What is music?

DHK · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
If you have read the posts, and see how people agree with Marsha Stevens music, then you see how they align themselves (by their association) with homosexuality, and that is sin. I am not afraid to call sin for what it is, even if others do not like it. It is not a false accusation. It is what the Bible teaches.

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that I associate myself with the sins of anyone who sings if I enjoy their song.
[/QUOTE]Sure it makes sense if you think about it.
If you are the music director of a church, in charge of choosing those who will be bringing any special music. Will you choose those who have a good testimony before the Lord, dress modestly, etc., or those whose lifestyle is questionable, may have caused a scandal because of it, and you may be afraid will wear tight fitting jeans or even a miniskirt? Talents aside, who will you choose in your church to represent the music that will glorify Christ and lead up to the message of the preacher?
DHK

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />In our church hymnal on page 263 is a song titled "For Those Tears I Died" by Marsha Stevens. Our song leader got up as is his pattern and instructed the congregation to turn to it and sing. I interrupted and explained that we would not be singing that song because the author is and has been a practicing lesbian. Our song leader had genuinely forgotten the conversation we had had some time previously indicating that we should not sing that song. Actually there are three good reasons NOT to sing the song. First, it is theologically unsound. Second, Ms. Stevens was called by Christian Century "The Mother of Contemporary Christian Music." And last, but not least, she is a committed lesbian. In this brief report I will deal only with the "lesbian" issue.

Marsha Stevens "came out of the closet" a number of years back and is proud to be a Lesbian,

http://logosresourcepages.org/OurTimes/stevens.htm

I, like others, didn't always know that "For Those Tears I Died" was written by a Lesbian, so yes, I listened and even sang it. But like this church testifies, when I found out, I immediately stopped and have never heard the song since. I have seen the lyrics in order to discuss them. But I don't listen to the song, or sing it.

My attitude would be the same toward:
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson (supposing)
and said rapper

All for the same reasons. [/QUOTE]My argument of course is based on the assumption that the words are Scripturally and theologically sound. The point here is that your only objection so far has been to the lifestyle of Marsha Stevens. Not to the music itself. I understand that you would view listening to or singing her music as an endorsement of her lifestyle, but this again has nothing to do with her music.

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by Daniel:

Oh come on, it's staying relatively civil.

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
If you have read the posts, and see how people agree with Marsha Stevens music, then you see how they align themselves (by their association) with homosexuality, and that is sin. I am not afraid to call sin for what it is, even if others do not like it. It is not a false accusation. It is what the Bible teaches.

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that I associate myself with the sins of anyone who sings if I enjoy their song.
[/QUOTE]Sure it makes sense if you think about it.
If you are the music director of a church, in charge of choosing those who will be bringing any special music. Will you choose those who have a good testimony before the Lord, dress modestly, etc., or those whose lifestyle is questionable, may have caused a scandal because of it, and you may be afraid will wear tight fitting jeans or even a miniskirt? Talents aside, who will you choose in your church to represent the music that will glorify Christ and lead up to the message of the preacher?
DHK [/QUOTE]Yet again, all of these considerations have nothing to do with music. If one refuses to listen to the music of a homosexual, he is doing so because of the lifestyle of the artist, not because the music itself must necessarily condone evil.

DHK · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
My argument of course is based on the assumption that the words are Scripturally and theologically sound. The point here is that your only objection so far has been to the lifestyle of Marsha Stevens. Not to the music itself. I understand that you would view listening to or singing her music as an endorsement of her lifestyle, but this again has nothing to do with her music.

Your right!
If the Lord God Jehovah, in the OT, commanded all such (lesbians etc.) to be stoned to death, and be put out of the camp forever, Imagine what he would do with their music!

Aaron · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Daniel:

Oh come on, it's staying relatively civil. [/QUOTE]Ditto Travelsong.

Aaron · Sep 13, 2005

Well anyway, I think it's a safe assumption to say that we all have different ideas about the morality of music because few of us are really agreed upon what it is.

Travelsong can't define it, so he can't make moral judgments about it.

Daniel defined it pretty well, but left it open to all kinds of perversion and "innovation."

Helen thinks it's a noble feeling. (Which isn't that far off.)

And others think it's anything one wants it to be, which in effect is saying music doesn't really exist.

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:

Travelsong can't define it, so he can't make moral judgments about it.

I can define it. I personally consider anything with rhythm and melody to be music.

I simply said that I don't see the point in defining music in terms of arguing it's morality.The reason is simple.Any medium which one uses to communicate is nothing more than an abstract.The medium is not the actual thought, feeling, desire or intent being communicated. In this sense music is exactly like any other form of language.

DHK · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
My argument of course is based on the assumption that the words are Scripturally and theologically sound. The point here is that your only objection so far has been to the lifestyle of Marsha Stevens. Not to the music itself. I understand that you would view listening to or singing her music as an endorsement of her lifestyle, but this again has nothing to do with her music.

Your right!
If the Lord God Jehovah, in the OT, commanded all such (lesbians etc.) to be stoned to death, and be put out of the camp forever, Imagine what he would do with their music!

[/QUOTE]Let me make some clarifications here.
All of the songs of Marsha Stevens are not theologically sound; in fact most are not.
There is more than one reason why I would not listen to her. The quote that I posted listed three.

As to Elvis Presley he did sing some songs like "Amazing Grace." Of course, I can't find much wrong with the song; so it is primarily the association that is wrong. And almost anyone can recognize that voice.

As to rap music we go down a completely different road. The song IMO, wasn't even a Christian song, or worthy to be called one. There were many on that thread that agreed with me (such as El Guero). It was an imitiation of an ungodly secular group's song that sang about someone's butt and sex. Is that Godly? No! Its association, not only with the group, but with the style of music, with the former song it imitated, with the message it assciated itself with, with the "language" of the music itself, all are to be taken into consideration in that subject. That one is a lot more complicated.
The same would go for Michael Jackson.
DHK

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
My argument of course is based on the assumption that the words are Scripturally and theologically sound. The point here is that your only objection so far has been to the lifestyle of Marsha Stevens. Not to the music itself. I understand that you would view listening to or singing her music as an endorsement of her lifestyle, but this again has nothing to do with her music.

Your right!
If the Lord God Jehovah, in the OT, commanded all such (lesbians etc.) to be stoned to death, and be put out of the camp forever, Imagine what he would do with their music!

[/QUOTE]Let me make some clarifications here.
All of the songs of Marsha Stevens are not theologically sound; in fact most are not.
There is more than one reason why I would not listen to her. The quote that I posted listed three.

As to Elvis Presley he did sing some songs like "Amazing Grace." Of course, I can't find much wrong with the song; so it is primarily the association that is wrong. And almost anyone can recognize that voice.

As to rap music we go down a completely different road. The song IMO, wasn't even a Christian song, or worthy to be called one. There were many on that thread that agreed with me (such as El Guero). It was an imitiation of an ungodly secular group's song that sang about someone's butt and sex. Is that Godly? No! Its association, not only with the group, but with the style of music, with the former song it imitated, with the message it assciated itself with, with the "language" of the music itself, all are to be taken into consideration in that subject. That one is a lot more complicated.
The same would go for Michael Jackson.
DHK [/QUOTE]If you note my response in that thread was exactly the same. I don't think the music itself is actually sinful-that is to say that I don't believe soundwaves have the ability to be sinful, but the message was completely meaningless, and the use of a vulgar song is in poor taste.

DHK · Sep 13, 2005

Assuming then we agree with those parts of the music that made it vulgar, then let's consider these questions:

Are some styles of music moral, And
Are some styles of music immoral, Or
Is all music amoral?

Depending upon your answers to the above questions,
what styles of music would you accept in the worship service of your church? If all music is amoral, then would rap and punk rock be acceptable?
DHK

webdog · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
The phrase "unequally yoked" is one of those phrases that the meaning is totally manipulated. Yoked, is figurative speech, implying going down the same path or being coupled with. Jesus tells us to be "yoked" to Him in Matthew 11, and He will give us rest. That being said, unequally yoked only applies when you are spiritually coupled with someone (going down the same path). I do not see how this applies to friendships, business, and especially listening to CCM, a CCM lesbian artist, or some secular music. I will take it a step further and say it only applies to marriage, as the man and wife "become one flesh". Listening to CCM or secular music has about as much to do with being unequally yoked as two men liking the sport of football. Nada.

I understand your argument especially because I listen to a lot of secular music but I don't think I could ever bring myself to support a homosexual who professes Christ. [/QUOTE]Supporting a homosexual who professes Christ, and listening to a song they wrote either prior, or after announcing their homosexuality is different. As you have stated, listening to Elvis Presley sing gospel is not wrong regardless of his lifestyle.

DHK · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by webdog:
Supporting a homosexual who professes Christ, and listening to a song they wrote either prior, or after announcing their homosexuality is different. As you have stated, listening to Elvis Presley sing gospel is not wrong regardless of his lifestyle.

That is only an opinion. Can you support it with Scripture?

webdog · Sep 13, 2005

I disagree with you. I just spent over three months preaching through the sixth chapter of 2Corinthians, exegeting every verse. I think I know what it means. The verses are very clear. A yoke is a harness made out of wood. Many third world countries still use them today. They harness together two animals such as two oxen in order to pull a plow or even a cart behind them. An unequal yoke would be akin to harnessing together a mule and an ox together. It wouldn't work. It would be disaster for the mule, and a great hardship on the ox. So it is when an unsaved businessman hooks up with a saved businessman; a Christian makes close acquaintes with unbelievers as friends, and of course marriage with unbeleivers. There are many applications to this truth, not just one. It specifically applies to religious truth

I know what a yoke is.

Yoke (1.) Fitted on the neck of oxen for the purpose of binding to them the traces by which they might draw the plough, etc. (Num. 19:2; Deut. 21:3). It was a curved piece of wood called _'ol_. (2.) In Jer. 27:2; 28:10, 12 the word in the Authorized Version rendered "yoke" is _motah_, which properly means a "staff," or as in the Revised Version, "bar." These words in the Hebrew are both used figuratively of severe bondage, or affliction, or subjection (Lev. 26:13; 1 Kings 12:4; Isa. 47:6; Lam. 1:14; 3:27). In the New Testament the word "yoke" is also used to denote servitude (Matt. 11:29, 30; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1). (3.) In 1 Sam. 11:7, 1 Kings 19:21, Job 1:3 the word thus translated is _tzemed_, which signifies a pair, two oxen yoked or coupled together, and hence in 1 Sam. 14:14 it represents as much land as a yoke of oxen could plough in a day, like the Latin _jugum_. In Isa. 5:10 this word in the plural is translated "acres." Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary.
Notice this...

In the New Testament the word "yoke" is also used to denote servitude (Matt. 11:29, 30; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1). (3.) In 1 Sam. 11:7, 1 Kings 19:21, Job 1:3 the word thus translated is _tzemed_, which signifies a pair

Servitude is the basis of "unequally yoked". We as believers are not to serve the same one as our unsaved partner. This has nothing to do with business, but it does have to do with marriage. If unequally yoked pertained to human relationships, anybody that has a family member who is not a believer is already unequally yoked by your false definition. Once you figure this out, you will know that it does not pertain to CCM, secular music or any material thing.

webdog · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Supporting a homosexual who professes Christ, and listening to a song they wrote either prior, or after announcing their homosexuality is different. As you have stated, listening to Elvis Presley sing gospel is not wrong regardless of his lifestyle.

That is only an opinion. Can you support it with Scripture? [/QUOTE]You initially implied it is, the burden of proof is on you.

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
Assuming then we agree with those parts of the music that made it vulgar, then let's consider these questions:

Are some styles of music moral, And
Are some styles of music immoral, Or
Is all music amoral?

Depending upon your answers to the above questions,
what styles of music would you accept in the worship service of your church? If all music is amoral, then would rap and punk rock be acceptable?
DHK

All music is amoral. The question is not "What formula must I follow to create righteous sounds?" but "What style of music is appropriate and conducive to what I intend to communicate?"

Rap and punk rock are not acceptable forms of worship because their character does not lend itself to God honoring worship and contemplation.That being said I don't discount the use of rap or punk to communicate other sentiments in an appropriate manner.

Travelsong · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by webdog:
Supporting a homosexual who professes Christ, and listening to a song they wrote either prior, or after announcing their homosexuality is different.

Couldn't agree with you more. The two really have nothing to do with eachother.

Originally posted by webdog:
As you have stated, listening to Elvis Presley sing gospel is not wrong regardless of his lifestyle.

Agreed, yet I still would find it difficult to financially support a homosexual who professes Christ. I would certainly have a hard time telling others that I enjoy the music of Marsha Stevens, not because i think the music itself must necessarily be evil, but because my endorsement of her music could be seen as an endorsement of her lifestyle.

webdog · Sep 13, 2005

Rap and punk rock are not acceptable forms of worship because their character does not lend itself to God honoring worship and contemplation.

I don't think we are the ones to judge someone's heart as to how they worship. Rap and punk rock are sounds, style of music, and can be used just as much as soft, classical or the country sounding hymns we sing.

DHK · Sep 13, 2005

Originally posted by webdog:
Servitude is the basis of "unequally yoked". We as believers are not to serve the same one as our unsaved partner. This has nothing to do with business, but it does have to do with marriage. If unequally yoked pertained to human relationships, anybody that has a family member who is not a believer is already unequally yoked by your false definition. Once you figure this out, you will know that it does not pertain to CCM, secular music or any material thing.

There is not one hint of marriage here. That is simply one application of the interpretation that he is addressing to the whole church. What fellowship do the righteous have with the unrighteous does not just apply to married couples, and you cannot get that out of this passage. It is speaking of all associations that we make with unbelievers. That is why there is such an emphasis on the yoke, using a wide variety of illustrations to illustrate the point of being unequally yoked. Look at the illustrations about being unequally yoked. They are not necessarily directed to marriage, in fact none of them are a direct reference to marriage. They are all a reference to a general association with unbelievers. Who do you associate yourself with? Who do you make an alliances with. I have a friend who went into business with an ungodly unsaved man. It didn't take long for him to realize that this man expected him to "cook" the books, be dishonest in the day to day operations, and was unethical in many of his practices. It was wrong for him to be in business with an unbeliever, and he quickly found that out--the hard way. He will never do it again. I have seen many unsaved friends pull teenagers down into the gutter of immorality and ungodliness such that their parents now mourn. It is sad that people make the wrong alliances and go contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible.
DHK

webdog · Sep 13, 2005

Agreed, yet I still would find it difficult to financially support a homosexual who professes Christ.

I agree to an extent. We don't know the lifestyles of all those professing to be believers who sing CCM. The same thing with secular music, athletes (sport jersey's), and the list can go on and on. The same can even be said with pastors who teach a false doctrine.

What is music?

<b>Moderator</b>

Travelsong

Guest

Travelsong

Guest

Travelsong

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

Member

Member

Travelsong

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

Travelsong

Guest

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

Active Member

Travelsong

Guest

Travelsong

Guest

Active Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member