Now, About Those Differences, Part Seven
Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.
Second Premise Arguments
Making generalizations about either fundamentalists or other evangelicals is a bit presumptuous. Both groups are quite diverse, and exceptions can be found to most generalizations. Non-fundamentalistic evangelicalism covers an especially broad array of influences and movements.
The diversity of each group has rarely been realized by the other, however, and so each group does tend to posit generalizations about the other. One of those generalizations has to do with the matter of worldliness and legalism. Fundamentalists tend to think of other evangelicals as worldly. Those evangelicals tend to think of fundamentalists as legalistic.
We are not yet to the point of weighing the merits of these perceptions. For the moment, what we are trying to do is to understand what each group means when it speaks about the other. What do fundamentalists see that leads them to think evangelicals are worldly? What do evangelicals see that leads them to perceive fundamentalists as legalistic?
Articulating these perceptions more fully will be useful in two ways. First, it will furnish us with criteria for assessing the merits of the judgments that evangelicals and fundamentalists make about each other. Second, it will provide us with a device for distinguishing some evangelicals from other evangelicals as well as some fundamentalists from other fundamentalists.
In a previous discussion, I have suggested that the mutual recriminations of fundamentalists and evangelicals center upon two areas: standards of conduct and methods of ministry. I have further suggested that controversy over standards of conduct centers upon two kinds of issues: revivalistic taboos and second-premise arguments.
By second-premise arguments, I mean those attempts to apply Scripture that rely not only upon a premise supplied by a specific biblical passage or principle but also upon a premise supplied from outside of Scripture. The outside (second) premise may come from any of a variety of sources: intuition, experience, observation, deduction, tradition, or even authority. The second premise provides the warrant for applying the biblical statement or principle to a particular situation.
Here is an example of a second-premise argument.
- Biblical principle: Christians should not engage in enslaving behavior (1 Cor. 6:12).
- Outside premise: The recreational use of heroin is enslaving behavior.
- Conclusion: Christians should not engage in the recreational use of heroin.
What I am trying to do here is to articulate an argument that I think will be acceptable to the majority of both parties. Perhaps there are better ways of making the argument, but very few evangelicals or fundamentalists are actively advocating the recreational use of heroin as a matter of Christian liberty. Most would actually deploy several related arguments to support their stance against the recreational use of heroin: it is addictive, it is physically destructive, it damages the testimony, it is illegal, etc. My point is not to evaluate these arguments. My point is simply that they are all second-premise arguments. They all rely upon some information or perspective that comes from outside of Scripture.
Without second-premise arguments, we would not be able to apply Scripture at all. Because our names do not occur in the text, the applicability of virtually every biblical promise, command, prohibition, and principle depends upon some version of the second-premise argument. This is true even in the matter of salvation. Here is an example.
- Biblical principle: God commands all humans everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
- Outside premise: I am a human.
- Conclusion: God commands me to repent.
This argument is so natural for us that we do not even realize that we are making it. Unless we did, however, we could not apply the text to our own situation. The strength of the argument depends upon the certainty of the assertion that we are humans. Since our confidence in this assertion is unshakable, we regard the application of the text as certain.
We regularly employ second-premise arguments in our moral reasoning. For example, consider a woman who is thinking about feeding her husband a large quantity of arsenic. For moral guidance we point her to Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill.” How do we respond if she asks, “What Scripture tells me that feeding arsenic to my husband will kill him?” We would reply that we do not need such a Scripture. We have other ways of knowing the consequences of ingesting arsenic, and it is precisely those ways that allow us to apply the biblical commandment to her situation.
Both evangelicals and fundamentalists rely upon second-premise arguments in all sorts of ways. When it comes to moral applications, however, I think it is fair to say that the more explicitly an argument relies upon the second premise, the more evangelicals tend to become suspicious of it, while fundamentalists tend to remain unbothered. In other words, many fundamentalists are willing to apply some second-premise arguments that many evangelicals find specious.
What are some examples of second premises over which evangelicals and fundamentalists might differ? Here is a very partial sampling.
- Music is sensual (or rebellious).
- Bikinis are immodest.
- Theater is spiritually subversive.
- Piercings and tattoos are worldly.
These premises pertain to the kind of issues over which fundamentalists and other evangelicals typically differ (though younger fundamentalists are inclined to take the evangelical side). What these premises have in common is that they rely upon an element of judgment. In the case of music, how does one judge whether a particular composition expresses rebellion or sensuality? For that matter, when is it wrong to expose one’s self to expressions of rebellion or sensuality? In the case of bikinis, how much exposure constitutes immodesty? Might this vary depending upon one’s culture? In the case of theater, how and why is it judged to be spiritually subversive? As for piercings and tattoos, are they always and necessarily worldly? If so, what makes them worldly? If not, how can we tell the worldly ones from the non-worldly ones?
Precisely because they do not come from Scripture, second premises are always subject to evaluation. To question a second premise is not to question biblical authority. Second premises can and should be examined.
Fundamentalists have sometimes failed to subject their second premises to careful examination. This failure has resulted in silly and sometimes scandalous applications of Scripture. This is the mechanism that some fundamentalists have used to prohibit slacks for women, ban interracial dating, and insist upon the mandatory use of a particular version of the Bible. One fundamentalist leader spent years denouncing the “demon of the AWANA circle.” No wonder some are skeptical of their judgments.
On the other hand, evangelicals have sometimes refused to accept any second-premise argument that relies upon a judgment. Evaluations of matters like dress or the arts are thought to be too subjective to be useful. In these areas, second-premise arguments are dismissed out of hand.
Neither extreme is really useful, and neither extreme gets one to the correct application of biblical precepts and principles. Of course, neither fundamentalists nor other evangelicals necessarily go to the extreme. Nevertheless, in general they do seem to follow these tendencies. Fundamentalists more readily accept second-premise arguments when the second premise relies upon an element of judgment, while evangelicals more quickly reject those arguments.
The True Christmas
Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)
SO, stick up ivy and the bays,
And then restore the heathen ways.
Green will remind you of the spring,
Though this great day denies the thing ;
And mortifies the earth, and all
But your wild revels, and loose hall.
Could you wear flow’rs, and roses strow
Blushing upon your breasts’ warm snow,
That very dress your lightness will
Rebuke, and wither at the ill.
The brightness of this day we owe
Not unto music, masque, nor show,
Nor gallant furniture, nor plate,
But to the manger’s mean estate.
His life while here, as well as birth,
Was but a check to pomp and mirth ;
And all man’s greatness you may see
Condemned by His humility.
Then leave your open house and noise,
To welcome Him with holy joys,
And the poor shepherds’ watchfulness,
Whom light and hymns from Heav’n did bless.
What you abound with, cast abroad
To those that want, and ease your load.
Who empties thus, will bring more in ;
But riot is both loss and sin.
Dress finely what comes not in sight,
And then you keep your Christmas right.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 72 views
Are you comfortable with this? Music (leaving aside lyrics) is amoral, but it has a cultural context that possesses a moral message and content within that particular culture. In other words, I deny that Rock is inherently rebellious or sinful, but I affirm that the message sent by it in the cultural context of the 50’s and beyond was association with an immoral and rebellious sub-culture. As time passes, that association fades. Thus what was inappropriate for worship at that time eventually becomes possibly appropriate (decisions as to when may vary from church to church depending on a variety of factors).I can almost agree with this, myself. Just a couple of tweaks. Since music is always in a cultural context, there is no point in saying it is (sans words) amoral. What you’re saying is that it has morality that changes based on its meaning in a cultural setting.
I would agree with that, but I believe it also derives morality from many other factors such as the intentions/attitudes of the performer/listener, the effect on listeners/performers, etc. But these factors don’t necessarily correlate to style much. Nevertheless they are reasons why it’s impossible for music to be created, performed or listened to in an amoral way.
My other tweak would be to italicize and double underline “possibly” in “becomes possibly appropriate.” There’s lots of music I think is not sinful at all as a matter of morality, but which will never be suitable for worship because it’s whimsical, structured in a way that can’t support a text, etc. So “morality in general” and “morality for worship” are not precisely the same thing.
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.
Would you say that it is possible for literature to be immoral? How about painting? Sculpture?
Why is it, of all the arts, music is the only one that is amoral?
But that debate can embroil us in a long argument. My two questions above should explain my position sufficiently.
I said earlier that a difference here would bring about divisions. I think that it is possible that one could hold a view that music is amoral yet still use music that would fall into a range that I would consider basically moral. If that were the case no division would likely arise at that point in time. But someone who holds that music is amoral will likely end up making musical choices (or allowances) that would put them in a category I wouldn’t want our people to emulate, so a division would occur. Not necessarily an anathema, but at least a division.
PS, in response to Aaron, I wouldn’t say that the morality or acceptability of music is exclusively driven by culture. I agree that we are always in a cultural context, hence connotation can make music morally unacceptable. But I would hold that an unacceptable denotation is also possible (and quite prevalent).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
But again, many erase the amorality when they start qualifying it. What some mean is that the substance called paint adhering to a surface we call canvas is amoral. Probably so, like a chord is amoral. But these things never exist independently of a human being arranging the paint on the surface with some kind of intention or arranging the chord in a musical composition… again with purpose. (OK it is possible for pain to get on canvas as a result of an explosion in a paint factory… presto, amoral paintings!)
So “amorality” that is confined to physical/auditory objects isolated from their makers or any other interaction is not amorality at all in any meaningful sense. There’s no point in bothering w/the category. If one allows that intention, effect, connotation, denotation, etc. all contribute to moral significance, there is no point in asserting isolated amorality at all. Since the conditions required for the amorality never exist, the proposed amorality cannot be used in support of any argument that a particular style of music doesn’t matter or that all styles don’t matter, etc. That’s already been ruled out if one allows that music (sans words) has meaning, motive and impact whenever human beings produce it or take it in.
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 accept your qualifications of my statement, and agree largely with your further comments afterward.
[Don Johnson] Well, we may have to part company on this point. We’ll see.Don, I don’t believe the things themselves, either in genre or style, possess any moral qualities. I believe this is also true of painting or sculpture.
Would you say that it is possible for literature to be immoral? How about painting? Sculpture?
Why is it, of all the arts, music is the only one that is amoral?
What some do with music would be the same as if they said, about painting, “Impressionism is of the Devil”. [Which might then lead to “Since they allowed Impressionism in the school art rooms, teen pregnancy has gone up.”]
However, the communicated content of a painting (or a song, lyrically) can be immoral. Or the philosophy behind a genre can be godless. But that’s not the same thing at all.
Aaron hints at an important point too.
Moral qualities are not possessed by objects, whether concrete (like a painting) or abstract. The ink on “Playboy” is not manufactured in hell (though it may as well have been). But materially, it is not different than the ink in “Scientific American”. What is communicated, however, can and does possess moral tone.
I do feel that what happens with regard to rock music in, for instance, a Frank Garlock seminar*, would be like lifting up Pornographic magazines as an example, and thus preaching against all magazines.
Frankly (pun intended), I don’t even think Frank Garlock* believes his own message. If so, he wouldn’t play samples in his seminars. Just as I don’t kill people during my sermon to demonstrate that murder is wrong.
*disclaimer: I know nothing about Frank Garlock seminars since I last heard one in the late ‘70’s.
Music is much more abstract than either painting (excepting completely abstract art) or literature. Take pretty much any piece (music only) and have two people with different life experiences listen to it, and they often come away with completely different reactions. Just the difference I see when my wife and I listen to Bach (I love his music, she hates pretty much all of it) indicate to me that the meaning is in how it is perceived and understood, not the music itself. When I listen to it and get an “emotional high,” but at the same time my wife is getting on edge, and irritable from the same music, any so-called inherent value is lost in the perception.
I agree with Aaron that music doesn’t exist in a complete vacuum. There is the act of creation, the act of performance, and the act of listening, all done by humans who attempt to infuse what they are doing with meaning, and that meaning can certainly have a moral component. But that’s exactly why I don’t believe that music is *inherently* moral in nature. Even Aaron stating that chord is amoral is simply an assertion. Why is a chord not moral, but a musical phrase is? How is that measured objectively? Theoretically, if music actually has inherent moral meaning, we should be able to calculate that, and feed sheet music into a computer which can analyze all the notes, chords, phrases, harmonies, etc., and spit out the exact moral value of the music. The fact we can’t do that indicates to me that any moral effect of music takes place in our hearts (which we already know are immoral by nature), not in the music itself.
This is why I not only don’t believe in the “inherent morality” of music, I think it’s actually useless for any true evaluation, and further, I don’t believe that anyone evaluating music is actually evaluating the inherent morality. They are evaluating how it makes them feel, whether or not such feelings are appropriate for what the music would be used for, and they are also evaluating the association of the music, how it used for various things, or to attempt to cause certain emotions (even though that’s very inexact), etc. The difference is that I accept that that’s how music is evaluated, while many still resort to the assertion that “Music is MORAL — it HAS to be!” thought, and then still evaluate on other grounds anyway.
Even though my standards for example, on what would be used in church, are probably very similar to Don’s (in fact, from what I read, they would be pretty close to Scott Aniol’s), my way of getting there is different, and more like Mike Durning’s.
Edit: Mike, I see we posted similar thoughts at about the same time. It took a while to compose my message, so I didn’t see yours until afterward.
Dave Barnhart
1. In Part 6 looks at “standards” of conduct.
I think that “standards” was a good choice of words. A “standard” is different from a “conviction” in that a standard refers to a community determined and demanded behavior pattern.
There is a desperate need to allow for convictions without all convictions being made into standards. This is Fundamentalism’s major practical flaw. If a behavior is believed to be taboo, it is made a “standard” (by the church or the pastor, if Patton is in charge). If it does not reach that level, it tends to be not viewed as even eligible for “conviction.”
2. In Part 7, the important second premise is discussed.
Giving this as an example of a second premise is legitimate:
[Article] Biblical principle: God commands all humans everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).But it seems to present something other than the paper is about. The types of syllogisms we should expect to find disagreement over are nothing as tautological as this. It seems like for some speakers the message might be, “Yes, we need data found outside Scripture. But it’s all cut and dried. Listen to me for a while and I’ll prove all my standards. You know you’re human, right? It’s like more of that type of thing.”
Outside premise: I am a human.
Conclusion: God commands me to repent.
I think that there are at least two areas in which we should consider second premises:
1. Some things exhibit a forbidden quality per se. Bauder’s example, “Bikinis are immodest,” probably fits in this category.
2. Others exhibit the forbidden quality only by means of a sign. If prostitutes always wore a red sweater, then red sweaters might legitimately become a provocative sign, and thus a second premise could legitimately be that “Red sweaters are provocative and sexually suggestive.”
[Dan Miller]Something similar actually happened in our area last year. There was an article in the paper about how prostitutes downtown, in an effort to avoid police, started using modest “girl next door” looks, but with specific combinations of colors, accessories, etc., that those who were “in the know” would be able to look for. The article didn’t detail the looks, probably because they would just be switched out if they did, so it would not have been that easy to create a hard and fast second premise. But you would generally expect that any Christian girls that did know “the look” would want to avoid it for obvious reasons, even if was otherwise modest and attractive.
2. Others exhibit the forbidden quality only by means of a sign. If prostitutes always wore a red sweater, then red sweaters might legitimately become a provocative sign, and thus a second premise could legitimately be that “Red sweaters are provocative and sexually suggestive.”
Dave Barnhart
The point under debate is the artistic expression itself. To express something, it has to mean something, no?
So let me ask this, do you believe there is such a thing as ‘dirty’ painting? Or ‘dirty’ books? Or ‘dirty’ sculpture?
But then, you are asserting, there is no such thing as ‘dirty’ music in and of itself?
BTW, I will concede that music is much more abstract than other forms of art and meaning is much more difficult to discern in some cases.
~~~~
I think Dan’s two points are correct, and speak to denotation and connotation. Some things are wrong because of what they denote (inherent meaning). Other things are wrong because of what they connote (cultural context).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Aaron Blumer] I have heard that argument, Don… that all the arts are amoral.Probably the closest thing to amoral paintings are the ones that elephants at the Wichita Zoo do.
But again, many erase the amorality when they start qualifying it. What some mean is that the substance called paint adhering to a surface we call canvas is amoral. Probably so, like a chord is amoral. But these things never exist independently of a human being arranging the paint on the surface with some kind of intention or arranging the chord in a musical composition… again with purpose. (OK it is possible for pain to get on canvas as a result of an explosion in a paint factory… presto, amoral paintings!)
[Don Johnson]Agreed, though the attempt is not always successful. I’m a big listener of classical music. If I hear after a piece that was played that a piece was intended, for example, to express something and I didn’t get that at all, then it didn’t really matter at the moment I heard it what the artist’s intention was, does it? If I would later find out that he intended to express something immoral, I would then make that *association* in the future, and it would then be difficult for me to listen with a clear conscience. The same would apply to abstract art or non-literal writing.
The point under debate is the artistic expression itself. To express something, it has to mean something, no?
As an example, if music is so inherently meaningful, why is it not immediately a form of “cognitive dissonance” when Disney animators take a piece like “The Pines of Rome,” and use it for “Flying Whales?”
So let me ask this, do you believe there is such a thing as ‘dirty’ painting? Or ‘dirty’ books? Or ‘dirty’ sculpture?No, I don’t. You may think that sounds crazy, but let’s say I had a book passed down to me I had never had a chance to read, so I didn’t know it expressed something immoral. Before I read it, did it “dirty” my shelf or my home any more than any other book I have? What if I did read it, but didn’t understand any euphemisms the author was using to refer to something immoral? The dirty part would only come when my heart interacts with what is there, and it would be the imaginations of my heart that would make it so. The Lord said clearly it’s what comes *out* of the man that defiles him. The same would be true of a painting in a package I had never opened. The painting itself is not dirty. Let me ask this — would Adam or Eve before the fall have sinned by viewing an immoral statue placed in the Garden by Satan, assuming God had told them nothing of it? I can’t say with authority, but I would argue that no, they would not have — Satan attacked them using the one thing God had forbidden to them. That statue would not have been dirty to them. It’s simply an object.
Obviously, because of what such objects or books would cause my heart to think, feel, etc., I would not keep such things around, but it’s not because I believe the object itself is dirty — it is our fallen nature that causes dirtiness, and the same reason that Adam and Eve had to cover themselves after the fall. There is nothing dirty about any part of the human anatomy. After all, God created it. But our fallen minds and hearts are certainly tempted if modesty is not exercised.
But then, you are asserting, there is no such thing as ‘dirty’ music in and of itself?Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If you want to say otherwise, show me how to evaluate its moral value using the inherent value of the music itself, not association, appropriateness, the lifestyle of the composer, etc. (all valid forms of evaluation, but not applicable to inherent value).
Let me ask you a question. When you evaluate music for your church, do you attempt to sit down with every piece and identify musical elements and say “OK, that chord pattern is immoral,” or “that tune is evil?” If not, how do you do the evaluation? More importantly, can you do it (leaving words out of the picture) without listening to it? (Or, if you are very musically inclined, attempting to imagine how it sounds from the notes on the page)?
BTW, I will concede that music is much more abstract than other forms of art and meaning is much more difficult to discern in some cases.I would be ecstatic if you showed me how to identify this *inherent* meaning, rather than it’s association, or what the author *intended* it to mean (which is not the same as saying the music actually inherently means that).
I think Dan’s two points are correct, and speak to denotation and connotation. Some things are wrong because of what they denote (inherent meaning). Other things are wrong because of what they connote (cultural context).I don’t disagree exactly, but I don’t believe music (apart from words) has a denotative meaning, because although it’s been asserted over and over by secular and Christian people alike, I don’t believe it’s been demonstrated. Further, I believe the Bible says exactly the opposite. It’s our evil hearts that defile us, not what goes in. With cultural context, we’re on the same page. The world’s music is associated with the world, which is obviously attempting to express its opposition to God and his order. But I’ll bet that was true 500 years ago too, and I’ve yet to have anyone show me any instrumental music from 500 years ago and claim that it’s inherently immoral, let alone demonstrate why that is so.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]Your shelf or home are non-moral objects. They can’t be ‘dirtied’. You, on the other hand are a moral being and your conscience can be sullied or edified by its interaction with objects of art, as you note yourself. But it isn’t merely the corruption of your own heart that makes the object dirty, the corruption of the artist’s heart is involved as well.[Don Johnson] So let me ask this, do you believe there is such a thing as ‘dirty’ painting? Or ‘dirty’ books? Or ‘dirty’ sculpture?No, I don’t. You may think that sounds crazy, but let’s say I had a book passed down to me I had never had a chance to read, so I didn’t know it expressed something immoral. Before I read it, did it “dirty” my shelf or my home any more than any other book I have? What if I did read it, but didn’t understand any euphemisms the author was using to refer to something immoral? The dirty part would only come when my heart interacts with what is there, and it would be the imaginations of my heart that would make it so.
[dcbii] The Lord said clearly it’s what comes *out* of the man that defiles him.You are misusing this passage. The Lord was talking about food coming into a man not being able to defile a man. He wasn’t evaluating our conscience being engaged with the moral expression of someone else, be it literature or music or what have you.
[dcbii] Let me ask this — would Adam or Eve before the fall have sinned by viewing an immoral statue placed in the Garden by Satan, assuming God had told them nothing of it? I can’t say with authority, but I would argue that no, they would not have — Satan attacked them using the one thing God had forbidden to them. That statue would not have been dirty to them. It’s simply an object.I would think this is totally irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything.
[dcbii]My answer here would not satisfy you! But it is mostly along the lines of “I know it when I see/hear it.” Since you won’t admit that a painting or book can be inherently dirty/evil, it is likely to be fruitless to ask, but at what point does such a work become ‘dirty’? But not admitting it, you can’t really answer the question. In fact, neither can I, with precision. Some literary works are entirely erotic, for example, but other works may allude to it in such a way that the reader knows what is going on but is spared the details. At what point does such literature become evil? Or perhaps not evil but too corrupt for Christian participation? Various Christians may answer the question various ways. But that doesn’t mean there is no such thing as corrupt or dirty works of literature.[Don Johnson] But then, you are asserting, there is no such thing as ‘dirty’ music in and of itself?Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If you want to say otherwise, show me how to evaluate its moral value using the inherent value of the music itself, not association, appropriateness, the lifestyle of the composer, etc. (all valid forms of evaluation, but not applicable to inherent value).
Let me ask you a question. When you evaluate music for your church, do you attempt to sit down with every piece and identify musical elements and say “OK, that chord pattern is immoral,” or “that tune is evil?” If not, how do you do the evaluation? More importantly, can you do it (leaving words out of the picture) without listening to it? (Or, if you are very musically inclined, attempting to imagine how it sounds from the notes on the page)?
Well, I think that is enough for now. We’ll get ourselves far afield if we continue this line of conversation.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Propositions, slightly altered to be syllogistically valid;
1) A painting is a thing that may be immoral.
2) A painting is a work of art.
3) A song is a work of art.
No matter how you move these propositions around, you would never be able to deduce the conclusion, “A song is a thing that may be immoral.” The conclusion may or may not be true, but you can never get there through the line of reasoning in Don’s posts. It’s the fallacy of the excluded middle. You would need a proposition to read thus: “All works of art are things that can be immoral,” which, unfortunately, is what the argument is currently attempting to prove.
To use another example, this line of reasoning is equivalent to asserting that whales are land animals because 1) they are mammals and 2) 99%+ of mammals are land animals.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Don Johnson]As I stated previously, I agree there is a moral *act* involved when art is created, performed, or heard/seen. I don’t disagree with you here. I just disagree that the object itself is what is dirty. Corrupt communication can come from an artist, and if understood when seen/heard/read can interact with our evil hearts to cause corruption. Simply hearing it or seeing it is not enough, of course, otherwise the Lord Jesus would have been sullied by nearly everything he saw or heard around him.
But it isn’t merely the corruption of your own heart that makes the object dirty, the corruption of the artist’s heart is involved as well.
You are misusing this passage. The Lord was talking about food coming into a man not being able to defile a man. He wasn’t evaluating our conscience being engaged with the moral expression of someone else, be it literature or music or what have you.I agree that what was going in was food, but in the next few verses, he describes what defiles us, and it’s all our thoughts and intents coming from within, not from without. Again, that makes complete sense to me, otherwise Jesus just being confronted with the evil of others could have been defiled. There was nothing in his heart that coming out, could have defiled him.
My answer here would not satisfy you! But it is mostly along the lines of “I know it when I see/hear it.”Exactly. It has to interact with your heart/mind for you to make a determination. This is exactly why eating meat could be sin to some and not to others (and I’m not just talking about food — I’m talking about conscience, as Paul did).
Since you won’t admit that a painting or book can be inherently dirty/evil, it is likely to be fruitless to ask, but at what point does such a work become ‘dirty’?I can’t answer the question in the way you would like, but I don’t believe the container becomes evil in itself. It simply an aid in transmitting an evil thought from the mind of its creator to the mind of the consumer. Like you, I certainly don’t want to interact with certain art or literature, because I’m not interested in affecting my heart and conscience with evil thoughts and ideas from their creators that are being put forward. Hence, I wouldn’t keep such things around. But when we destroy something like that, what we are really destroying is the idea, and the ability to get that to someone else — the thing itself is just a medium.
But that doesn’t mean there is no such thing as corrupt or dirty works of literature.We obviously would agree on what to do with such things, but I believe the source of the corruption (the author/creator) is what is evil, and not the object. In the case of music, unlike art or literature, I disagree that apart from knowing the intent of the composer (and sometimes not even then), that music can actually communicate propositional ideas to the hearer. What is communicated is impression at best (as with some art and literature), and completely colored and often overwhelmed or overshadowed by what the listener has previously experienced.
Calling a work or art or literature “dirty” is a convenient shorthand, and that’s why we use the expression. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily an accurate portrayal of reality.
Well, I think that is enough for now. We’ll get ourselves far afield if we continue this line of conversation.True enough.
Dave Barnhart
[quote dcbii] There has to be meaning that is *understood* by the listener, viewer or reader of art for there to be any moral component present. …The same would be true with literature. I have to understand what is there for it to have any moral effect on me.[quotedcbii] I disagree that apart from knowing the intent of the composer (and sometimes not even then), that music can actually communicate propositional ideas to the hearer.You seem to be stating that only intellectual interactions have moral implication; In order for something to affect me morally, I have to process it with my mind and understand what’s happening to me. I disagree. Music, like other art forms, has the ability to influence and even (to a degree) control us. However, music, unlike literature, can do that apart from cognitive interaction. For an erotic novel to affect me, I have to process the alphabetic symbols visually, assign meaning to those symbols, and translate that into images or concepts. Not so with music. Music has the unique ability to affect your body and emotions without you even being consciously aware of it. Advertisers, film makers, store and restaurant owners, etc. all make regular use of this power. To couch the discussion of morality in purely cognitive terms seems to deny the effects of the fall on the whole person.
[quote dcbii] Music is much more abstract than either painting (excepting completely abstract art) or literature.True. But it’s not simply that music is “more abstract” than literature; It is a different medium altogether, engaging a different part of the person. Music, unlike literature, can be experienced and even enjoyed while almost entirely bypassing any cognitive interaction. That has important moral implications.
[quote dcbii] Take pretty much any piece (music only) and have two people with different life experiences listen to it, and they often come away with completely different reactions.Granted (except I don’t know that I would say “often”). But your illustration about you and your wife listening to Bach is about levels of enjoyment, which is not the same as moral effect. There is an aspect to music’s effect on people that is learned, or acquired, via culture, life experience, education, etc. But that doesn’t negate the contrary fact that very often people from different life experiences and cultures will have very similar reactions (emotional and physical) to the same music. There is an aspect to music’s effect on the human that is essentially universal, regardless of culture. That has significant moral implications.
[quote dcbii] Why is a chord not moral, but a musical phrase is? For the same reason that the alphabet isn’t moral but sentences can be. (Or if you prefer, sentences can have moral effects on the reader.) I don’t know that I would say something as small as a musical phrase necessarily has moral implications, but certainly several phrases strung together, in a particular style, can.
[quote dcbii] How is that measured objectively? Theoretically, if music actually has inherent moral meaning, we should be able to calculate that, and feed sheet music into a computer which can analyze all the notes, chords, phrases, harmonies, etc., and spit out the exact moral value of the music. The fact we can’t do that indicates to me that any moral effect of music takes place in our hearts (which we already know are immoral by nature), not in the music itself.So, you’re saying that nothing has inherent moral meaning if it can’t be mathematically quantified by machine?! If all you’re arguing is something like “Playboy isn’t immoral. The person looking at it is.” Okay, fine. Inanimate objects are technically incapable of possessing morality. But when we speak of the” immorality” of pornography the obvious understanding is that someone is making it and someone else is looking at it. The same is true of music. Technically speaking, music is just sound waves, so obviously we’re talking about the process of human beings experiencing and interacting with it. When most people talk about the ‘morality of music’ I understand them to be speaking of it’s moral effect on people. We could ask: “If a rock song plays in the woods and no one hears it, is it immoral?” But that would obviously be a big waste of time. I’m not quite seeing the point or purpose of your particular philosophical argument. In my experience, those who say that “music is amoral” are arguing that music, apart from text and apart from associations, has no ability to affect the listener morally. That is untrue.
Getting back to the original post (what was it again?), denying the moral implications of music as sound is what leads to philosophies like http://www.worshipmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/Does-God-Even-Like-Our…] this :
[quote Bob Kauflin] Did you ever wonder — What kind of music does GOD like? He commands us to make music, so he must take pleasure in it. Does he like modern worship better than hymns? Rock better than country? Folk better than jazz? What if God’s favorite music is opera? The kind of music God likes isn’t determined by a style, genre, beat, or generation.
Anyway, the conclusion I came to is that it’s kind of pointless to assert that objects do not have morality since all of the objects we care about applying Scripture to were made by someone and are viewed, used, listened to, contemplated, etc. by someone. In the end, it simply doesn’t matter whether the mass of canvas and paint is moral or not because it was a moral act when it was made, will be a moral act as soon as someone looks at it, etc.
Dave, I believe, suggested above somewhere that the painting has no morality until there is shared meaning. This is not necessarily the case. It had morality when it was made and meaning only existed in the mind of its maker. Meaning need not be shared to be moral. And meaning is only one factor. There is purpose and motive. If the artist intended to convey his deep bitterness at God for not making him wealthy, the painting has moral significance in the context of his creation of it, even if he utterly fails to convey that meaning in the piece and no one else ever sees it (or even if all who see it find themselves admiring God instead).
My point is that the morality of the creation can be quite different for one person than for another. But this is a very different thing from saying it is amoral. As for the object itself, I accept that it is technically amoral, but the distinction is completely useless since no one ever looked amorally at an object, or listened amorally to one, or even thought amorally about one.
As soon as we interact in any way with something, it becomes an entity in a moral phenomenon.
To get back to Kevin’s piece a little: what I appreciate most about it is that that he points out how indispensable second premise arguments are. We cannot live biblically without them. And an approach to Scripture and Christian living that sometimes rejects second-premise arguments as a matter of principle while other times employing those arguments is ultimately an incoherent approach. It’s doomed to get arbitrary sooner or later.
(Maybe a good way to sum up my view is that objects are amoral only as long a they are sealed in a box where no one can relate to them in any way)
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.
Discussion