Music in the Bible and the Contemporary Music Styles Debate (Part 4)
Image
Gregg Strawbridge continues his series about contemporary music styles in the church.
Christianity, Culture and Music
The larger issue in the entire discussion of CM is Christ and culture. How are we to see the basic relationship between the people of God and cultures in the world? To put it in Biblical terms, what are the full implications of being “in the world but not of the world” (Joh 17) and doing all things to the glory of God (1Co 10:31). Moreover, where do the Biblical principles of accommodation function - “And to the Jews I became as a Jew … I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” (1Co 9:20-22)?
For my own commitments here, I believe that Christ will largely transform culture. The Biblical support for this Calvinistic view may even be drawn in several distinct categories:
Missiologically
We have both the imperative and prophetic forms of world discipleship which implies that Christ will transform culture to some extent (Mat 28:19-20 (11) & Psa 22:27).
Eschatologically
Christ’s second advent is sequenced by reigning at the right hand of God “until He has put all His enemies under His feet,” the last of which is death which is demonstrably overcome at the resurrection (1Co 15:25, 54-55). Hence those of His enemies which have cultural manifestations shall be affected in the present progressive reign of Christ.
Culturally
The music of the redeemed shall flow from all ethne, loosely stated, from all cultures. For example, Isaiah speaks the word of the Lord saying, “Sing to the Lord a new song, sing His praise from the end of the earth! (Isa 40:10). “Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth” (Psa 96:1). Notice that “new songs” are being commanded from other nations.
The New Testament indicates that worship from other nations is a climactic hope in the drama of redemption. God desires for “the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, ‘Therefore I will give praise to thee among the gentiles, and I will sing to Thy name’ and again he says… ‘praise the Lord all you gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him’ ” (Rom 15:9-11). “And they sang a new song …Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation’ ” (Rev 5:9-10). Therefore, we are as much as told that the nations will use their music to glorify God.
Developmentally
Scripture itself recognizes change in cultural mediums of communication and allows for cultural differences and changes within time. Proof of this might be developed from observing the linguistic references throughout Scripture. “And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading” (Neh 7:8, see also Mat 1:23, Mar 15:34).
Cultural diversity and change is factually depicted and assumed throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. Moreover, the revelation of the Messiah is brought through the medium of the Greco-Roman language and culture with Judaistic roots rather than the language Abraham, Moses, or David eras - remembering their were vast differences lingustically/culturally between even these patriarchs.
When this is coupled with the “sing a new song” prescriptions, linked to ethnic groups (Psa 96:1-2; Isa 42:10-11) and that redemption is intended for “every tribe and language and people and nation,” the ethnomusical implications are strong. The cultures of the world will and do in fact use their languages and musical expressions for praise! Hallelujah! - this is a universal word of praise.
Culture and the Heart-Language
If music changes interactively with culture, whatever the musical heart-language of people is, is the best for expression of heart-truth. As Chenowith and Bee say, “When a people develops its own hymns with both vernacular words and music, it is good evidence that Christianity has truly taken root” (p. 212). Like it or not, a country bumpkin, harmonically impoverished with the sounds of Nashville, will not sing “I love you” to his fiance in the style of John Dowland’s renaissance Lute songs (a sixteenth century court musician of Queen Elizabeth).
Adequate reflection on the issues here will prevent us from adding to Scripture our pseudo-absolutes. We will not be as quick to condemn the musical mediums of other cultures and subcultures by imposing an ethnocentric standard. Our North American culture certainly is not an authoritative standard by which we can judge other cultures. We have no more right to impose a North American or Western European style of music on other cultures than we do to make them have their services in Latin. (And we’d be probably be better off to impose Latin rather than our current cultural norms.)
As Protestants we all believe “the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages” (Larger Catechism 156) and prayer is to be “if vocal, in a known tongue” (Westminster Confession 21:3). But people also need the “vulgate,” of music in their common tongue, do they not? Some level of intelligibility is required (1Co 14:7-9, observe Paul’s very illustration). The irrelevance and ineffectiveness of the church is often fostered by an unreflective stance against the new. On all sides our shared concern should be for the communication of meaning and truth. Our music styles must comport with this. Calvin Johansson, though no friend of CM, has acknowledged the need for cultural and subcultural relevance in his stimulating book, Music and Ministry: A Biblical Counterpoint (1984).
Relevancy in church music is neither a matter of popularity nor of intrinsic worth, but a matter of identification with music. That is to say, the music must have something about it which is recognizable and ordinary, both in the configuration of the various musical elements and in its total impact…One must also pay attention to the peculiar musical culture of the congregation. (p. 39)
Music is a manifestation of culture, like language, which changes. Though we must not fail to distinguish Biblical absolutes from cultural relatives, this is not ethical relativism. The one individual who made the term “absolutes” part of the current Christian vocabulary, Francis Schaeffer (Art and the Bible, 1973) said, “Let me say firmly that there is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style” (p. 51). “And as a Christian adopts and adapts various contemporary techniques, he must wrestle with the whole question, looking to the Holy Spirit for help to know when to invent, when to adopt, when to adapt and to not use a specific style at all. This is something each artist wrestles with for a life time, not something he settles once and for all” (p. 55).
Music makers make sounds with the particular instrument-technology available. Further refinements culturally and technologically necessitate different musical sounds. Before the technology to make valves for brass instruments or hinged keys for woodwind instruments was available, wind instruments had a different sound with limitations in range and technique.
It may surprise people who are fond of the “tyranny of the organ” to realize that no Biblical-times music in any recognizable way resembled the sounds they call “sacred.” These sorts of technological changes alone account for vast transformations, much less the profound philosophical, religious, and linguistic changes affecting musical-stylistical developments.
My twentieth century harmony professor, composer Luigi Zaninelli, used to take exception to the idea that music has “progressed.” He would say it has simply “evolved” (i.e., no value judgment). Given the Biblical view of history, though, I would assert that music has progressed in the sense that it is intertwined with the unfolding plan of redemption and the advance of Christ’s kingdom. Moreover, music has become more complex and intricate, being the occupation of the intelligence, feeling, ambition, and purposes of more and more people made in the image of God.
When new sounds are made and development takes place the result is change in some aspect of that music. Eventually such changes make the music different enough to warrant the description that it has become a new style. For a distinctly Christian artist, new musical styles should be molded for the glory of God. As Schaeffer (1973) has said, “To demand the art forms of yesterday in either word systems or art is a bourgeois failure” (p. 49).
This series continues next week.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
At the risk of indulging the intended troll purpose of this entire series, I’ll engage on some of the content.
During Installment 2, the author introduced a criticism of CCM - that being that there is no such thing as amoral music. He then neglected to answer the argument, dancing around other ancillary topics. I’m curious to know if the author believes that any form of human communication lacks moral quality.
During this post, the author introduced something called the “accommodation function.” He appears to believe that 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 justifies this approach because Paul “became all things to all men.” This is a common exegetical error embraced by proponents of CCM, desperate to find Biblical support.
Paul, in no way is espousing accommodation - he is proclaiming almost the complete opposite - the principle of restricting liberty as a means of reaching the lost. I find it interesting that the Bible Gateway version of the ESV titles the chapter “Paul Surrenders His Rights.” That description is accurate.
Of course the writer rips these 3 verses out of context. He must. They are his principal passage to justify his pragmatic approach.
He then goes on to say, “We have both the imperative and prophetic forms of world discipleship which implies that Christ will transform culture to some extent (Mat 28:19-20 (11) & Psa 22:27).” This is nothing more than eisegesis.
He commits further eisegesis when he uses Revelation 5:9-10 to pontificate: “Therefore, we are as much as told that the nations will use their music to glorify God.” Uh, no. It doesn’t say that. It says we’ll be singing a “new song.”
There’s more that could be addressed. I’ll finish with this. He blunders into numerous fallacies, including the appeal to authority when he cites Shaeffer (the one who re-introduced the concept of absolutes into the Christian vernacular) saying, ““Let me say firmly that there is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style.” Do we really believe that?
Despite my one sarcastic comment in the first installment, this five-part series is not intended to be a “trolling” exercise. It’s a substantive work that the author presented at ETS some years ago.
Agree or disagree with the content as you wish.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Despite my one sarcastic comment in the first installment, this five-part series is not intended to be a “trolling” exercise. It’s a substantive work that the author presented at ETS some years ago.
Agree or disagree with the content as you wish.
I am also in awe that someone thinks this is a “troll” series. It actually is maybe the best writing I have seen on the subject in a long time. Certainly is light years better than the other church music stuff we have seen here over the past year.
A somewhat less than careful reading of Tyler’s intentions - and the others who piled on after him may help reduce the shock and awe:
TylerR - I did this for you, Rajesh! But, where art thou?
Kevin Miller - He’s likely waiting for the second and third installment, if he’s even been on the internet yet today.
Mark_Smith - You are seeking a 27 page thread on the meaning of “is” in 1 Cor 11:23?
I’m sure that was all stated in love, though.
[KD Merrill]Excuse me. Why am I included in a “piling on” accusation? Tyler did say something snarky, but my comment was acknowledging that Rajesh likely would have some disagreement with future segments, just as you have expressed disagreement. Since Rajesh has shown an interest in discussing music, I honestly thought he might chime in. How is that “piling on”?A somewhat less than careful reading of Tyler’s intentions - and the others who piled on after him may help reduce the shock and awe:
TylerR - I did this for you, Rajesh! But, where art thou?
Kevin Miller - He’s likely waiting for the second and third installment, if he’s even been on the internet yet today.
Mark_Smith - You are seeking a 27 page thread on the meaning of “is” in 1 Cor 11:23?
I’m sure that was all stated in love, though.
I apologize, Kevin. Given Tyler’s snark, I assumed your response was in kind. My bad.
KD, it would seem that it’s incumbent upon you to propose a rationale for music of certain eras, and not of others, that does not rely on guilt by association fallacies. I’ve read a bit of Garlock and Gothard, and have yet to see that. If you’ve got that, I’m game to read it.
My take is that since Scripture never describes music as an inherently moral art, that we ought to keep the question of whether there is moral and immoral music as “adiaphora” (not specified in Scripture), and address the question as whether the music succeeds in a Biblical purpose for music. For that purpose, I’d propose that music in the church ought to serve as a way to convey God’s Word (including theology) to God’s people in lyric form, and to enable the praise of God’s people.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[KD Merrill] He commits further eisegesis when he uses Revelation 5:9-10 to pontificate: “Therefore, we are as much as told that the nations will use their music to glorify God.” Uh, no. It doesn’t say that. It says we’ll be singing a “new song.”
It would be the most natural thing for them to use their music. If they didn’t, what Scripture would lay out for them the details of a style that God prefers? Or even that God has a preferred style?
I am quite frankly puzzled, KD, why you suggest that 1. Cor. 9:20-22 would “constrict” liberty. I’ve always read the passage as saying that the former devout Jew Paul is becoming like the Gentiles in order to reach them—and in doing so, he would be jettisoning some of his former Jewish scruples, starting with an antipathy to Gentiles. (the old prayer: “thank you God that I am not a dog, a woman, or a Gentile”….and all) I’ve always seen that as a broadening of Paul’s horizons, especially in light of the fact that verse 21 does not refer specifically to Greeks or Gentiles, but to those “not having the law”. If we apply this to music and other artifacts of culture, we would infer that genre from around the entire world would be acceptable.
Paul certainly isn’t willfully sinning by doing this, but at the same time, per “take, Peter, kill and eat”, Paul is most certainly being released from a number of Torah regulations by the Gospel.
The other thought I’ve got, per Dan’s comment, is that certain musical genre work better with certain languages, and with certain cultures. It takes more work, for example, to create opera in German or French than in Italian. Klezmer works great in Yiddish and Hebrew, but is tougher in English. So if we’re going to truncate our liberty in terms of music, we need a serious Biblical argument that I don’t think exists. The general categories of instrumentation of the ancient world—string, percussive, wind—are the same categories as exist today, and Scripture doesn’t tell us that certain other features of music—key signatures, meter, measure length, etc..—are either prescribed or proscribed.
We’re left, as far as I can tell, with what kinds of music achieve God’s purposes for music in the church (and music among Christians, more broadly), which is again a quite pragmatic argument.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
KD, it would seem that it’s incumbent upon you to propose a rationale for music of certain eras, and not of others, that does not rely on guilt by association fallacies.
1. I certainly haven’t said anything about music of any era. That’s a red herring. I did address musical style, which is not the same.
2. My argument does not rely on guilt by association. This is a straw man. My argument is that music itself is a form of communication. This is not only a generally accepted fact, it has a Biblical basis (1 Samuel 16:23, Exodus 32:17-18). As a form of communication, it must comport with Biblical principles regarding such. Consequently, the questions, “What does the music communicate?” and “Does what the music is communicating please God?” must be asked.
Would anyone argue that tone of voice, facial expression and body language are not forms of communication? Can we make moral judgments about them?
Music is a form of art. Art is a form of communication. Hence, music is a form of communication and must be evaluated using Biblical principles regarding communication.
3. I argued that many of Strawbridge’s conclusions are based on a twisting of the Scriptures. Biblically, it is not incumbent on me or anyone else to prove that a certain style of music is wrong. The Biblical pattern shows that the onus is on the believer to prove what is acceptable to God.
For that purpose, I’d propose that music in the church ought to serve as a way to convey God’s Word (including theology) to God’s people in lyric form, and to enable the praise of God’s people.
No argument from me there.
I was wrong about the singers in Revelation 5:9-10. So is Strawbridge. I assumed it was talking about the nations based on he wrote. Lesson learned. It isn’t. The song is sung by the four living creatures and the elders.
All creation doesn’t join the song until verse 13. Does it make sense for them to be singing the same song in different styles that identify with their culture? You’re making quite the stretch to make the scripture say that.
Could it be that the New Song is new just in words? Or could it address the style as well?
I view 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 as part of a larger context (1 Corinthians 9:15-27) in which Paul’s emphasis is on giving up his rights, exercising discipline, self-control and becoming servant to all, all of which indicate a limitation of Paul’s behavior. Inserting a thought on broadening one’s horizons doesn’t appear to fit with the logical flow of the rest of the passage.
[KD Merrill]…
[Bert Perry] For that purpose, I’d propose that music in the church ought to serve as a way to convey God’s Word (including theology) to God’s people in lyric form, and to enable the praise of God’s people.No argument from me there.
A minor (perhaps) quibble: lyrics aren’t music, they are literature. I would suggest the purpose of the music is not exactly the same as the purpose of the lyrics.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
KD, what you’ve done so far is to, in your view, point out the flaws in other peoples’ arguments, which is to say that yes, I don’t “know” that your argument is guilt by association because you simply haven’t made it yet. So if your argument is different in character from those of Gothard, Garlock, Rajesh, and others who’ve made the case, please step up to the plate.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]KD, what you’ve done so far is to, in your view, point out the flaws in other peoples’ arguments, which is to say that yes, I don’t “know” that your argument is guilt by association because you simply haven’t made it yet. So if your argument is different in character from those of Gothard, Garlock, Rajesh, and others who’ve made the case, please step up to the plate.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out error where error exists. While Strawbridge’s analysis appears convincing, it actually makes him dangerous as it could indeed convince many even while containing errors that regular people would easily overlook due to the level of writing he employs. In layman’s terms: just because it sounds fancy doesn’t mean it’s correct. I don’t know KD Merrill and he doesn’t know me, so I have no idea if he and I would agree on any number of issues. But most (all?) of his critical analysis is worthy of consideration and I appreciate it, and there isn’t anything wrong with presenting critical argument without writing a 4 segment refutation.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
KD, what you’ve done so far is to, in your view, point out the flaws in other peoples’ arguments, which is to say that yes, I don’t “know” that your argument is guilt by association because you simply haven’t made it yet. So if your argument is different in character from those of Gothard, Garlock, Rajesh, and others who’ve made the case, please step up to the plate.
Bert, I’ve already made my argument. I’ll restate it.
Music is a form of communication. As such, it is a moral entity and subject to Biblical principles of communication. In order to evaluate whether certain music is pleasing to God, two questions need to be asked:
- What is the music communicating?
- Is the musical communication pleasing to God?
How do we know what the music communicates? That is a question that must be investigated and answered by the believer. It is his/her Biblical responsibility to use resources and tools to figure that out in order to do the following:
- Prove what is acceptable to God (Ephesians 5:10)
- Use knowledge and discernment to approve things that are excellent (Philippians 1: 9-10)
- Be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:9-10)
- Become mature so that he can train his powers of discernment to distinguish between good and evil (Hebrews 5:14)
You’ve made the argument that you can’t know if music is moral or amoral. I’ve presented Biblical evidence otherwise. Can you address that argument?
KD, none of what you’ve just commented makes any argument on the suitability, or unsuitability, of any musical technique, genre, instrument, vocal technique, or whatever. It’s generic boilerplate that can be applied to any discussion, so hence you’ve presented precisely zero evidence for the question of whether these things are moral, amoral, or whatever.
Again, if you’ve got an argument, make it. If you don’t, that’s fine, but let’s not spout off generic platitudes as if they were a compelling argument one way or the other.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]KD, none of what you’ve just commented makes any argument on the suitability, or unsuitability, of any musical technique, genre, instrument, vocal technique, or whatever. It’s generic boilerplate that can be applied to any discussion, so hence you’ve presented precisely zero evidence for the question of whether these things are moral, amoral, or whatever.
Again, if you’ve got an argument, make it. If you don’t, that’s fine, but let’s not spout off generic platitudes as if they were a compelling argument one way or the other.
Did you just call the very words of God that are suitable in this discussion Generic Platitudes? Generic Boilerplate? KD is absolutely right in his references in these scriptures. How else can a Christian know how to live where God does not give us specifics in his Word? The Bible never once references music in technical terms that can tell a Christian what is right or wrong; the Bible lacks specific references to countless things a Christian must use wise discernment to choose. You can do better than this, Bert.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
You guys are talking past one another and likely to start angering and attacking,
Bert wasn’t discounting the importance of those Scriptures, J.
[KD Merrill]… It is his/her Biblical responsibility to use resources and tools to figure that out in order to do the following:But where is the proof that X style isn’t acceptable?Prove what is acceptable to God (Ephesians 5:10)
[KD Merrill]But where is the proof that X style more excellent?Use knowledge and discernment to approve things that are excellent (Philippians 1: 9-10)
[KD Merrill]But where is the proof that X style is more God-pleasing, fruit-encouraginng, etc.?Be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:9-10)
[KD Merrill]But where is the proof that X style is evil?Become mature so that he can train his powers of discernment to distinguish between good and evil (Hebrews 5:14)
[KD Merrill]You’ve made the argument that you can’t know if music is moral or amoral. I’ve presented Biblical evidence otherwise. Can you address that argument?
KD, you done a great job of elaborating the terms of the argument. So while you’ve defined how the argument would have to be made, you haven’t actually made it until you explain WHY X style is more evil, God displeasing, etc.
Jason, KD, I was calling KD’s presentation “generic platitudes”, not the Word of God, because it’s generically applicable to every situation but specifically applicable to none. It’s really the starting point for any theological discussion on any topic.
Dan summarizes why I pointed this out quite well. None of the verses say anything specific about music, in or out of the church, and really, you can see this from the context of the passages KD lists. To wit, the first verse’s context is the sins of sexual immorality, impurity, greed, obscenity and foolish talk. The second and third passages are part of generic blessings and prayers by Paul, with details to be spelled out elsewhere. The final verse is part of a rebuke of the church for immaturity in not attaining to becoming teachers and the like.
Really, three out of the four passages selected are part of generic greetings/rebukes to the church as a whole, zeroing in on generic Christian maturity. The exception is in the context of sins not including “bad music”. They tell us nothing about what kind of music is acceptable or not, unless we can actually make the argument that genre A is sexually immoral, impure, greedy, obscene, etc..
And, for what it’s worth, that our favored genre are NOT characterizable this way. Batter up, KD.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Don Johnson]A minor (perhaps) quibble: lyrics aren’t music, they are literature. I would suggest the purpose of the music is not exactly the same as the purpose of the lyrics.
We might insert that at least the law treats music, at least in its composition, about the same as literature. So do we really have two separate categories? We might also wonder what makes music specifically “Christian” or otherwise beyond its message, which would include the lyrics, but not necessarily be limited to them. I can envision, for example, a Christian composer doing a Biblical theme without lyrics in the same way Beethoven had the 6th Symphony as an ode to life in the country, the Pastorale. Can’t name any such compositions, but no doubt they could exist. Can we have, then, “Christian” music without either an explicit (lyrical) or implicit (music only) message?
That said, I’d guess that despite some very significant differences between us, Don and I could agree that the impact of a Christian song/hymn/spiritual song exists because of the union of tune and lyrics.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Really, three out of the four passages selected are part of generic greetings/rebukes to the church as a whole, zeroing in on generic Christian maturity. The exception is in the context of sins not including “bad music”. They tell us nothing about what kind of music is acceptable or not, unless we can actually make the argument that genre A is sexually immoral, impure, greedy, obscene, etc..
Bert,
I actually agree with you more than you may think. My only point in helping KD’s defense is that he, at least, is leaning directly on scripture to help inform his decisions with regards to music, where others are leaning on philosophical opinions or other human machinations in addition to drawing from scripture as best as they can. In other words, the Bible does not, indeed - it cannot tell us whether or not a particular composition and instrumentation style is sin. All God gives us are tools that we must then apply. KD named some of those tools, and I agree with him on that count. And his eisegetical arguments regarding Strawbridge are also not entirely incorrect and are worth consideration.
I also believe that the answer to the acceptability of various kinds of music will be largely based on context. Who are the listeners, what is the venue, etc. There is no more a black and white answer as to whether or not a particular composition is “sinful” than there is a particular article of clothing (assuming the article of clothing isn’t transparent). Discernment is always a valid answer to these kinds of questions that God has left unanswered.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Before addressing specifics, there must be agreement on the most fundamental premise - that of the morality of music. If we can not agree on that, there is no use to continuing the conversation. As Dan observed, we’ll be talking past each other and that won’t accomplish anything.
You’ve postulated that Scripture never describes music as an inherently moral art. You have no Biblical basis on which to stake that claim. I disagree with your position and I’ve provided Scriptural evidence that music is the product of human behavior - specifically, a form of communication - and it thus subject to God’s moral law regarding communication.
Dan asked the question, “But where is the proof that X style isn’t acceptable?” That question assumes the wrong premise. It’s backwards. My answer is - according to the Biblical principle of proving what is acceptable - “But where is the proof that X style is acceptable?” That should be our starting point.
Even if I were to accept that premise, the proof is in asking, “What does X style communicate?” and then doing the legwork necessary to answer that question. That takes some effort, but it’s not impossible.
To wit, the first verse’s context is the sins of sexual immorality, impurity, greed, obscenity and foolish talk.
The exception is in the context of sins not including “bad music”. They tell us nothing about what kind of music is acceptable or not, unless we can actually make the argument that genre A is sexually immoral, impure, greedy, obscene, etc..
I find it ironic that a critical piece of my argument is that music is a form of communication and what is the immediate context of Ephesians 5? The prior verses address - wait for it - among other things, ungodly communication.
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
Even more ironic is the fact that Paul goes on just a few verses after the admonition to “prove what is acceptable/pleasing to God” in verse 10 to address a certain topic in verses 19-20.
addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Add to this the theme of thanksgiving found in verses 4 and 20, which appears to tie this passage together before Paul transitions to familial relationships. I’d argue that music is a central theme addressed in verse 10.
Bert, you state, “They tell us nothing about what kind of music is acceptable or not, unless we can actually make the argument that genre A is sexually immoral, impure, greedy, obscene, etc.” Let’s see:
- Can we make an argument that certain speech can be sexually immoral?
- Can we make an argument that certain other modes of communication, including facial expressions and body language can be sexually immoral?
- Can we make an argument that certain styles of music - aka the “universal language” can be sexually immoral?
You’re looking for me to address specifics - to get in the weeds. Maybe we’ll get there. But until we can agree that God’s Word is sufficient to give us the tools to evaluate all aspects of human behavior using the discernment that Paul prayed for on our behalf - even if not specifically addressed in Scripture - there is no point of pursuing this further. If God provided us specific instruction in the Scriptures regarding every little detail of life, what would be the purpose of having discernment?
[Bert Perry]We might insert that at least the law treats music, at least in its composition, about the same as literature. So do we really have two separate categories? We might also wonder what makes music specifically “Christian” or otherwise beyond its message, which would include the lyrics, but not necessarily be limited to them. I can envision, for example, a Christian composer doing a Biblical theme without lyrics in the same way Beethoven had the 6th Symphony as an ode to life in the country, the Pastorale. Can’t name any such compositions, but no doubt they could exist. Can we have, then, “Christian” music without either an explicit (lyrical) or implicit (music only) message?
That said, I’d guess that despite some very significant differences between us, Don and I could agree that the impact of a Christian song/hymn/spiritual song exists because of the union of tune and lyrics.
I am not looking for “Christian” music, but rather music that is appropriate for Christians to use.
With literature, sculpture, painting and other visual arts, immorality is sometimes easier to spot. With music, I will grant, it is harder to discern. However, my point is that music cannot be the sole art form devoid of a moral component. It makes no sense to say that music never communicates immorality, or cannot communicate immorality. It is the product of human minds, fallen, depraved, broken, alienated from God and his will. How could music escape a moral dimension?
Therefore, I think a Christian should exercise his spiritual senses, in line with the principles KD Merrill is espousing, to develop discernment about what is approrpriate or inappropriate for Christian use.
When I was a teenager, we turned a Coca Cola jingle into a Christian song. Was that appropriate? I don’t think so now.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My argument is that music itself is a form of communication. This is not only a generally accepted fact, it has a Biblical basis (1 Samuel 16:23, Exodus 32:17-18). As a form of communication, it must comport with Biblical principles regarding such. Consequently, the questions, “What does the music communicate?” and “Does what the music is communicating please God?” must be asked.
If this is true - and I’m not disagreeing with you so far - then I think we have to treat music as one entity, not as two disparate pieces (instrumentation and lyrics). I don’t think it makes sense to say that music can be OK lyrically but not OK instrumentally, much less defend that position biblically. In both instances that KD referred to, the reference is to the totality of the music being used. If a song fails the lyrics test because it contains false teaching, then the song is immediately worthless. Is there any place in the Bible where God condemns the style of a song but not the actual message? I don’t believe there is.
I think we get ourselves into trouble when we start laying out ‘biblical’ arguments for the instruments that should be used or the styles that we use and do not factor in the literature (lyrics). I believe that one of Rajesh’s bigger interpretational mistakes has been to insist that the music in Exodus 32 and 1 Corinthians was appropriated from the pagans (we have no proof either way) and therefore communicates on a supernatural level to demons.
"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
[Jay]My argument is that music itself is a form of communication. This is not only a generally accepted fact, it has a Biblical basis (1 Samuel 16:23, Exodus 32:17-18). As a form of communication, it must comport with Biblical principles regarding such. Consequently, the questions, “What does the music communicate?” and “Does what the music is communicating please God?” must be asked.
If this is true - and I’m not disagreeing with you so far - then I think we have to treat music as one entity, not as two disparate pieces (instrumentation and lyrics). I don’t think it makes sense to say that music can be OK lyrically but not OK instrumentally, much less defend that position biblically. In both instances that KD referred to, the reference is to the totality of the music being used. If a song fails the lyrics test because it contains false teaching, then the song is immediately worthless. Is there any place in the Bible where God condemns the style of a song but not the actual message? I don’t believe there is.
I think we get ourselves into trouble when we start laying out ‘biblical’ arguments for the instruments that should be used or the styles that we use and do not factor in the literature (lyrics). I believe that one of Rajesh’s bigger interpretational mistakes has been to insist that the music in Exodus 32 and 1 Corinthians was appropriated from the pagans (we have no proof either way) and therefore communicates on a supernatural level to demons.
so, Jay, you seem to be saying the lyrics test trumps the instrumentation test. If a song is OK in its lyrics, it doesn’t matter what style is used.
Is that what you are saying?
if so, you are making my point — literature is one thing and music is another. (The only difference seems to be the old saw that music is amoral. Anything goes, it seems.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don’t you need to “prove” the point that music is inherently moral or otherwise, KD? I can—using Don’s separation of lyrics from tune—point at certain songs that I just won’t listen to because of objectionable lyrics. I can point to other songs, and even entire genre (easy listening, hymn medleys) that I don’t like, but if one wants to claim that there is inherent moral content to music, you’ve got to prove that. To put it mildly, if you’re going to say you can find the context of Ephesians 5:10 in CCM (or whatever genre of Christian music), you’re picking a fight, and you’d better bring the goods a sight better than guys like Garlock.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Jay]Is there any place in the Bible where God condemns the style of a song…?
Is there any place in the Bible where God condemns Daisy Dukes? Being a dishwasher at a strip club? Eating sushi?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]Is there any place in the Bible where God condemns Daisy Dukes? Being a dishwasher at a strip club? Eating sushi?
Daisy Dukes - not sure - but I think that’s tiny pants. The Bible does condemn indecent exposure. It speaks of women who come “dressed as a prostitute.” Now, it doesn’t address how tiny pants have to be to be indecent. But it does teach a category of illicit dress, even if today we don’t know what exaclty was illicit about it. And Jesus taught that looking with the purpose of lust is sin.
Sushi is an interesting question. Crab and octopus are not Kosher. Eel has scales too small to be considered true scales and isn’t kosher. Regardless, in the category of food, there was food that was prohibited. I don’t see that ever happening in the category of music.
I see no “X style is evil.” I see no “X instrument is evil.” I see no “the music of X people is evil.”
The sushi comment was because there are people who would never eat raw fish because it carries a level of risk that I have heard some Christians say would easily fall into the category of not caring for one’s body responsibly.
[Dan Miller]I see no “X style is evil.” I see no “X instrument is evil.” I see no “the music of X people is evil.”
So I assume by your response then that you care nothing about discernment, that the only things you don’t do are those things specifically spelled out in the Bible? I can’t see how a Christian could possibly live in that manner. But, to each his own, I suppose, and that would be the end of the music conversation (and countless others), as KD suggested.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I don’t think it makes sense to say that music can be OK lyrically but not OK instrumentally, much less defend that position biblically. In both instances that KD referred to, the reference is to the totality of the music being used.
Neither scripture reference gives any indications that words had any impact on the hearers. In fact, the 1 Samuel 16 passage says absolutely nothing about words. The indication is that this was instrumental music only. It is a huge stretch to maintain that the lyrical content being sung by the Jews at the base of Mt Sinai were intelligible to Moses, Aaron, et al. Indeed, the text reinforces my point.
But he said, “It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear.”
[JNoël]Is there any place in the Bible where God condemns Daisy Dukes? Being a dishwasher at a strip club? Eating sushi?
We could see this as a provocation, but let’s run with this. For starters, as a lover of sushi, if it’s wrong, I don’t want to be right! Seriously, the salted fish from the Sea of Galilee wasn’t cooked, either, so saying that eating uncooked fish is morally wrong has a serious uphill battle when seen in light of ancient Israeli culture.
Regarding the “risk” fo sushi, that’s extremely low in any credible restaurant. Air Force survival training has told pilots and others who might get stranded that they can eat saltwater fish raw without risk, but they need to cook freshwater fish. It has to do with the parasites that infest each kind.
Regarding Daisy Dukes, you’ve got the (Leviticus 18, the prophets) question of exactly how much nakedness one can uncover before one is being seen as “available for a Biblically unlawful relationship”, to put an idiom around it. Regarding “being a dishwasher at a strip club”, that’s pretty straightforward as well; you’re enabling the degradation of the women “performing” there, not to mention destroying the minds and morals of the men who watch.
See? That wasn’t so hard, was it? Now, what Biblical principles would we apply to the question of whether it’s wrong to use the 12 bar blues, or a set of drums, or an electric guitar? Or, for that matter, an organ, piano, or squeezebox? (I was just listening to Klezmer renditions of the Psalms in Hebrew)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, I’ve offered proof. I have offered Biblical proof.
I understand that you don’t accept it.
I understand why you don’t accept it. Accepting the fact that music is a form of human communication and is thus inherently moral behavior has earth-shattering ramifications. It changes everything. It’s visceral.
To put it mildly, if you’re going to say you can find the context of Ephesians 5:10 in CCM (or whatever genre of Christian music), you’re picking a fight, and you’d better bring the goods a sight better than guys like Garlock.
Wow. I’ve presented Biblical evidence to support my argument. I’ve asked numerous questions that heretofore have been unaddressed based on those Biblical claims and I’m now “picking a fight”? Like I said - this is visceral.
Has anyone on this thread ever scolded his/her children for rolling their eyes at their Mom or Dad? If so, why? And what is your Biblical evidence that it was an inappropriate action? How did you know it was wrong?
[JNoël]…So I assume by your response then that you care nothing about discernment, that the only things you don’t do are those things specifically spelled out in the Bible? I can’t see how a Christian could possibly live in that manner. But, to each his own, I suppose, and that would be the end of the music conversation (and countless others), as KD suggested.
Come on. You don’t really think I’ll agree with this do you?
I’m not saying that the anti-CCM argument fails because it isn’t “specifically spelled out in the Bible.” I’m saying that the Bible never expresses concern about music as a category that contains evil.
I’m certainly open to discernment - and yes there are styles that I would not want to see used in my church. They would not be diapheronta.
Bert, I’m glad to see that you agree with me and disagree with Strawbridges’ expert witness Schaeffer when said, “Let me say firmly that there is no such thing as a godly style or an ungodly style” - even though certain clothing styles aren’t specifically addressed in Scripture.
KD, you’ve provided nothing beyond generic boilerplate, a starting point for basically any discussion of any topic. If you want to make your case, you need specifics. Again, precisely how would we decide that, say, the 12 bar blues is inherently good or evil, Biblically speaking? What passages would come to bear?
You’re still in the on deck circle. Step up to the plate, if you’ve got more than Garlock. That noted, starting with Exodus and the Golden Calf is not a good sign. That horse is more than adequately beaten to death elsewhere, and the first thing to note is that the only path you can take from there is the one Rajesh and Garlock take—to make a number of unfounded assumptions, admit you don’t know what that sound was like (if it was music at all), and then proceed to guilt by association fallacies, preferably based in offhand comments by a guy who’s never had a platinum record, and applied to people whose music is completely different.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Isn’t it possible that a thing that communicates may be characterized as “neutral” which, I suppose, would mean amoral? For example, look at retail signage. Let’s use Sonic as an example. It’s artistic. It isn’t just the letters S, O, N, I, and C in black arial font on a white background (although some may call that “art” anyway), it has colors and shapes, and it communicates “yummy” to the viewer (to some, anyway). Is it really moral? It isn’t immoral, at least in the eyes of an American (perhaps it has some aspect that is immoral in some culture at some point in history), but does it possess God-glorifying morality, or is it amoral / neutral?
This has wide-reaching implications to all kinds of Art That Communicates. Perhaps some music truly does communicate immorality, while other music communicates beauty in a way that is actually pleasing to and glorifying of God. And then perhaps a third category of some music is neutral / amoral: it doesn’t communicate evil, but it doesn’t point the listener to God, either.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Thanks, Bert, for acknowledging that at least I’m on the playing field. I’d like to encourage you to suit up and join me out here.
I have posed numerous questions and arguments that you and others haven’t addressed. I’ll give it one more try:
- Is music a form of communication?
- Is communication a human behavior?
- Is human behavior subject to God’s moral law?
- Thus, is music subject to God’s moral law, vis-a-vis, is music moral?
If you can answer those questions..er…address those “generic platitudes,” you’re out of the clubhouse and at least in the dugout. You want me to get into specifics - I’ve maintained I’m not going to do that unless we have agreement on the most basic principles outlined earlier.
starting with Exodus and the Golden Calf is not a good sign. That horse is more than adequately beaten to death elsewhere, and the first thing to note is that the only path you can take from there is the one Rajesh and Garlock take—to make a number of unfounded assumptions, admit you don’t know what that sound was like (if it was music at all),
Do you seriously deny that Moses and Aaron heard music as they descended Mt Sinai? I have no idea what the music was - other than a) it was the sound of singing and b) it sounded like war. That tells me that music is a form of communication. Factor in Saul and David and then add to it any respectable musicologist and that’s enough evidence for me to accept that most basic fact. Add in your own Unwarranted Assumption fallacy in the statement above and you’ve got a juicy hanging curveball just waiting to be drilled over the Green Monstah.
Let’s rephrase this:
1. Are facial expressions a form of communication? Yes.
Questions 2, 3, 4, same as before.
Obviously there is something wrong with your syllogism, because Scripture nowhere commends any facial expressions to us as either good or evil. Hence we cannot conclude that any genre or musical technique is intrinsically good or evil, as much as I would like to conclude that Kenny G is evil.
Regarding GCM, again, that horse has been rather mercilessly flogged ad infinitum. Key issue is that since we don’t know what that sound/music was like, we have no way of applying your thoughts outside of a guilt by association fallacy.
Not on the field? Au contraire. You just hit a couple of easy pop-ups into my glove.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
You just hit a couple of easy pop-ups into my glove…
…that then fell harmlessly to the ground. You maintain…
Scripture nowhere commends any facial expressions to us as either good or evil.
Yet Solomon stated that the Lord hates a proud look (ESV - “haughty eyes”). Isaiah remarked, “For the look on their faces bears witness against them;
they proclaim their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.”
Are you saying you’ve never made a moral judgment regarding someone’s facial expression? You’ve never asked a child to wipe a smug look off his/her face? Never seen eyes flashing anger and rebellion?
Please be careful, Bert. This appears to be a denial of reality.
KD, absolutely, I’ve never made a moral judgment about someone’s facial expression, and here’s news: neither have you. Rather, what you’ve done is inferred someone’s mental state from the facial expression, and from that whether their motivations were good or bad. It is not the facial expression, but the state of the heart. I believe Scripture talks about that in places. There are no objectively evil emotions, there are no objectively evil facial expressions, and there are no objectively evil tones of voice, all of which matter a whole lot in communication.
If you doubt this, take a look at the life of our Savior, and you’ll find the entire range of human emotions, which would then have been represented by the entire range of facial expressions, the entire range of vocal techniques, and so on.
Now if we cannot accuse our Savior of sin for presumably raising His voice while clearing the Temple (and at other times dealing with the Pharisees especially), let’s address the question of whether we can, without clear authority from Scripture, decide that another set of sounds is inherently sinful.
To ask the question is to answer it. Congratulations, KD, by your own logic, you’ve just proven that musical techniques, instrumentation, genre, and the like are merely tools in the hands of the artist, just like vocal techniques, facial expressions, and other tools of communication. It’s the same argument that most fundamentalists, when in a more lucid state, would make about firearms, really. It’s not the tool, but what is done with it by its user.
No, KD, pointing out that the only viable argument from Exodus 32 is guilt by association, and pointing out that you cannot impugn entire categories of facial states, do not amount to dropped balls, They represent places where your argument is fatally flawed.
Put another way, if you want to talk to someone who is denying reality, shave.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Now we’re really getting somewhere, and I doubt anyone at SI has the intellectual capacity to actually answer the fundamental question which is the reason why this debate continues to go unanswered: what is morality and how does a Christian know what things possess morality?
To use the facial expression example, can a facial expression actually, in itself, be immoral? Can another human know that one who displays a particular facial expression is actually sinning? Is the expression itself the sin, or is the sin that which is leading the person to flex his muscles in such a way as to produce a facial expression for others to see?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I’ve enjoyed this series. I have no disagreement with the point brought up that music is a form of communication. the question to me centers on what meaning does that communication have? How specific is the communication in question?
In an old post on my blog “Music, Morality and the Bible” I zeroed in on this question:
How music becomes moral or immoral depends on the meaning of music. Just like there is nothing morally wrong with a rainbow colored bumper sticker, there is nothing morally wrong with any different style of music. Now a bumper sticker of the colors described above has taken on a meaning, and the meaning is quite specific. And for that reason I can judge the meaning as unquestionably immoral, and I would not put one on my car. Now with music, then, morality becomes a question of meaning.
So how much meaning is in music? …Apart from any lyrical context, without any words, and without any context, simple sounds or a simple music style does not have a specific enough meaning to become inherently moral or immoral, in my opinion. Add some words, add a context, the music increases in specificity and can clearly be inherently moral or immoral….
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Regarding Context:
[Bob Hayton]Add some words, add a context, the music increases in specificity and can clearly be inherently moral or immoral….
Can you give an example of adding a context to a particular musical composition (minus lyrics)? Let’s take a horror movie theme song, for example, like Halloween. Does the musical composition and production itself communicate sin? Is the problem with the song strictly limited to the fact that it is music that is completely tied to the movie?
Thoughts on Perception:
[KD Merrill]Are you saying you’ve never made a moral judgment regarding someone’s facial expression? You’ve never asked a child to wipe a smug look off his/her face? Never seen eyes flashing anger and rebellion?
This is not the same thing as one’s perception of artistic expression. A facial expression is a physical manifestation of an emotion, and the problem is with the heart, not with the face. The expression itself isn’t sin, the pride is. Yes, the Bible says that God hates a proud look, but are we so literal that we think the look itself is what God hates? I think not.
Music, as a form of communication, is an artistic expression. And the problem with that is that the recipient makes a decision based on his perception of what he hears, just as with all art forms. To some, a particular form of art may be beautiful, to others, vulgar.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I am not as dogmatic on this as I used to be. This has been a subject of debate in philosophy for a long time. With a few exceptions, I think the idea that an object gains moral qualities based on context is relatively new in the scheme of things. It goes back to empiricism of the early modern philosophy period. It is a form of relativism when it comes down to it.
I am not saying that such thinking is wrong. I agree with it myself. But I also think it is a philosophical more than a theological argument and there are plenty of alternative theories that may also be credible.
[JNoël] Regarding Context:Can you give an example of adding a context to a particular musical composition (minus lyrics)? Let’s take a horror movie theme song, for example, like Halloween. Does the musical composition and production itself communicate sin? Is the problem with the song strictly limited to the fact that it is music that is completely tied to the movie?
I agree - the musical notes and composition are not inherently evil/good, but can have an association to a certain context which may communicate to a certain degree. The tune of “God Bless America” communicates based on the association with the lyrics. A style of heavy, beat-laden loud music could communicate the feel of being in a nightclub/bar where unChristian things are going on - but a style is less specific than a melody line and as my quote (from what I shared in my first post above) goes on to say: “Yet even then, music is by nature subjective….”
There is now a cultural history of contemporary praise music that also has to color how we think of certain styles. In a vacuum, fifty years ago, perhaps a style may have communicated (to some people) something approaching a bad ethos (the bar music of fifty years ago). But today that music has a different association and context. This is akin to the argument that “pants are for men”. There was a time when that could somewhat largely be true (seventy years ago??), but not anymore….
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Never thought we’d be discussing the movie Halloween here! But since I suffered through it 35 years back, here’s a link to an image of the sheet music; lots of sharps, and here’s a recording. Interesting balance between the low brass, keyboard and maracas; not much between the bass line and the keyboard/piano line, which is decidedly “to the right side” of the ivories.
On the light side, if you didn’t “know” it was Michael Myers stalking promiscuous teenagers, it would make an interesting backdrop for the conflict between Tweety and Sylvester. There is definitely something that feels “ominous” about the bass line, but evil in itself? No.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
We have indeed gotten somewhere - and where we’ve gotten is more than a little concerning.
Bert, it appears that you’re asserting that outward human behavior can not evaluated morally. You’re implying that God is only concerned with the internal. This is nothing more than a weird internal/external dualism. Do you really believe that He judges everything internally, but couldn’t care less about our external actions?
Is God concerned about just the haughty spirit behind the proud look? Absolutely. That goes without saying. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that the text of Proverbs of 6 indicates that He is only concerned about the heart and not also its outward manifestation.
Bert, you attempt to convince that emotions themselves are amoral because our Lord displayed “the entire range of human emotions,” citing the anger He displayed when cleansing the temple. Do you really maintain that the anger He displayed is the same anger that an abusive husband displays when berating his wife? Do you think His face was convulsed with rage? Because anger is anger? Or are they different kinds of the same emotion? Do you honestly think that His facial expression was the same displayed by a petulant child? Or could His face been similar to what John saw in His revelation?
You’ve made the unfortunate error of portraying communication, whether music, facial expression, body language, etc. as a thing. Communication isn’t a thing - it’s an action, a behavior. There’s a world of difference between the two.
KD, it’s not that outward human behavior can not be evaluated. What I’m saying is that certain outward behaviors—facial expressions, tones of voice, rhythm and pace of speaking/singing, etc..—are indeed morally neutral until one links it to the motivations and other actions that can clearly be described as either good or evil. You have an angry look; is it the man about the beat the snot out of his wife because she burned the toast, or is it our Lord about to turn over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple? (same thing with a loud voice, etc..) The context makes all the difference. If we decide that certain looks, tones of voice, or whatever are intrinsically wrong, we end up blaspheming. It’s that simple.
In the same way, is that electric guitar backing up the Swan Silvertones for “Mary don’t you weep”, or is it the rhythm to “Highway to Hell”? The context makes all the difference in the same way that a pipe organ can be used for playing Bach’s toccatas, or as a backdrop for a slasher movie.
Put differently, if we’re going to say certain musical techniques or styles are completely out of line, we’ve got to do a MUCH better job of actually finding Biblical authority than have guys like Garlock and Gothard. Again, their arguments boil down to a pious-sounding appeal to authority fallacy, and it’s the same of fundagelicalism that we haven’t more often pulled these guys aside to tell them “hey, you’re building your argument off a logical fallacy. Knock it off!”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Regarding “was His face convulsed with rage?”, consider the fact that He chased a fairly significant number of moneychangers to abandon the money that was scattered all over the floor and leave the Temple, armed just with a whip, when people routinely carried swords for their own protection. We’re talking serious chutzpah here. Suffice it to say the moneychangers “saw the veins on His neck”, and yes, it’s strongly likely that, yes, His face was indeed “convulsed with rage”.
What you were trying to do with your example there, KD, is to “map out” a subset of anger that would be automatically banned. Trouble with that is that Scripture nowhere makes such an argument; and where Scripture is silent, should we be talking? (and again, the same principle applies to music)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion