A Case for Traditional Music, Part 2

[Larry]

JNoel, So you believe that there are things about which God has no opinion whatsoever? Can you give an example of something like that?

Sure. A toothbrush. Silly example, I suppose, but if a toothbrush is amoral, then one cannot say everything has morality.

[Don Johnson]

That sounds awfully postmodern. Are you sure you want to make “fully convinced in his own mind” = postmodern relativism?

What you call postmodern relativism some call discernment. I know you know these things, Don, so please get to your point.

Does this sound postmodern to you?

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭14:4-12‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Sure. A toothbrush. Silly example, I suppose, but if a toothbrush is amoral, then one cannot say everything has morality.

I would say a toothbrush is pleasing to God. It is good for people to care for the bodies that God has given them. If you are trying to say that a piece of plastic with bristles is amoral, then fine. But that is really to miss the point of the whole discussion.

[Larry]

I think something is either pleasing to God or it’s not. It may be pleasing in one situation and not in another. But that’s because it has meaning.

[Don Johnson]

JNoël wrote:

Some will believe one, others will believe the other, and neither will know who is correct - we must each be convinced in our own consciences which is the belief we are best able to reconcile with scripture.

That sounds awfully postmodern. Are you sure you want to make “fully convinced in his own mind” = postmodern relativism?

You imply “right” vs. “wrong” when you say, “neither will know who is correct”. That sounds like you have alternate truths to me.

Jay, Romans 14 refers to holding a day sacred or not. These are not the same thing as saying the product of one’s heart (music) has no meaning or no moral value.

You make an absolute statement that God is either pleased with something or he’s not. But then you say that this absolute pleasure or displeasure is actually relative depending on the situation. Is it the inherent “meaning” of something that makes God pleased or displeased, or is it the situation that determines whether God is pleased or displeased?

Not sure why that is hard to follow. Depending on the thing, it might be either or both. This has been standard orthodox teaching for millennia. For instance, God is absolutely displeased with idol worship. It doesn’t depend on the situation. But if we are talking about sexual intimacy, God is pleased with it in some situations and not pleased in others. I apologize for not seeing the confusion here. Perhaps if you can clarify your confusion I can take a better run at it.

Perhaps you can explain this mystical third category of something God is neither pleased nor displeased with. I can’t wrap my head around that. I can’t figure out how an all-knowing and perfectly wise God who is pursuing his own glory has a bunch of things in his creation that he cares not one whit about one way or the other. If he says, “Do all to the glory of God” (and he does), then doesn’t that mean something about everything and God’s interest in it? So it seems to me that a toothbrush can bring glory to God as it is used, and it does so in way that a steel brush would not bring glory to God if used in the same way. Those two things do not do the same thing with respect to the glory of God, do they? Or does God not care if we brush our teeth with a steel wire brush?

The point with respect to music (and I am way past my intent of participation here) goes back to my original question comparing Norah Jones and Kathleen Battle (or anyone of numbers of others we could compare). Can we really say those forms or styles of music communicate the exact same thing? Of course not, and it has nothing to do with the words. That is not to say that one is right and the other wrong. The question in that matter is one of propriety for the occasion. Does the meaning of the music fit the occasion for which it is being used? Or to be more specific, should we sing to God like a sultry lounge singer? Is that the same as singing to God in a majestic manner? Or does a barbershop quartet mean the same thing as a requiem? To use a different illustration, would the movies of Charlie Chaplin be the same to the soundtrack of Schindler’s List? Of course not. Why? Because music has meaning, and the meaning of the very serious and sobering music would conflict with the slapstick comedy of silent movies.

It kind of goes to Mike’s point that no one here has addressed to my knowledge. The minute someone rejects traditional music as being too formal, or too boring, or too whatever, they have given away the farm. They have acknowledged that music has meaning and they have decided that meaning is wrong for the occasion of worship. At that point, the question isn’t “Does music have meaning?” The only question is, “How do we know what music means?”

The application of musical standards to particular pieces of music is where this discussion gets real………and sticky. (Does this check?)

This selection is an example. I’ve heard it praised and condemned. Does anybody dare to apply your standard to this?

Ngokujabula!

To quote my 16 year old self: “What’s wrong with this?” (SMILE)

[Larry]

You make an absolute statement that God is either pleased with something or he’s not. But then you say that this absolute pleasure or displeasure is actually relative depending on the situation. Is it the inherent “meaning” of something that makes God pleased or displeased, or is it the situation that determines whether God is pleased or displeased?

Not sure why that is hard to follow. Depending on the thing, it might be either or both. This has been standard orthodox teaching for millennia. For instance, God is absolutely displeased with idol worship. It doesn’t depend on the situation. But if we are talking about sexual intimacy, God is pleased with it in some situations and not pleased in others. I apologize for not seeing the confusion here. Perhaps if you can clarify your confusion I can take a better run at it.

Perhaps you can explain this mystical third category of something God is neither pleased nor displeased with. I can’t wrap my head around that. I can’t figure out how an all-knowing and perfectly wise God who is pursuing his own glory has a bunch of things in his creation that he cares not one whit about one way or the other. If he says, “Do all to the glory of God” (and he does), then doesn’t that mean something about everything and God’s interest in it? So it seems to me that a toothbrush can bring glory to God as it is used, and it does so in way that a steel brush would not bring glory to God if used in the same way. Those two things do not do the same thing with respect to the glory of God, do they? Or does God not care if we brush our teeth with a steel wire brush?

The point with respect to music (and I am way past my intent of participation here) goes back to my original question comparing Norah Jones and Kathleen Battle (or anyone of numbers of others we could compare). Can we really say those forms or styles of music communicate the exact same thing? Of course not, and it has nothing to do with the words. That is not to say that one is right and the other wrong. The question in that matter is one of propriety for the occasion. Does the meaning of the music fit the occasion for which it is being used? Or to be more specific, should we sing to God like a sultry lounge singer? Is that the same as singing to God in a majestic manner? Or does a barbershop quartet mean the same thing as a requiem? To use a different illustration, would the movies of Charlie Chaplin be the same to the soundtrack of Schindler’s List? Of course not. Why? Because music has meaning, and the meaning of the very serious and sobering music would conflict with the slapstick comedy of silent movies.

It kind of goes to Mike’s point that no one here has addressed to my knowledge. The minute someone rejects traditional music as being too formal, or too boring, or too whatever, they have given away the farm. They have acknowledged that music has meaning and they have decided that meaning is wrong for the occasion of worship. At that point, the question isn’t “Does music have meaning?” The only question is, “How do we know what music means?”

So let’s put some paint on paper and make it an actual artwork, so we can compare it better to music. I’ll put a circle of red paint on the paper. What meaning does that have? What does it communicate? It’s an artwork, so it must have meaning, right? Is there anything inherent in that red circle that gives it a particular meaning that God would be pleased or displeased with. I’ll title the artwork “Mars.” So my intention is that the artwork represents the planet Mars, Since Mars was created by God, the artwork must be pleasing to God. But wait. A WWII veteran sees my picture and is instantly reminded of the center of the Japanese flag and feels the pain of losing his fellow soldiers. Is my intended meaning usurped by what someone else sees as the meaning? Never mind that the third person just sees the logo for Target stores. Perhaps advertising has totally usurped the meaning of a red circle. What my three examples actually show are not “meanings,” in my opinion, but are actually “associations.” I associate a red circle with Mars, so that’s why I see the circle in that way. Another person associates it with the Japanese and another with Target stores. All of them are understandable associations, but none of them are the inherent “meaning” of a red circle. Does a red circle even have an inherent meaning apart from it’s associations? I don’t see how it would. I think the same applies to music. Whatever meaning we think a lyric-less piece may have is actually derived from the associations we apply to the piece.

So let’s look at the examples of music that you gave when you asked “Does the meaning of the music fit the occasion for which it is used.” Your first example was “Should we sing to God like a sultry lounge singer?” Are you talking here about a “meaning” or an “association.” Your word “like” definitely indicates an association. The question then becomes whether some music is SO associated with “lounge singing” that no one can think of it in any other way. You then mentioned singing in a “majestic manner.” Is “majestic manner” something inherently pleasing to God? I would think someone singing in a “majestic manner” would be trying to call attention to themselves, but that’s only because “majestic manner” is such a subjective way of describing singing. My personal associations of someone singing majestically may be different than yours. You then asked “Does a barbershop quartet mean the same thing as a requiem?” Sure, some music is associated with barbershop quartets and some music is associated with funerals. In fact, in those examples, there is a very strong association really does cause people to think of barbershop quartets and funerals when they hear that type of music, but it is the association that is causing that perception, and not some inherent meaning in the music itself. Can you give me an example of “meaning” in a piece of music without using some sort of association?

….it’s actually immaterial. Let us grant that there is another argument that says that traditional (e.g. hymns, or camp meeting songs, or whatever) music is insufficient, and that that proves…..not that there is an inherent meaning to the music, but rather that that camp says so. Now, is it possible for two groups of people to be simultaneously at odds with each other and wrong to boot? Absolutely—and if you doubt this, didn’t we just have an election between two groups of people who were both at odds with each other and dead wrong on many issues? That portion of the argument is a simple “tu quoque”/”you too” argument.

And really, even if it did prove something, it doesn’t get us to the conclusion Mike suggests; that modern forms of music are unacceptable. To get there, we need actual evidence that musical forms actually have intrinsic meanings that indicate that one mode of music is acceptable and another not.

That is, moreover, problematic, because what we’re talking about as objectionable is primarily rock & roll, but the same musical techniques in rock & roll are endemic to black Gospel, jazz, and blues—as well as rap. So if we say, as does the original writer, that somehow the current social condition implicates rock & roll, then we have simultaneously denigrated those who survived slavery, Jim Crow, and who made the Harlem Renaissance. See the problem with that?

Sorry, but Mike’s argument is at its heart still Garlock and Gothard’s, and quite frankly, those trained in music will tell you not that music has intrinsic virtues or faults, but rather that it conveys certain moods. And unless we’re willing to say that such a mood is inherently sinful—Scripture again certainly will not get us there—that too is a dead end.

I dunno know about y’all, but all this high-falutin talk ‘bout music has got me in the mood for some … Pentecostal Power! Haymen!!!???

Lord, as of old at Pentecost
Thou didst Thy power display,
With cleansing purifying flame,
Descend on us today.

Chorus:
Lord, send the old-time power, the Pentecostal power!
Thy floodgates of blessing on us throw open wide!
Lord send the old-time power. the Pentecostal power.
That sinners be converted and Thy name glorified!

2 For mighty works for Thee, prepare
And strengthen every heart;
Come, take possession of Thine ow.n
And nevermore depart. [Chorus]

3 All self consume, all sin destroy!
With earnest zeal endue
Each waiting heart to work for Thee;
O Lord, our faith renew! [Chorus]

4 Speak, Lord! before Thy throne we wait,
Thy promise we believe,
And will not let Thee go until
The blessing we receive.

Then we can follow it up with a little Turkey in the Straw!

1
Well I was trav’lin down a dusty road
With a team of horses and a great big load,
It was oh such a warm, lazy afternoon,
Cracked my whip, started singing this tune.

Chorus:
Turkey in the straw (haw, haw, haw!)
Turkey in the hey (hey, hey, hey!)
Bullfrog dance with his mother-in-law,
And they all sang a tune called Turkey In the Straw.

2
Well I had me a chicken and she wouldn’t lay an egg,
So I poured hot water up and down her leg.
The little chicken hollered, the little chicked begged,
The little chicken laid me a hard-boiled egg!

3
Well I went to Cincinnati and I walked around a block
And I walked right into a doughnut shop.
Well I pulled me a doughnut from the grease.
I gave that lady a five cent piece.
Well she looked at the nickel and she looked at me.
She said, “This nickel’s no good to me,
There’s a hole in the middle and it goes clear through.”
I said, “There’s a hole in your doughnut too.”

4
Well I had me a great big fat old toad
And we used to race him up and down the road,
Till a truck come by and squashed him dead,
Now he’s a part of the tire tread.

Jay, Romans 14 refers to holding a day sacred or not. These are not the same thing as saying the product of one’s heart (music) has no meaning or no moral value.

That’s not my point, Don. My point is that from Romans 14, Paul freely admits that one believer can have a conviction that isn’t what another believer holds. And he says that to let that practice continue.

If we’re going to talk about CCM (music in general, really) being a sin issue, then we ought to be able to point a finger at where it’s in violation of God’s character and His word, which is our yardstick. Saying that something is evil because it is a “product of one’s heart” (as if there’s something out there that isn’t?) is, to say it politely, a cop-out and weak. God has spoken. By this yardstick, you can argue that computers are sinful. Or cars. Or clothes. You get the idea…is that the road you want to go down?

Finally, there’s this section of Romans 14, which I think a lot of people ignore or deliberately gloss over:

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

[Jay]

Jay, Romans 14 refers to holding a day sacred or not. These are not the same thing as saying the product of one’s heart (music) has no meaning or no moral value.

That’s not my point, Don. My point is that from Romans 14, Paul freely admits that one believer can have a conviction that isn’t what another believer holds. And he says that to let that practice continue.

Then you are twisting the scripture to make it apply where you want it to apply.

Of course, your presupposition is that music is amoral, which makes it fit Romans 14. It is impossible for this to be so, music is an expression of the heart. As such, it will always have a moral component.

Just turn on a Hillsong album on Spotify, and give up.

I don’t even like Hillsong!

=D

Here is the crux of Riley’s argument, as I understand it:

To put it bluntly, while our culture may indeed have laudable features, reverence and honor and sobriety and self-control are not high among them. Self-indulgence and strife and disrespect are. Therefore, I see no reason to trust that the popular artistic expressions of our day are likely to express the virtues we want them to express. This has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of any musical genre; it has to do with where we are right now.

He says we cannot trust our culture to produce God-honoring music that we can or should use in corporate worship. He continues:

The errors to which we are particularly liable are reflected in our contemporary hymnody. The prior ages had their errors, but they understood reverence and judgment and deliverance from judgment, the central themes of worship and the gospel. On this, they are the more trustworthy guides.

So, Riley prefers to trust music made in a more enlightened age; an earlier age. Which age? The Reformation? Which song-writers, and what criteria would he employ to flesh this out? I’d like to know! As it is, this statement is so abstract that it’s meaningless.

Riley believes this earlier age produced more God-honoring music, because the milieu from whence the music sprang forth was more God-honoring. He explains:

From a broad historical perspective, we do not live in a uniquely depraved culture. But the common grace restraint of lawlessness is certainly less evident in our day.

This seems very, very naive to me. I believe the moral decay of contemporary Western society is only startling if you view it through the Victorian lens of what George Marsden calls a “dime-store millennium.” In other words, if you compare the public (not private!) morality of, say, Victorian England, then our society today is certainly quite sinful. But, when you expand your sample size to encompass the whole of human history, I don’t believe our age is uniquely sinful at all.

I do believe we’re witnessing the unraveling of a fake Christian veneer in Western society, but that’s not at all the same thing as claiming we’re in a uniquely amoral time. Riley admits as much (see the last quote, above), but I wonder why he then jettisons the implications of his own admission?

Bottom line - this is a subjective argument. The rubber meets the road in (1) authorial intent of the performer and writer, and (2) the theology of the lyrics. I remain convinced arguments about style are subjective.

I didn’t post Turkey in the Straw just to be silly - it had a point. Lyrically, the song is silliness, of course. Many of you know the musical tune that goes with it.

Is Turkey in the Straw moral?

Is Turkey in the Straw moral?

Well, it does generate an emotional response. I found myself smiling and then tapping my foot and eventually singing along. I wanted to swing my partner, but she wasn’t here.

I’m still waiting for an evaluation of the movement from Dan Forrest’s Jubilate Deo.

Here we are where all these music threads end up dying — the practical. When asked to compare and contrast two songs, those who are emphatic about music always having a moral component since it comes from the heart are unable to give even the most basic principles on how to measure morality in music. Here I have to give Garlock a small amount of credit — he at least attempted to come up with principles on which music can be judged, which is more than pretty much anyone today will do. Now that most of his work has been discredited, we still have nothing to really use in its place. I have yet to see any kind of real comparison of say “I Sing the Mighty Power of God” to “Turkey in the Straw,” let alone comparing “I Sing…” to say, “When the Roll is Called up Yonder.”

It’s really easy to argue that God has a mind on everything, but the fact is that he has not revealed his mind on everything to us, and in some cases, he has not even left us with principles that we are able to apply to every issue, except in the general sense (like e.g. true, honest, just, pure, lovely, good report, and that “lovely” part is never as clear as we would wish). Once we are at this point, I would argue that that’s where Romans 14 comes in, but that’s always batted down by those who think it can never apply to something they deem to have a moral component. The fact that we don’t know God’s mind on everything means that for us there is a practical area of indifference, since it hasn’t been revealed to us. On some topics, we know God cares, but he hasn’t told us his mind, so when all biblical principle is exhausted, then in a practical sense, we have to consider that topic as being one indifferent to God, even though we can argue in theory that he has a mind on everything. These are areas in which we can indeed develop our own consciences, though without binding those of others.

I’m hardly a musicologist, but I have had discussions with some, as well as with other men who have studied music or are interested in it. No one can give me a good, objective standard that can apply to any piece of music that will allow me to judge its relative morality (or even value) with any accuracy whatsoever. What this all comes down to, even though it’s rarely admitted, is “It’s good, because I say it is,” or “It sounds good to me, so it is,” or “Trust me, I know,” or even “I like it, so it’s acceptable.” In other words, what everyone uses is their gut, trained by their experiences, associations, etc. in life. To Ron’s example, I have yet to hear any negative responses to “Ngokujabula!” in Jubilate Deo by Dan Forrest, though I have no doubt there are some. However, I’d bet good money I’ll be waiting until long past the time I’m dead to hear any useful evaluation of that piece’s relative “morality.”

This is, in my view, why the music topic always generates so much heat and so little light. Everyone wants to talk theory, but when it comes to making that theory useful to us in our daily lives, all we hear is either “Do as I say,” or crickets.

The negative responses to “Ngokujabula!” in Jubilate Deo by Dan Forrest that I’ve fielded have been these:

-The use of percussion that led the choir to sway to the music

-Too much emotion

-Dan Forrest had “let” his works be performed at Brigham Young University and may have been performed there himself as a conductor.

Per Ron’s comment, it’s worth noting that the criticisms he saw of the video he linked cannot stand even a cursory examination with Psalms 149 and 150. That is, if God commanded the use of percussive instruments (cymbals) and dancing in those Psalms, and He did, I really don’t see how you can credibly argue that music that uses percussive instruments and results in movement is wrong.

It’s not what we “fishbelly white” people are used to, but I don’t see the need to nail everybody’s feet to the floor based on a guilt by association argument, and actually in contradiction to Scripture.

[dcbii]

On some topics, we know God cares, but he hasn’t told us his mind, so when all biblical principle is exhausted, then in a practical sense, we have to consider that topic as being one indifferent to God, even though we can argue in theory that he has a mind on everything.

While this may at first appear irreverent and sacrilegious, Holy Indifference is the fundamental issue that goes far beyond music. We all engage in activities regularly that may be considered recreational - sports, movies, concerts, board games, theatre, Fun Time at The Wild’s, etc. How do we decide if any of it is moral? If we are supposed to “…do all to the glory of God” can we do that while watching A Bug’s Life, Bridge on the River Kwai, listening to Beethoven’s 3rd or Wagner’s Die Walkure, or attending a Detroit Red Wings game? While playing Monopoly, Rook, Spades, or Clash of Clans? Is God pleased when I laugh hysterically watching an impressionist or ventriloquist?

Going back to my [supposedly post-modern] earlier comment, this is where we must all be convinced whether the activities we do that are not able to be scripturally analyzed are pleasing to God, a wise use of our time, etc., and not condemn those who disagree - or try to convince them they are wrong for disagreeing, either.

Like a corpse risen from the grave, this thread is alive again!

[TylerR]

Like a corpse risen from the grave, this thread is alive again!

Many really do want answers, including me. If we don’t talk through things, we get stale, even prideful. We’ve all heard it - there is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.

Call me cynical. People have been asking the same questions in this thread and countless others, and they’re never answered. So, this thread is really just one more turn around the merry-go-round for me.

With Jason, I’d love to see some new thoughts, but am very disappointed that Tyler’s basically right and it’s a rhetorical merry-go-round.

As I’ve noted before in this thread, I am leaning to the position that there is no logically and rhetorically sound position that would compel Christians to reject certain genre of music. We can have preferences—which songs, groups, and genre communicate the Word of God to the People of God in lyric form most effectively in our given culture and time—but the only way I can see that people get to prohibitions is through guilt by association and other genetic fallacies.

Okay - so there’s my next question. It’s out of thread, of course, but I implore all you braniacs out there to explore that question. While it may be true that guilt by association is a genetic fallacy in the sense of classical argument, I’m not so sure the Bible doesn’t teach us about associations and the need to be concerned about them. If it can be proven that a Christian must be concerned about his associations, then Bert’s argument loses something.

Sorry, Bert - not trying to prove you wrong, just exploring.

[TylerR]

Call me cynical. People have been asking the same questions in this thread and countless others, and they’re never answered. So, this thread is really just one more turn around the merry-go-round for me.

That’s okay. Sometimes re-hashing is just good exercise. Whether we’re talking about things like limited atonement, Israel and the church, or spiritual gifts or things like gluttony, alcoholic beverages, marijuana, tattoos, music, divorce, remarriage, or any other hot-button issue, there can still be usefulness in the conversation.

Jason, look up the definition of guilt by association. It means that if A is objectionable, and A shares certain traits with B, that B is objectionable. In other words, since Kiss promotes fornication and partying and uses guitars, and Steve Pettit’s band has a guitar player (true), that Steve Pettit’s bluegrass band is morally objectionable, leading BJU students to fornication and partying.

Obviously not true.

What the Bible describes is summed up as “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Cor. 15), and in light of other passages which discuss this (e.g. 1 Cor. 7), what is meant is that close association with other people (not.things) will lead to our overlooking their sins, and perhaps even to committing those sins. For example, if Steve Pettit were to join Kiss on their farewell tour, he’d need to learn to overlook sinful lyrics by the band, as well as sinful behavior by the band after concerts. He might even take part in that.

See the difference? The use of an electric guitar and the 12 bar blues no more connects me to the sins of Gene Simmons than the use of a piano with showy flourishes connects me with the sins of Liberace. To be associated with either in the Biblical sense you refer to, I’d need to join the band.

Of course, your presupposition is that music is amoral, which makes it fit Romans 14.

Actually, no, that’s not my presupposition at all, and I don’t believe I have ever said anything like it here. I agree with most of what you wrote. But since you made a presumption about what I believed instead of reading what I wrote, you prove Dave’s point.

[Bert Perry]

Jason, look up the definition of guilt by association. It means that if A is objectionable, and A shares certain traits with B, that B is objectionable. In other words, since Kiss promotes fornication and partying and uses guitars, and Steve Pettit’s band has a guitar player (true), that Steve Pettit’s bluegrass band is morally objectionable, leading BJU students to fornication and partying.

Obviously not true.

What the Bible describes is summed up as “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Cor. 15), and in light of other passages which discuss this (e.g. 1 Cor. 7), what is meant is that close association with other people (not.things) will lead to our overlooking their sins, and perhaps even to committing those sins. For example, if Steve Pettit were to join Kiss on their farewell tour, he’d need to learn to overlook sinful lyrics by the band, as well as sinful behavior by the band after concerts. He might even take part in that.

See the difference? The use of an electric guitar and the 12 bar blues no more connects me to the sins of Gene Simmons than the use of a piano with showy flourishes connects me with the sins of Liberace. To be associated with either in the Biblical sense you refer to, I’d need to join the band.

First of all, if we’re going to compare the associations of the electric guitar or the 12 bar blues to those of the swastika, we are on the fast track to a violation of Godwin’s Law; the first person to bring the Nazis into a debate (frivolously) loses. And if we want to disassociate from every symbol the Nazis used, we can start with the eagle emblem.

And really, if we’re going to try to compare the Holocaust to the effects of the 12 bar blues, Godwin’s Law is the least of our problems.

And reality is that many cultures have used the swastika for centuries/millenia, from Asia to native Americans. Confronted with the comparison to the Nazis, they more or less say “we’ve been using this for centuries/millenia, those twits had it for 20 years.” And along the same lines, the reason the church shouldn’t use the swastika has nothing to do with the Nazis, and everything to do with the fact that the swastika has zero meaning in Christian theology.

The symbol that means something to us is the Cross, and if some clowns like Aryan Nation should abuse it—and they have—our response should not be to accede to the logical fallacy of guilt by association, but rather to say the same thing modern, non-anti-semitic users of the swastika would say; it was our symbol centuries before Aryan Nations started using it.

[Bert Perry]

First of all, if we’re going to compare the associations of the electric guitar or the 12 bar blues to those of the swastika, we are on the fast track to a violation of Godwin’s Law; the first person to bring the Nazis into a debate (frivolously) loses. And if we want to disassociate from every symbol the Nazis used, we can start with the eagle emblem.

It’s certainly true that bringing up an overly extreme example can muddy the waters of a conversation, but the point that symbols can have “guilty” associations does still remain. Fortunately for the eagle, our American associations are so strong that the Germans were not able to supersede them. The same can’t be said for earlier cultures which used the swastika. Even if they took a stand and tried to use it, the German associations are still too strong for today’s society.

And really, if we’re going to try to compare the Holocaust to the effects of the 12 bar blues, Godwin’s Law is the least of our problems.

And reality is that many cultures have used the swastika for centuries/millenia, from Asia to native Americans. Confronted with the comparison to the Nazis, they more or less say “we’ve been using this for centuries/millenia, those twits had it for 20 years.” And along the same lines, the reason the church shouldn’t use the swastika has nothing to do with the Nazis, and everything to do with the fact that the swastika has zero meaning in Christian theology.

BLUF: Imitate Christ – our love for Christian brothers must shape our personal choices

I felt it might be helpful to refocus on one of the key passages about which this entire conversation revolves – I Corinthians 8 – 11:1.

Some observations:

• Knowledge “puffs up” while love builds up.
• There are people who would not eat Meat Offered to Idols (MOI).
• Paul would prefer to never eat meat if it would offend a Christian brother.
• Offending a Christian brother is sin. (8:12)
• If someone offers you meat, or if you buy it in the marketplace, don’t question whether or not it was offered to idols.

The last point proves the MOI itself is not sinful. (10:25, 27). Nothing supernatural happens to the meat when it is offered that would cause it to have changed physical properties that would impact our bodies. Some believers would not eat. Why? I can think of only two possible reasons, since the MOI itself is not sinful:

1 – What it communicated to them

2 – What it may communicate to others

Regarding 1: What did it communicate to them that caused them to not want to eat it? Offering meat to idols may have been something they themselves used to do; they don’t do it any longer because they now worship the one true God and they do not want to be reminded of past sin (disgust, shame). They may also want to stay far from temptation to return to their past sinful practices. The validity of either is irrelevant; the reality is there were Christians who would not eat MOI for conscience sake.

Regarding 2: They may have been concerned about their testimony; eating MOI may make it appear to others that they still approve of the practice of offering meat to idols.

Is [pick a type] music itself sinful? I don’t believe it is any more sinful than a piece of meat – it’s music. No one will ever be able to prove that a particular musical composition – notes, rhythms, instruments used – is sinful. In fact, to try to do so could be said to be adding to scripture. God gave us the truth we need, and the Bible does not tell us how to judge a particular musical compositional style. However, like MOI, we do need to be concerned about the associations. There are styles of music that are culturally inexorably linked to sinful practices in our society. Citizens in Thailand may have zero knowledge of such links; the music communicates something completely different to them. To us, the use of such music is no different than MOI. But it is different for someone outside of the cultural associations of our own location - they may be completely surprised to find out the context of such styles in our culture.

If we are to obey God’s command to imitate Christ, we must be careful with the personal liberty choices we make with regards to offending a Christian brother. A wise imitator who may be a music leader or church pastor would avoid making changes to the musical content of the church that could offend one of his congregants. No pastor/music leader can avoid offending everyone, so obviously there is wisdom and discretion required, but if a church and it’s congregants are encouraged/satisfied/pleased with their current “old sounding” music, then great caution is prudent regarding introducing modern music with more pop-style syncopation or introducing instrumentation that may offend. In the personal realm, outside of church – in your car, in your home, etc., go ahead and eat your MOI: it really is okay, it isn’t sin if your conscience allows it. But if you have Christian friends over and you don’t know their opinions or past history well enough to know if they may be offended or not, don’t try to impose your “knowledge” on them, and don’t judge them if you find out they are offended by MOI. Neither satisfies the requirement to imitate Christ.

Regarding “why use the 12 bar blues if it has no meaning?” argument, that really presupposes the very thing to be established. I would posit that the use of modern musical forms has a huge benefit for the church in that, just like the hymns of Luther five centuries ago, the Wesley brothers’ hymns two centuries ago, and Booths’ Salvation Army songs of 150 years back. It is a useful tool for communicating the Word of God to the People of God when used properly.

And again, if you try guilt by association with regards to Gene Simmons of KISS, you are again implying guilt on the part of those who developed the techniques he uses—guys like the Swan Silvertones, Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, and Scott Joplin. Best to avoid this method of non-argumentation.

As I have mentioned many times before, I’ve been doing ministry primarily among the urban poor in GR for over 27 years, especially among fatherless African-American young men. Over 10 years ago, I brought a group of young men (some were Christians and some were not) to a Gospel Coalition sponsored event where Tim Keller spoke on ministering to the city, followed by a Christian Hip-Hop concert featuring LeCrae, Trip Lee, and a few other artists. One of my students that came with us was a young man named Giorgio, who was a Grand Rapids secular rapper. Giorgio’s wrote and performed music that was misogynistic-the lyrics objectified women and glorified sexual conquests, while completely glorifying himself, and was filled with a number of expletives. His concerts in GR had scantily-clad women as dancers and he did everything he could to make himself out to be a sexual object as well. For Giorgio, the Lecrae and Trip Lee Christian Hip-Hop concert was a culture shock to say the least. Lecrae and Trip Lee’s lyrics of their songs and concert atmosphere glorified Jesus, de-emphasized themselves, and communicated what life in Christ looks like-including confronting sexual sin.

After the concert on the way home, Giorgio communicated to me that he could never become a Christian because his entire lifestyle and music would have to change. He said that he did not want to live a Holy life and do Holy music like Lecrae and Trip Lee (yes he used those words). I find it interesting that someone like Giorgio who was completely embedded in the worst of Hip-Hop culture/rap music saw absolutely no worldly associations in Lecrae and Trip Lee but immediately associated their Christian Hip-Hop music with Holiness and the Christian faith/what new life in Christ would look like. But our fundamentalist Christian cultural assumptions would assume the opposite.

You wrote:

But our fundamentalist Christian cultural assumptions would assume the opposite.

Exactly. I believe some pastors, particularly those who are in “full-time, pastoral ministry” live in a Christian bubble and have little understanding about the “real world” that real people live in. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, but I believe it is a problem. This is why I see discussions about the “dangers” of CCM as laughable, and divorced from the practical realities of everyday life for ordinary Christians.

I have a 13-yr old, homeschooled girl at church from a good Christian home who says most of her classmates in a local school’s band class identify as gay, lesbian or transgender. Should I spend my time discussing the dangers of Hillsong with her? Please!

[Joel Shaffer]

But our fundamentalist Christian cultural assumptions would assume the opposite.

Anecdotes are useful, but only to a point. Many could give anecdotes contradicting yours.

Anecdotes are useful, but only to a point. Many could give anecdotes contradicting yours.

JNoel,

Of course its Anecdotal. But I live in an entirely different world than you. No one in my church or community is offended by the styles of contemporary black gospel and Hip-Hop. The only ones that I know who are offended are older people from a previous church that I attended who were told (brainwashed) for 50 years that certain music styles were of the devil by fundamentalist evangelists and pastors. The GARBC churches I grew up in the 1970s and 1980’s would have “Sketch” Erickson come and show a media presentation about the evils of Rock and popular music, movies, and TV shows. I realized how much of it was based personal preference when Sketch presented his top 10 TV shows that are harming America and it included the Waltons (because John Walton-the father rarely went to Church) and Hogans Heroes (because it offended some German friends of his). Thankfully arguments from Traditionalist-only Fundamentalist Christians (such as Michael Riley and Scott Aniol) are better, but they still are quite biased to their own musical preferences as much of their research with selected sources is biased to their own starting presuppositions. I agree with Tyler, these musical arguments pale in comparison to the clash of worldviews between Christian and Secular when it comes to sexuality. The teachers, administrators, and counselors of an academically rigorous magnet high school that is a block away from where we live in GR encourage all of the students to explore their sexual preferences and gender so about half the students identify as LGBTQ.

I think this conversation was most useful, though, when we were looking up-and-out at the real, underlying issue. Music is only a small piece of what is really being discussed - inherent morality (or lack thereof), Christians and associations, that kind of thing. Crack that nut, and music will logically follow.

Incidentally, I don’t at all disagree with your position, just that anecdotal evidence isn’t a great way to argue to support it.

The ACCC has just issued a proposed resolution against Hillsong

I have been away for a while mostly due to life and other interests, and I still don’t desire to dig deeply but let me respond here just briefly to a few things in several different posts.

First, to Kevin, thanks for the description of the “third category.” I think you are making my point, though I confess that I don’t see how that is a third category. I think the question is this: Is paint in and of itself something God is pleased with or displeased with? I think he is pleased with it. I have no biblical reason to conclude otherwise and you have offered none. You assert it is “neutral” but what does that actually mean? That God has no view at all of it? Again, how would we conclude such a thing? It seems that paint is part of the result of the image of God in man being demonstrated in creative abilities and God is pleased with that.

Now, when you move into the use of it, you then get into the crux of the matter. Paint can be used to brighten a room or to visualize a scene. It can also be used for obscenity and degeneracy. But that’s not because the paint is displeasing but the use of it. And that is the point I was making—that the thing (paint, music) is pleasing to God but it can be used in ways that are not pleasing for various reasons.

It’s why I find the discussion of “inherent meaning” to be useless to a large degree. Why are people hung up on that? We all acknowledge that art, music, tone of voice, and the like have different effects and create different atmospheres and communicate different things.

My guess is that every single parent here has, at one time or another, corrected their child on the tone of voice that was being used, and when your child complained that you didn’t have a verse that identified that particular tone as disrespectful, you were not convinced. Or if your spouse speaks to you angrily, you don’t need a verse to explain how the voice tone is angry. But God is not neutral about voices. He is pleased by the voice as a thing, and is either pleased or displeased with how it is used. There is no evidence that I know of apathy.