Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Don]

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

Define “ungodly dancing.” David danced in such a way that his wife rebuked him for it, basically told him it was unfit for a king to be dancing in such a way. He then told her it was for God, and that she basically needed to shut up.

If we use no other scripture, that principle alone might end this discussion….

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?

“American” pop music? Most of those countries are playing British pop music. And have been expanding with their own versions of pop music for decades. I knew I should have brought home a couple of those CDS of the Afghanistan pop stars….

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

Ephesians 4:29 – corrupt communication
Proverbs 15:1 – a soft answer versus harsh words

But Psalm 144:11 shows us that soft answers and non-corrupt communications may not be acceptable, either.

I’m disregarding the rest of this line of questioning, because those who speak vanity do so gently and usually without corruption; but their motivation is entirely different.

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?

Already answered.

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?

Wow, did I ever miss this one, and cannot for the life of me see the correlation with the topic of discusson.

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.

So we’re only talking about one particular genre of music? As this turns back to the first question, I reiterate my need for clarification. There were people in the 1400’s who absolutely did not like the turn from Middle Ages music to Renaissance, and complained about how it was eroding away at values. The same around 1600 with the change to Baroque music. And again around 1750 with the advent of Classical, and again in the early 1800’s with the rise of Romantic music.

In other words, the argument against particular genres of music (or, to put it another way, constructions of sounds), is an historical one, that has been played out over and over for the last 2,000 years.


So let's try this in a different way: You originally said certain construction of sounds could be construed as ungodly (I think I encapsulated your premise; if not, please feel free to correct me). One could interpret your statement to mean that certain genres or styles of music could be considered ungodly. If true, let's pick one particular genre, and examine why it specifically should be identified as not glorifying to God.


If not true, then we need more clarification on your statement about construction of musical sounds, and what your participation in this discussion is trying to accomplish.

 

[J.D.]

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.

Good job Pastor Larry.

 

[Don]

Are we done?

 

[Luke2427]

Are we done?

Since Pastor Larry has retreated, he being the only one to defend the idea that certain genres of music are sinful, I suppose so.

Note I predicted that he would bow out soon. His house of cards fell due to them being constructed on some very shaky premises.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Are we done?

No, I will respond. Thanks for your interaction, Don.

As I mentioned, I have a number of things going on that make it unwise for me to devote a lot of time to this, so I have had to get through the weekend here. Hopefully first of the week I will be able to respond.

Since Pastor Larry has retreated, he being the only one to defend the idea that certain genres of music are sinful, I suppose so.

What makes you think I retreated, Luke? This is the haphazard way in which you have responded throughout the thread. You make assumptions and assertions, not arguments. I haven't retreated at all. As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I have an actual life and things to do.

Note I predicted that he would bow out soon.

Like many of your statements here, this one too has proven to be false.

His house of cards fell due to them being constructed on some very shaky premises.

I have actually already written a response to your attempt at an answer. Your comments were fairly superficial so it wasn't hard. You hardly answered or interacted with the ideas presented, which has been your MO throughout this thread. You have made a lot of comments, but very few serious attempts at argumentation. However, I want to take some extra time so I don't come across as overly harsh and flippant.

Your whole position boils down to "God didn't say otherwise." I, and many others, do not find that to be a serious argument for a number of reasons, not the least of which is assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. We take God and Scripture way too seriously for that. So I will post my response later.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I will respond. Thanks for your interaction, Don.

As I mentioned, I have a number of things going on that make it unwise for me to devote a lot of time to this, so I have had to get through the weekend here. Hopefully first of the week I will be able to respond.

What makes you think I retreated, Luke? This is the haphazard way in which you have responded throughout the thread. You make assumptions and assertions, not arguments. I haven't retreated at all. As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I have an actual life and things to do.

Like many of your statements here, this one too has proven to be false.

I have actually already written a response to your attempt at an answer. Your comments were fairly superficial so it wasn't hard. You hardly answered or interacted with the ideas presented, which has been your MO throughout this thread. You have made a lot of comments, but very few serious attempts at argumentation. However, I want to take some extra time so I don't come across as overly harsh and flippant.

Your whole position boils down to "God didn't say otherwise." I, and many others, do not find that to be a serious argument for a number of reasons, not the least of which is assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. We take God and Scripture way too seriously for that. So I will post my response later.

First of all, I am glad that you have not yet retreated. The more noble and courageous thing to do, of course, would be to admit defeat rather than to run away.

I appreciate your stewardship issues and find that to be a very legitimate cause for taking a break. I can relate.

When you are able to get back please address the alternative to being silent where God is silent. If you take Scripture seriously then you honor it by not speaking for it where it has not spoken. You trust in its sufficiency on all matters.

The "God didn't say otherwise" comment I think DOES represent my position and most others who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and hold Sola Scriptura in high regard.

Someone says to me, "Is the color red sinful?"

I say, "No. If it were God would have told us so in his word."

He might say," But it has been proven that the color red has a powerful effect on the emotions and many use it as the color of Satan."

I say, "I don't care. God did not condemn it so neither can I."

They say, "Then the color red is ok?"

I say, "God didn't say otherwise. If he didn't who else can? I certainly am not that presumptuous!"


Now you say, "Certain types of music are sinful."

I say, "The Bible doesn't say that."

You say, "Yes it does because it talks about communication."

I say, "The leap between the bible addressing communication and music being sinful is a giant eisegetical leap."

Then you talk about the lullabies and the culture of the 60's and "We are the Champions" at a wedding which prove nothing. The 60's issue I dealt with clearly in a previous post. The others, I grant you, though others do not, prove that music affects people emotionally. It can be calming and it can be rousing. But that is all it proves because calmness nor alertness is sinful. Neither is love, anger, sympathy or passion or any emotion by itself.

Then when you can't make sense to ANYONE on this thread how it is anything less than eisegesis you take the position that you can condemn what God has not by accusing me of believing in a "God didn't say otherwise" philosophy which is just another way of saying I believe in Sola Scriptura. Therefore you identify that you do not have a firm conviction in that doctrine.

This makes you a pope.

Now, if you like, you can keep regurgitating this ridiculous notion that none of us are addressing any of your arguments- but that does not change the fact that we have been doing just that consistently. You must not be thoroughly reading our posts.

I took time to answer every single one of your questions several posts ago. I summarized your arguments in this post.

Now it is your turn.

Prove this connection between the Bible talking about communication and certain types of music being sinful.

Tell me why I can't apply the same logic you are using to condemn certain genres of music to condemn the color red.

It affects the emotions. It is often associated with blood and Satan. It has a psychological affect on many people. Many retailers use it's affects to help sale their merchandise.

If you can preach against Christian Rock why can't I preach against Christians wearing the color red? What is the real substantive difference?

 

[Aaron]

Does music have moral qualities without lyrics?

Are some musical sounds evil? If so which ones, and how do you make the determination?

Are some musical sounds holy? If so which ones, and how do you make the determination?

This is not a question of appropriateness.

This is not a question of whether or not music has the ability to create mood and move one emotionally.

This is a question of whether or not certain types of music are sinful and others godly.

Is the Bible silent on the issue? If not, where does the Bible clearly speak to the issue?

Not even going to attempt to peruse the 100+ posts. I'm certain Pastor Larry has effectively debunked most of the common myths propogated by the "music is neutral" rabble.

Just to the O.P. The issue begins to clear up once it's understood that music is not a thing. It is a behavior.

 

[Don]

Not even going to attempt to peruse the 100+ posts. I'm certain Pastor Larry has effectively debunked most of the common myths propogated by the "music is neutral" rabble.

"Debunked"? Hardly.

Feel free to start with the last couple of posts, where we attempt to address Larry's questions.

Just to the O.P. The issue begins to clear up once it's understood that music is not a thing. It is a behavior.

You're going to have to explain that concept. Are you talking from the listener's viewpoint, the composer's viewpoint, or some generalized viewpoint?

 

[Luke2427]

"Debunked"? Hardly.

Feel free to start with the last couple of posts, where we attempt to address Larry's questions.


You're going to have to explain that concept. Are you talking from the listener's viewpoint, the composer's viewpoint, or some generalized viewpoint?

No, Brother don. Apparently these people don't have to support their views. They can just state them matter of factly and then boast that they have won without making any point whatsoever.

Music is behavior???????

It must be- ...cause he said so.

 

[Aaron]

You're going to have to explain that concept.

It's very simple. Music is not an object. It's an act of communication. It is made to be listened to, and it's ultimate meaning is the intended effect on the listener.

 

[Aaron]

No, Brother don. Apparently these people don't have to support their views.

All I need to do is direct you to your own motivations. The reason you prefer a certain style is because of the effect it has on you—it's appeal.

 

[Luke2427]

It's very simple. Music is not an object. It's an act of communication. It is made to be listened to, and it's ultimate meaning is the intended effect on the listener.

So what????????????

 

[Aaron]

So, that's the meaning in music. A certain style is designed to have a certain appeal, and that appeal is either spiritual or carnal.

 

[Don]

Pardon me for splitting hairs - but music itself is not a behavior. Behavior is an action or reaction. Music in and of itself does not act or react.

Music can cause behaviors; i.e., can cause actions and reactions. That has never been in question. But there are multiple factors that influence how we behave upon hearing certain musical styles. Larry has alluded to that, with his example of using the rock group Queen's "We Are the Champions" at a wedding.

The problem with Larry's premise is that it doesn't take into account cultural, or even familial, influences. As I pointed out in a response, we have Americans getting dressed up in Star Wars costumes for weddings; why is it so hard to believe that some nutjob somewhere thinks "We Are the Champions" would make a good wedding march?

 

[Luke2427]

So, that's the meaning in music. A certain style is designed to have a certain appeal, and that appeal is either spiritual or carnal.

Says who? You? Support this notion that any music is carnal or spiritual. Support it with Bible since it is the Bible alone from whence we derive this authority to declare things moral and immoral, righteous or unrighteous, carnal or spiritual.

 

[Don]

So, that's the meaning in music. A certain style is designed to have a certain appeal, and that appeal is either spiritual or carnal.

So now, how do we decide what's spiritual and what's carnal?

As I pointed out to Larry in another response, David leaped for joy in the Lord; and was rebuked by his wife for exhibiting behavior unseemly for a king. In other words, it could have been seen as carnal. But David told her to basically shut up, he did it for the Lord.

So how do we split the line between carnal and spiritual?

 

[Luke2427]

Pardon me for splitting hairs - but music itself is not a behavior. Behavior is an action or reaction. Music in and of itself does not act or react.

Music can cause behaviors; i.e., can cause actions and reactions. That has never been in question. But there are multiple factors that influence how we behave upon hearing certain musical styles. Larry has alluded to that, with his example of using the rock group Queen's "We Are the Champions" at a wedding.

The problem with Larry's premise is that it doesn't take into account cultural, or even familial, influences. As I pointed out in a response, we have Americans getting dressed up in Star Wars costumes for weddings; why is it so hard to believe that some nutjob somewhere thinks "We Are the Champions" would make a good wedding march?

And furthermore, how is it a sin?

 

[Aaron]

Music in and of itself does not act or react.

It is an act. Music is an act of communication. It is a form of human behavior. It is thought.

 

[Aaron]

Says who? You? Support this notion that any music is carnal or spiritual. Support it with Bible since it is the Bible alone from whence we derive this authority to declare things moral and immoral, righteous or unrighteous, carnal or spiritual.

You're not paying attention. I already said that music is designed to have a certain appeal, and you already conceded that the reason you prefer a certain style is because of its appeal.

I said that the appeal was either spiritual or carnal. The Bible has quite a bit to say about the desires of the heart and the proper decorum of human interaction.

 

[Luke2427]

It <i>is</i> an act. Music is an act of communication. It is a form of human behavior. It is thought.

OK. Color is communication. It is a form of behavior. It is thought. Red is bad. Blue is good.

Why? Because I say so.

Do I have Bible for these ideas? BIBLE?!! WHO NEEDS BIBLE!? I speak it therefore it is.