Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Pastor Larry]

However, myself and others do seem to be in agreement about what you have stated.

But agreeing with people who are wrong is hardly virtuous, brother.

Even though you choose to ignore your contradictions.

I am not aware of any and those who have claimed them haven't shown any.

It may make perfect sense in your mind, but your position is not coming across clearly in written form.

And that may well be the case. It may also be that you are not reading carefully.

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.

That's simply not true. Voice tone and inflection is a part of speech. You are practicing legalism here which Jesus corrects in a passage like Matthew 5. The Pharisees were legalists who only wanted to condemn what was explicitly said. Jesus rejected that. So should you. The point is that applications are necessary.

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

You see, you don't read carefully which is what I have suspected and suggested (or you are intentionally avoiding the issue to avoid having to acknowledge the truth of my point). You say, "yes ..." as if you are agreeing, but then you do not answer what I actually said. You omitted the word "only." Every agrees that the verse applies specifically to spoken words. The question was, Does the verse apply "only" to spoken words? If someone uses a tone that lacks grace, can you use this verse in correction of them? If not, what verse would you use?

 

[GBC Pastor]

But agreeing with people who are wrong is hardly virtuous, brother.

You see here is another of your contradictions. First you say you don't claim to know it all, and now we are the majority in the wrong while you independently claim to have the truth cornered.

I am not aware of any and those who have claimed them haven't shown any.

Now you're wrong because we have shown them.

And that may well be the case. It may also be that you are not reading carefully.

If I were the only one saying it, this could possibly be true, but I am not the only one.

The point is that applications are necessary.

Applications are necessary, but not at the expense of inserting into the text what is not there.

You are practicing legalism here

If you consider it legalism to practice sound exegesis, and to handle passages of Scripture with care not to insert my own preconceived notions into them then I will proudly say that I am a legalist. But allowing Scripture to speak for itself without adding to it is not legalism. And Scripture certainly has harsh words for those who would add to or take away from God's word. Which is what you are attempting to do.

You see, you don't read carefully which is what I have suspected and suggested (or you are intentionally avoiding the issue to avoid having to acknowledge the truth of my point). You say, "yes ..." as if you are agreeing, but then you do not answer what I actually said. You omitted the word "only." Every agrees that the verse applies specifically to spoken words. The question was, Does the verse apply "only" to spoken words? If someone uses a tone that lacks grace, can you use this verse in correction of them? If not, what verse would you use?

LOL. Oh I read it alright. But since I may not have been clear allow me to do so. Yes the verse applies only to spoken words. That plain enough for you? No you cannot use this verse to correct someone's tone of voice. Is that plain enough?

 

[Luke2427]

You see here is another of your contradictions. First you say you don't claim to know it all, and now we are the majority in the wrong while you independently claim to have the truth cornered.



Now you're wrong because we have shown them.



If I were the only one saying it, this could possibly be true, but I am not the only one.



Applications are necessary, but not at the expense of inserting into the text what is not there.



If you consider it legalism to practice sound exegesis, and to handle passages of Scripture with care not to insert my own preconceived notions into them then I will proudly say that I am a legalist. But allowing Scripture to speak for itself without adding to it is not legalism. And Scripture certainly has harsh words for those who would add to or take away from God's word. Which is what you are attempting to do.



LOL. Oh I read it alright. But since I may not have been clear allow me to do so. Yes the verse applies only to spoken words. That plain enough for you? No you cannot use this verse to correct someone's tone of voice. Is that plain enough?

You're absolutely right that Pastor Larry and those like him have abandoned sound exegesis to continue to "teach for doctrines the traditions of men".

I wish we could get them to see the terrible danger of this.

Prediction: Larry will flee the debate soon because we have just about totally undermined all of his flawed and few premises on which he built this house of cards he calls a position.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You see here is another of your contradictions. First you say you don't claim to know it all, and now we are the majority in the wrong while you independently claim to have the truth cornered.

The "truth" in this particular claim has to do with what I believe. So yes, I am quite confident that if the majority of people are wrong about what I believe, and you agree with them, you are also wrong about what I believe.

Now you're wrong because we have shown them.

I missed that post I guess.

If I were the only one saying it, this could possibly be true, but I am not the only one.

So does this method of proof mean that the fact that I am not the only saying that music is moral means that I can't be wrong? Is that really the argument you want to suggest? Somehow I doubt it, because you and I both agree that what is true is not decided by how many people believe something, but by whether or not it corresponds to reality. The fact that a million people say something does not mean it is right.

Applications are necessary, but not at the expense of inserting into the text what is not there.

So when Jesus applied the command about adultery to lust, he was wrong? If you look at the words "You shall not commit adultery" there is nothing in those words about lust, right? The word for "adultery" there does not mean lust in any instance that I know of. Correct me if I am wrong.

But Jesus seems perfectly comfortable saying that that text means that mean should not even look on a woman to lust after her. So I think I am on pretty good ground here, at least on the principle of the matter (though I may be wrongly discerning the principle).

If you consider it legalism to practice sound exegesis, and to handle passages of Scripture with care not to insert my own preconceived notions into them then I will proudly say that I am a legalist.

I am all for practicing sound exegesis and am befuddled that you don't want to. Of course, you claim you do, but you are demonstrating otherwise.

If you read Matthew 5, you will see that the legalists were insisting that only what was contained in the actual naked words was binding. Jesus showed that the naked words had applications that should be drawn. And that's what you are doing.

But allowing Scripture to speak for itself without adding to it is not legalism.

I agree.

And Scripture certainly has harsh words for those who would add to or take away from God's word. Which is what you are attempting to do.

That's an utter lie. Listen, we can disagree on this issue without you accusing me of this. I have no desire to attempt to add to or take away from God's word, and you know that, brother. Come on. These kind of tactics are shameful. You should apologize and ask a moderator to remove this. If you want to debate, do it like a gentleman.

Let's get back on topic and stop talking about me. I am not the issue here.

LOL. Oh I read it alright. But since I may not have been clear allow me to do so. Yes the verse applies only to spoken words. That plain enough for you? No you cannot use this verse to correct someone's tone of voice. Is that plain enough?

Yes, that's plain. (No need to be a smart aleck about it. You are the one who failed to answer.)

Let me quote for you from Melick's volume on Colossians in the NAC: "This text emphasizes the method of answering more than the content. It calls for Christian graciousness and sensitivity to the person and situation" (325). Here's a Greek and NT scholar who says that this is not about the content, but the method of answering. I think we would be right in saying that the "content" is the words of the answer, and he is saying this is not about the content, the words.

Or about this from Doug Moo in the Pillar series: He admits the difficulty of the passage and says "we should view the significant clustering of words (the “syntagmatic” consideration) as the most important and conclude tentatively that Paul is exhorting Christians to exhibit in all their speech (whether casual conversation or overt gospel witness) a gracious and attractive tone" (330). Notice again how he says this is about tone.

So clearly, the idea I am suggesting is a common one (and the correct one I think). If I am reading into the text, then some very good exegetes are doing it (unless you want to claim that Melick and Moo aren't good exegetes. I had Moo for a doctoral class and I think his exegetical work was pretty sound).

Let me ask you this: Would you ever correct your children on their tone of voice? If so, on what verse would you base this correction?

 

[Pastor Larry]

You're absolutely right that Pastor Larry and those like him have abandoned sound exegesis to continue to "teach for doctrines the traditions of men".

So you are claiming that doing what Jesus did is abandoning sound exegesis? Of course you don't, but how do you avoid it? Jesus did not depend on your method of "sound exegesis." Paul didn't. Peter didn't. John didn't. So why do you?

I wish we could get them to see the terrible danger of this.

You would first have to show that I have done it. I agree that it is dangerous. I just preached on that for two weeks from Mark 7. So you don't have to convince me of the danger.

But what you should consider is the danger of ignoring teh teaching of Scripture for the doctrines of men. You see, you have yet to cite God that "all music is acceptable." You have only cited men (namely yourself) and you are teaching it as doctrine.

Here's what's interesting: I may be wrong, but I have at least appealed to Scripture. You have yet to cite one verse in support of your teaching. You have not appealed to what God said. Therefore you are, by definition, declaring the teachings of men and claiming it is God's doctrine.

Here's part of the fallacy: You seem to assume that anything not directly or "clearly" (I think that was your word) said by God is open game. That if God had any opinion about it, he would have said something about it. I don't think you can consistently hold that.

Here's another problem: You admit the usefulness of biblical principle about things that God has not "clearly" spoken to (such as marijuana). Yet you deny me the use of biblical principle about the same type of things. You can appeal to a text about drunkenness and apply it to marijuana, but I can't appeal to a text about communication and apply it to music. Isn't that a double standard? The only difference I can see is that one makes the argument you want to make and the other does not.

I asked above what God would have needed to say to convince you that certain types of music are wrong. You haven't answered that. I don't even know what your standard is. So what is it? Give us an idea of what you would be looking for in Scripture.

Prediction: Larry will flee the debate soon because we have just about totally undermined all of his flawed and few premises on which he built this house of cards he calls a position.

Actually, you haven't undermined anything. I think most who read this can see you aren't really addressing my arguments. You have ignored virtually all of my questions and instead focused on me.

I wrote quite a lengthy response to your last post, but did it quickly and want to take a bit more time with it. I want to be kind in spite of what you have said. I want to continue to be gracious and gentlemanly. I have no desire of turning this into a spitting match with you. I won't take that bait. I want it to be about issues. You started the thread on one topic and now you have virtually abandoned that to talk about another topic.

Along the way, I have asked numerous questions and brought up issues that you could address rather than addressing my supposed failings. I would love for you to go back and actually interact with the stuff I have said.

The problem is that this has been a horrible stewardship of time for me. I have wasted a ton of time since you have yet to interact with the questions as I have asked you to do. I am willing to learn from you. But you aren't teaching me anything except reminding me what I don't want to be like. You want to go after me personally, rather than talk about the issue itself. Just look back at how much of your recent comments have been about me and my supposed lack of "sound exegesis." I have no interest in talking about that. I am comfortable that I have a decent handle on exegesis and application though I am always working on it, and nothing you have said dissuades me from that.

I said a bunch of posts ago I was going to stop, and I should have. It is useless to try to have a discussion with people who don't want to discuss the issue. I have wasted a lot of time repeating myself. We haven't made any progress because you haven't addressed any issues. I think I have addressed every issue you have brought up, haven't I? I have tried to give an answer from my perspective. You haven't.

So I beg you again to go back and talk about the issues. Quit talking about me. I am not the issue here. Let's talk about music or talk about nothing.

I say again, I don't really care what music you like or use, or think is okay or think is wrong. It doesn't matter to me. I simply think there are some principles here that can be profitably interacted with.

 

[GBC Pastor]

The "truth" in this particular claim has to do with what I believe. So yes, I am quite confident that if the majority of people are wrong about what I believe, and you agree with them, you are also wrong about what I believe.

Actually I could care less what you believe. I have already stated that my response, and the response of others has been based on what you have written. What you have written has been littered with contradictory ideas and in my opinion is incorrect.

The fact that a million people say something does not mean it is right.

I would say at times this could be true. I just don't think this is one of them.

But Jesus seems perfectly comfortable saying that that text means that mean should not even look on a woman to lust after her. So I think I am on pretty good ground here, at least on the principle of the matter (though I may be wrongly discerning the principle).

Yes, if you were Jesus you would be on pretty good ground. Jesus certainly had the authority to take OT teaching and give new mandates from it, or even replace an OT teaching with a new one such as in Matthew 5:38-39. But I don't think you would argue that we have the right to take a biblical teaching and say, "Here is the new commandment to follow."

I am all for practicing sound exegesis and am befuddled that you don't want to. Of course, you claim you do, but you are demonstrating otherwise.

If you read Matthew 5, you will see that the legalists were insisting that only what was contained in the actual naked words was binding. Jesus showed that the naked words had applications that should be drawn. And that's what you are doing.

I'm sure that's what you see, but that is not what I see. I see Jesus establishing NT doctrine apart from the OT law.

Let's get back on topic and stop talking about me. I am not the issue here.

You have made yourself the issue here.

These kind of tactics are shameful. You should apologize and ask a moderator to remove this. If you want to debate, do it like a gentleman.

That's just laughable.

Or perhaps question the tone you use toward your wife?

LOL. Now who is hitting below the belt? You know good and well I referred to my thoughts in that thread in the past tense. Yet you apply it to the present.

So I beg you again to go back and talk about the issues.

You should practice what you preach brother.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have already stated that my response, and the response of others has been based on what you have written.

But you incorrectly interpreted what was written, because what you say I wrote is not what I intended to communicate, and I don't think it is found in my words as a whole.

What you have written has been littered with contradictory ideas

You have said this several times yet have failed to show any that I can recall. As I said earlier, I am willing to try to sort through any perceived contradictions and sort them out, but I don't know what you are referring to. So if you will cite them, I will try to clarify. I don't think I have been contradictory. I am quite sure I have been misunderstood.

Yes, if you were Jesus you would be on pretty good ground. Jesus certainly had the authority to take OT teaching and give new mandates from it, or even replace an OT teaching with a new one such as in Matthew 5:38-39. But I don't think you would argue that we have the right to take a biblical teaching and say, "Here is the new commandment to follow."

No, I wouldn't argue that at all. And I don't think Jesus was giving a new commandment. I think "lust" is built into the commandment even though it is not said.

I see Jesus establishing NT doctrine apart from the OT law.

Do you think it was okay to lust after another woman under the OT Law? If not, on what OT verse do you condemn lust?

I think that Jesus was actually giving the correct interpretation of the Law and saying what the legalists should have been saying all along. Remember, it's the Pharisees (the legalists) who wanted to limit the law to physical adultery rather than lust, to actually killing someone (rather than treating them with contempt), to loving your neighbors and hating your enemies rather than loving all people. I think Jesus was teaching what should have been taught all along.

You have made yourself the issue here.

No, I have said very little about myself except in self defense. I have tried to focus on ideas and views. You and Luke have lately focused on me.

That's just laughable.

Uh, no. You said something that was utterly untrue and you know it was untrue. It was a lie. It was shameful. You know good and well I am not trying to add to or take away from God's word. You should not have said I was. As much as you disagree with me, you can surely admit that I am trying to be faithful to what I think the Bible teaches. I am not attempting to add to it.

I don't mind a strong and intense conversation. I rather enjoy the exchange. I like a little fire. However, I do mind a charge like that that is manifestly untrue.

LOL. Now who is hitting below the belt? You know good and well I referred to my thoughts in that thread in the past tense. Yet you apply it to the present.

Honestly, brother, I had totally forgotten that conversation. In fact, when I read this, I was saying "What is he talking about???" It took me a minute to recall it. There was no intent there whatsoever to reference that conversation. I have gone back and edited my post to remove that question so as to remove any offense. That conversation was nowhere in my mind.

I don't carry this stuff around with me. I have a conversation and then it is over. After 21000 posts, not much sticks with me here. My question was a generic question.

But I still wonder what verse you use to correct a child's tone of voice or what verse you use to correct anyone's tone of voice.

You should practice what you preach brother.

I do try, however inadequate I may be. If you notice my posts, they are about the issue of music and communication with the exception of a few comments addressing methods of argumentation, or personal comments that were made towards me. I try to avoid personal comments and keep the focus on the issue. People only enter in when it is germane to the issue at hand.

I, even in this last post, asked you questions on the topic trying to get you to answer. I cited two people (first class exegetes) who make an argument about Col 4:6. You didn't respond. Why should we believe you over them? Help me understand.

I asked the same question I asked above, about voice tone. On what basis would you correct someone's voice tone? You didn't respond to that either.

 

[GBC Pastor]

I, even in this last post, asked you questions on the topic trying to get you to answer. I cited two people (first class exegetes) who make an argument about Col 4:6. You didn't respond. Why should we believe you over them? Help me understand.

I asked the same question I asked above, about voice tone. On what basis would you correct someone's voice tone? You didn't respond to that either.

At present I am not anywhere near my library or office. I will check the sources you mentioned, as well as others and respond in turn I assure you.

But you incorrectly interpreted what was written, because what you say I wrote is not what I intended to communicate, and I don't think it is found in my words as a whole.

There are others who I guess miss interpeted you as well. It is still odd to me that we came to the same interpretation of your writing though.

I don't mind a strong and intense conversation. I rather enjoy the exchange. I like a little fire. However, I do mind a charge like that that is manifestly untrue.

I'm sorry but when you attempt to defend a position on musical sound from a text that deals with verbal speech you are adding to. It's like a preacher I heard years ago who preached a sermon on tithing from John 3:16 because it included the words "He gave".

Honestly, brother, I had totally forgotten that conversation. In fact, when I read this, I was saying "What is he talking about???" It took me a minute to recall it. There was no intent there whatsoever to reference that conversation. I have gone back and edited my post to remove that question so as to remove any offense. That conversation was nowhere in my mind.

I don't carry this stuff around with me. I have a conversation and then it is over. After 21000 posts, not much sticks with me here. My question was a generic question.

That seems like a pretty big coincidence to me, but I'll take you at your word.

But I still wonder what verse you use to correct a child's tone of voice or what verse you use to correct anyone's tone of voice.

If I felt the need to defend my correction of my child's improper tone of voice towards me with Scripture I wouldn't have to go much further than "Honor thy father and thy mother." If I needed to define honor I'd probably use a dictionary.

Do you think it was okay to lust after another woman under the OT Law? If not, on what OT verse do you condemn lust?

I thought you just wanted to talk about music?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Luke, I think this is increasingly unprofitable because yet again you fail to address issues. You spend most of your time addressing me and what you think my problems are. You do a rather inadequate job of it, but nonetheless I am not the topic here.

No one here is saying or has said that ll music is appropriate at all times in all circumstances. You continue to assault straw men.

Talk about a straw man, I never claimed anyone here said that.

The point of this thread is that you cannot prove biblically that any type of music is sinful. You keep saying you have provided scripture but I have not found a single verse that you have provided in our exchanges.

Then you haven’t read. I specifically cited Matthew 5 early on. I have cited other passages by allusion and quotation, if not direct reference. Just like with our brother above, you are failing to thoughtfully read what is actually being said.

You introduced the term explicit misrepresenting my position and have done so ad nauseum ever since.

Funny, you never claimed it was a misrepresentation until now, did you? You didn’t use the term, but you certainly used the concept. It is the crux of your point. You will not allow the application of biblical principles that do not deal directly and explicitly with music. That’s your whole claim: God did not “clearly” (your word in the very first post) condemn any type of music.

Here’s yet another question: How would God have condemned a type of music in any meaningful way? The music under consideration here did not exist 2000-4000 years ago when the Bible was written, and there were not recording devices that would have recorded the kind of music God might have condemned them. So give us an idea of what God might have said that would convince you.

The point is that clear bible principles are applicable to contemporary problems. But you don't have one for your position.

Again, that’s just not true, Luke. The fact is that you don’t like the use of the principle, which is far different. I have principles and have given some. You just don’t agree with them. So not having them and disagree with them are two entirely different things.

Powerful argument

It wasn’t an argument. Perhaps this is the problem. You don’t know what an argument looks like. You confuse assertions (which you cite here as a argument) with arguments. An argument is a logical progression of propositions intending to lead to or defend a central proposition. An assertion is a statement such as “Clearly you are incorrect.”

All you've done to me is say, "Go and read my favorite literature on the matter. I don't agree with a lot of it but it's the best I've got to support this unbiblical position I am purporting."

Where did I say this? Can you link to it?

First, that’s not all I said. Second, I have never identified anything here as my favorite literature on the matter. Third, I never claimed to try to support an unbiblical position. Three major errors of misrepresentation in one paragraph.

Music with lyrics is a moral issue because the Bible has a lot to say about our words. Music without them is not a moral issue because the bible is silent on that subject even in principle.

That’s an assertion not an argument. First, it cannot be claimed that “music is not a moral issue because the Bible is silent on it.” The Bible is silent on a lot of modern things because they are modern. They would have made no sense back then. Second, the Bible does address the principles of communication and music. It also gives insight as to how to apply the Bible. Both of which are valid here. In addition, you are discounting the use of the intellect to understand the world around us. I don’t think God expects us to check our brains at the door.

I made it clear that was not an extensive bibliography with the phrase, "tons of other literature". And yet you said... oh, never mind...

I don’t know what “tons of other literature” means. The resources you gave are not good ones. That’s the point.

You don't even agree with it- why should I.

I am not asking you to agree with it. I said it was a good resource where you could find some suggested answers for your question. Some of the answers are good, and some are weak.

But the refusal to go and look at them and interact with them is a significant refusal. It shows that perhaps you don’t really want answers if they don’t come buttoned neatly in an easy to consume fashion. This argument is simply not an argument like that.

I have been preaching for 15 years and have devoted hundreds of hours studying the subject.

And you cite three or four rather weak sources?

I doubt that your pet site is will provide any thing new.

It’s not my pet site by any means, and based on what you have said here, it probably would provide much that is new. Your comments here don’t seem to show familiarity with the arguments there.

I am debating you

No, not really. In a debate, you would respond to my arguments and questions. Yet you have not really addressed any of the questions or arguments I have put forth. So far you have merely addressed what you think is wrong with my manner of argumentation, not with the argumentation itself. It would be like disputing a call at first base by disputing whether or not the umpire signaled “out” with the wrong hand.

 

[Pastor Larry]

SHOW ONE PLACE IN THE BIBLE THAT GOD CONDEMNS TONE OF VOICE.

He speaks of corrupt communication, of speaking with grace, of speaking the truth in love. All of those (as well as many others) provide insight not just into words but into manner of communication which certainly includes tone of voice. Again, you are looking for something explicit and it’s not there because there is no way really to describe a tone of voice. But we know it when we hear it and we know it does not communicate grace.

GOD HIMSELF RAISES HIS VOICE. Jesus Christ lambasted the Pharisees and others. God is ANGRY with the wicked every day.

Of course. I don’t think I suggested anything to the contrary. You are addressing a straw man, an argument that I never made.

For you to say that any emotion is sinful that God and Christ display

Can you document where I said this?

Anger is often appropriate so music that may carry and angry tone is often appropriate.

At times and in certain ways, yes.

Rage is even appropriate at times of war and judgment of child molesters and rapists and so on... hence stoning.

Not sure what the difference between anger and rage is in your usage here, but stoning is not about rage. It’s about justice. This is a bad argument you are suggesting.

But no emotion is in and of itself sinful.

Unrighteous anger is an emotion that is always sinful, in and of itself.

You don't know the Bible from Adam if think that it condemns any emotion outright. Every emotion that God gave us is appropriate at certain times in certain circumstances, Larry.

What about the emotions that God didn’t give us?

The only thing you have established is that you are very stubborn at misrepresenting my position.

Then show where, because that has certainly not been my intent. I will try to clarify anything and am willing to stand corrected if I have misrepresented you. That is not my intent. So please show me where.

You have been speaking ex cathedra with me using no Scripture and demanding that your word is law because you read a website that you don't even agree with to a large degree.

Again, fundamentally dishonest on at least two counts: (1) I have used Scripture and (2) I have not demanded that my word is law. Why can you not even tell the truth about what I actually am saying?

I'm glad that you recognize this. Now how do you leap from this to declaring that any music is sinful?

On what basis do you think I leapt from that to declaring music sinful? If you look back, I didn’t make that argument at all. The point of Matthew 5 is to show that for Jesus “clear” condemnation was not necessary. There were things “built in” to revelation from God that were obligatory deductions that only the legalists refused to acknowledge.

The point is that there is a clear illustration that we do not need God to condemn something outright in order for it to be wrong. You are not using Scripture the way that Jesus did.

I am saying that you don't have authority to condemn what God has not.

I am glad you agree with me. But I wonder why the long posts acting like you are disagreeing with me?

Our disagreement is about whether or not God has said anything that applies to music. I think he has. You do not. I think you are not interacting with the cultural and biblical connections. Instead you are spending a bunch of time accusing me of stuff I am not doing, and that is off topic and distracting from the thread. I don’t find that helpful.

That is reproving you for making yourself a pope.

Except I didn’t do that. Again, if you would have read closely, you would see that I clearly said I don’t really care what people listen to or use. The pope doesn’t say stuff like that. Feel free to satisfy your conscience. But endeavor to have your conscience trained by the Scriptures. That is my goal. It should be the goal for all of us.

If you came out and said, "The color red is sinful. I read a website that I don't fully agree with that said so and I am convinced. There can be no denying that red has a powerful effect on the emotions and God did say some things about what you look at in the Bible so that means that "red" is sinful."

But the problem is that that is not remotely like anything I have said. It is pure misrepresentation.

Replace the word "red" with "music" and that summarizes our discussion quite well.

Sigh … That’s the point: You can’t replace “red” with “music” because they are two different types of entities. It would be similar to claiming you can replace “steak” with “logic.” They are two completely different entities, different types of things.

Luke, I have tried to be gracious to you and your position. I have clearly stated mine on numerous occasions and given some reasons for it from Scripture. I have tried to clearly and kindly interacted with just about everything that you (or others) have said. I have clearly said that it doesn’t bother me if people answer the questions differently than I do. I have asked some clear questions about the issue that you have refused to answer. I have been patient and tolerant, though in this post I have been a bit more forceful in response to some very poor attempts at making some points that really don’t have to do with the point and in fact make some false representations about my position.

So here’s what I would like (I can’t enforce it obviously, and you haven’t shown any willingness to engage in discussion about the actual issue, but I can try): Go back to my initial posts where I asked a series of questions and give us some answers to those. Help us understand how you parse the idea of music and meaning. Those questions had to do with the idea that music communicates, something we don’t even need revelation for.

And answer this one: How would God have condemned a type of music in any meaningful way? The music under consideration here did not exist 2000-4000 years ago when the Bible was written, and there were not recording devices that would have recorded the kind of music God might have condemned them. So give us an idea of what God might have said that would convince you.

I genuinely want to hear answers to questions and discuss actual issues.

 

[Don]

So here’s what I would like (I can’t enforce it obviously, and you haven’t shown any willingness to engage in discussion about the actual issue, but I can try): Go back to my initial posts where I asked a series of questions and give us some answers to those. Help us understand how you parse the idea of music and meaning. Those questions had to do with the idea that music communicates, something we don’t even need revelation for.

I genuinely want to hear answers to questions and discuss actual issues.

Larry, I re-read all of your posts for the first 5 pages. Sorry, but I'm not finding the series of questions you're referring to. You asked lots of questions, but digging all of them out of the posts, and then determining which ones you're referring to, is a task for which I don't have the time or inclination.

May I request that, in either this thread or a new one, you re-post the questions you would like answers to?

 

[Mexdeaf]

I guess since Deaf people cannot hear music in the traditional sense then all music must be moral to them.

I'm glad I'm deaf!

 

[Pastor Larry]

At present I am not anywhere near my library or office. I will check the sources you mentioned, as well as others and respond in turn I assure you.

I will look forward to it.

I'm sorry but when you attempt to defend a position on musical sound from a text that deals with verbal speech you are adding to.

I am not adding to Scripture. I am saying I think that Scripture is talking about communication as a whole, not just the choice of words. And I think I am in pretty good company (with Moo and Melick, and probably some others if I took time to look).

I think the passage is not just talking about "verbal speech," but about communication. And I think it doesn't just deal with words, but with tone. Music is tone. It is a method of communication.

That seems like a pretty big coincidence to me, but I'll take you at your word.

Trust me, that conversation was far out of my mind. I wouldn't do that here. If you think I remember conversations with people long after the fact, you are giving my memory way too much credit.

If I felt the need to defend my correction of my child's improper tone of voice towards me with Scripture I wouldn't have to go much further than "Honor thy father and thy mother." If I needed to define honor I'd probably use a dictionary.

So when a child wants a verse on it, you don't have to give him one? If a child says, "Can you show me where God says that?" you don't have to answer? What if the child says, "My higher authority is God, and if you can't show me where God said that tone of voice was wrong, then you can't say it's wrong." (And remember what Luke said, "if you substitute "music" for "tone of voice" you have the exact same argument that is being offered here.)

Do you just say, "I said it and that's good enough?" I think honor and respect is important, but on what basis you do you say that a certain tone of voice is disrespectful? How do you establish that? God gave us no criteria at all for establishing a disrespectful tone of voice, did he?

Again, the point I am making is that we all accept that Scripture gives principles about communication, and "tone of voice" is very similar to "music" in that both deal with non-verbal arrangement of sounds that communicates something.

I thought you just wanted to talk about music?

Yes, music and the application of Scripture. That issue deals how we can understand and apply the text, and from that to establish a basis on which we might take one statement of Scripture and apply to something.

 

[Pastor Larry]

May I request that, in either this thread or a new one, you re-post the questions you would like answers to?

Fair enough, Don. Let me try to do that. Some of the questions or requests for interaction will change form here because they are not part of the original conversation. Some of these are more issues for discussion than strict "yes" or "no" answers. I have tried to assemble them in some sort of connected fashion even though the same basic questions were asked at different times


Here goes:



What does it mean to be worldly? And how does that express itself in culture? Worldliness is the expression of fallen values in culture. How are fallen values expressed in the culture around us? How were the fallen values expressed in the 50s and 60s? 70s and 80s? etc? How are fallen values expressed through dress? How are fallen values expressed in art, music, etc?

Why is it hard to imagine the cultural revelation of the 60s taking place to the music of Bach’s organ concertos?

Why did the music of the 60s and the culture of the 60s rise up together?

Why is the 60s culture so closely associated with a particular style of music? They had plenty of music at their disposal to use, and they had unlimited ability to create styles of music. But they created and popularized a particular style that is similar enough to be considered a particular recognizable slice or genre. The recent PBS special on Jim Harrison and the Doors had me thinking about this again. I think it deserves some thought. The culture did not arise out of Bach's organ music or Handel's orchestral compositions. Are we really to believe that the connection between the style of music and the counterculture was merely coincidental? They didn't think so. To them, that music expressed their values.



Imagine these situations with 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.
3. A nightclub in which the Moonlight Sonata is being played.


Why are these three scenarios so laughably absurd?

Why is "Stars and Stripes Forever" in a horror movie is a laughable proposition, just like "We Are the Champions" are a bridal procession, or Pachelbel's "Canon in D" at a championship celebration?

My guess is that there is no way to change Canon in D to make it appropriate for a championship celebration, and there is no way to change "Stars and Stripes Forever" to make work in a horror scene.

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 does movie music work?



Why are certain types of music associated with ungodly dancing while other types of music are impossible to associate with ungodly dancing?



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?



Do you think God condemns tone of voice, such as one that treats others with disrespect? Dyou think God’s teaching about communicating with grace and love include non verbal communication? Do you think God’s teaching on communication clearly condemns a tone of defiance out of children?

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? 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?

Would you ever correct your children on their tone of voice? If so, on what verse would you base this correction?



In response to the idea that things are sinful only because of intent, I ask: Are you saying it is impossible to sin if we mean well? That the standard of righteousness is intent or desire?



Do you think it was okay to lust after another woman under the OT Law? If not, on what OT verse do you condemn lust?



How would God have condemned a type of music in any meaningful way? The music under consideration here did not exist 2000-4000 years ago when the Bible was written, and there were not recording devices that would have recorded the kind of music God might have condemned them. So give us an idea of what God might have said that would convince you.

 

[Luke2427]

So you are claiming that doing what Jesus did is abandoning sound exegesis? Of course you don't, but how do you avoid it? Jesus did not depend on your method of "sound exegesis." Paul didn't. Peter didn't. John didn't. So why do you?

Because they were SPEAKING the Word of God not exegeting it.

My name sake gives us the model we should follow- Luke 24:27.

You would first have to show that I have done it. I agree that it is dangerous. I just preached on that for two weeks from Mark 7. So you don't have to convince me of the danger.

You have yet to provide Scripture in our exchanges that have anything to do with your position. You are doing it now.

But what you should consider is the danger of ignoring teh teaching of Scripture for the doctrines of men. You see, you have yet to cite God that "all music is acceptable." You have only cited men (namely yourself) and you are teaching it as doctrine.

I am not ignoring it. It is not there. Not in precept, not in principle. You made it up (or at least somebody made it up and you have swallowed it hook like and sinker).

Here's what's interesting: I may be wrong, but I have at least appealed to Scripture. You have yet to cite one verse in support of your teaching. You have not appealed to what God said. Therefore you are, by definition, declaring the teachings of men and claiming it is God's doctrine.

Go back and read the illustration I gave about the color red. I argued very clearly that no one has to defend the position that things are not wrong that God never said are wrong.

You might say "electricity is worldliness and therefore it is sin and we should become Amish". But since that is poor exegesis I will come along and say- "that is utterly preposterous. The Bible, rightly divided, does not teach that anywhere. Therefore you should ignore what Pastor Larry says on that matter since he is not speaking for God on what displeases God."

Now I don't have to have Bible that says something is right (electricity, the color red, musical instruments in church, brushing my teeth, etc...). All I have to do is say to you- If you don't have Bible to condemn it then you ought to keep silent. If you don't then you are taking on the role of a pope.

Here's part of the fallacy: You seem to assume that anything not directly or "clearly" (I think that was your word) said by God is open game. That if God had any opinion about it, he would have said something about it. I don't think you can consistently hold that.

THIS IS WHAT MAKES YOUR PHILOSOPHY DEADLY TO THE KINGDOM LARRY. THIS RIGHT HERE.

PRAY TELL, WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO SILENCE? IF GOD DID NOT SPEAK ON THE MATTER, WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? DO YOU GET TO SPEAK FOR GOD WHERE HE HAS NOT SPOKEN?

NO! A THOUSAND TIMES, NO! YOU DO NOT GET TO CONDEMN ANYTHING THAT GOD HAS NOT CONDEMNED!

When you do you make yourself a pope, cause confusion in the body of Christ, undermine the sufficiency of Scripture, erase the great doctrine of Sola Scriptura, send your church into the dark ages of Catholicism, and do untold damage to the cause of Christ.

This is not a personal attack. It is an attack on this deadly philosophy that you and many like you have enacted.

Here's another problem: You admit the usefulness of biblical principle about things that God has not "clearly" spoken to (such as marijuana). Yet you deny me the use of biblical principle about the same type of things. You can appeal to a text about drunkenness and apply it to marijuana, but I can't appeal to a text about communication and apply it to music. Isn't that a double standard? The only difference I can see is that one makes the argument you want to make and the other does not.

I kind of wish you would appeal to a text. That would really be a relief. The text is clear on inebriating addictive substances. You don't have a text that is clear on the negative effects of certain types of musical sounds. No, not one. Zip, zero, zilch. Yet, you preach it anyway. This is a horrible danger.

I asked above what God would have needed to say to convince you that certain types of music are wrong. You haven't answered that. I don't even know what your standard is. So what is it? Give us an idea of what you would be looking for in Scripture.

He would need to say at least one word in the vast library of 66 infallible books of inspired literature of caution for the negative effects of music on the mind, heart, soul or whatever, of man. More than one word would actually be needed, but you can't provide that much.

Actually, you haven't undermined anything. I think most who read this can see you aren't really addressing my arguments. You have ignored virtually all of my questions and instead focused on me.

I doubt it.

I wrote quite a lengthy response to your last post, but did it quickly and want to take a bit more time with it. I want to be kind in spite of what you have said. I want to continue to be gracious and gentlemanly. I have no desire of turning this into a spitting match with you. I won't take that bait. I want it to be about issues. You started the thread on one topic and now you have virtually abandoned that to talk about another topic.

I'm attacking your philosophy, not you. Don't be so sensitive. This is what occurs in a debate.

I said a bunch of posts ago I was going to stop, and I should have. It is useless to try to have a discussion with people who don't want to discuss the issue.

We are. I have no earthly idea why you cannot see it.

 

[Luke2427]

Fair enough, Don. Let me try to do that. Some of the questions or requests for interaction will change form here because they are not part of the original conversation. Some of these are more issues for discussion than strict "yes" or "no" answers. I have tried to assemble them in some sort of connected fashion even though the same basic questions were asked at different times

Here goes:

What does it mean to be worldly? And how does that express itself in culture? Worldliness is the expression of fallen values in culture. How are fallen values expressed in the culture around us? How were the fallen values expressed in the 50s and 60s? 70s and 80s? etc? How are fallen values expressed through dress? How are fallen values expressed in art, music, etc?

The world is a system of rebels against God. Rebellion against God is worldly.

Whether it is in the financial realm, the physical realm, etc... whatever is in disobedience to God is worldly. This is why the world hated Christ and hates us also. This is why the world shall perish because every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father.

The world is a system at odds with God. They are at odds because they break his laws and ignore his will expressed clearly in his Word.

As to the 60's and 70's remarks you made- worldliness has demonstarted itself the same way since there was a fallen, rebellious world- rebellion against God.

God says, "Don't"... men do.

That's worldliness. We are to hate that system.

Why is it hard to imagine the cultural revelation of the 60s taking place to the music of Bach’s organ concertos?

Because Bach was antiquated and music changes with time.

Why did the music of the 60s and the culture of the 60s rise up together?

Because they existed at the same time. That's pretty simple.

Why did the early colonial music and the American Revolution rise at the same time? Because they existed at the same time.

To push that any further is non sequitur.

Are we really to believe that the connection between the style of music and the counterculture was merely coincidental? They didn't think so. To them, that music expressed their values.

Music expresses feelings. No one on earth denies that. But no feeling is evil. How one responds to his feelings can be good or evil. What one's philosophy is that brings about his feelings can be good and evil. But no feeling is in and of itself evil. This is what your whole house of cards is built on.

I know because about seven years ago I use the exact same reasoning you are using in an online debate just like we are having. I talked about horror movie music and music that ignites passion, etc... just like you are doing.

But when it occurred to me that no emotion is condemned in the Word of God, that in fact, every one of them is commended at certain times- then I had to reconsider my position.

But the main thing that caused me to mature on this matter was this: that if God cared about it he would have said so. He didn't expect us all to be psychologists. Since he didn't say anything about it, even in principle, then it must not have been a bid deal to God.

Imagine these situations with 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.
3. A nightclub in which the Moonlight Sonata is being played.


Why are these three scenarios so laughably absurd?

Why is "Stars and Stripes Forever" in a horror movie is a laughable proposition, just like "We Are the Champions" are a bridal procession, or Pachelbel's "Canon in D" at a championship celebration?

My guess is that there is no way to change Canon in D to make it appropriate for a championship celebration, and there is no way to change "Stars and Stripes Forever" to make work in a horror scene.

They are laughable. That's why you think we are not addressing your arguments. We agree. This only proves that music moves us which NNE denies.

Do you think God condemns tone of voice, such as one that treats others with disrespect? Dyou think God’s teaching about communicating with grace and love include non verbal communication? Do you think God’s teaching on communication clearly condemns a tone of defiance out of children?

No. He doesn't. There is a time to "lift up your voice like a trumpet and show my people their sins."

Therefore there can be plenty of times that music to match that tone is perfectly acceptable. Is it appropriate during the Lord's Supper? Doubtful. But is it appropriate during a Ninevah type service where a nation is commanded to repent or perish? Certainly.

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? Why is it that people instinctively know when a tone of voice or body language contradicts the words that are spoken?

Addressed above.

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?

For the same reason that Luke knows that ice melts in the sun even though the Bible may not say it does.
Luke is not arguing that all knowledge is restricted to the Bible.

He is arguing that the only authority we have to preach morality is the Bible.


Argue against that at your own peril.

Do you think it was okay to lust after another woman under the OT Law? If not, on what OT verse do you condemn lust?

No more than it was ok to have several wives like Israel's greatest king did. A lot of things fall into the category "In times past God winked at this ignorance but now commandeth all me every where to repent." Acts 17:30

How would God have condemned a type of music in any meaningful way? The music under consideration here did not exist 2000-4000 years ago when the Bible was written, and there were not recording devices that would have recorded the kind of music God might have condemned them. So give us an idea of what God might have said that would convince you.

He could said, "Music that tends to make one sin should be avoided." The reason he did not say this must have been because it is not so; nor was it so in Bible times when they had a plethora of music styles available to them.

The Bible does nothing but encourage music. Often loud music. God would have had no trouble saying, "The music of the Babylonians, Philistines and Edomites is iniquity. Therefore, my people should not perform music that sounds like that of pagan kingdoms."

He could have said that, and then we would know to do some serious research on the matter and be careful to play only those styles of music that please Him. But he never even HINTED that there was any kind of music then or that would ever arise that would displease him. He didn't hint at it in 66 vast books- not once.

Therefore, you don't get to.

 

[rbell]

Imagine these situations with 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.
3. A nightclub in which the Moonlight Sonata is being played.


Why are these three scenarios so laughably absurd?

Why is "Stars and Stripes Forever" in a horror movie is a laughable proposition, just like "We Are the Champions" are a bridal procession, or Pachelbel's "Canon in D" at a championship celebration?

Not sure about that...

Two examples:

1. The line "those are the losers" could be played during the processional, as the poor sap that has to pay for the wedding (usually father of the bride) enters...


2. A line in "We Are the Champions" says,

"And we'll keep on fighting, 'till the end."

Sounds like some marriages I know.

 

[Don]

Too much, Larry. I tried to respond, but got the error that I had used too many characters. Thus, I'm breaking these up into separate posts

What does it mean to be worldly? And how does that express itself in culture? Worldliness is the expression of fallen values in culture. How are fallen values expressed in the culture around us? How were the fallen values expressed in the 50s and 60s? 70s and 80s? etc? How are fallen values expressed through dress? How are fallen values expressed in art, music, etc?

What particular values are you talking about having fallen? Specifically, what scriptural values “fell”?

Are you talking about the 1350's? 1450's? 1850's? Or specifically referencing the twentieth century? And why just start with the 50's? Swing/Big Band started around the 1930’s; wasn’t that considered a “worldly” genre, and guilty of “fallen values”? Please clarify what exactly the particular time frames you’ve chosen have to do with the argument; or, alternatively, address the historical influence through the ages, since each age of music has been accused of the same thing: detracting from morality and value systems.

Why is it hard to imagine the cultural revelation of the 60s taking place to the music of Bach’s organ concertos?

I assume you mean “revolution” instead of “revelation.” Bach didn’t go away; nor did Beethoven, or Vivaldi, or any of the rest of the classical music. For that matter, I still listen to Big Band once in a while. So what exactly do you mean by this question?

Why did the music of the 60s and the culture of the 60s rise up together?

Are you talking about the sub-culture? Because during the 1360’s (or did you mean the 1960’s?), you stil had the primary culture of the region in place, while many sub-cultures existed in various forms. For that matter, we still have that today.

Why is the 60s culture so closely associated with a particular style of music? They had plenty of music at their disposal to use, and they had unlimited ability to create styles of music. But they created and popularized a particular style that is similar enough to be considered a particular recognizable slice or genre.

Well, the 1460’s had the re-birth of classical learning, and a gradual change from feudalism to the modern state; as well as a change in people’s views about the earth and the universe. Thus, renaissance music was born.

The recent PBS special on Jim Harrison and the Doors had me thinking about this again. I think it deserves some thought. The culture did not arise out of Bach's organ music or Handel's orchestral compositions. Are we really to believe that the connection between the style of music and the counterculture was merely coincidental? They didn't think so. To them, that music expressed their values.

Oops. My bad. You were talking about the 1960’s.

Again, the “sub-culture.”

 

[Don]

Imagine these situations with 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.

Do-able. In fact, it actually seems fitting, if you understand what I mean.

2. A championship game in which Pachelbel's "Canon in D" is played as the final buzzer sounds and the winning team jubilantly celebrates.

Just as I previously mentioned about singing “Amazing Grace” while running – speed up the tempo, add some woofer effects, and that cheesy electronic piano effect they do while playing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”….

3. A nightclub in which the Moonlight Sonata is being played.

Been there. Done that.

Oh, wait; you mean a nightclub where they normally play a different type of music?

Why are these three scenarios so laughably absurd?

Dude, people get married wearing “Star Wars” outfits. One man’s “laughably absurd” is another man’s “style.”

Why is "Stars and Stripes Forever" in a horror movie is a laughable proposition, just like "We Are the Champions" are a bridal procession, or Pachelbel's "Canon in D" at a championship celebration?

Actually, it’s not. I could gin up a composition based on “Stars and Stripes Forever” which, played at the correct time of the movie, would disturb you to no end…which is the point of a horror movie, isn’t it? Just look at what Jimmy Hendricks did with the National Anthem.

My guess is that there is no way to change Canon in D to make it appropriate for a championship celebration, and there is no way to change "Stars and Stripes Forever" to make work in a horror scene.

You lack imagination and creativity.

Why didn't the LA Lakers fill the arena with Pachelbel's Canon in D when the Lakers won the NBA championship?

Lack of culture?

 

[Don]

Why is it that mothers instinctively know what kind of lullabies to sing to their children (not words, but style of music)?

Not just mothers; “music soothes the savage beast.”

Why does movie music work?

Timing.

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

YES.

Can you imagine a futbol team in Africa getting pumped up for a game listening to a lullaby?

Have you not listened to the national anthems of other countries? Yikes, how some of those put me to sleep…but their athletes have grown up being told that such music represents their country, and should give them pride as they represent their country, so while it puts me to sleep, it hypes them up. Go figure.

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.

Not necessarily. How much time have you spent overseas in other countries?

I would imagine that the sound of a lullaby is going to be sleep inducing or sleep encouraging across cultures. It isn't cultural.

Well, um, yes it is, actually.

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.

Define “very few.” Because there are literally millions in America who turn on the radio to rock music as they and their families go to sleep each night. Millions of American kids go to sleep listening to rap, hip hop, and death metal. So this statement is effectively nullified, and no longer valid to this discussion.