"If we reject a form of music out of hand because it is not the form of music we prefer, then we are trying to kick against the variegated world that the triune God created"
Doug Wilson is so smart. I hope I can be like him one day. Satan, the world, and the flesh can't corrupt anything. Everything is made by the triune God that is therefore without flaw or defect in every way.
This is truly a marvel that a person can be so smart like this. He has thought through everything and those who disagree apparently haven't. I want to be that smart one day. Take art. God is the one who created beauty. The woman was created beautiful for man. I am glad that the beauty of the woman cannot be corrupted or exploited by Satan, the world, and the flesh.
Wow. Doug Wilson is so smart.
gracious? No that's not it. Christ-like? No, still looking for the word...
I would think he might add "association" to his list though I think conservatives take that one too far. And I am not sure about his #2. But the general premise is a very valid one.
Jeff, sorry you were offended. Your judgmental attitude isn't very gracious or Christlike by your standards though either.
In all my 42 years, I have never been in a worship service quite like what I experienced at Christ's Church in Moscow, Idaho.
And Douglas Wilson is pretty smart.
So is his son, Nate. Funny, too.
And Doug's dad - well, he is the humble pioneer of Christianity up North. Still is. He just loves Jesus and wants everyone to know the Savior.
All three are leaders in the worship of the King in Idaho.
James K, speaking for myself, I don't mind your attitude a bit since I don't agree with you and you make your side look bad. But if I did agree with you, I would not want you representing me, lol. 
:) 
(just trying to balance out a blunt remark with some smilies)
The gist of the article...
1. Music is amoral.
2. As long as it isn't badly done, at the wrong time, or really, really bad.
Then it must be OK.
Let's ignore the musical content for the time being and ask about the words of the songs he was listening to. Do any of them glorify any sort of sin? Or are we just supposed to ignore that? I can't say that I know all the songs. I'm over 50 and therefore am an official old fogey about this. However, it is folly to just say I don't really care what I listen to as long as it isn't real bad. Isn't saying all musc is God's music like saying all truth is God's truth? Are we just supposed to accept that?
This is not surprising to read from Wilson. The circular logic he uses is quite charateristic of his approach toward theological considerations and satisfies many of those who are comforted by this form of dogmatism. He is IMO, a Neo-Reformed version of Jack Hyles.
a Neo-Reformed version of Jack Hyles?
He was specifically addressing the music and not lyrics.
Can those of you who disagree point out the flaws in his reasoning rather than resorting to personal attacks?
I thought this was a good post, particularly point 3.
For example, generally speaking, I much prefer classical music to jazz. But when I'm reading, I find that I can't concentrate with my favorite classical pieces playing. They draw me in and leave me unable to focus on my books.
So when reading I prefer something like jazz or traditional Chinese or Miao folk musics that meander around a bit and don't seem so narrative-driven as classical; something pleasant, but that doesn't demand my exclusive attention for enjoyment.
I don't think he argues music is amoral. He cites the compositions of Cage and Schoenberg (whose music rarely had words) as declaring rebellion against God.
I do think he over simplifies the mass production/distribution of pop (Yes, classical is available through many of the same mass outlets, but that distribution system has yet to impact the way art music is created to the same extent that pop has been impacted.) and leapfrogs, without sufficient basis, to the notion that pop is non-problematic.
I am glad that he seems to imply though that some genres are not sufficient for communicating what may be needed during certain functions. Like, say, expressing praise to the King of Heaven.
By the way, the quote grabbed at the top of this posting cuts both ways. In fact, music leaders who omit Gregorian chant, sacred art songs, and traditional hymnody might be the primary group implicated by it.
At least the folks who come right out and state that traditional hymnody, classical music etc. are examples of the redeeming influence of Christianity on culture are being honest. Theologically suspect, sure, but at least honest. The New Testament does not lay out guidelines or instructions for music and worship. Because of this, notions of what constitutes things that are reverent, orderly and propriety are determined by the culture. So, whenever conflict over these issues arise, it really does come down to "my culture is better than yours" and contriving theological reasons why this is the case.
Take classical music for example: back then it was the popular music of the day. Many of the leading composers were feted in much the same manner as rock stars are now, lived scandalous lives, and only did religious-themed works because the times required it, not out of any sense of personal belief or devotion. And of the composers that were pious, most of them were papists, and their works very much reflect Romanist theology and worldview. Yet that is what gets upheld as reverent these days merely because of its antiquity, and because it isn't being played on MTV. If that is not judging things by the external standards of men, then what is? Honestly, the KJV-Only position makes more historical and theological sense.
As far as the hymnody goes, how "traditional" is it actually? In nearly all cases, the "tradition" doesn't extend further back than Charles Wesley, and further a great many of these "traditional" hymns are less than 100 years old. And in addition to the musical genre not reflecting anything that might have actually been sung in the early church, a great many of the "traditional" hymns were written by people that were extremely suspect theologically. Isaac Watts, for example, http://www.tlogical.net/bioiwatts.htm denied the Holy Trinity .
On one hand, it could be said that my position flies in the face of fundamentalism. But on the other, the true fundamentalist position on worship is that of the Reformers: hymns (and with a very strict definition of what actually constitutes a hymn, mind you ... nearly all of the entries in the "traditional hymnody" would not qualify) sung without musical accompaniment. While it can certainly be said that their position was a reaction to their revulsion of the decadent, self-indulgent man-centered excesses of papist music and worship of the era, at least their position was theological. There were no references to anything other than hymns and doxologies being sung by believers in the New Testament text, there were also no reference to music or musicians, so they took the position that the things pertaining to worship that were present in the Old Testament but were not mentioned in the New Testament were of the Old Testament religion that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. While one is certainly free to disagree with their position, the point is that their position is a lot more defensible theologically than claiming that the same Roman Catholic music that the Reformers found as garishly repulsive as Lady Gaga in their era should be considered God-honoring and reverent music by Protestants today.
Either take the position of the Reformers, or acknowledge that there are other forms of reverent, orderly and proper worship beyond traditions established by British and American churches 200 years ago. (I don't go further than that is because the first and second great awakenings DID transform Protestant worship; a fact that fundamentalist and other traditionalist attitudes toward worship conveniently overlooks). There is no other theologically - or even historically - honest alternative.
I have to replace my driveway. The choices are asphalt, gravel or concrete. Me thinks that all choices are either moral or immoral.
What think ye?
Good point here.
Incidentally, I think one of the greatest benefits the internet has brought to the music industry is the possibility for artists with vision to bypass traditional record companies and market music directly (or with a little assistance) to the public. I've been buying mostly independent and church-created music for some time now. It's great stuff that probably never would have been available to me had the musicians been forced to go through commercial channels; their work would likely have been rejected for not fitting the niche market of the moment.
Wrong. You have listed only some practical, moral choices. Other choices include shattered glass, 24K gold, a rubber composite made from stolen tires, and the crushed bones of murdered neighbor children. Culture, conscience, and purpose have narrowed your choices.
Or, to paraphrase an adaptation of a certain Crichton novel, just because one can does not mean one should.
;^)
Jack Hyles...
The enlightened Fundamentalist's Adolf Hitler
Jack was a flawed servant of Christ whose form of theology and circullar self- justifying thinking brought injury to many and we should rightly learn from his mistakes (and successes as they might be found) and identify them in other Teachers as they arise. But I would certainly avoid compariosons to Hitler, Satan's device. Besides Hitler quoted Luther.
Why are a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ even bothering to argue over such a petty issue? I mean, hey, it's not like arguing this will advance the cause of Christ at all or anything like that. Or, hey, maybe in a bunch of posts like this we can solve a 30 year problem that (don't tell anyone about this) EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ABOUT. What if, for once, there was actually unity in the church? We can't have that could we? So why can't a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ just read Bro. Wilson's article and either 1)say something nice and go on or 2) keep their opinions to themselves?
By the way, Bro. Wilson, good article
And since when is something above interaction and critique? As a cessationist, I would say that era ended about AD 95. Since then, all things written by men are at least potentially flawed and are deserving of something better than "something nice" or "keep their opinions to themselves."
But the point is that you didn't feel compelled to read the article and "either 1)say something nice and go on or 2) keep their opinions to themselves?" You felt compelled speak against the views of others. So why are they not able to do the same?
On this day in history, I second Larry's comments. I feel compelled to play the lottery.
The BJU thread looked like it was winding down. What will we all have to talk about now?
A music thread! Wonder who ever thought of that. It's not been done before, has it? Who knew it would get a lot of comments?
For what it's worth, I (being one of the more conservative guys around here when it comes to music) agree 100% with the statement quoted in the title of this thread. If we reject music simply because we don't prefer it, we have every right to do that, but we're missing something.
What I utterly reject is Wilson's implication -- that preference is the only reason for rejecting some of the rubbish he apparently thinks is fine. Someone so smart as he is probably knows better (he's really, really smart, I hear -- James said so, and when James grows up he'll probably be just as smart as Doug ). Wilson knows that some people object to some music over more than just "preference." He may not agree with their reasons (that's his right to disagree), but he knows it is more than preference. Thus, this is a very disappointing approach to the topic.
Now, someone will say to me (because they always do), "Oh? What reason is there besides preference?" And so to forestall that and to prevent having to rehash stuff over again if anyone really wants to know, I present for your amusement two posts from old SI. Some will agree, some will disagree -- probably most of the current SIers will disagree. But if you read especially the last post (it builds on the first, but you can get the point without the first if you feel lazy), and still say it is only preference, then you are either lying or calling me a liar. And since I'm not lying and you don't want to lie either, we can then discard the whole "preference" discussion for all time, right? Because for some people (actually quite a few of them) it is a lot more than preference.
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3649& ]Are the Quotes Accurate (This one refers to a comment by Pastor Mike Harding. The link in it is broken -- his original comment is http://20.sharperiron.org/showpost.php?p=54355&postcount=35 ]here ).
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3677& ]Since the Quotes are Accurate
Hmm. I guess there HAVE been music threads on SI before! And they got lots of comments back then, too!
According to most interpretations of Godwin's Law, you lost the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
The enlightened Fundamentalist's Adolf Hitler
Sounds to me when he says: "Comparing Mozart to Vince Gill is like comparing your lawn mower to your dishwasher and asking which one is better. Better at what?" that he at least hints at a different vetting of sacred/spiritual expressions.
Rob,
FWIW I was not trying to compare Hyles to Hitler. Or Hitler to anyone. I was trying contextualize Godwin's law to a place such as SI where many would have a disdain for Hyles similar-though obviously lesser- to the disdain the general population has toward Hitler.
It was an apparently feeble attempt to identify an ad hominem argument.
So I guess I still lost.
By the way, Bro. Wilson, good article
(Assuming you are one of the adults serving Christ - only assuming) Did you post this on Wilson's website too, or only here? I mean, since his opinion was the first one stated in this conversation.
As i understand it, Godwin's Law has many corollaries depending on the topic under discussion. In our case, saying someone is comparable to the late Mr. Hyles would fit.
FWIW I was not trying to compare Hyles to Hitler. Or Hitler to anyone. I was trying contextualize Godwin's law to a place such as SI where many would have a disdain for Hyles similar-though obviously lesser- to the disdain the general population has toward Hitler.
It was an apparently feeble attempt to identify an ad hominem argument.
So I guess I still lost.
If you win, will you split the proceeds with Larry or the site since we motivated you to play?
I was kind of tired and in a hurry when I posted before, so I apologize if the post came off as "short".
Is it accurate to say that Wilson is trying to:
1. Judge "secular" or "pop" music;
2. Speak of "genres" of music;
and make a comparison to say that they not really different or "wrong"?
That was all I was trying to point out, and what his criteria was.
The point for me is the following:
1. We can't really divorce the music from the words, thus to me it is kind of a false dichotomy. How can I compare different works that glorify sin and give them degrees of right or wrong? I understand the author is saying "divorce the words from the music", but I don't really think you can. The words are part of the composer's "original intent", should we be so quick to dismiss it?
2. While I can have a respect for the artist's creativity and technical skill, and even understand the message that they are conveying and be able to "sanitize" it and "filter" it and reject the wrong values of the words, and the wrong feelings and emotions it may create in me, is it really helping me? Does it help me with the things I should think about (Phil. 4:8)? How does it help me?
We only have so much time in this world, and if we want to make it count for God, we can do better. It's not that I haven't heard secular music, in fact, if we're being honest, we can't help but hear it because it is ubiquitous in some environments. The question is, do I need to hear more of it? is it helpful for me? Wilson may be arguing "all things are lawful", but I guess I would argue that "not all things are expedient". What I know of what Wilson gave as examples of listening would not be something I would put on to study to. I might put on Mozart. My teenage sons have been known to concentrate better doing homework and listening to the 1812 Overture!
Music is the sole art that God allowed to be used in His worship. In the OT, He gave a lot of instruction about how it was to be done. I don't think I have the right to "do" music any way I want (even if I had the skill to do it!).
1. We can't really divorce the music from the words, thus to me it is kind of a false dichotomy. How can I compare different works that glorify sin and give them degrees of right or wrong? I understand the author is saying "divorce the words from the music", but I don't really think you can. The words are part of the composer's "original intent", should we be so quick to dismiss it?
Well, when it comes to listening, which is really the intent of Wilson's post, I would generally agree with your point here. However, when it comes to analyzing the music itself, then I would argue the words *have* to be divorced from the music. Of course, we are often really doing one, when we claim to be doing the other.
If you are trying to judge the author's intent, I would agree that intent is one valid data point, and should not be tossed out without consideration. However, if we are actually attempting to judge the music itself properly, it would be just as interesting to talk about how well (or poorly), or for that matter, if, the music actually accomplishes what the author intended, or if it only furthers the intent to the extent that it has come to be associated with it by long use.
So, from my point of view, I think Wilson mostly ignored the most interesting/usable point about judging music -- how we associate it. Whenever anyone is attempting to judge music, and can't give exact points about what is wrong with the notes, chords, melodies, harmonies, rhythms, etc., but says "I need to hear it," then they are not judging on the intrinsic good/evil attributes of the music (if indeed such attributes exist), but judging it associatively. I would argue that's how everyone except musicologists judge any music, and even from them, I've never heard any solid evidence that would lead me to believe such elements are truly knowable, even if they do exist. (And yes, I understand that music, like anything else, is affected by the fall and the curse, but the Bible makes it clear it is our hearts and what they imagine that are wicked, not elements of the physical world, like sounds.)
So if we get back to association (which I think goes along well with your second point):
2. While I can have a respect for the artist's creativity and technical skill, and even understand the message that they are conveying and be able to "sanitize" it and "filter" it and reject the wrong values of the words, and the wrong feelings and emotions it may create in me, is it really helping me? Does it help me with the things I should think about (Phil. 4:8)? How does it help me?
We only have so much time in this world, and if we want to make it count for God, we can do better.
For me, this is where the rubber meets the road. Apart from whether the music is intrinsically good or evil, which better than 99% of us are not equipped to judge (and I'm not sure about the others), why would we really want to use music that is too closely associated to the world/world system? Further, association is something that most mature Christians can easily judge, or at a minimum, it will get much easier as one grows in discernment. A big part (maybe the main meaning) of holiness is to be "set apart." Why wouldn't we want a clear delineation between our music and what the world chooses to use, especially in sacred, but even in secular settings? As long as we associate it with something wrong, it's going to set our thinking on those things, rather than what is of "good report," regardless of the quality of the music itself.
Music has to be evaluated based on melody, harmony, time signitures, composition, arrangement, performance style, performance skill, cultural expression, text, appropriateness, and association. It's complex! Musical evaluation necessitates skill in music theory, music history, cultural understanding, poetical refinement, and "theology". It would be nice to simply boil down all musical choices to three simplistic rubrics, but I think that is just wishful thinking.
Sometimes we use "culture" as a synonym for the worldliness of a particular "aiwn" (age). Othertimes we simply mean a people-group's "shared understanding made manifest in act and artifact" (Carson, "Christ and Culture", p. 2) or culture that is apart from and/or opposed to Christ (Carson, p. 12). There is danger in adopting a relativistic view of culture or simply allowing our expressions to be completely determined by our current culture. Since cultures are a mixed bag of good and evil, all cultural expressions have to be examined according to the Scriptures (Phil 4:8). On account of human depravity sin has affected cultural expressions to various degrees. What man does with God's creation is not morally neutral. It can be good or bad on an incremental level. In common grace God both restrains human depravity and enables cultural good. Furthermore, the gospel has affected some societies more than others leaving a cultural footprint behind.