others things that are a part of that command even though they are not explicitly stated.

But, Pastor Larry, Jesus' extrapolation is purely scriptural and the resulting command is a universal and inherent principle. Earlier you made this distinction in the arguments about the morality of music: "Whether that [moral] value is universal and inherent, or associative and cultural is a far different and more difficult question". This "difficult question" is not a question at all on the matter of lust in the heart. What Jesus said is a universal principle that is always true in all cases for all people in all situations in all cultures at all times.

This is what you did with marijuana earlier. The question is, Why don't you do it with music?

And the sinfulness of marijuana is a terrific example of a sin that is not universal and inherent, but is associative and cultural. Now let me explain that before anybody thinks I'm secretly smoking weed (or currently smoking weed as I make this argument). Marijuana is a drug that comes from a plant that God made. The drug has no discovered redeeming value. The only use for it is recreational and the results of that use are harmful. So, our society rejects its use and has criminalized it. As Christians, we agree with society's judgment and we support it. Almost all drugs have harmful effects if used recreationally, but many have beneficial qualities if used sparingly or medically. So those drugs are accepted, though their use is regulated because of the danger of misuse. If a legitimate use for marijuana could be found, it would be de-criminalized and available to the public though with restrictions. And if the use were legitimate, I would support the de-criminalization. (Let me be clear here, I don't think marijuana has been proven to be medically beneficial and I do not support the decriminalization movement).

My point is that the judgments made about music are more akin to the judgments about the use of drugs; that is, the judgments are associative and cultural, they are not universal and unchanging as the command of Christ about lust is.

I repeat what I said earlier. If you can show from the biblical text alone that some musical sounds are evil apart from cultural and associative elements, then what you show is authoritative and binding on all Christians everywhere. But if associative factors are brought in, then the result is an associative and cultural rule that is not a universal.

 

[Don]

Larry, my personal feeling at this point is that you're arguing the definition of "is."

I've answered Luke's original question as clearly and plainly as I can. I invite you to do the same.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But, Pastor Larry, Jesus' extrapolation is purely scriptural and the resulting command is a universal and inherent principle.

I agree ... BUT IT'S NOT CLEARLY STATED IN THE OT. That's the point. Jesus could not point to a "clear explicit text." But he clearly says it is in the command against adultery.

That's the whole point ... Luke (and you I think) are arguing that if you don't have a clear text for it, you can't call it sin. But Jesus didn't share your view. He didn't have a "clear text" about lust, but he plainly declares it to be a part of adultery, and the legalists wanted to limit the command to "naked wordism."

In other words, some here want to say it's legalism to add a requirement not explicitly found in Scripture. But Jesus said it was the legalists who were limiting it to only what was explicitly found in Scripture. Legalists have an infatuation with words, not with biblical principles and applications.

And the sinfulness of marijuana is a terrific example of a sin that is not universal and inherent, but is associative and cultural.

So you don't think marijuana fits under the biblical teaching on intoxicating substances? Luke does. And I do.

Marijuana is a drug that comes from a plant that God made.

Are you sure? Or might it be a result of the fall?

My point is that the judgments made about music are more akin to the judgments about the use of drugs; that is, the judgments are associative and cultural, they are not universal and unchanging as the command of Christ about lust is.

I think you are right in the first (that music is similar to drugs) and wrong in the second (that drugs are associative and cultural). They are mind altering and behavior altering. They are of the same type of issue as drunkenness, except that there is no moderation with it.

I repeat what I said earlier. If you can show from the biblical text alone that some musical sounds are evil apart from cultural and associative elements, then what you show is authoritative and binding on all Christians everywhere.

My point is that Jesus didn't live by this standard.

But if associative factors are brought in, then the result is an associative and cultural rule that is not a universal.

That's not true, strictly speaking. Something may be associatively and culturally wrong and also universally wrong. Something may be associatively and culturally acceptable and universally wrong. Something may be associatively and culturally unacceptable and still good.

My point on that is that while I believe there are some forms of music that are universally and inherently wrong, I don't need to make that argument in this culture, because the associative and cultural argument is easier to make, and more clear. And that's enough, I think.

Thanks again ... I really need to quit here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, my personal feeling at this point is that you're arguing the definition of "is."

Not at all. I think the distinction is essential. It shows the flaw in your analogy. I think you can make an analogy that works for your side. But you didn't make that analogy. The one you made has faulty comparisons which you are depending on to make your analogy work. If you were writing that for a class paper, it would be marked down for lack of critical thinking.

I've answered Luke's original question as clearly and plainly as I can. I invite you to do the same.

I would say your answer is insufficient to deal with the data that we have about the issue. But I have tried to answer it clearly without being simplistic, because it doesn't lend itself well to simplistic answers.

thanks for the exchange. As I say, I really need to quit.

 

[Don]

[deleted because it was unnecessary]

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

I forgot this, and wanted to hit it quickly.

My concern and argument is not that people think things. We all do. It is that we have to have some type of value system by which we judge the credibility of people's thoughts.

I can say, "I think you have cancer," but why should you believe me? You have no reason, because I can't identify one symptom of cancer (except perhaps an unsightly bulge in some body part). But if a trained oncologist says, "I think you have cancer," there is instantly a different level of believability. But how do you know the difference between me and the oncologist? By looking at background, at studies, at training, at exposure to the material, etc. Our words look exactly the same. But the foundation behind them is entirely different and can only be determined by asking the question, "What is your background that calls on me to believe your thinking as opposed to someone else's?"

For me, saying "I think" is communicating that I don't know it all. I think some things, and I think I have valid reason to think them (and no one here has given me any reasons to change), and was trying to get other people to interact with the thoughts based on critical thinking.

I think we too often get involved in sloganeering instead of actual thinking.

 

[Luke2427]

First, I don't think the Amish were entirely wrong in their basic approach. I think they wrongly applied it. But my reasoning is quite different than the Amish reasoning. But even if they could, that doesn't make the reasoning wrong.

Then what makes you right and the Amish wrong?

Becuase they are about the way we communicate and music is communication.

What kind of communication is evil? Hate? Anger? Passion? What things are we commanded to NEVER communicate.

Your contention is that we cannot condemn anything that Scripture does not explicitly condemn. You have already contradicted yourself by condemning marijuana, but that aside, think about Christ's statement about adultery in the Sermon on the Mount:

No sir. I never used the word "explicitly". The PRINCIPLE must be there. And it should not take a ridiculous number of steps between the scripture and the conclusion you make from it.

For example: "at the last it biteth like an adder"- principle: intoxicating substances should be handled with care. Very simple to come to that obvious conclusion.

Example 2: "I will seek it yet again (in spite of woe and redness of eyes and bablings)" clear principle: addictive things are dangerous. Handle with great care.

But your position on music requires eisegesis and proof texting. There are far too many steps betsween what your proof texts say and the conclusion you make from them.

1st- you cannot prove that ANY communication is wrong in and of itself. Blasphemy is sin but insulting something is not. Rebellion against God is sin but rebellion in and of itself is not.

2nd- you cannot prove that ANY condemnation of ANY music without lyrics is found ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE Bible. You have to apply shady psychobabble to prooftexts.

3rd- the only thing you CAN prove is that music has a powerful effect on mood. That's it. And there is NO mood that is in and of itself sinful. War music is appropriate when going to war. Dark music is appropriate when contemplating the fierce wrath of God on the sinner.

Until you can deal with these things it does not matter how many times you type the word "communication". You are guilty of preaching extrabiblical doctrines. You are like the Pharisees who preached "for doctrine the the traditions of men.

The first part of that is clearly in the OT (ten commandments and elsewhere). The second part of that about lust is not in the OT. But Jesus is clearly making the point that those who limit the command about adultery to the naked words (no pun intended) have not understood the SCripture. Lust is a category that, while not stated in the OT, is clearly a part of the command that should have been understood.

No. Jesus is not doing that at all. He is pointing out "heart sin" not just outward sin. He is proving that we are all sinful to the core.

This is what you did with marijuana earlier. The question is, Why don't you do it with music?

You would literally have to be slow if you cannot see the clear principle about marijuana by now. You would also have to be off your rocker to think that the Bible addresses this mythical evil musical sounds business as clearly as it does intoxicating and addictive substances. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. NONE.

 

[jaigner]

A telephone can carry a message of love, or a message of obscenity.

But it's just a phone--the conveyor of the message.

I think no music is inherently evil or sinful, but there are cultural and local connotations that one must examine when pairing text and tune.

For instance, the vapid and sentimental gospel song "Coming Again" is an example of a bad text/tune pairing. The truth of the text, though simple and shallow, is that Christ is returning soon, but the tune is a weird waltz of a setting. It doesn't work because Jesus is not going to be waltzing back to earth.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You would literally have to be slow if you cannot see the clear principle about marijuana by now.

I don't dispute your point. My point is that it is absurd to suggest that marijuana can be condemned without explicit teaching but other things cannot. If you can use a principle to condemn marijuana, even though marijuana isn't explicitly stated, you can't refuse the use of principles for other areas of life.

God intends us to actually believe his word and learn to think Christianly about all of life. He never intended for you to be a legalist. Jesus wasn't.

And BTW, you never interacted with how Jesus got lust out of a command against adultery. As you can see, Jesus did not use your approach to Scripture. He was quite willing to assert that the Pharisees who believed in your approach of naked wordism were wrong. They should have seen these teachings about lust and other things even though they were not explicitly stated.

You would also have to be off your rocker to think that the Bible addresses this mythical evil musical sounds business as clearly as it does intoxicating and addictive substances.

Suggesting I am off my rocker because I don't agree with you is probably not a good tack. Perhaps you are unwilling to entertain the suggestion that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do, and if you knew a bit more, you might change your mind.

Calling it "mythical evil musical sounds" is a bad attempt to win the argument by labels. Calling it "mythical" won't make it so. That's an old atheist tactic, which we should all reject.

I was thinking of this this morning when I heard a radio station jingle about "good, good, good, good morning." This conversation came to my mind for the first time in a while because it reminded me how utterly absurd it is to think that any music can be used for anything. That little jingle would have been totally inappropriate at a funeral, or a ballgame. The music just didn't fit because music communicates.

I have shown this time and time again and you refuse to interact with any of it. Telling, I say. Telling, that you won't even venture an attempt at a response. I wish you would because I would love to see what possible answers you could come up with.

THERE IS NO COMPARISON. NONE.

Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind disagreed with you about this. And he was an atheist, I believe. He was certainly no "fundamentalist" of any type.

How much wiser are the children of darkness ...

 

[GBC Pastor]

I can say, "I think you have cancer," but why should you believe me? You have no reason, because I can't identify one symptom of cancer (except perhaps an unsightly bulge in some body part). But if a trained oncologist says, "I think you have cancer," there is instantly a different level of believability. But how do you know the difference between me and the oncologist? By looking at background, at studies, at training, at exposure to the material, etc. Our words look exactly the same. But the foundation behind them is entirely different and can only be determined by asking the question, "What is your background that calls on me to believe your thinking as opposed to someone else's?"

For me, saying "I think" is communicating that I don't know it all. I think some things, and I think I have valid reason to think them (and no one here has given me any reasons to change), and was trying to get other people to interact with the thoughts based on critical thinking.

Not to derail the thread here, but since you chose to address this I am curious to ask a question or two/three. 1) Is it your assertion that one must establish their credentials before they can engage in a discussion on this board? 2) When will you be providing us with your list of credentials in the field of music/sound so that we can have the substance behind your "I think" positions? 3) What basis do you have for ridiculing Revmitchel's use of "I think" in relation to your own uses of the phrase?

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) Is it your assertion that one must establish their credentials before they can engage in a discussion on this board?

No.

2) When will you be providing us with your list of credentials in the field of music/sound so that we can have the substance behind your "I think" positions?

Whenever anyone asks. But why would anyone ask? Apparently I am the only one here who thinks that a person's knowledge level is important in order to judge whether we should take their comments seriously.

But in a nutshell, I have more than thirty years of playing experience on multiple instruments, a dozen or so years of leading music both congregation and choral, some teaching music (including music theory), as well as a fair amount of study in music and culture, communication, etc. My point is simply this: Give us an idea of why we should value your thoughts above anyone else's. Some guy who can't carry a tune, can't read music, and doesn't understand anything about culture and cultural expression is probably a thought that should be discounted.

Furthermore, I have made very few dogmatic statements, and that intentionally so. I don't want to be dogmatic apart from the self-evident proposition that music communicates without words, something that I think I have very ably demonstrated and no one has interacted with.

I wish someone would take a shot at it. I would love to see someone tell me why Pachelbel's Canon in D isn't the music of choice for an NBA championship celebration. I think there is an obvious reason that makes my point explicitly clear and irrefutable. And no one seems willing to suggest that the Canon in D would be appropriate for that. Why? Because it is obvious that the atmosphere created by that music does not match the atmosphere of an NBA championship. And if you put great words of NBA celebration with it, the music would still be inappropriate.

And that's my point: Music communicates before you put words with it. It doesn't need words to communicate. It is moral by its very nature.

That communication may be associative and cultural, as I explained, or it may be inherent and universal. I am positive about the former, less convinced of the latter, though I think there are some good arguments to be made for it being inherent and universal to some degree.

The sound of a lullaby is very similar all over the world, as is the sound of march music, or Waltz music. No one tries to waltz to the Stars and Stripes Forever, and they wouldn't in Africa anymore than they would in Tennessee. And no army goes off to war to The Tennessee Waltz or the Blue Danube. It is apparent at the very sound of it, before you ever hear a word of the lyrics (if there are any) that certain music doesn't fit in certain places because music communicates.

3) What basis do you have for ridiculing Revmitchel's use of "I think" in relation to your own uses of the phrase?

What makes you think I ridiculed him? I think a second look may be in order because I didn't ridicule him at all. I explained clearly what my point was there, I think. But in case it was unclear, let me try again: My point is that not all thoughts are equal, as illustrated by my cancer example. Quite frankly, if I offer a thought on cancer, you would be extremely wise to disregard it. You should not give it a second thought because (1) I don't know anything about cancer, and (2) I think every little itch or pain might be cancer.

Clearly, if you are going to form an opinion about a topic, you should try to learn from people who actually know what they are talking about. Not everyone's opinions are equal, not even in a democracy, not even in Christianity where we all have the Spirit. Some thoughts are simply bad thoughts.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't dispute your point. My point is that it is absurd to suggest that marijuana can be condemned without explicit teaching but other things cannot. If you can use a principle to condemn marijuana, even though marijuana isn't explicitly stated, you can't refuse the use of principles for other areas of life.

God intends us to actually believe his word and learn to think Christianly about all of life. He never intended for you to be a legalist. Jesus wasn't.

And BTW, you never interacted with how Jesus got lust out of a command against adultery. As you can see, Jesus did not use your approach to Scripture. He was quite willing to assert that the Pharisees who believed in your approach of naked wordism were wrong. They should have seen these teachings about lust and other things even though they were not explicitly stated.

Suggesting I am off my rocker because I don't agree with you is probably not a good tack. Perhaps you are unwilling to entertain the suggestion that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do, and if you knew a bit more, you might change your mind.

Calling it "mythical evil musical sounds" is a bad attempt to win the argument by labels. Calling it "mythical" won't make it so. That's an old atheist tactic, which we should all reject.

I was thinking of this this morning when I heard a radio station jingle about "good, good, good, good morning." This conversation came to my mind for the first time in a while because it reminded me how utterly absurd it is to think that any music can be used for anything. That little jingle would have been totally inappropriate at a funeral, or a ballgame. The music just didn't fit because music communicates.

I have shown this time and time again and you refuse to interact with any of it. Telling, I say. Telling, that you won't even venture an attempt at a response. I wish you would because I would love to see what possible answers you could come up with.

Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind disagreed with you about this. And he was an atheist, I believe. He was certainly no "fundamentalist" of any type.

How much wiser are the children of darkness ...

This whole thread is not about appropriateness. That is why no one is responding to you about this. No one is arguing that "zippity do da" should be sung at a funeral. As a side note however its inappropriateness would not make it sinful because the Bible does not condemn it.

You are hung up on this "explicit" teaching business. I have said nearly a half dozen times that the Scripture can condemn something by clear principle though it may not address the issue by name.

The problem is that it does not even ADDRESS this ridiculous notion that musical sounds have morality. There is not a verse or principle in the word of God that condemns any type or genre of music. When you preach that it does, without Bible you make yourself a pope.

The thing you keep missing that everyone is trying to show you to no avail is that, though music absolutely DOES have powerful effects on the emotions, it is not moral. The reason for this is that there is no emotion that is sinful.

Some music tends to rouse anger. That music is not my personal preference. But anger is not sinful. In fact, if a song is written about the wrath of God against sin, an angry type of music may be appropriate. If a troop of soldiers is in route to assault a band of terrorists responsible for the 9-11 attacks, it may be appropriate. Therefore, you cannot make a sweeping declaration that all metal music is sinful.

Other music tends to rouse sexual passion. This would not be appropriate in a worship service but it may indeed in a Christian married couple's bedroom. Therefore you cannot make a sweeping declaration that soft rock is sinful.

Then there is the issue of "if thine eye offend thee pluck it out". IF it offends YOU then don't listen to it. But the fact of the matter is that it does NOT offend everyone. They get to keep their eyes because they are not as weak as you. But just because you are sensitive tdue to some knowledge weakness or carnal problem, that does not give you the right to speak for God and condemn things he has not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This whole thread is not about appropriateness. That is why no one is responding to you about this. No one is arguing that "zippity do da" should be sung at a funeral. As a side note however its inappropriateness would not make it sinful because the Bible does not condemn it.

Except this doesn't work in worship. Something "inappropriate" in worship is sinful. So that's clearly where the connection comes in.

Furthermore, the whole "appropriateness" issue is the morality of music. It is inappropriate because of its moral communication.

You are hung up on this "explicit" teaching business.

I am not hung up on it. You are. You constantly bring it up, claiming that since God did not explicitly condemn certain types of music, therefore it is okay. But through the use of Scripture I have pointed out how absurd that is. Your whole participation in this thread is based on the idea that God does not explicitly condemn music, and therefore no one else can.

When I point out that God doesn't explicitly condemn marijuana, you say it doesn't matter beacuse God gives principles about marijuana.

When I point out that God gives principles about worship and communication, you it doesn't apply here because it isn't explicit.

Can't you see the double standard there?

I have said nearly a half dozen times that the Scripture can condemn something by clear principle though it may not address the issue by name.

So why do you constantly object to my point if you agree with it? You have so far, to my recollection, refused to admit that Scripture does speak about certain kinds of communication and principles about communication, and that is the issue in music.

The problem is that it does not even ADDRESS this ridiculous notion that musical sounds have morality. There is not a verse or principle in the word of God that condemns any type or genre of music.

That is simply false, and calling it a "ridiculous notion" simply shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Your claim is the minority claim among people in the world of music. Very few will make that claim. And most don't care because they aren't concerned about morality. You, who should be concerned about morality, make the claim to protect something I guess. Who knows.

God clearly condemns certain kinds of communication, does he not? And therefore condemns that communication in music.

The thing you keep missing that everyone is trying to show you to no avail is that, though music absolutely DOES have powerful effects on the emotions, it is not moral.

That's a totally nonsensical statement. The powerful effects of music on emotions is the morality of music. Again, this simply reveals my previous point, that your ignorance on the matter means that we should not take you seriously. You simply are not aware of what the issues are. (That's what "ignorance" means.)

The reason for this is that there is no emotion that is sinful.

Wow ... that's unbelievable. I hope that is a misstatement.

Some music tends to rouse anger. That music is not my personal preference. But anger is not sinful.

Some of it certainly is and you know that, which is why your above statement is nonsensical. When anger is aroused illegitimately, or for something illegitimate, it is sinful anger. It is never right. Illegitimate anger is inherently wrong. It's not even the same entity as righteous anger.

Therefore, you cannot make a sweeping declaration that all metal music is sinful.

I haven't done that, although there are certainly good reasons to consider it.

Other music tends to rouse sexual passion. This would not be appropriate in a worship service but it may indeed in a Christian married couple's bedroom. Therefore you cannot make a sweeping declaration that soft rock is sinful.

But soft rock sung in worship to God is sinful, wouldn't you say? It is inherently sinful to use certain types of music in certain situations because the music cannot be redeemed for that purpose.

My guess is that you know that, and you have simply backed yourself into a corner from which you cannot gracefully admit the problem that most of us see.

IF it offends YOU then don't listen to it. But the fact of the matter is that it does NOT offend everyone.

I am not offended by it at all. I am pretty sure you care way more about this than I do. I would never bring it up here.

They get to keep their eyes because they are not as weak as you. But just because you are sensitive tdue to some knowledge weakness or carnal problem, that does not give you the right to speak for God and condemn things he has not.

Nice personal attack there. Totally false, and a sad way to bail out here. Don't go down that road. I am not weak in the least. I perhaps am stronger than you are in that I recognize that some forms of music are inherently incompatible with Christian worship, and probably with Christian thinking. That's hardly weakness. My mind goes to Heb 5 where the author says that by the time some of you should be teaching, you are still spiritually immature and need someone to teach you. Some of these issues do require much more thought than some are willing to give it. I admit that.

Again, Luke, your comments here reveal that you have never given this serious thought. And when it comes to worship, that means this is a serious matter. In the Bible, God killed people for false means of worship. That means we should take it a little more seriously than these flippant attempts you are making here.

As I said, I am fine with you or anyone else disagreeing with me. It doesn't bother me in the least. This is, for the most part, a non-issue to me. If someone answers the questions differently than I do, I am fine with that. But we need to be asking the right questions and looking at the realities of things rather than ignoring the questions and living in a dreamworld.

Have you ever read Bloom's chapter on music? Have you done much reading on the site I suggested? Have you read Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences? Read much of Tozer? These are elementary starting points that should form a very basic introduction to these ideas. You won't agree with all of it (or much of it); I certainly don't. But it helps to form good thinking to interact with legitimate sources who actually know what they are talking about.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Furthermore, the whole "appropriateness" issue is the morality of music. It is inappropriate because of its moral communication.

The appropriateness of music is determined by cultural designations in my opinion. Now I have played no instruments nor taken any music classes so I realize my thoughts have little to no value here. A lullaby has been given a cultural designation as music for children therefore it is inappropriate for use in a funeral setting. Not because of some intrinsic moral value, but because of cultural definition.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The appropriateness of music is determined by cultural designations in my opinion. Now I have played no instruments nor taken any music classes so I realize my thoughts have little to no value here.

That certainly is missing the point. It's not that they have little to no value, but that we must take them as thoughts of someone who has not studied the subject. Again, just thnk about it in any other field. From mechanics to medical doctors, we all value the opinions of people who have studied over the opinions of those who haven't. Why would this be any different?

A lullaby has been given a cultural designation as music for children therefore it is inappropriate for use in a funeral setting. Not because of some intrinsic moral value, but because of cultural definition.

Are you sure it's cultural? I wonder your basis for saying that is culturally defined.

Do you think a lullaby in America might be interpreted as a victory dance in some other culture? Can you imagine a futbol team in Africa getting pumped up for a game listening to a lullaby? Or the Staples Center playing a soft lullaby when the Lakers beat the Celtics for the NBA championship? Or a nightclub in Japan using a lullaby? I don't think either African football, Pakistani warlords, Japanese clubbers, or NBA champions are going to have a greatly different understanding of a lullaby. I imagine that even across cultures, the sound of a lullaby is going to communicate similarly in each culture.

I would imagine that the sound of a lullaby is going to be sleep inducing or sleep encouraging across cultures. It isn't cultural. And very few in any culture are going to put their children to sleep with Queen's "We Are the Champions." I have been in a few other cultures briefly and the music has a similar affect in them.

Why do you think non-English speaking countries play American pop music? Wouldn't it be because the music creates a certain atmosphere without any words being understood?

 

[GBC Pastor]

That certainly is missing the point

No, I'm pretty sure that was exactly your point. A poor one in my estimation considering this is an open forum for the exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Do you think a lullaby in America might be interpreted as a victory dance in some other culture?

I think it absolutely could be. Or it could be some cultures version of a wedding march. It could be elevator music in India.

Why do you think non-English speaking countries play American pop music?

Ummm because they are imitating our culture, and our culture has accepted certain styles of music as popular.

And very few in any culture are going to put their children to sleep with Queen's "We Are the Champions."

My mother used to put me to sleep with The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and Janis Joplin. In the culture of my home that kind of music had the same effect as a traditional lullaby, I went to sleep.

 

[Luke2427]

Except this doesn't work in worship. Something "inappropriate" in worship is sinful. So that's clearly where the connection comes in.

Furthermore, the whole "appropriateness" issue is the morality of music. It is inappropriate because of its moral communication.

The issue in this thread that I started is not appropriateness for the thousandth time. If you want to argue that some music is inappropriate in some settings then start a thread of your own. I figure it will be a very boring thread since no one will participate since nobody is debating that.

The issue is- SIN.

Are some types of music sinful? Not inappropriate in some settings. Are there some musical sounds or genre's that God's Word teaches we should condemn in any setting?

I am not hung up on it. You are. You constantly bring it up, claiming that since God did not explicitly condemn certain types of music, therefore it is okay. But through the use of Scripture I have pointed out how absurd that is. Your whole participation in this thread is based on the idea that God does not explicitly condemn music, and therefore no one else can.

When I point out that God doesn't explicitly condemn marijuana, you say it doesn't matter beacuse God gives principles about marijuana.

When I point out that God gives principles about worship and communication, you it doesn't apply here because it isn't explicit.

Can't you see the double standard there?

So why do you constantly object to my point if you agree with it? You have so far, to my recollection, refused to admit that Scripture does speak about certain kinds of communication and principles about communication, and that is the issue in music.

Nope. You are hung up on it because you are the only one who keeps making an issue out of "explicit". You introduced that term in an erroneous effort to represent my position. I am saying to you that you don't have a shred of Bible that teaches your position on music whether in precept or clear principle. If you have one- present it.

That is simply false, and calling it a "ridiculous notion" simply shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Your claim is the minority claim among people in the world of music. Very few will make that claim. And most don't care because they aren't concerned about morality. You, who should be concerned about morality, make the claim to protect something I guess. Who knows.

I think you are full of bologna here. I don't think the even a significant percentage of musical experts will say that music is sinful in and of itself. I have read extensively on the subject. I read ""Why Knock Rock", "Why I left Christian Contemporary Music", "Satan's Music Exposed" and tons of other literature on the subject and find most of these authors who argue what you argue to have a very similar flaw- they are not logical thinkers.

But to say that these people hold a majority view that God condemns some genre's or types of music is something I expect you to support.

God clearly condemns certain kinds of communication, does he not? And therefore condemns that communication in music.

He condemns some words. Therefore lyrics are important- not music. Your step from one to the other is a giant eisegetical leap.

That's a totally nonsensical statement. The powerful effects of music on emotions is the morality of music. Again, this simply reveals my previous point, that your ignorance on the matter means that we should not take you seriously. You simply are not aware of what the issues are. (That's what "ignorance" means.)

Prove that any emotion is in and of itself sinful.
If you cannot do this your whole argument crumbles.

Some of it certainly is and you know that, which is why your above statement is nonsensical. When anger is aroused illegitimately, or for something illegitimate, it is sinful anger. It is never right. Illegitimate anger is inherently wrong. It's not even the same entity as righteous anger.

I think you made up the phrase "illegitimate anger" willy nilly.
The point is that anger is not wrong. Therefore music that stirs that powerful emotion cannot be sweepingly condemned.

I haven't done that, although there are certainly good reasons to consider it.

That's what this thread is about. I ought to know. I started it.

But soft rock sung in worship to God is sinful, wouldn't you say? It is inherently sinful to use certain types of music in certain situations because the music cannot be redeemed for that purpose.

No, I would not say that. Some soft rock in most worship atmospheres is inappropriate. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not certain types of music are sinful... for about the tenth time.

My guess is that you know that, and you have simply backed yourself into a corner from which you cannot gracefully admit the problem that most of us see.

I don't think you believe I am in a corner. I hope you have better discernment than that. I think you know you are because you cannot support your position biblically and you cannot support the notion that any emotion is sinful. In fact I can prove biblically that all emotions are appropriate at times. This is why NO music can be condemned sweepingly. This is why you have to keep punching straw men about this "appropriateness" issue on which ALL, I suppose the whole world with few exceptions, must agree with you to some degree.

In fact, I expect to see you backpedaling or quitting real soon because you are in a corner.

Your "illegitimate" remarks are worthless. Any thing illegitimate is problematic. No one is talking about "illegitimate" emotions. We are talking about the fact that music and the emotions it incites cannot be sweepingly condemned.

Look, Larry. I don't listen to Christian Rock. I don't like the stuff. In fact I am not for it (this doesn't mean I condemn it) in worship. My favorite song writer is Isaac Watts. My favorite music is old, old hymns like "I Sing the Mighty Power of God" and "Oh the Deep Deep Love of Jesus" and "Crown Him Lord of All" and "A Mighty Fortress is Our God". Our worship style in my church is "high church" for the most part.

But I am trying to point out to you a major problem that you and many like you have developed. You don't get to preach against things God has not condemned. When you do, you make yourself a pope, you deny the sufficiency of Scripture, you create confusion in the body of Christ and you hurt the work of God in this world. You need to humble yourself and meditate on these things.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, I'm pretty sure that was exactly your point. A poor one in my estimation considering this is an open forum for the exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

I won't interact with most of this because, quite frankly, it's to the point of utter nonsense. But I will say this. I know what you my point was because I believe it and I wrote it, and I am eminently qualified to say that you missed it. The problem may be that I miscommunicated or that you misread, or some combination. But when someone who holds the position/point tells you you missed it, you should acknowledge that.

I think you are being intentionally ludicrous to say that a lullaby might fit in any situation that I mentioned above (which wasn't a wedding or elevator music, and intentionally so).