Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

While you don’t want to talk about it, the issue of morality is the issue of approrpriateness. The fact that you don’t get that shows that you don’t understand the issue.


I know the issue is SIN, as you say. But what makes something sinful? That's a question I think needs a bit more foundational thinking. To apply it to a different field of arts, when does a picture of a woman become sinful? You don't have a clear principle or biblical line. You have to take what we know of the Bible and human life and culture, and make an application. That's my point here. We have to take the Bible and apply it to culture and life.

Um, no. You introduced the idea on page 6 of the previous thread and continued to hammer it by accusing those who operate off of musical principles as saying something God didn’t say. You are the one who keeps talking about what God clearly said and didn’t say. My point has always been that such a hermeneutic is deficient. Jesus didn’t use it; you don’t even use it all the time as you admitted. Yet here you want to lean on that.

Clearly you are incorrect.

I have given a number of issues and places where you could learn what you are talking about. You are not prepared to have that discussion because it appears that we can’t even agree on the basic idea that music communicates.

I don’t think so either, because the most won’t agree with the idea of sin. But they will recognize the idea of morality and communication in music. It is a fairly universal axiom.

As I suspected, if this is your bibliography you haven’t done any real work on this topic. Three poorly written and poorly argued books are hardly “extensive.”

Have you done any study of the site I recommended you like at? I am not saying you should go out and buy a bunch of books. You don’t have to. You can familiarize yourself with the issues far more simply. As I said, I don’t agree with everything on that site, but it certainly would help you out this position you are in of not knowing what you are talking about.

So you don’t think God condemns tone of voice, such as one that treats others with disrespect? You don’t think God’s teaching about communicating with grace and love include non verbal communication? You don’t think God’s teaching on communication clearly condemns a tone of defiance out of children? I bet you do. So it’s not an eisegetical leap. It’s one that you actually believe, I imagine. You just don’t want to think about it.

Please tell me you are not serious. No believer who remotely knows their Bible would ask this question. Of course emotions can be sinful in and of themselves. We have really scraped the bottom when we start arguing this.

So? We have already established that your thinking is very narrow and legalistic on this topic. The idea of illegitimate anger is an explicit biblical idea. I can’t imagine what kind of thinking questions that. And you accuse others of being illogical. Seriously, Luke, I am not made, but the legalism has to stop man. I really don’t care what others do in their conscience. It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is two things: (1) the inability to recognize these basic biblical principles of communication, and (2) the inability to have a substantive conversation. I have asked you numerous questions and you have not addressed one of them to my recollection. You have dodged them all.

So the whole idea about “Be angry and sin not” was unnecessary since anger isn’t wrong anyway? Come on, Luke. Don’t waste our time here with this nonsense. Being angry at the wrong thing (illegitimate anger) is inherently wrong. It’s never right.

Who has said that it can be?

So it’s not sinful to talk to the Creator God and Redeemer like he’s your girlfriend? If so, I gotta tell you, we have a different view of God. I think it is sinful to talk disrespectfully to God.

If you’re not, then your refusal to deal with the issues is inexplicable. You keep dodging them. There are several issues that, right now, are boxing you in. So you should have addressed them if you can. I don’t think I have dodged any of your questions.

Actually, I can and have.

I haven’t made that argument and I don’t believe it.

I should quit because it is useless to talk to someone who isn’t interacting on issues and refuses to do any serious thinking.

No they’re not. They are a key part of biblical distinctions. For instance, it is built into Christ’s teaching on lust in Matthew 5. The problem with adultery and lust is its illegitimacy. The problem with sinful anger is that it is provoked by wrong things, and is therefore illegitimate.

I am, and you should be. You say that the notion that any emotion is sinful cannot be supported. Yet here you seem to contradict that. If an emotion is illegitimate, it is sinful. You say it’s problematic, but isn’t that sin when it comes to moral issues? There’s no middle ground. It’s either right or wrong.

No one is sweepingly condemning anything. That’s my point. I am not sweepingly condemning something. I am arguing for discernment. You are sweepingly approving things without benefit of Christian thinking and the application of Scripture.

So? I don’t either, but that’s hardly the point here.

I agree.

I agree. This is exactly what you have done. You have declared yourself to be a Pope, declaring ex cathedra that what is wrong is only what you say. Yet you have no Scripture to support you and in fact you have no arguments to support you. You are hurting the work of God by sending the message that the Bible does not need to be consulted on issues of culture.

Wow … just wow. I have tried to be humble here. I have not been dogmatic on hardly anything. I have asked a lot of questions hopefully to avoid being dogmatic. I don’t really care about what kind of music you use or like or listen to or whatever. It doesn’t bother me. I think there are some important principles that need to be discussed. Unfortunately, they are not being discussed here. As so often is the case, we run to easy application without exploring foundations.

I think it is fair to say that, at least based on the evidence here, I have spent a good deal more time meditating on these things than you have. Your conversation here shows that you have not even scratched the service of knowing what the issues are, much less contemplating them in any serious manner. Luke, I am going to try to bail out here I think, unless there are specific issues addressed to me.


I have enjoyed the exchange, believe it or not. It's been a bit frustrating and I put more time into it than I should have probably. I wish it had been a bit more on topic and a bit more willing to explore some of these issues. You asked an initial question which was good, and then refused to interact with possible examples exploring how we might answer that question.

Again, I don’t really care what music people use or listen to. It doesn’t bother me. My point is about the need to apply Scripture to all of life and culture. Not just the easy parts.

Take care, friend.

 

You should have played football. The Cowboys could really use you. You back pedal better than anyone in their secondary.

 

Wow. I thought this thread as over.

GBC Pastor - it does you no good to "discuss" with Pastor Larry. And BTW: Yes, culture has a LOT to do with music. As I pointed out in this very thread, colors have different meanings based on which culture you're in (white in another country, for example, is associated with death; black in yet another country is associated with death by martyrdom, but not intended as a "mourning" color). In the middle east, the use of drums in their religious music is quite prevalent...but in no way could be likened to the use of drums in voodoo-related music.

Pastor Larry - 13 pages, and I still have yet to see where you posted any scripture on the subject of music. I may have missed it.

Luke - I think what you intended to start with this thread is actually (finally) addressed by Pastor Larry, either on this page or page 12. That subject is "discernment." Music in and of itself is neither sinful, nor moral. I once started a thread alluding to that same position, likening music to a gun or to any other tool. It is the intent of our heart that indicates the sinfulness of the tools we use to fulfill that intent.

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Prov 23:7

 

I am not sure what that means. What have I back-pedaled on? I think I was pretty straightforward, though I perhaps miscommunicated somewhere. I will be glad to clarify if you will please tell me where you think I backpedaled. I will try to straighten it out. Otherwise, I am not sure how this post is helpful. It doesn't further the discussion, it seems.

And why do you say that? I think if you read this thread, you will see that I am about the only one who has consistently responded to issues and questions asked of me. That's what discussion is: interaction with one another. Many here, such as Luke and yourself, have not answered questions and dialogued on the matter. I am the one here who has actually admitted I don't know it all and have tried to be very careful not to be dogmatic. So when it comes to discussion (asking and answering; responding to questions), I have done that more than anyone here.

Luke who started this thread, ostensibly looking for answers, has yet to answer the questions that would help to give some direction to the idea of meaning in music. Why he ignores them I have no idea. Why he posted a question if he doesn't want to interact with possible answers I have no idea. But you can't have a discussion unless someone answers back. And so far, I am about the only one who has done that. You yourself Don, haven't answered any of my questions? You have simply popped in here a few times to demagogue the issue, offering no real contribution to the issue itself.

(I am here again, after saying I was going to quit, precisely because I am willing to discuss. I don't have all the answers, and unlike most here, I am willing to admit that.)

So to say it is useless to discuss things with me is simply wrong. It is not based in fact. I am willing to discuss.

So it is incumbent on you to show how music and colors are similar. How are they alike, and how are they different?

"In no way"? Again, I think this needs a bit of interaction and support. It can be likened to the use of drums in something like "voodoo-related music."

And where are yours, Don? Isn't it true that you haven't posted any Scripture on the subject of music?

The fact is that I have referenced scriptural teachings probably more than anyone else has here. I have constantly come back to that issue and tried to focus on the fact that Scripture does speak clearly about communication and we are expected to draw principles from that. I am assuming that in this forum, people are relatively familiar with Scripture. I suppose that could be a mistake on my part.

The reality is that for all the talk about using Scripture, I haven't seen anyone on your side use Scripture to support your position. All your side does is argue from culture and analogy. So why is it okay for you to argue without Scripture but not for me? Why can not I appeal to obvious cultural issues.

Yes, you are correct, as I have said. Music is a great tool. The issue is the way that music is used. And all uses of music are not equal.

Yes, but once music is constructed wrongly, it is dangerous, just like a gun that is constructed wrongly. Once music is used wrongly, it is wrong, just like a gun that is used wrongly. You see, a gun and music can be compared. But a gun cannot be compared to a type or music. The use of a gun can be compared to the use of music. And this was the analogy issue that I addressed earlier and was virtually ignored on the substance of the discussion. In analogy or comparison, you have to compare like entities. As it stands, the gun/music comparison is a comparison between two completely dissimilar entities. It would be like comparing words to apples. They just don't match up.

Are you saying it is impossible to sin if we mean well? That the standard of righteousness is intent or desire? I can't imagine that is what you are saying, but I want some clarification before proceeding.

Don, I hope you will do more than make what appear to be snide personal remarks about me (to others that aren't even addressed to me) that aren't based in truth. As I have demonstrated abundantly, I am more than willing to discuss (probably too willing since it takes a lot of time), and I am more than willing to let people disagree with me. I know I don't have all the answers.

So if you are willing to actually engage in the discussion rather than make these seemingly useless types of posts, I would like to see you go back and interact thoughtfully with some of the issues of substance that I have raised.

 

What's sad is that we're even having this conversation. Pretty sure that Christ came to redeem fallen man, not music.

 

How is this for back pedaling? For the last 7-10 pages you have declared that somehow certain musical sounds are sinful. Now you post:

Which is what myself and several others have already stated. Music is not sinful in and of itself. It is the intent of the user that can make music sinful. Yet for page after page you have communicated a belief that the sounds in and of themselves are sinful. If your brother/sister /cousin (I'm not going back to look) who played rock music in a praise and worship band caused you to have a sinful emotional response then that is on you. Their intent was to praise God! They did no wrong. Their music was not sin.

As for furthering the discussion, you have been chasing your tail for the last half dozen pages. Your first thought that has "furthered the discussion" didn't come until this last post.

 

Do you know of anyone who argues that Jesus came to redeem music?

There is a lot of talk of "redeeming music" but my understanding of that deals with people redeeming certain styles of music for Christian use, not of Jesus redeeming music from slavery to sin in order to reconcile it to God and give it eternal life.

It seems to me that this comparison, like some others that were attempted, fails the basic premise of a comparison, namely that the entities compared need some basis of similarity.

 

Upon re-reading my statement, I agree that I should clarify it more. Good intentions do not make sinful things "good"; murdering someone because in your heart you believe it to be the right thing to do, is still murder, which is condemned.

How we use tools, how we construct things, is a reflection. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

 

Most of the rest of us already knew that we "don't know it all"; you're the one who requested credentials, identifying that only those that have some sort of background have the only opinions worth paying attention to.

If you still don't understand how high-falutin' that came across as, I can't help you.

Whatever.

Is that really why you keep coming back?

On your terms.

They're analogous.

What, exactly, is "voodoo-related music"???

I make such statements using the authority of having personally interacted with the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few years. From what position of authority do you contradict my statement?

Nope, not true. If you go back and re-read, you'll see where I supported GB and pointed out certain scriptures to Luke.

What scriptures?

As mentioned above, at least one individual referenced scripture.

And what, exactly, is "our side"? What position do you think we're arguing?

This is NOT what you originally started this thread saying.

Your argument is incorrect. Most people do not "construct" music, just as most people do not construct guns. Most people are not composers.

Further, your argument about "types" is incorrect. There are different types of guns, with different uses in mind. One could argue that there is one overall use for any type of gun: killing things. But the same argument can be made for any type of music: To entertain, to elicit a response. Thus, your niggling about the "definition of is" merely prolongs the basic discussion, instead of simply answering the questions.

Fact of the matter is, PL, that I've had the same impression of you (regarding snide remarks). We've both demonstrated that we're unwilling to discuss, because we both believe we have the right answers; and we're both too prideful to admit that we're both acting in an un-Christianlike manner.

 

So where's the backpedaling?

Music as an entity isn't sinful in and of itself. No one argues that, GBC Pastor. Come on, now. It is the use of music in terms of its construction that gives it meaning that is the problem.

That as well, but particular constructions of music are incompatible with Christian thinking and are therefore sinful. That's the point.

So I ask you what I asked Don: Are you really saying that sin in a matter of intent? That so long as a person means well, it is impossible to sin?

Based on what? You are simply pulling this out of thin air. You are not offering any Scripture to support you. You are not offering any interaction with culture and cultural communication to support you. Why not?

How is that possible? I have been saying the same thing. If you actually read what I said, you can see that the same themes and even the examples are used time after time. I can only assume you haven't read closely.

 

We agree on that, Don. Thanks for your clarification.

 

Don:

Thank you Don. I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

I am saying that the sinfulness of MUSIC is determined by intent absolutely.

Wrong. Now you're backpedaling back the other way.

Isn't it interesting that others have read what you wrote and we all keep coming to the same conclusion about what you are trying to say? Yet you continue to imply we aren't reading your words correctly?

 

Thanks Don for your response. Let me try again here.

I am not sure about that. There are some here making dogmatic statements (e.g., “No type of music is sinful”) without admitting any possibility that they might be wrong about that.

I completely understand how high falutin that might sound, but that’s irrelevant to the issue. There is nothing “high falutin” about me, and that certainly wasn’t intended to be high falutin.

It is a simple matter that we recognize in every area of life … that we trust the opinions of people who have reason to know what they are talking about, and we distrust the opinions of people who don’t have reason to know what they are talking about. Why do you think the medical boards verify that you have a certain amount of knowledge and experience and training prior to saying you can set up a doctor’s office? Why are the ASE certified mechanics where knowledge and skills are tested? Because everyone recognizes my point. Before you trust someone’s opinion, you want to know if they know what they are talking about.

I presume that means you are still unwilling to answer the questions in order to give us some idea of how you explain these things? Honestly, Don, that’s the frustrating part of this. I have asked the same basic questions time and time again and can’t get a response to them from most, and no substantive response that I can recall from anyone. “Whatever” doesn’t help me understand how you think about these issues.

Yes, I keep coming back to discuss. As you note, I quote people and respond to their comments.

Not sure what that means. I don’t have terms for discussion. I respond to what people say and would like you to respond to what I say. (In all the time you wrote this, you could have simply given us your perspective on some of the issues I have brought up.)

That’s not discussion Don. I asked a question (actually two): How are they alike, and how are they different? Saying “They’re analogous” doesn’t help my understanding of your point.

Let me apologize here because I misread your original statement. I misread the reference to Middle East music. You are correct that my experience of Middle East music is not similar to voodoo cultures. However, you are the one who first used the term. I put it in quotes because I am not entirely sure what you mean by it.

Numerous scriptures on the topic of communication. Again, I assume that you know your Bible well enough that when we speak of scriptural topics, you don’t need me to give exact references. Do you really need me to cite specific Scriptures about biblical communication? Generally, the tack taken is that music doesn’t communicate. It’s not questioned that the Scriptures talk about communication. Take for instance, “Let your speech be with grace, seasoned with salt.” Or “Speak truth.” Both of these apply not just to words, but to tone and the manner in which we communicate. And therefore it applies to music. It is possible to say one thing with our words and say something completely different with the music.

You appear to be arguing that there is no type of music that is sinful. Am I missing your point? Do you actually agree with me?

On this you are simply wrong. I can assure you that I haven’t changed my position one iota since I began participating in this thread. I may have poorly communicated, but I think most have understood it pretty clearly.

Not sure how that makes my argument incorrect since I don’t think I said anything about most people constructing either music or guns. Perhaps you misread.

Again Don, it seems too simple to have to be mentioned yet again, but music and guns are too completely different types of entities. They are different classes of things, philosophically. That’s why you can’t compare them as you have.

But there are several issues of concern here. First the overall use for any type of gun is not “killing things.” BB guns for instance are not generally intended to kill things. I have two guns, neither of which are intended to kill things.

Furthermore, music is not intended primarily to entertain. It has a number of functions including worship, teaching, instructions, etc.

I haven’t made any snide remarks to you that I recall. If so, I should not have and I didn’t intend to. (And that means I didn’t really do it right??? Of course I jest … But it does help make the point about communication, that it’s more than just words.)

I have in fact said I am not sure I have the right answer here, Don. And to the best of my heart and knowledge of my heart, I haven’t acted unChristianly. I have tried to keep my comments on the topic. I have tried to treat you and others who disagree with me with respect and grace. And I intend to continue to do that.

And I don’t think you have been particularly unchristian aside from a few comments where you turned a bit personal and made some accusations and where you said some things that aren’t exactly true. I am willing to accept that, in this forum, it is easy to be unclear both in writing and reading, and I chalk up the misunderstanding to both. I misread you earlier and I apologize for that. I certainly don’t take anything here personally. AS I said, I don’t really care what people do. I think there are some interesting and important issues to discuss and I think we should discuss them, which has been the point of my participation.

 

As I pointed out to Don, I haven't have changed.

But on what basis are you able to say that? Because I disagree. And the reason is obvious. If someone intends to create a NBA celebration with Pachelbel's Canon, it won't work. It won't matter what their intent is. The music itself communicates apart from intent. And I think there is no valid reason to think that that principle gets checked at the church door. It applies in every arena of life, not just outside of church.

Now you're getting me dizzy. You were wrong about me backpedaling before. I haven't changed, friend. I still believe what I have said all along.

I don't think "we all" have done that. Several don't seem to be confused by it. They responded exactly to what I was saying. Yes, I think you are not reading my words carefully. I am trying to be very precise in what I am saying. So that is why I distinguish between "Music" and "types of music" or "uses of music." Music isn't inherently wrong. Music can be used in sinful ways.

Again, let me try to be clear: Some types of music unequivocally have cultural and associative baggage that make it sinful for use in Christian worship and probably in the development of Christian thinking (and in fact, may be harmful to sound thinking generally speaking).

Some types of music may be inherently sinful, though I am not prepared to argue that because I am not sure.

That's been my position from the beginning, and it was clarified around pages 6-7 or so.

 

Larry, the fact that more than one person says the same thing about you, means the problem is not everyone else.

This thread should be closed, or re-started in another fashion.

 

Now who is dizzy?

Keep telling yourself that.

Really? I would argue that this applies very specifically to words. Stretching that to music unless you are talking about lyrics is eisegesis.

 

Having the benefit of knowing what I believe, I can say with no fear of contradiction that I haven't changed. I can't imagine what kind of world you are living in to think you know what I believe better than I know what I believe.

Do you think one could demonstrate a lack of grace with his or her tone of voice? That is to say could one say the right set of words, but do so in a tone of voice that contradicts the words? (Often we call that sarcasm, and many people recognize it but some miss it. Sometimes it's not sarcasm. I quite frequently find myself doing that to my wife, saying "Yes I will do that" but doing in a tone of voice that clearly communicates that I don't want to do that. I am increasingly aware of this because of God's work in my own life.)

We see this in children when they say the right words ("yes sir") but do so in a tone of voice that contradicts the obedience and rather shows disrespect.

So surely you don't think it only applies to words do you? Don't you correct your children's tone of voice?

 

I don't claim anywhere to know what you believe. However, myself and others do seem to be in agreement about what you have stated. Even though you choose to ignore your contradictions. It may make perfect sense in your mind, but your position is not coming across clearly in written form.

Certainly. But this is not about what I think, as you have made abundantly clear. This is only about what the text you mention speaks to. And you sir are practicing eisegesis to stretch the text to say something it is not to fit your own preconceived notions.

Yes I certainly do think your quotes specifically apply to spoken words.