Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

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….

“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….

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.

Already answered.

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

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.

 

Good job 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.

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.

 

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.

 

"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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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.