Cultural Conservatism, Styles and Accidental Meaning
A river in China features a warning sign for visitors. Thoughtfully, the authorities included this helpful English translation: “Take the child. Fall into water carefully.”
It is possible to intend one meaning and yet convey a very different one! In other words, a medium (vehicle of meaning) may “contain” meaning we do not realize is there. And use of that medium may also send a message we do not realize is being sent.
This phenomenon has important implications for the debate over cultural conservatism (“styles” or “forms” of music, dress, speech, etc.) and the sub-debate over the fitness of styles of music for worship. Many involved in the debate seem to reason that since they do not intend any meaning by the style they are using, and they are not aware of any meaning, therefore no meaning exists and none is being conveyed. Are they right?
The case of Corinth
Before we turn our attention to the implications of accidental cultural meaning, we should pause and consider another question: does the Bible teach that styles have meaning—intended or otherwise? It does, and 1 Corinthians 11 contains an example. In this passage, not only does a medium convey meaning, but the meaning conveyed is not what some of those involved intended.
I anticipate two objections. Objection one: “Wait. 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the most famously difficult passages in the NT. You’re going to make your case from there?” Objection two: “There is nothing about styles in 1 Corinthians 11.”
Styles
Taking the second objection first, whether there is anything about styles in the chapter depends on what we mean by “styles.” An artist always works with a medium. Whether it’s clay, stone, paint, words, physical movement, music or a combination of these, most artists believe they are using a medium to carry meaning to a recipient. Language works the same way. In a people group or geographical region, spoken and written word is a medium for communication. People share enough of the same understanding of words and phrases to use them and understand one another.
This is why the river sign in China is a fail for English speakers. Between the sign makers and native English speakers, there is too little shared understanding of the medium. (Interestingly, most would agree that one of the two parties understands the medium incorrectly. It isn’t simply a matter of preference.)
When it comes to “style,” we’re just talking about another medium. Fashion designers have long held that the style of their work conveys meaning (the Wikipedia entry on fashion is interesting on this point). This is the very definition of a medium. In Webster, it’s “a means of effecting or conveying something.” And who can deny that the police officer’s uniform, the clown’s getup, the judge’s robes, the sports-fan’s jersey, and the bride’s gown all convey very different meanings? The fact that styles are mediums of meaning surrounds us every day.
So, while the concept of styles does not appear specifically in 1 Corinthians 11, the category of mediums does, and style is in that category. To say it another way, style is a species of the genus medium. What is true of the genus is true of the species.
Difficulty
The second objection was this: Should we use such a difficult passage to make the point that in Scripture style has meaning? In this case, the difficulty turns out to be irrelevant. Regardless of how one interprets the most difficult parts of the passage, two things are clear:
- In Corinth, the presence or absence of a head covering meant something.
- Some of the Corinthians were conveying that meaning without realizing it.
These points hold, regardless of whether one understands the head covering to be hair or a veil or something else. The most germane part of the text follows:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (ESV, 1 Cor. 11:3-7, 10)
Whatever else may have been amiss in Corinth, it’s evident that their problems included misconduct with head coverings, that this misconduct conveyed inappropriate meaning (note the question in 11:13, “Is it proper…?”), and that they were not all aware of the meaning they were conveying (“but I want you to understand,” v.3).
For Paul, the solution to the problem was to make the Corinthians aware of the meaning their head covering, or lack of head covering, conveyed. The medium of the head covering meant something in Corinthian society. In that context, it apparently even meant something to “the angels” (v. 10).
Implications for the cultural conservatism debate
If a medium can contain meaning we’re unaware of and convey that meaning to others, what are the implications for the culture debate in general and music styles in particular?
We don’t have proof here that a blue grass twang conveys important differences in meaning from a pipe organ, that bluesy chord progressions convey important differences in meaning from classical chord progressions or that modern syncopated rhythms convey important differences in meaning from the simpler rhythms of high hymnody.
However, both daily experience and 1 Corinthians 11 reveal that meaning may exist where we think it doesn’t. Whether our convictions lead us toward traditional or more contemporary “styles,” the phenomenon of accidental meaning calls on us to think soberly about our stylistic choices. We really can “say things” through style that we don’t intend to say.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 20 views
Music does have a universal, biological meaning.
I really don’t know anything about biological meaning. This is a part of the debate I’m not at all familiar with. As far as my own experience with music goes… the biological factors have never seemed important. I’ve apparently missed that in Aniol et. al. as well.
In any case, there is quite a lot to think through just considering meaning and affections.
Seems to me there are two major categories of concerns: meaning and results.
Jay (previous post) is focused on results, and as Americans, we have a strong tilt toward results arguments. We’re all pretty pragmatic. I’m more interested in meaning (which has some relationship to results, but is a concern apart from them).
To relate Jay’s question to 1 Cor 11, we don’t have anything in the text on this but it’s quite posible that for the Corinthians the personal results of their head covering misconduct were probably quite positive. There must have been some reason for what they were doing. But Paul’s point is that quite apart from personal, subjective results, it is possible to be conveying meaning w/o intending to or realizing you are. And that can be a problem even with personal benefit among the results.
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.
Aaron, I’m simply asking this question out of curiosity and trying to understand your position better.
Does your wife wear a head covering? Did you as a pastor teach the women in your church to wear head coverings?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Aaron Blumer] Jay (previous post) is focused on results, and as Americans, we have a strong tilt toward results arguments. We’re all pretty pragmatic. I’m more interested in meaning (which has some relationship to results, but is a concern apart from them).To relate Jay’s question to 1 Cor 11, we don’t have anything in the text on this but it’s quite possible that for the Corinthians the personal results of their head covering misconduct were probably quite positive. There must have been some reason for what they were doing. But Paul’s point is that quite apart from personal, subjective results, it is possible to be conveying meaning w/o intending to or realizing you are. And that can be a problem even with personal benefit among the results.
Aaron,
That’s why I asked the question I did. The music that I referenced above conveys meaning that is spiritually edifying-
Fear not, He is with us, oh be not dismayed
For He is our God, our sustainer and strength
He’ll be our defender and cause us to stand
Upheld by His merciful, almighty handHow firm our foundation
The soul that is trusting in Jesus as Lord
How sure our salvation
And we will not be shaken
Jesus, firm foundation
Will press on enduring the darkest of storms
And though even hell should endeavor to shake
He’ll never, no never, no never forsake
He’ll never, no never, no never forsakeAge to age He stands
Faithful to the end
All may fade away
But He will remain
He will remain
is part of the song. So I find it difficult to believe that there are impersonal or negative results communicated from that song - maybe detrimental to the Adversary or his work, but not for believers. I find it even more of a stretch that the song communicates something other than what it’s talking about (especially when most of the detractors haven’t actually heard the song that is ‘fleshly’, etc).
The counterargument, of course, is that it’s the music underlying those lyrics (they use drums and electric guitars). So by what means do we know (to borrow from my Greek classes - not the ‘knowing of experience’ (ginoskw) but the ‘“to know without a doubt, to know for certain [knowledge] ” (oida, B. 9) ) that x style music is sinful, fleshly, etc.
That’s where I think the conservative side runs into issues. I don’t think that they can argue for an oida standard. They argue for a ginoskw standard. Then they want to teach that their ginoskw standards should be treated as oida standards.
Furthermore, I think we have to talk about results - because all of this discussion does, ultimately, have to affect the way we live. If I believed in a conservative music standard but taught a more progressive standard, I’d be a hypocrite, right? :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Karl S]Personally, I can just tell you that there is much music which I can hear for just a couple seconds, and immediately identify as “angry”, “lustful”, “violent”, etc. And there are some instances in which I immediately think “peacful”, “rejoicing”, etc. There are other cases where I have to sit back and analyze it more closely to try and determine what is being communicated. I believe that over time my senses have become more acute by “reason of use” (Heb. 5:14) to discern the good and the evil. However, there is still a long way to go, and my analysis (whether instantaneous, or more cerebral based upon Scriptural principles, etc.) may be wrong or lacking; there is a continual need of further Spiritual maturity.
But see we’re right back at the beginning here again. All you’ve done is beg the question—you haven’t presented any objective measure of how you “immediately identify” certain things. It’s entirely subjective. Other Christians who’ve spent as much time in the faith (and by their fruit—excepting music of course since that’s the topic of debate there—demonstrate it) identify quite the opposite. Who should be trust? Given that the scripture doesn’t identify particular styles in the way you do, then we’re left to either 1.) allow it to be a matter of personal conscience and discernment of 2.) trust the mystical “higher knowledge” that you seem to have. Since the second idea is obviously unbiblical, I’d take the first.
[Karl S]Paul in this passage clearly establishes that the issue of head coverings does carry inherent moral weight, not only because of the omission of the principles mentioned previously, but due to the fact that he calls “nature” itself as a witness in defense of this principle (I Cor. 11:14). It seems as if he’s admonishing them to simply use common sense knowledge of natural revelation to instruct them in the necessity of this matter. God’s created order can guide them in this area! In other words, this is an issue which transcends preference or culture.
…
However, when we come to I Cor. 11:1-3, he states “be ye followers of me” and “keep the ordinances”. We are now moving out of the arena of deference, and into areas requiring consistent obedience in adherence to moral principles. He begins his argument by stating a Spiritual law (I Cor. 11:3). The practice of head coverings comes from the Scriptural law of authority and jurisdiction. This is not dependent upon interpretation, preference, or cultural conditioning; it cannot be changed. Therefore, in the issue of hair/head coverings, we must always be acting in a way which accurately reflects and reveals the Spiritual law upon which the idea is based.
Are you saying that even in our culture today that to wear a head covering or not is a moral issue?
I do not believe that Paul is communicating that there is inherent moral weight to head coverings. Rather, he’s saying that there’s a timeless moral principle that we shouldn’t dress in a way that causes confusion between the genders—for nature itself teaches us that there is a difference.
An application of that principle in the Corinthian’s culture was that of head coverings: and so Paul makes the application—strongly so. But the act/item itself (head coverings) is still analogous to the meat offered to idols because the it is not moral in and of itself. It is moral because of what it communicates in a culture.
Which is why to Aaron’s main point I say in one sense, so what? I think we could all agree that things can communicate something other than what we intend. That happens in practically every area of our life—and probably fairly frequently too. So nothing’s really been proved by just going that far. It just brings us right back to the beginning of asking the question if a certain style of music (intentionally or unintentionally) communicates something immoral. And so far that remains a subjective question. Karl S. claims he knows it does. How? By reason of the fact that he feels it to be so. I and others claim that it does not communicate that at all to us. So unless there’s an objective standard, then we’re left at a stalemate—at which point I would suggest the biblical response would be that in light of Romans 14 it would be a sin for me to force/cause Karl S. to listen to something against his conscience, and it would also be a sin for Karl S. to bind my conscience with what binds his.
Jay, it’s clear that the relationship between conveying meaning and “results” is an overlapping one. “Edification” is a result, though. People being built up. So what I’m arguing on that subpoint is that it is possible for people to experience the result of being built up in one way and at the same time be doing something that is damaging/wrong in another way.
- Think of it as sort of like running for exercise. It’s helping your heart and lungs etc but slowly damaging your knees.
In this case, though, I’m talking mainly about conveying meaning as something morally and spiritually important whether it has any negative results or not. Just as it’s theoretically possible to do something that produces both benefit A and harm B, it’s possible to do something that produces benefit A and is itself wrong in way C…. without producing any “harm.”
In other words, in addition to the “How does this impact people?” question, there is the “How does God view this?” question. In 1Cor.11, Paul does not seem to be interested in results on a human level mainly, though I suppose the conveying of meaning is conveying it mainly to people. But the angels are also involved and what should we infer about how God sees it? There seems to be some indication there that the authority, glory and headship messages we convey are of great importance to God Himself… independently of any impact on the people involved.
Of course, none of this proves that music style B (or maybe “R” :D ) conveys meaning in a way that offends God. All I’m aiming for here is the idea that there can be important meaning we are not aware of.
Once we accept this premise, there are several necessary implications for how we approach decisions about style.
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.
Greg asked upthread about my view of hats/veils, etc. My answer on that is that I’m truly not sure. What I have taught on that is that there seemed to be meaning in the head covering that was specific to the cultural setting and that the application for us is to ask “How do we convey that meaning in our setting?”
On practical grounds… to get pragmatic again, I often think we would do well in our times to raise our families with some visible signs of authority and glory. Growing up with this kind of instructional tool could be quite helpful. And we really are at a point where, as Christians, we have to get used to not fitting in to our culture… in increasingly conspicuous ways.
But to return to my original thesis, even if the specific message of head coverings in 1 Cor 11 was bound to that culture, my point stands. In their setting they were conveying meaning through the head-covering medium and were not fully aware of what meaning they were conveying.
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.
[dcbii] If the meaning can’t easily be determined by everyone then one of several things must be true:1. The inherent meaning can be overshadowed completely by cultural meaning, which makes the inherent meaning nearly or completely irrelevant in some or even many contexts.2. The inherent meaning is not particularly important, since all do not perceive it. If it takes an “expert” to know what the meaning is, it’s either not inherent, or it’s unimportant, since the average person will not know it.3. Inherent meaning is a fiction — all meaning is determined by other factors influencing the listener.I don’t believe that “anything goes” in respect to music. But unless and until someone can show me how to clearly determine the absolute meaning of any piece of music without having to bring it to an “expert” who will somehow determine the meaning for me, instead of explaining how I can know it, I’m not likely to believe in that inherent meaning, or consider it important even if I would believe it exists.
I think 10 minutes spent in any college literary criticism class listening to students attempting to get at the meaning of a poem (which is art made of words rather than notes) would reveal the assertions above to be overstated at best.
[DavidO]Actually, I had to take a bit of that myself, and I think you actually make my point for me, though I have no claim to being a literary expert. The way I see it, the various interpretations of different pieces of literature run far afield from one another, because it’s rarely clear to the reader *exactly* what the piece means, or even is intended to mean, unless it’s completely literal with no symbolism at all. Obviously, you can get closer the less symbolism is used. However, even if the author gives an interpretation of what he *intended* it to mean, if the work is couched in such literary form that the meaning is not universal to the reader, I would argue that the meaning is not inherent to the piece at all, or if it is, it’s an insignificant meaning, even if the author intended it to be clear.I don’t recall hearing one of my professors who could be 100% clear on what the meaning of a literary work is when they didn’t have the author’s comments in front of them. The professors tended to speak as we do about the scriptures. I.e. such-and-such a critic says this, or the majority of literary critics think this because of these reasons, etc. But if you try to pin them down and ask what *proof* they have that it absolutely means whatever, they can only guess (even if they are highly educated guesses), not speak with 100% clarity. Of course, my professors were an insignificant sampling of the literary field, but they were referring to the whole body of critical work in the field.Naturally, the fact that there are various interpretations doesn’t prove there isn’t inherent meaning there, but we also cannot assume there must be, unless it’s so obvious it can’t be missed. A characteristic of something that is inherent is a natural quality of that thing. It may be something hard to see, or easy to see, but “inherent” quality that is completely hidden is then not of any use to us, because we can’t perceive it, and then it’s much more useful to talk in terms of qualities that actually affect us. Karl speaks of the inherent qualities of the music actually communicating to us. If we can’t pick up that communication, then I would argue it’s not really communicating to us. If we can pick it up, even in the smallest amount, then that amount is measurable and definitive if it is truly inherent.More to the point of the OP, if the meaning picked up by the reader is quite different from the intended meaning (assuming we know what that is), then it’s hard to say the intended meaning is inherent, especially when the majority of readers see something else, because they don’t have the thoughts the author did when he wrote it.I think your analogy is pretty good, though. Music is a lot more like literature than it is like physics. Since the listener thinks and feels various things as he listens to the music, a lot of which may have been influenced by factors not even in the conception of the composer, it may have a completely unintended meaning to the listener, just as literary pieces can speak completely different things to different readers.I think 10 minutes spent in any college literary criticism class listening to students attempting to get at the meaning of a poem (which is art made of words rather than notes) would reveal the assertions above to be overstated at best.
Dave Barnhart
[Karl S]Actually, I completely agree with this, but in no way does the prompting of the spirit make that meaning inherent to the music. It could be, but it could also be something that the Spirit is convicting you of that may in fact be a Rom. 14 issue, or something in between. There is plenty of music I would not want to use in a worship service for just this reason. I could also say things about the association, appropriateness, etc. If the Spirit makes me this uncomfortable about something, I would be unwise (at best) to go against His prompting. However, the very fact that people can come to strong convictions that oppose one another as in Romans makes me want to be very careful in trying to make my conviction into something inherent, simply because I feel or believe so strongly about it. I believe that if we try to make something that came from the prompting of the Spirit into an absolute without clear scriptural proof, then we are in fact claiming “hidden” knowledge from the Spirit, something Paul specifically disavows.I believe there is a sense in which the Spirit may prompt our hearts, and upon hearing a certain song, something is ill at ease in our soul and we are Spiritually wary of it, although we may not understand all the reasons for that.
I don’t disagree with this either, but when we do this, different men all seeking God’s will in this area can come to different conclusions. If that’s true, can this perceived communication truly be considered inherent, or is it perhaps something that comes from factors like cultural conditioning, upbringing, etc.? If any Romans 14 issues can exist (and I’m not saying music must be one of those), then things can be truly wrong in one context that are not in another, and according to the scriptures, this is something God allows in his sovereignty.I can’t say that music is simply a Romans 14 issue, but neither do I see it’s meaning in an inherent sense. If music has inherent meaning, that must be proved, not assumed. But even if it is proved, if that inherent meaning is unclear, or not easily perceivable by most, then we need to use other criteria to evaluate that music or anything else for how we use it/them.I believe God would have us test the spirits and seek those things which communicate most wholesomely and Biblically; in music, as well as in other areas of life.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii] I think you actually make my point for me, though I have no claim to being a literary expert. The way I see it, the various interpretations of different pieces of literature run far afield from one another, because it’s rarely clear to the reader *exactly* what the piece means, or even is intended to mean, unless it’s completely literal with no symbolism at all. Obviously, you can get closer the less symbolism is used. However, even if the author gives an interpretation of what he *intended* it to mean, if the work is couched in such literary form that the meaning is not universal to the reader, I would argue that the meaning is not inherent to the piece at all, or if it is, it’s an insignificant meaning, even if the author intended it to be clear… Naturally, the fact that there are various interpretations doesn’t prove there isn’t inherent meaning there, but we also cannot assume there must be, unless it’s so obvious it can’t be missed.
Actually, I think you make Aaron’s point for him—the reality of both intended meaning and perceived meaning(s). We must indeed assume there is intended meaning when someone puts pen to paper/pixels to screen or else why would they ever bother to do it? Even lack of apparent meaning is its own sort of meaning, as critic William Logan asserts of the poet John Ashberry’s work.
Or am I seeing meaning in the words you bothered to type out where you intended none? :D
Seriously, don’t you think most people, without consciously doing so, look to artistic expressions as instances of human communication. That, it seems to me, is the basic assumption. Let us not be so agnostic about it.
We could ask all day what Michelangelo was attempting to communicate with his statue of David, but absent an explanation from him, maybe he intended nothing more than for us to consider David’s person and life, and that consideration could end up being quite different for each of us. I would bet that many miss even that and see no more than the skillful shaping of marble.
Maybe it would be really cool if I could attach some musical sounds to the bottom of each of my posts and see if the users can guess what I’m trying to communicate! :)
Or maybe I should just post different musical sounds in response to each post I’m answering. If the meaning is unambiguous and taken exactly as I intend, no one would be confused with what they are hearing, right?
I get your point (I think) that artistic expression is intended to communicate something. I just don’t necessarily agree that even intended meaning is inherent — the meaning could simply be assigned or attached, or something culturally understood. Maybe it could even be something only a particular listener gets.
Dave Barnhart
Well I think we’re getting somewhere.
[dcbii] We could ask all day what Michelangelo was attempting to communicate with his statue of David, but absent an explanation from him, maybe he intended nothing more than for us to consider David’s person and life, and that consideration could end up being quite different for each of us…I get your point (I think) that artistic expression is intended to communicate something. I just don’t necessarily agree that even intended meaning is inherent — the meaning could simply be assigned or attached, or something culturally understood. Maybe it could even be something only a particular listener gets.
I suspect an expert in Renaissance art might have a better idea about what David means than your average Precious Moments collector (no offense if any such collectors are in the room).
As for inherent/intended/universal muscial meanings, this is an interesting read. Not definitive by any stretch, but demonstrates the notion is not merely a fringe Christian conservative one.
Okay … way behind in this discussion, but wanted to get back to Jay at least (or first).
I’m trying to understand the points you’re making and on what you are wanting me to expand.
“So what do you do with standard hymns that are set to updated musical ‘tunes’ that some tell you are affecting your relationship negatively when you believe it impacts you positively?”
If you’re at a point where you’re listening to these things and you believe it is helping you spiritually, then why stop listening to it, unless it tweaks your conscience when you listen? If at a later time you become convinced that such styles are problematic or unwise, then give it up when God makes it clear to you. In the mean time, if you’re still wrestling with it, research the issue and pray for God’s wisdom.
You also said that “God cannot possibly approve of all music”. Not sure what you mean by this. Would he disapprove only because of your own cultural context, or because it is communicating something innately that would displease Him? If it’s only cultural, then would He completely approve of it in another culture, or in heaven?
“I’d like to know where you think it becomes ‘safe’ to speak of a subjective nature when it comes to matters of discernment. That’s why guys like Greg Long and myself in other threads continually circle back to Romans 14, Colossians 3, and Ephesians 5.”
You seem to be asking me (if I’m understanding correctly) where (or if) I would draw the line and say “brother, on this side of the line, you have to determine that for yourself; I’m not going to speak yea or nay on this side of the line”.
First you must understand that the presupposition of my position places this issue outside of the Romans 14 arena. There Paul is dealing with matters and choices that are not “unclean of itself” (Rom. 14:14). If I believe that music (which is a product, not an element) can be unclean in some forms, then I apply other passages to the issue as I deal with other believers.
Therefore, if a brother is listening to music which I believe is characterized by worldliness or fleshliness, and the opportunity presents itself, I would be obligated to exhort him what I believe would be his best interest. An area of “subjectivity” as you put it, might arise where the music was (according to my honest analysis) God-honoring, but because of some experiential reason, a certain believer associated it with something evil or fleshly (like the “Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken” example above). Here I would apply more of a Romans 14 approach. Why intentionally sing the song around this believer and cause an offense to their conscience?
“Either we have an objective measure or we don’t - but let’s not argue that we do have an objective measure and then find ourselves unable to define or defend that objective measure.”
I’m not sure what meets your criteria for an “objective measure”. Is there one particular verse or one particular song or one single axiom that defines a hard and fast line, to which we hold up every piece of music on earth and immediately see which side of the line it’s on? No, I don’t believe so. I believe it involves applying Biblical principles of holiness, worship, separation, appropriateness, discernment, etc. (oida, if you will) to the music, by using a Spiritually enlightened worldview of the actions, attitudes, and trends that surround us (the ginoskw).
For example, if we determine that head banging and a wild flailing of the body (which we have observed - ginoskw) is an exhibition of aggression or lack of self-control (which we know we are commanded against - oida), and if we observe that a certain style or “sound” of music is often accompanied by head banging/body flailing, then practical wisdom would dictate distancing oneself from that which is disposed to lead to a lack of restraint. This is simply applying Scriptures like I Cor. 9:25-27 and I Pet. 5:8 in a practical fashion.
Along the way there should be some songs/styles/sounds that we immediately identify as “worldly”, “chaotic”, etc., and refuse those things (like this for example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGK00Q7xx-s) and things like them. There will be other things which takes much more work and wisdom to examine and either approve or refuse.
My objective here is not to argue what does and does not fit into each category, but simply for the fact that we should be examining these things, clinging to what is good, and letting go of the rest (I Thess 5:21).
Ok, KarlS - I think I see what you’re saying. But I’m still confused.
You said at the very beginning that you think that the music falls outside of a Romans 14 framework:
First you must understand that the presupposition of my position places this issue outside of the Romans 14 arena. There Paul is dealing with matters and choices that are not “unclean of itself” (Rom. 14:14). If I believe that music (which is a product, not an element) can be unclean in some forms, then I apply other passages to the issue as I deal with other believers.
But then you said:
I’m not sure what meets your criteria for an “objective measure”. Is there one particular verse or one particular song or one single axiom that defines a hard and fast line, to which we hold up every piece of music on earth and immediately see which side of the line it’s on? No, I don’t believe so.
So your position demands some kind of objective rule that transcends Romans 14 - because music is ‘unclean in some forms’. Yet you also say that there is ‘no one single axiom that defines that hard and fast line to which we hold up every piece of music and see which side of the line it’s on.’
What criteria do you use, then, to prove the things that are (to borrow from Romans 12) ‘good, acceptable, and perfect?’ It seems like, as someone else noted, the position is ‘have my cake’ (or music that I like) and ‘eat it too’ (reject what music I personally see as bad). Which is almost where I land, and yet my position is the one that needs to change and is presented as wrong or flawed when we have this discussion on SI. Dr. Aniol, Dr. Harding, and others aren’t going to listen to the kinds of music that I would, because they seem them as sinful, not bad.
This is the single biggest issue that I have with those who argue that modern music (of the SGM variety or the hymn remakes I made above) - by what authority do you decide the music is best? We’d agree that we do not need musicologists to determine that, and we’d also agree that the Scripture is the sole and final rule for matters of faith and practice. Yet whenever I’ve entered these discussions with conservative musicians, they can never exactly delineate why the kinds of songs that I’ve put forth as examples are ‘bad songs’. We inevitably wind up at Romans 14 - certain instruments bother some and not others. Certain styles bother some and not others. Certain lyrics bother some and not others. So either Romans 14 applies across the board or it doesn’t. I took a stab at defining my criteria in a different thread, and if I can find the post, I’ll link to it here for you.
I think that if I could get a straight answer on how we can judge the acceptability of ____________ musical piece, it would clear up the ‘fog’ that I keep wandering in. But I can’t seem to get that answer from any conservatives. So maybe I’m missing something?
Appreciate the back and forth. Thanks for engaging.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion