Steve Pettit and the Skillman family
[Kevin Miller]I’m just wondering if you think that Cain and Abel had NO prior instruction regarding what to bring to God that was pleasing to God. The Bible doesn’t give us the instructions, so do you think instructions were non-existent, and Cain and Abel were just winging it and hoping for the best?
Cain and Abel knew what they were supposed to do, but Cain did not do so (Gen. 4:7). God does not explain to us in detail in what way or ways Cain failed to do what he was supposed to do.
[Larry]He hasn’t even been able to play Psalm 149 or 150 for us so we can know what it sounded like.
Ephesians 5:19 (ESV): “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,”
–––––––––––––––––-
Yet traditional music-onlyists seem to regularly insist that Ephesians 5:19 dictates a certain style of music, which (what a happy coincidence!) just happens to be their style of choice.
To accomplish this, they must:
1. Ignore that “psalms” such as Psalm 149 & Psalm 150 themselves, internally, give indications of the types of sounds produced, e.g. “loud clashing cymbals…” (Hint: a “loud clashing cymbal” doesn’t sound like a flute or a violin…I do think there’s a discernable difference!)
2. Assume that the Greek word translated as “hymns” means that the sound of what the Apostle Paul had in mind then equates to the sound of what the word “hymn” might evoke today.
3. Assume (likewise) that the “spiritual songs” mentioned could be interspersed throughout the next Majesty Music songbook without anyone skipping a beat (pun intended)…..
Yet traditional music-onlyists seem to regularly insist that Ephesians 5:19 dictates a certain style of music, which (what a happy coincidence!) just happens to be their style of choice.
No, not all of them do. Perhaps not even most of them. Scott Aniol, who is very conservative on this, wrote an article arguing that this is about OT Psalms (http://artistictheologian.com/journal/artistic-theologian-volume-6-2018…)
He concludes,
Fourth, these passages are not relevant as defense for any side of the contemporary worship debates. Any attempt to define these terms using contemporary categories is anachronistic at best. No warrant exists to use these passages to defend contemporary praise choruses or the continuation of Spirit-inspired songs, but neither do these passages disallow them.
The only certain application to Christian churches from this phrase is that God expects his people to sing—at the very least they should sing inspired psalms.
On to your other points
1. Ignore that “psalms” such as Psalm 149 & Psalm 150 themselves, internally, give indications of the types of sounds produced, e.g. “loud clashing cymbals…” (Hint: a “loud clashing cymbal” doesn’t sound like a flute or a violin…I do think there’s a discernable difference!)
I am not sure if this is a serious comment or not, but “loud clashing cymbals” aren’t a characteristic of pop music to the exclusion of others. Most high music (such as classical) and folk music uses loud clashing cymbals frequently. It doesn’t sound like a flute or violin to be sure, but then who thought it did? And who would think Psalm 149 and 150 would require that?
2. Assume that the Greek word translated as “hymns” means that the sound of what the Apostle Paul had in mind then equates to the sound of what the word “hymn” might evoke today.
No.
3. Assume (likewise) that the “spiritual songs” mentioned could be interspersed throughout the next Majesty Music songbook without anyone skipping a beat (pun intended)…..
No.
I assume that was a bit tongue in cheek, and I understand the desire for a little levity. We could all use some. But we should be careful to make serious arguments and address the issues seriously. And people who haven’t done the exegesis should not be taken seriously in the conversation. This conversation again shows that there are a lot of people with firm opinions that are planted in thin air. They may be right to one degree or another but it is almost completely accidental.
[Larry]I am not sure if this is a serious comment or not, but “loud clashing cymbals” aren’t a characteristic of pop music to the exclusion of others.
Who mentioned “pop music” in this conversation? I didn’t. You said Bert hadn’t shown what the music in Psalm 149 or Psalm 150 sounded like. I simply mentioned that they internally give some indications of the sound. (Look again: I made no mention of “pop music.”)
Your “No” replies to my 2nd and 3rd points I’ll take as tacit agreement/conceding those points.
Finally, must you conclude responses with ad hominem swipes at those who challenge your comments? Is that necessary?
Who mentioned “pop music” in this conversation?
The whole conversation about music in worship is about traditional/high music vs. pop music vs. folk music. Here, there, and everywhere, that is the basic conversation.
Your “No” replies to my 2nd and 3rd points I’ll take as tacit agreement/conceding those points.
How does “no” mean “yes”? No means no. Proponents of traditional music (and I am not really one) don’t have to assume any such thing. In fact, they shouldn’t assume. Assumptions are what is all too prevalent here, IMO. Bald assertions without benefit of argument and support are not helpful.
Finally, must you conclude responses with ad hominem swipes at those who challenge your comments? Is that necessary?
No it’s not necessary; it’s not even actual. I made no ad hominem swipes. I have no idea what you are talking about. I will be glad to clarify if you will let me know what you are talking about.
[Larry]Finally, must you conclude responses with ad hominem swipes at those who challenge your comments? Is that necessary?
No it’s not necessary; it’s not even actual. I made no ad hominem swipes. I have no idea what you are talking about. I will be glad to clarify if you will let me know what you are talking about.
Seriously? Your entire final paragraph:
[Larry]I assume that was a bit tongue in cheek, and I understand the desire for a little levity. We could all use some. But we should be careful to make serious arguments and address the issues seriously. And people who haven’t done the exegesis should not be taken seriously in the conversation. This conversation again shows that there are a lot of people with firm opinions that are planted in thin air. They may be right to one degree or another but it is almost completely accidental.
Ad hominem from start to finish. If it wasn’t intended to be belittling of those who challenge your comments (and me in particular, since the above statement was made in a direct reply to me), then yes, please “clarify.”
Ad hominem from start to finish. If it wasn’t intended to be belittling of those who challenge your comments (and me in particular, since the above statement was made in a direct reply to me), then yes, please “clarify.”
No, it’s not ad hominem and it wasn’t at you. It was about people who haven’t done the work. The point was not the people but the lack of knowledge. Pointing out that someone is uneducated on a topic (and we all are uneducated on various and many topics) is not ad hominem. I am not saying we should reject a view because it comes from a particular person. I am saying we should be careful with views that are unanchored to study and knowledge. In rereading, I probably should have said “views not based in exegesis should not be taken seriously” rather than “people who haven’t done the exegesis …” I never thought that would be misunderstood, but more careful writing would have helped.
The question I would ask you is this: How much weight should we give to the opinions of people who haven’t done the work to understand the issues?
Yesterday, I had foot surgery. I had a podiatrist do the consultation and the surgery. I didn’t ask an IT professional though he is surely very good at IT work. I didn’t even ask a pastor or a seminary professor. I didn’t ask a cardiologist even. Even my primary care physician knew her limitations and sent me to someone more qualified. So I went to someone who had done the work to know the field. Wouldn’t you do the same? Why is this different in your mind?
First of all, Larry, if you’re going to argue that the Bible uses guilt by association fallacies, you’re striking at the heart of the first fundamental unless you can prove it. Evidence, please.
Regarding “recycled Garlock”, the simple fact is that Mike’s argument IS precisely that. There is nothing there besides the recycled guilt by association of Garlock, cleaned up and sanitized so the latent racism of Garlock is not as apparent. At its core, however, it was all about guilt by association, and I believe I demonstrated that with a quote that made that very clear. To wit:
To put it bluntly, while our culture may indeed have laudable features, reverence and honor and sobriety and self-control are not high among them. Self-indulgence and strife and disrespect are. Therefore, I see no reason to trust that the popular artistic expressions of our day are likely to express the virtues we want them to express. This has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of any musical genre; it has to do with where we are right now.
In other words, because modern music is linked to modern culture, which is seen to have certain deficiencies, Mike does not see a reason to trust it. That is texbook guilt by association, and until you provide a real argument for that kind of fallacy, it remains a fallacy. It should have no place in our discourse.
Regarding the question of music and neutrality, I once again am not begging the question; it is rather a simple question of where the existing evidence points, and where the burden of proof ought to lie. Given—Galatians, Colossians 2, etc..—the general mood of liberty from the law in Scripture, I assert that those who seek to limit that liberty assume the burden of proof. This parallels the fact that in a statistical test, you do not “prove” the null hypothesis; you “retain” it because the evidence for the alternate hypothesis is insufficient. Rajesh, Minnick, Don, and the rest have the burden of proof here.
But to that burden of proof, I’ve pointed out simply that Scripture nowhere asserts that music is anything but neutral, and it’s also meaningful that mainstream musicology will speak of emotional links to musical forms in all genre, but does not speak to anything about any instrument, technique, or genre being inherently evil. In other words, those who would attempt to prove the unsuitability of any instrument, technique, or genre have a serious uphill battle on their hands.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Of course, you are begging the question by saying, “Scripture nowhere asserts that music is anything but neutral.” Says who?Regarding the question of music and neutrality, I once again am not begging the question; it is rather a simple question of where the existing evidence points, and where the burden of proof ought to lie. Given—Galatians, Colossians 2, etc..—the general mood of liberty from the law in Scripture, I assert that those who seek to limit that liberty assume the burden of proof. This parallels the fact that in a statistical test, you do not “prove” the null hypothesis; you “retain” it because the evidence for the alternate hypothesis is insufficient. Rajesh, Minnick, Don, and the rest have the burden of proof here.
But to that burden of proof, I’ve pointed out simply that Scripture nowhere asserts that music is anything but neutral, and it’s also meaningful that mainstream musicology will speak of emotional links to musical forms in all genre, but does not speak to anything about any instrument, technique, or genre being inherently evil. In other words, those who would attempt to prove the unsuitability of any instrument, technique, or genre have a serious uphill battle on their hands.
Claiming that liberty equates to the neutrality of music does not in any way establish that it is so.
You are making a truth claim. Prove it specifically and directly from specific biblical statements about music.
Rajesh, if you’d like to prove me wrong, you’re welcome to try and demonstrate that music is not indeed morally neutral from Scripture. As I’ve noted before, however, the list of those who’ve written on the subject and not come up with any Biblical argument includes not only myself, but also Don, Mike Riley, yourself, and others.
I don’t think it’s out of line to suggest that you’ve got something of an uphill battle in this regard, especially since as far as I can tell, musicology doesn’t go there, either. I would dare suggest that you start by asking yourself why a given facet, or set of facets, of human life would not be morally neutral, but rather would have a distinctive moral meaning.
To use the voice mannerisms, is it a sin to whisper (let air past your vocal chords), or to yell? I’m sure Jesus did that from time to time—the whisper when He didn’t want the Pharisees to hear what He was telling the Disciples, the yell of course when He was clearing the Temple. Would it be sinful to speak rapidly, or slowly? I’m sure He did so at times. Sin to use percussive instruments? Um, what about Psalms 149 and 150, which are in the Scriptures at Jesus’ command (John 1:1)?
I think that when you think through the example of our Lord, you’re going to find precious little that we might proscribe in this regard. And that’s why we see so many logical fallacies on the part of those who would restrict liberty here; there simply ain’t nothin’ else.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For me, talking about the voice mannerisms of Jesus or anyone else does not establish anything about music being inherently neutral. You’ll have to do far more than that to support your assertion that Scripture teaches what you say it does.
[RajeshG]Okay, then here is how I see the analogy of the Genesis 4 offering compared with our offering of music in worship to God today.Kevin Miller wrote:
I’m just wondering if you think that Cain and Abel had NO prior instruction regarding what to bring to God that was pleasing to God. The Bible doesn’t give us the instructions, so do you think instructions were non-existent, and Cain and Abel were just winging it and hoping for the best?
Cain and Abel knew what they were supposed to do, but Cain did not do so (Gen. 4:7). God does not explain to us in detail in what way or ways Cain failed to do what he was supposed to do.
God likely gave Cain and Abel some sort of instruction as to what would please Him in the offering, but we do not have those specific directions recorded for us. If someone tries to state definitively that they know the instructions, they are going beyond Scripture. God did, at least, personally interact with Cain and told him that “sin lies at your door,” indicating that part of the problem was likely Cain’s attitude.
Regarding our offering of music today, we know that God desires songs and hymns and spiritual songs, but God does not give specific instructions regarding genre or style. We also cannot count on God coming to us personally and telling us what aspect of our offering displeases Him. We basically have to rely on the standard God presented to Cain, that if the offering is presented with a sinful attitude, then it is unacceptable. Unfortunately, we ourselves cannot see into people’s hearts to see if their attitudes are sinful as they are presenting music to God.
[Kevin Miller]Okay, then here is how I see the analogy of the Genesis 4 offering compared with our offering of music in worship to God today.
God likely gave Cain and Abel some sort of instruction as to what would please Him in the offering, but we do not have those specific directions recorded for us. If someone tries to state definitively that they know the instructions, they are going beyond Scripture. God did, at least, personally interact with Cain and told him that “sin lies at your door,” indicating that part of the problem was likely Cain’s attitude.
Regarding our offering of music today, we know that God desires songs and hymns and spiritual songs, but God does not give specific instructions regarding genre or style. We also cannot count on God coming to us personally and telling us what aspect of our offering displeases Him. We basically have to rely on the standard God presented to Cain, that if the offering is presented with a sinful attitude, then it is unacceptable. Unfortunately, we ourselves cannot see into people’s hearts to see if their attitudes are sinful as they are presenting music to God.
I appreciate that you are interested in continuing to discuss a specific passage of Scripture. Your analysis, however, has not accounted for all the data even in that passage.
Prior to the revelation of divine rejection of Cain and his offering, God informs us that there were differences in what Abel offered versus what Cain offered:
Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
The Spirit does not provide us with any superfluous information in Scripture, and this is not a parable. God intended for us to know that these two brothers offered different things to Him.
In order to apply this revelation properly to our understanding of what we are to do in our worship music, we must also account for this information (and much more also that directly pertains).
[RajeshG]Yes, they brought different items. You tell me I must account for this information, but then you stop without explaining how to account for this information in regards to music. God doesn’t give the information in Genesis 4 regarding His instructions. God doesn’t tell us whether Cain and Abel were forbidden from bringing certain types of animals as offerings. It’s unknown. God doesn’t tell us in the New Testament if we are forbidden from bringing certain genres of music. The specifics just aren’t there. I was pretty sure i covered that in my post. How do you propose we account for information that isn’t given to us?I appreciate that you are interested in continuing to discuss a specific passage of Scripture. Your analysis, however, has not accounted for all the data even in that passage.
Prior to the revelation of divine rejection of Cain and his offering, God informs us that there were differences in what Abel offered versus what Cain offered:
Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
The Spirit does not provide us with any superfluous information in Scripture, and this is not a parable. God intended for us to know that these two brothers offered different things to Him.
In order to apply this revelation properly to our understanding of what we are to do in our worship music, we must also account for this information (and much more also that directly pertains).
Well, since Rajesh is convinced that the tune of songs is the issue (among other things), I will open up the challenge that I put forth to Don for him, Michael Riley, or anyone else. I will pick a couple of instrumental tracks off of albums, and they can give us an objective, Scripturally based reason for why it is or is not appropriate for worship. Since they won’t know the words or the artists, this should be the closest we can get to a blind but fair test of their position.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion