On Bible Interpretation, Evidence, and Music
Image
2 Timothy 3:16 reveals that all of Scripture is God-inspired and instructive. Taken with Romans 15:4, similar verses, and examples of NT use of OT passages, some have concluded that even incidental narrative details are potential sources of doctrine.
Since OT narrative details reference everything from clothing to cooking, tools, weapons, vehicles (carts, chariots), and so much more, there are, of course, references to music. There are even references to specific instruments, moods, and uses of music.
I want to offer a few thoughts here for two audiences. The first is those who claim the hermeneutic (interpretive approach) that takes every narrative detail as a potential source of doctrine. The second audience is those who have participated in conversations, debates, or quarrels on the topic of “what the Bible teaches about music” and sensed that there was some kind of disconnect regarding how to use Scripture to address features of present-day culture.
Maybe something here can help a few understand each other a little bit better on these topics and more accurately identify points of agreement and disagreement.
Narrative and Evidence
I’ve written about proper use of narrative before, with a focus on why we should avoid “spiritualizing” elements of narrative—whether OT or NT. Many of the same problems afflict efforts to extract doctrine from narrative details.
Here, we’ll focus on the role of evidence in Bible interpretation, especially narrative.
It should be a given that since we’re talking about God’s Word, and teaching we are going to claim is “biblical,” any interpretation we take of any passage of Scripture—narrative or not—needs to be justified by evidence and reasoning. Saying “God meant this when He said that” is a weighty claim! It needs to be justified.
In other words, whenever we claim, “This information in this text has this meaning for us,” we should be expected to prove it. The “proof” may be informal, as it usually is in preaching. Still, we should expect listeners to want reasons. Our beliefs and assertions should be warranted, and we should help others see why they are warranted.
Narrative is no exception to this duty—any more than poetry, prophecy, or epistles.
Classifying Evidence
Some years ago, I wrote about casting lots as a thought experiment on handling biblical evidence. A lot of readers wanted to debate the validity of casting lots—but my intent was to stir curiosity: Why don’t churches or individual believers generally make decisions that way today?
There’s a reason we don’t. It has to do with evidence.
I’m going to talk about three qualities of evidence, two types of evidence, then five sub-types.
First, three qualities:
- Consistent with
- Supportive
- Conclusive
Say a building burned down, and we discover that Wolfgang was at the location when the fire started. His presence there is consistent with the claim that he started the fire, but it doesn’t support that conclusion at all. This is more obvious if lots of other people were there, too.
But suppose we also learn that Wolfgang had publicly said he wished that building would burn. He also bought lots of flammable liquids earlier that day. That still doesn’t prove he did it, but it is supportive. Though inconclusive, it is evidential for the claim that Wolfgang started the fire.
Now suppose Wolfgang was the only person there at the right time to have started the fire. Suppose the building was recently inspected and found to have no faulty wiring. There were no electrical storms that day, either.
We are now probably “beyond reasonable doubt” about Wolfgang’s guilt. The evidence is conclusive in the sense that it warrants a high-confidence conclusion.
On to the two types:
- Internal evidence
- External evidence
In reference to the Bible, internal evidence is anything within the 66 books of the Bible. External evidence is everything from human experience, human nature, and the whole created world outside the Bible.
Simple enough. On to the five sub-types. These are types of internal evidence. We could choose almost any topic, then classify every (or nearly every) biblical reference to it as one of these types. I’ll use music for this example:
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, but no contextual indications of quality or exemplary intent.
What do I mean by “exemplary intent”? Sometimes we read that person A did B, and the context encourages us to believe we’re seeing an example of good or bad conduct. For example, we read that Daniel prayed “as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). The context encourages us to see Daniel’s choices as both good (“contextual indications of quality”) and something to imitate in an appropriate way (“exemplary intent”).
Evidence and Certainty
Why bother to classify evidence? Because classifying the information (evidence/potential evidence) guides us in evaluating how well it works as justification for a claim. In turn, that shapes how certain we can be that our understanding is correct and how certain we can encourage others to be.
Looking at the five types of internal evidence above, the evidential weight and certainty decrease as we get further down the list. By the time we get to type 5, we may not have evidence at all—in reference to our topic or claim. Depending on the size of the claim, there might be information that is consistent with a claim, but not really anything supportive, much less conclusive.
As we move up the list of types, relevance to the topic becomes far more direct, and interpretive possibilities are greatly reduced. Certainty increases because there are fewer options.
There is no Bible verse that tells us this. It’s a function of what is there in the text vs. what is not there. We know there is a difference between an apostle saying, “Do this for this reason” and an individual in an OT history doing something, with no explanation of why it’s in the text. The relationship of these realities to appropriate levels of certainty follows out of necessity.
How Narrative Is Special
Speaking of differences between one genre of writing and another in Scripture, let’s pause to briefly note a few things about narrative.
- Humans pretty much universally recognize narrative. They may not be able to explain what sets it apart from other kinds of writing, but they know it when they read or hear it.
- The characteristics of narrative that enable us to recognize it are not revealed in Scripture. There is no verse that says “this is the definition of narrative.” We just know.
- Those characteristics include the fact that many details in narratives are only there to support the story. They are not intended to convey anything to us outside of that context.
- There is no Bible verse that tells us narrative works this way. We just know. It’s built into the definition.
What does this mean when it comes to evidence and justifying our claim that a passage reveals a truth or helps build a doctrine?
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
The Profitability of All Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4 do indeed assure us that all of Scripture is important. “Verbal, plenary inspiration” describes our conviction that every original word of the Bible is fully and equally from God. So we don’t look at any words and dismiss them as unimportant. What we do is ask how do these words work together in their context to provide us with “teaching… reproof.. correction… and training in righteousness.”
Narrative details are important. They’re so important that we’re obligated to stay out of the way and let them do their job.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
Granting that the use of any instrument made from human bones is defiled and inappropriate for use in worshiping the true God is like agreeing that premarital sex or drunkenness is sin. No one is arguing otherwise.
But does the prohibition of premarital sex make kissing before marriage sinful? Or does the prohibition of drunkenness make moderate alcoholic consumption sinful? No more than the existence of skull drums makes a 2/4 beat sinful (or whatever other claim one might make about Christian worship music).
Granting that the use of any instrument made from human bones is defiled and inappropriate for use in worshiping the true God is like agreeing that premarital sex or drunkenness is sin.
Actually, it is not. The Bible directly teaches us that premarital sex and drunkenness are sin, but the Bible itself does not say anything directly about the unacceptability of the use of any instrument made from human skulls.
Nonetheless, we know with certainty that any use of human skull drums in corporate worship is utterly unacceptable to God.
This difference is a crucial difference that must be acknowledged.
Some Christians argue that passages such as John 1:1-3 prove that all musical "genres" or "styles" were made by God and are therefore fully acceptable to Him for use in corporate worship because the passage says, "All things were made by Him":
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
According to this line of reasoning, the truth taught by this passage that God made all things must mean that He made all musical "genres" or "styles."
The existence and use of human skull drums shows that this argument is false.
If the statement, "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made" shows that God made all musical "styles" or "genres", it must also show that God made all musical instruments, etc. We would then have to hold that God created human skull drums.
We would also then have to hold that human skull drums are acceptable to God because He made them, or we would have to explain why they are not acceptable to Him even though we say that He made them. Plainly, both positions are untenable.
The existence of skull drums and their categorical unacceptability to God for any use in corporate worship shows that it is unsound doctrine to claim that passages such as John 1:1-3 establish that God accepts all musical "genres" or "styles" in worship because He made them.
The Bible never teaches that God made all musical "styles" or "genres," and there is no biblical basis to hold that He accepts all of them in corporate worship because He supposedly made them.
This difference is a crucial difference that must be acknowledged.
Prove it. What makes this particular difference significant. Connect the dots for me.
Prove it. What makes this particular difference significant. Connect the dots for me.
The Bible does not say anything about human skull drums being unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
Skull drums, however, certainly are not acceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
The Bible, therefore, does not have to say that something concerning instrumental music is unacceptable to God in order for it to be not acceptable to Him for any use in corporate worship.
Put differently, we can know that something to do with instrumental music is not acceptable to God without having to have a direct biblical statement to that effect.
Again, there are many believers who, like Bert Perry, hold that there are no musical instruments that are proscribed for Christians because the Bible does not say that there are any such instruments. We know that understanding about musical instruments is false because human skull drums are musical instruments that are off-limits to believers.
Skull drums, however, certainly are not acceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
What does that have to do with whether any given musical style or sound is immoral and therefore off-limits to believers? As I said before, please connect all the dots in your reasoning.
Rajesh, I know for a fact that I haven't used John 1:1-3 in the way you describe, and I'd bet a few shiny new nickels that finding other Christians who do use it that way is going to be difficult. Feel free to show me examples to the contrary if you like, but I am pretty sure that most believers are fully up to speed on the reality that there is a difference between God's creation and man's action.
Moreover, if you rephrase it as you're effectively using it--"Are believers free to use instruments whose very creation or ownership is a sin or crime?", you won't find any examples. As I've noted before, there are laws against abuse of a corpse (and murder) in most areas, and most people understand intuitively that even if the person is already dead, there's something objectionable to lopping off his head (or skinning him) to use as a musical instrument. We bury (and cremate) in part for this very reason--to make such abuse of corpses difficult to impossible.
So what you are arguing is a complete straw man that does not exactly make you look erudite or even honest. Nobody is arguing that we're free to use lyrics that are vile, or instruments that are criminal to make or own. So stop already.
Rather, the central debate here is whether Christians may use instruments or genre from modern music traditions like jazz, rock & roll, rap, and the like--things like drums, electronic instruments (guitar, bass, synthesizer, etc..), the 12 bar blues, spoken vocals instead of sung, scat singing, etc..
And quite frankly, as I look at the Scriptures, I see absolutely no comments about instruments or genre as Rajesh is making. No text of the Scripture says "don't use the instruments of the Babylonians or Egyptians." No text of the Scripture tells us "don't use this bass line" or "don't use this vocal technique." Rajesh is proceeding almost exclusively from eisegesis, followed by the guilt by association fallacy.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh, I know for a fact that I haven't used John 1:1-3 in the way you describe,
I did not use a straw man at all. I did not say anything about you in my post about John 1:1-3. I never made any claim about you using that passage that way.
You are making a false claim about my using a straw man. I did no such thing.
What does that have to do with whether any given musical style or sound is immoral and therefore off-limits to believers? As I said before, please connect all the dots in your reasoning.
It points to the same faulty reasoning that some believers use to support their views about musical "styles" or sound. They argue that the Bible does not say anything against using any "styles" or sound so that means all "styles" or sound are legitimate for use in worship.
Arguing that there are not any unacceptable ________________ because the Bible never says that there are any unacceptable ________________ is faulty reasoning, whether it is used to talk about musical instruments, musical "styles," etc.
You made the argument regarding John 1:1-3 right here. Just because you didn't explicitly connect it with me (though you do implicitly right here) in that given post does not make it any less a straw man argument.
Look it up; I linked it for you. You are arguing against an idea that as far as I can tell, nobody on the other side of the worship wars is making. That is a straw man, and by definition.
And hence skull drums and such have no relevance whatsoever to this debate, because the point about their acceptability is not in dispute for very clear reasons.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Wrong. Skull drums are relevant because they prove that sinful humans have made musical instruments that are not acceptable to God for any use in worship. Nobody, therefore, can make any legitimate claims that there are no musical instruments that are off-limits to believers.
In the same way, nobody gets to beg the question and claim that there are no musical "genres" or "styles" that cannot be used acceptably to God in worship. Saying that the Bible does not say anything to that effect is a fallacious argument from silence.
And quite frankly, as I look at the Scriptures, I see absolutely no comments about instruments or genre as Rajesh is making. No text of the Scripture says "don't use the instruments of the Babylonians or Egyptians." No text of the Scripture tells us "don't use this bass line" or "don't use this vocal technique."
These comments plainly display how some believers use faulty arguments from silence by saying things like the following: "As I look at the Scriptures, I see absolutely no comments about . . . No text of the Scripture says . . . No text of Scripture tells us . . ."
It simply is not possible in this or any other thread to connect fully all the dots in my reasoning concerning instrumental musical practices and products that are unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship. There are just too many biblical truths that would have to be thoroughly developed in order for the whole approach to cohere properly and establish what I believe is true about this vital subject.
Nonetheless, what skull drums reveal to us is a key part of my approach because they indisputably show us that sinful humans can and have taken good things that God has made (human skulls and other materials) and made distinctively occult combination percussive instruments (human skull drums) that are utterly unacceptable to God for any righteous uses.
Along the same lines, proper reasoning with what skull drums and much other related evidence teaches us shows to us that it is fully legitimate for us to hold that sinful humans can and have originated distinctively occult combination ways of sounding such skull drums and other percussive musical instruments so that those ways are utterly unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship. All such distinctively occult musical percussive practices are categorically off-limits to God's people and must be categorically rejected by them.
It simply is not possible in this or any other thread to connect fully all the dots in my reasoning
This admission is significant, imo. If you can't demonstrate how you move from the text to your conclusions about music in worship, then you really should not be surprised if we remain unconvinced by them. This isn't a rebellion against Scripture's authority to direct worship, it is a healthy biblicism that awaits proof.
sinful humans can and have originated distinctively occult combination ways of sounding such skull drums and other percussive musical instruments so that those ways are utterly unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
I thought the problem with skull drums is that they are made of, you know, skulls. Now you're saying it has something to do with uniquely occult ways of playing those drums, but how could you know that the rhythms are evil, if the very instruments themselves render any rhythms played on them evil?
It simply is not possible in this or any other thread to connect fully all the dots in my reasoning
This admission is significant, imo. If you can't demonstrate how you move from the text to your conclusions about music in worship, then you really should not be surprised if we remain unconvinced by them. This isn't a rebellion against Scripture's authority to direct worship, it is a healthy biblicism that awaits proof.
Actually, I was not admitting that I am incapable of demonstrating the fullness of my approach in any manner.
What I am saying is that threads on SI are not a suitable venue for such a comprehensive presentation.
sinful humans can and have originated distinctively occult combination ways of sounding such skull drums and other percussive musical instruments so that those ways are utterly unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
I thought the problem with skull drums is that they are made of, you know, skulls. Now you're saying it has something to do with uniquely occult ways of playing those drums, but how could you know that the rhythms are evil, if the very instruments themselves render any rhythms played on them evil?
Yes, a totally disqualifying aspect of the skull drums is what they are made of. These additional responses were not a change in what I am saying. They were a part of a post that attempted to give you some idea about how I connect all the dots in my reasoning.
I have not yet begun to address the music that is played on skull drums. I am currently laying the foundation for that discussion by first addressing faulty notions about what the Bible does not say and what those arguments from silence do not establish.
Rajesh, if you want to be taken seriously, you actually have to provide an argument for why you think another argument is faulty. Whatever my differences with BJU, I'm pretty sure they would have taught you this. As Deming noted, "In God we Trust, all others must provide data."
So how about it? Do you have a text or two where God does tell Israel and/or the church not to use a certain culture or religion's instruments or musical genre? If you don't, making the case that we actually have Biblical warrant to insist on this today becomes a lot more difficult, to put it mildly.
(the analogy that comes to mind for me is arguing Biblically against abortion--the Bible doesn't appear to mention it directly, so you need to make the case on other grounds)
And regarding the notion that you can't discuss it adequately here, the threads with which you're involved routinely go to hundreds of comments, with the total length of your comments far exceeding the length of a typical dissertation abstract. Moreover, the total contents of your comments most likely far exceed the length of many dissertations. You've had plenty of column-inches to make the case. As any good newspaper editor (or supervising professor, or Professor Strunk and E.B. White) would tell you, Get to the point.
Regarding the thing that you've been pushing lately, the basic difference that you're either ignoring or unaware of the reality that no civilized person thinks you shouldn't use skull drums because of its connection with pagan religious rites. They object because you need to desecrate a corpse or even murder someone to create it, because it's gross (see above), and finally the musicians would remind us that the dissonances will be wrong.
But if you're trying to tell people that they shouldn't use (Baptist) Buddy Holly's five man band or the 12 bar blues (documented first by preacher's kid W.C. Handy), no such obvious moral objection appears. All you have, really, is false, fallacious, and racist guilt by association arguments which have as part of their premiss that African-American music derives most significantly from African pagan traditions, an argument that ignores three centuries of African-American interaction with European genre, not to mention that Buddy Holly and the Crickets were all white.
Really, Rajesh, you need to seriously up your game in terms of your analysis here, or else start being quiet on the topic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh, if you want to be taken seriously, you actually have to provide an argument for why you think another argument is faulty.
I already did. You routinely are arguing from silence about what the Bible does not say:
If you think that such arguing from silence is legitimate, you have to prove that it is.
Bert Perry keeps falsely charging me with being a racist:
All you have, really, is false, fallacious, and racist guilt by association arguments
Why is this ok with the moderators? Why are there no other decent users of SI speaking up against this nonsense?
Rajesh, if you don't want me to remind this forum of the racist bilge that you linked on your own blog, then un-link them and explain why you disagree. And I quote:
The roots of rock and roll lie deep in the soil of voodoo.
Sorry, but a rambling screed of falsehoods trying to link link vodoun (G'be people) to the Yoruba (a different people group in Nigeria) with words linked to a language spoken in Congo has one real import; it is to link that which is wrong and occult to people from Africa. And like it or not, those who actually have ancestors from Nigeria, Congo, and the like are going to take offense. It is racist.
Really, the roots of Brennan's "argument" are racist screeds from the past 150 years as many responded to African-American preeminence in the musical arts by trying to link their distinct musical styles with paganism. It's long past time to give these genetic fallacies a rest.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
When participants are just yelling at each other, we are generating heat, not light.
Bad arguments on both sides...
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bert Perry repeatedly comes onto threads in which I am seeking to discuss the Bible and music and brings up the same nonsense, false charges of racism against me again and again.
I have not made a single comment in this thread about any of the false claims that he is making. Yet, it appears that he has succeeded in sabotaging another legitimate thread by this tactic.
Why should he be allowed to do so to yet another thread?
In my opinion, every thread where you keep pounding your theories descends to this. You fail to convince anyone, even those who would probably agree with your general position on music (i.e., me).
Logic, evidence, exegesis... it would be nice to see them used.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I encourage those who are interested in learning more about just how perverse and evil human skull drums are to read the Wikipedia article on the subject: Damaru - Wikipedia
If you look at the footnotes and external links to the article, you will find even more information that shows just how corrupt and perverse these abominable musical instruments are.
God commands believers to reprove the unfruitful works of darkness:
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Christians who are ignorant or misinformed of the true dangers and horrors of the occult lack foundational information that is needed to obey the Spirit's command in Ephesians 5:11 and His commands in many other passages.
I encourage those who are interested in learning more about just how perverse and evil human skull drums are to read the Wikipedia article on the subject: Damaru - Wikipedia
Again, no one is questioning whether drums made from human skulls are legitimate. Make the connection between them and modern Christian practices please.
Rajesh, look back on the other article of Brennan's you linked to. So transitively, you've made a lot of points which point back to these two articles. Side note; it also appears that you've vastly overstated the use of the "skull damaru", as they seem to be linked predominantly to Tibetan Buddhism. There are plenty of atrocities all over the world linked to plenty of varieties of pagans, but I'm not finding reference to skull drums except in reference to Tibetan Buddhism.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Again, no one is questioning whether drums made from human skulls are legitimate. Make the connection between them and modern Christian practices please.
Many Christians hold the false view that all musical "genres" or "styles" are pleasing to God and fit for use in corporate worship. Influential Christian leaders such as Harold Best, Rick Warren, Bob Kauflin, and others have misled and mistaught God's people to accept such false views in one form or another and to one degree or another.
In order to answer these false views, the false reasoning about both what the Bible teaches and what evil humans are capable of doing and have done musically has to be brought to light. In order to do so, the discussion cannot and must not be limited only to what modern Christian practices are or are not doing.
Before right application to modern Christian practices can be made, false notions about human music making activities have to be answered.
false notions about human music making activities have to be answered.
But this isn't what you are doing by going on about skull drums. By all means, answer whatever notions Christians today have that you believe are false. Just show us your work, so we can be convinced or respond.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Notice carefully that the Spirit specifies that sinful humans give heed to seducing spirits and demonic doctrine. In order for them to give such heed to demons, they must come into contact with them.
Factual information exists from all over the world that shamans and other occultists use occult percussive practices (including on skull drums) specifically to have contact with and receive information from demons. Christians who deny that any of this information about such occult percussive practices is true must have authentic and factual bases for doing so.
The Bible certainly does not provide any such basis.
But this isn't what you are doing by going on about skull drums. By all means, answer whatever notions Christians today have that you believe are false. Just show us your work, so we can be convinced or respond.
Actually, it is. Skull drums prove that sinful humans involved in occult activities have engaged in creative activities to produce a combination musical product (skull drums) that is categorically unacceptable to God for any righteous use.
Because we know with certainty that sinful humans have done so with regard to producing an utterly unacceptable musical instrument, we then have to examine what we are to believe about the distinctively occult percussive practices that those occultists have originated that they play on those skull drums.
Is there any basis, biblical or otherwise, to hold legitimately that all the distinctively occult musical practices of sounding their skull drums that they have originated are themselves all perfectly holy, righteous, and acceptable to God? If so, what are those bases?
some shall depart from the faith
First of all, I think you've overlooked this key phrase in interpreting what it means to giving heed to doctrines of demons. Paul is not talking about some kind of inadvertent contact with the occult, he's talking about those who abandon their profession of faith.
Second, you are still not connecting any of the dots between A and Z. No one here disagrees with 1 Timothy 4:1, which explicitly indicates that Christians cannot have anything to do with seducing spirits or demonic doctrines. And no one is advocating for skull drums to be added to the Sunday morning worship set. It is just not obvious at all what skull drums and demonic doctrines have to do with Christian worship practices (some of which you apparently believe are false).
Yes, what Paul is talking about in 1 Timothy 4:1 teaches that, but in order for that to happen, they have to have contact with the seducing spirits. The point that I am making is that sinful humans do have such contact with seducing spirits, and the Bible explicitly testifies to their having such contact.
Concerning your second point, you are jumping ahead and missing what I am driving at. Occultists all over the world engage in occult percussive activities that put them into contact with demons. They themselves testify that they use distinctive percussive practices to initiate and engage in that contact with the demons. The whole purpose of their occult musical activities is to have contact with demons and receive information from them.
What are we to believe about those distinctively occult percussive practices that those occultists use to have contact with demons?
Did God create those distinctively occult practices of sounding the skull drums and other occult musical instruments?
Are all those practices of sounding those skull drums and other musical instruments themselves holy, righteous, and acceptable to God?
What are we to believe about those distinctively occult percussive practices that those occultists use to have contact with demons?
Did God create those distinctively occult practices of sounding the skull drums and other occult musical instruments?
This is conflating two different things, drums made from human skulls and "occult percussive practices" (whatever those may be). The existence of the one does not prove the existence or influence of the other. That's what I mean about connecting all the dots.
This is conflating two different things, drums made from human skulls and "occult percussive practices" (whatever those may be). The existence of the one does not prove the existence or influence of the other. That's what I mean about connecting all the dots.
Of course, the existence of the one proves the existence of the other. The skull drums have to be sounded in some manner when they are used in the occult activities. What are we to believe about those distinctive percussive practices that the occultists use to sound their skull drums?
The following post treats biblical revelation that teaches us that certain human musical activities were not culturally determined--rather, they were supernaturally determined.
Learning from Supernaturally Directed Creation and Soundings of Musical Instruments
November 11, 2024
God directed the Israelites to make two trumpets—this, therefore, was not independent cultural musical activity. Furthermore, God determined what the trumpets would be made of (silver) and how they were to be made (“of a whole piece shalt thou make them”):
Numbers 10:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps.
God also specified how the trumpets were to be used through distinctively different soundings of them:
Blowing both trumpets but not sounding an alarm to assemble all the assembly:
Numbers 10:3 And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Numbers 10:7 But when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an alarm. 8 And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations.
Blowing only one trumpet to gather only the princes:
Numbers 10:4 And if they blow but with one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee.
Blowing an alarm to direct the camps to move in specified ways:
Numbers 10:5 When ye blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward. 6 When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey: they shall blow an alarm for their journeys.
Blowing an alarm when going to war:
Numbers 10:9 And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.
Blowing the trumpets over certain sacrifices on certain days:
Numbers 10:10 Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the LORD your God.
Discussion
This passage plainly teaches us that certain human beings (the Israelites) made two musical instruments (two silver trumpets) and engaged in certain musical activities (the soundings of the silver trumpets) such that all their activities with those instruments were supernaturally directed—this was not independent human musical activity that was culturally based.
Moreover, their heeding that entirely supernatural direction included at least two distinctively different soundings of those instruments: blowing an alarm versus blowing that was not the blowing of an alarm.
Conclusion
We, therefore, can say with certainty that the Bible does not teach that all musical activities of all people of all time have all been culturally determined. Rather, some of those musical activities have been supernaturally directed in both the making of the instrument or instruments used and the soundings of the instrument or instruments.
Taking what Scripture reveals to us in this passage and applying it to our understanding of the distinctively occult percussive activities of skull drummers and others involved in demonic musical activities provides us with biblical instruction that fully supports our accepting as valid and true the testimonies that occultists have given of getting both their instruments and their ways of sounding them from demons.
This comment ("no civilized person thinks . . . ") is a fallacious use of the "no true Scotsman fallacy."
More important, it is in direct denial of the wisdom of God.
Deuteronomy 12:29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; 30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, *How* did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Acts 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Of course, the existence of the one proves the existence of the other. The skull drums have to be sounded in some manner when they are used in the occult activities.
I think the drums themselves are offensive and unacceptable for holy worship, based on your description of them being constructed by desecrating corpses and applying some kinds of demonic symbols or incantations. Of course they must be played somehow, but it does not follow that they are played in any way that is distinct from how non-skull drums are played. Nor does it follow that the detestable nature of those drums (by virtue of their construction) has the effect of rendering any percussive sound they make distinctly immoral or even identifiable different from sounds made by non-skull drums.
What are we to believe about those distinctive percussive practices that the occultists use to sound their skull drums?
I don't know whether skull drummers have a style or any techniques that are unique to them or whether they simply play skull drums the way any other drummer plays his instruments. There are just too many assumptions here to know if there is anything we ought to believe regarding "distinctive percussive practices that the occultists use to sound their skull drums."
Taking what Scripture reveals to us in this passage and applying it to our understanding of the distinctively occult percussive activities of skull drummers...
It is not at all clear why we should take what Scripture says about 2 silver trumpets the Israelites were to make and use under the Mosaic code and apply it to whatever is going on when occultists engage in some kind of pagan practices. These two things could hardly be further apart!
We’re just going in circles. I’ll probably ignore this one going forward.
Example…
Wrong. Skull drums are relevant because they prove that sinful humans have made musical instruments that are not acceptable to God for any use in worship. Nobody, therefore, can make any legitimate claims that there are no musical instruments that are off-limits to believers.
Already pointed out multiple times that nobody thinks it’s good to use instruments with occult symbols on them.
Hence, no, not relevant to anything that is a point of disagreement.
What I think would be interesting to see at some point, Rajesh, is a summary of what your view is on one of the main points of disagreement, along with a short list of supporting arguments.
Something like…
My view is that it’s always wrong to use ____ in Christian worship, for these reasons:
- Reason 1:
- Reason 2:
- Reason 3:
Make it your top three reasons. Follow that with as much detail as you like to support each reason. Then we have something concrete to look at and consider.
Or, if you’d rather focus on the hermeneutical approach, something like…
My view is that it is right and necessary to use the bible in this way____ to derive broadly applicable principles about life today.
An example:…
This view is correct for these reasons… (pick the strongest three reasons)
- Reason 1:
- Reason 2:
- Reason 3:
I’m not speaking for anyone else on this, but I can’t personally track what your views really are and what their based on because the discussion veers quite frequently into some sub-sub-sub-point or other that isn’t, in itself, related in any important way the main questions, as far as I can see.
If that happens, somebody PM me. I’d like to take a look at it.
Otherwise… I’ve got a lot going on right now. It’s always a challenge to try to offer clear counterarguments in response to an unclear thesis. I don’t think have any more time to try to do that this time around.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Music discussions are always inexact, both because of the nature of music, and the because of the way we have to process what is in scripture, just as Aaron has pointed out.
To my knowledge, there is no one here who either thinks only styles/instruments spoken of positively in the Bible can be used for life or worship, and I also do not believe there is anyone here who thinks that anything the Bible doesn’t express directly is automatically acceptable to God. That leaves us with the “squishy” middle. As many others have said, we have to use what we know about principles in the Word, and how to read, interpret, and apply them, as well as things we know from life experience to come to some conclusions on things the Bible doesn’t address directly.
The whole big thread about the GCI never resulted in any clear principles on what styles/instruments can be used from what we read in scripture there, because there simply isn’t enough information about what styles they used or didn’t, or even if they were singing a song attempting to give (false) worship to the Lord.
I’ll give you a much more modern (but still old to us) example. In one of Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda films (I believe it was “Victory of Faith”) there is a point during one of the meetings of the National Socialist Party, the entire assembly breaks out into “We Gather Together to Ask the Lord’s Blessing,” and sang it in a style and with reverence that would not be considered out of place in any of the churches represented here. The lyrics were in German, of course, but as far as I could tell (my German is good but not perfect), they were not changed from the hymn text you know. And yet, given what they were asking blessing upon, and the people using that hymn, I would still consider it an abomination. But does that mean that hymn or music can no longer be used?
After the obvious, like lyrics or situations or instruments directly dedicated to the occult or worship of other gods, or giving God’s glory to evil purposes, we mostly use things like association or appropriateness to determine much of what music we will use. If we are going to judge music as biblically wrong other than for the obvious, there has to be some some clear lines drawn from scripture and logic, as has been pointed out many times on this thread.
If the idea of “skull drums” is being used to show that not everything that is not mentioned in scripture is necessarily good, well then OK, but I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that. A lot more work will have to be done to show that an electric guitar or synthesizer, or certain rhythms and singing styles are in that category. We can easily make judgements for our own use, but that has no scriptural warrant for everyone else. And unfortunately, simply saying that “we just don’t understand all scripture says on the matter” and using that as a major argument is insufficient, and ultimately self-defeating, as we can never claim we understand everything about the scriptures. At some point, we have to draw the best conclusion we can and move on with that, until such time as the Holy Spirit together with scripture and plain reason can convince us otherwise, just as Martin Luther said.
Dave Barnhart
Taking what Scripture reveals to us in this passage and applying it to our understanding of the distinctively occult percussive activities of skull drummers...
It is not at all clear why we should take what Scripture says about 2 silver trumpets the Israelites were to make and use under the Mosaic code and apply it to whatever is going on when occultists engage in some kind of pagan practices. These two things could hardly be further apart!
I thought that I made the point of comparison between the two very plain. Let me try again.
Numbers 10 reveals that both the making of and the distinctive soundings of two specific musical instruments was entirely determined and directed by a supernatural entity (God) and was not at all human cultural activity.
In the same way, demons are supernatural beings. They have interacted directly with humans and imparted information to them that directed the humans both to make certain occult percussive instruments and the occult soundings of them. Those occult instruments and their distinctive soundings, therefore, are not musical activities and products merely or even at all of cultural activity by sinful humans--they are directly from demons.
In this manner, we know with certainty, therefore, that evil humans involved in demonic musical activities have originated demonic musical instruments and demonic ways of sounding them. All such musical instruments and ways of sounding them are categorically forever off-limits to righteous people and cannot ever be used acceptably for any righteous uses.
Um, Rajesh, Daniel 3:10 notes that the trumpet (along with the "sackbut") was used in Nebuchadnezzar's homage to himself. So is the trumpet established by God, or flat out prohibited? Also worth noting is that the trumpet has been used by Chicago and various "ska" bands in popular music, not to mention a lot of jazz artists. So there's another few sets of bad associations.
This is the trouble you get into with guilt by association fallacies. Everything out there, pretty much, has been used wrongly by somebody. So when you start using guilt by association, you either quickly find out that you can't use anything because everything has a guilty association, or you will end up rather selectively deciding what guilty associations are really guilty. In other words, you pick and choose based on your own biases.
And it's worth noting as well that the modern trumpet is greatly different from the ancient, so even there, we're in trouble.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh,
You keep saying that there are distinctly demonic ways of sounding instruments, but this is precisely the point that does not follow from the existence of things like skull drums. In fact, the two seem quite unrelated. If someone played a sacred song on an instrument made from a human skull, it isn't the way the instrument is sounded that is the problem. This is why skull drums are not relevant to the discussion of what musical styles or instruments are acceptable in Christian worship.
You keep saying that there are distinctly demonic ways of sounding instruments, but this is precisely the point that does not follow from the existence of things like skull drums. In fact, the two seem quite unrelated. If someone played a sacred song on an instrument made from a human skull, it isn't the way the instrument is sounded that is the problem. This is why skull drums are not relevant to the discussion of what musical styles or instruments are acceptable in Christian worship.
Actually, your claim is irrelevant that "if someone played a sacred song on an instrument made from a human skull, it isn't the way the instrument is sounded that is the problem." So what?
If someone were going to make the claim that all ways of playing all instruments are inherently acceptable to God, that person would have to prove that claim is true--he could not just assert it and do so legitimately (I'm not saying that you are making this claim).
He could not prove it by claiming that the Bible never says that there are ways of playing musical instruments that God rejects so there are not any. That would be a faulty argument from silence.
The existence of things like skull drums proves that sinful humans have engaged in creative activity that has produced musical instruments that are categorically unacceptable to God. (It does not matter whether you or anyone else is denying that this is true.)
Because it is true that sinful humans have engaged in creative activity to produce instruments that are not acceptable to God, there is no legitimate basis to hold that the same is not true or could not be true for the "styles" or "genres" that sinful humans have originated.
When the reality of demonic direction of humans concerning how the humans are to play those totally unacceptable instruments is taken into consideration, the question has to be answered about whether God accepts those demonically directed ways of playing those instruments.
It appears that you deny that there any such demonically directed ways of playing musical instruments. If that is your position, you have to provide some valid basis for asserting that such demonically directed ways of playing skull drums do not exist, cannot exist, etc.
If the idea of “skull drums” is being used to show that not everything that is not mentioned in scripture is necessarily good, well then OK, but I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that.
On the contrary, there are those who have made statements that in effect have asserted that the Bible does not say that there any unacceptable or prohibited instruments or "genres," so therefore there are not any.
Skull drums prove that such reasoning with the Bible is faulty. I appreciate that you are at least willing to admit that point.
Rajesh,
For some reason I cannot fathom, you continue to ignore the giant leap between the existence of certain unclean musical instruments made from human cadavers and some kind of biblical principle that applies to the use of otherwise clean musical instruments. I really have tried to give you an opportunity in good faith to show your work, but it just doesn't seem to be happening.
FWIW, I remain totally unconvinced of whatever your position is on whatever Christian worship music genres/instruments/styles are really some form of demon worship and therefore off-limits to believers.
For some reason I cannot fathom, you continue to ignore the giant leap between the existence of certain unclean musical instruments made from human cadavers and some kind of biblical principle that applies to the use of otherwise clean musical instruments. I really have tried to give you an opportunity in good faith to show your work, but it just doesn't seem to be happening.
FWIW, I remain totally unconvinced of whatever your position is on whatever Christian worship music genres/instruments/styles are really some form of demon worship and therefore off-limits to believers.
I cannot fathom why you continue to ignore the role of demons in originating musical practices that they know are unacceptable to God.
In any case, I appreciate your interaction.
You say that my position is that there are "genres," etc. that "are really some form of demon worship and therefore off-limits to believers" [bold, underlining added to the original]. This is a gross misunderstanding of my position.
We ourselves do not have any objective way of knowing what those unacceptable "genres" of demonic origin communicate or signify to demons (except when occultists have beforehand communicated such information to us).
Musical "genres," etc. can be utterly unacceptable to God and not involve any kind of worship of demons. The Bible explicitly speaks of demonic occult practices in distinction from the worship of demons:
Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
It is a very serious theological error to conflate such demonic activities with demonic worship.
On the other hand, there is no reason that I know of to exclude the possibility that some "genres" of demonic origin may indeed express humanly unknowable worship to demons. My position is that we cannot know whether such is the case or not unless the occultists testify that it is.
Either way, the bottom line for me is that there are musical "genres" or "styles" that are unacceptable to God because they are of demonic origin.
Rajesh, I've been noting for a while that it is my opinion that there are very few people out there who would deny that it is wrong to use instruments where it is required that one commit a crime/sin/moral offense like desecrating a corpse to create that instrument. We no more have the right to use a drum made from skulls than we do to use a lampshade made from human skin from Hitler's death camps. We can say the same thing about instruments and genre where sin would be necessary to make them.
The point of contention has never been this, though. The point of contention is the question of whether instruments or genre typically used today fall into these categories. As I've noted above, the standard rock & roll band was invented by a Baptist, and the 12 bar blues was formulated/recorded by a preacher's kid as well.
And as you note in this sentence--"bottom line for me is that there are musical "genres" or "styles" that are unacceptable to God because they are of demonic origin."--your argument is, in a nutshell, that we must work from guilt by association. Since that is a basic logical fallacy, and moreover would implicate basically any type of music, that claim is "dead on arrival" for me. African styles derive from animism and Islam, European styles derive from that of the Teutons, Celts and such, Asian styles derive from Taoism, Hinduism, and the like, and so on.
For that matter, the instruments and genre of Bible times seem to be very similar to those of the pagans of the time, and we have no indication that one predates the other. So to hold to your "bottom line", we must disobey Scripture, which tells us to praise God in song, and does not tell those so commanded to eschew certain instruments and genre.
Hard pass, Rajesh, and I plead with you; stop telling God's people to disobey Scripture for your worldview.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
>>On the contrary, there are those who have made statements that in effect have asserted that the Bible does not say that there any unacceptable or prohibited instruments or “genres,” so therefore there are not any.<<
I can’t speak for others, but my view is NOT that there are no prohibited instruments or genres, but I would say that it has not been shown from scripture (at least to my satisfaction) that there ARE any prohibited instruments or genres. Those two are logically different, and my view is not at all incompatible with the idea that just because the Bible doesn’t directly mention something it’s therefore OK.
I would expect that declaring something wrong in the absence of direct scriptural command would still require the totality of our knowledge, experience, and logic together with other scriptural principles to make a case for it (as we would do with something like, e.g. recreational use of mind-altering drugs). Neither the discussion about the GCI or arguing about things like skull drums is accomplishing that with respect to music. I’ve been reading authors on this topic for more than 40 years, beginning with Garlock (I was a teenager when I first heard him speak, so I wanted to see if he had good arguments for what I had heard preached all my life) and moving on to others most recently including Aniol, and I’m yet to be convinced, on this forum or elsewhere.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion