Steve Pettit and the Skillman family
[RajeshG]I’m not sure what application the cursed ground has for our music practices. Perhaps you could clarify.Here is additional biblical data that directly pertains:
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
I encourage you to postpone trying to make applications to our music practices until you have thoroughly treated the biblical data about God’s rejection of Cain and his worship.
Regarding Cain’s offering, are you saying that God rejected it because it came from the cursed ground? I haven’t heard that explanation for the rejection. Wouldn’t the grain offerings in Lev. 2:1 also be coming from the cursed ground?
[Kevin Miller]The cursing of the ground prior to the rejection of Cain’s offering shows that God’s universe was no longer the same as it was when He first created it as all good. Because of that change, it cannot be argued that of necessity the problem(s) with whatever Cain offered that was from the ground couldn’t have been to do with whatever he offered because God created it all as good and it was all still good.I’m not sure what application the cursed ground has for our music practices. Perhaps you could clarify.
Regarding Cain’s offering, are you saying that God rejected it because it came from the cursed ground? I haven’t heard that explanation for the rejection. Wouldn’t the grain offerings in Lev. 2:1 also be coming from the cursed ground?
Furthermore, the later revelation in Leviticus only establishes that God authorized the offering of certain things that were from the ground and He did so in very specific ways. His doing so does not prove that anything and everything else that also ever came from the ground was also ever accepted by Him after He had cursed the ground. If Cain offered something from the ground that was not among the items that God later authorized or offered it in ways or combinations that God never authorized, his rejection and the rejection of his offering would also stem from his offering something that itself was not acceptable to God.
Therefore, you cannot establish any necessity that the only problem with Cain’s offering was his attitude and did not have anything to do with what he offered or how he offered it.
Seriously? I think we have a clear example of a non sequitur here.
And Rajesh, regarding your attempt to remain “pure” by avoiding modern music, please. Are you seriously isolated from it? You never go to the grocery store, malls, or other places where it is played? One has to wonder whether you’re living under a rock or something.
Besides, when Scripture speaks against a sin, it’s not like the human authors have no knowledge of what they’re writing about. When Moses, who grew up in the house of Pharaoh and most likely participated in Egyptian warfare against her neighbors, wrote down the penalties for sin in Deuteronomy, he had most likely seen close up the results of a siege. He is not condemned for knowing this. Take a look at Ezekiel 23:20; being in a country where shrines to Asherah and Ba’al were commonplace, he knew very well what the deal was.
So step up to the plate. If you can determine some characteristics of modern music that show the effects of “cursed ground” more than other music—all music really—that would have post-dated the Fall, go for it, but please don’t give us this nonsense of “I’m going to speak against this music I really don’t understand, and when challenged, I’m going to put the onus on everybody else to make the Biblical argument instead of myself.”
Put mildly, I have put forth a Biblical argument, and it proceeds really from the Biblical witness, which includes percussive instruments and dancing in Psalms 149 and 150 and elsewhere. I have moreover pointed out that, given that Christ’s emotions would have paralleled our own, it is moreover problematic to suggest that vocal techniques (like whispering/breathy singing) would be inherently wrong. There were times when Jesus would whisper, or yell, to communicate His points. (unless we think that He went into the Temple and cleared it using a soft, Mr. Rogers-type voice….which would seem to derive more from “Monty Python” than from Scriptures and what we know of human psychology)
So again, if you’ve got a point to make and can defend it Biblically, step up to the plate. But please, please, stop these silly arguments.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]Thanks for your detailed response. It seems that so-called “guilt by association” is a big deal to many people on this forum, but I’m still not clear exactly what that is supposed to be concerning music. My suspicion is that this so-called fallacy goes directly against what the Bible teaches in many places, but I am not sure because I do not yet understand what is meant when that terminology is used.
I think you could look up “guilt by association” just as easily as anyone else, but it’s a term from logic, used to describe a particular logical fallacy. The following would be an example:
- Major premise: Rock group X is evil because everything they sing about is anti-God. (I don’t think you’d get much argument here if it’s true)
- Minor premise: X uses smoke machines and electric guitars in all their performances (easily provable)
- Conclusion: Smoke machines and electric guitars are evil, therefore I can’t use them in any good way.
The fallacy here is that because those items (smoke machines and electric guitars) are associated with X, then they must be evil. Some might argue this, but if you substitute “wearing pants” for using electric guitars and smoke machines, it would be more obvious.
Of course, the astute will argue that music is a work of art, not an object, and because a work of art proceeds from the heart, it has moral qualities.
OK, what if we substitute for the minor premise the idea that one of the members of this group paints landscapes. Are those paintings now evil? What if they paint a person with a look of fear on their face? Is that evil? What if you are told that their intent was to portray someone afraid because they are about to do something evil? Would that make it different from someone with a look of fear because they are about to be a victim? If those have different moral value, how do you know without knowing the intention of the artist? If the artist is good enough to make both of those possible from the same painting, then the fact is, you don’t.
Now, how does this fit with scripture? While I understand that “guilt by association” is, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy, the Bible does say enough about worldliness and avoiding things that are evil, that for myself, I often make decisions to avoid certain things due to their associations precisely because I don’t understand them well enough to make a good decision objectively. Take “death metal” music for an example. I would never listen to that, and the groups that play such music are not generally those whose lifestyles I would emulate, or whose art I would venerate. (Not to mention, it’s far removed from my tastes, though for determining the value of the music, that is actually irrelevant.) So, because of the associations, even a song whose lyrics are not impeachable done by one of those groups would be something I’d avoid. I wouldn’t know the intentions, and I still have no standard with which to decide music is objectively good or bad, so it’s precisely because I don’t have knowledge that I would choose to make a “safe” decision for myself.
(As an aside, if that fictitious group decided to sing “Happy Birthday” or even “Amazing Grace,” the prior good associations with those songs, would, in my mind anyway, override the fact that they have now been sung in a style I wouldn’t associate myself with, and I would continue to use them with a clear conscience.
As a further aside, even if I had a way to objectively determine that “death metal” music was inherently good, I might still make the decision to avoid it for testimony’s sake, given its associations in our culture. If that music could be determined to be objectively good, then my decision might not apply to another culture, or even ours 300 years from now.)
Note that my decision is personal, but is not indicative of whether or not the music is actually inherently evil. To this day, I’ve still seen no arguments that would convince me of that inherent evilness, and yet I would still avoid that music. That’s not a decision reached by logic about associations, because logic indicates that something is not evil just because it’s associated with something else. However, since I don’t have enough understanding of music, and because the Bible indicates we should have nothing to do with “unfruitful works of darkness,” even if that music fit my tastes, I’d make a decision for myself to avoid that music. Would I have big questions about those who don’t make that choice? Of course! But that doesn’t necessarily indicate that they are sinning, and the association still hasn’t proved that music inherently evil. That’s precisely why I’m looking for an objective standard that I can apply consistently, but as I pointed out, even inherent value isn’t enough by itself — for me, at least, associations are still something to consider.
Dave Barnhart
[Bert Perry]Citing the use of percussive instruments in Pss. 149-150 does not in any way establish the legitimacy of using percussive instruments in any and every possible way created by fallen humans.Put mildly, I have put forth a Biblical argument, and it proceeds really from the Biblical witness, which includes percussive instruments and dancing in Psalms 149 and 150 and elsewhere. I have moreover pointed out that, given that Christ’s emotions would have paralleled our own, it is moreover problematic to suggest that vocal techniques (like whispering/breathy singing) would be inherently wrong. There were times when Jesus would whisper, or yell, to communicate His points. (unless we think that He went into the Temple and cleared it using a soft, Mr. Rogers-type voice….which would seem to derive more from “Monty Python” than from Scriptures and what we know of human psychology)
Jesus never employed any sexually suggestive vocal tones or techniques in anything that He said or sang.
[RajeshG]Citing the use of percussive instruments in Pss. 149-150 does not in any way establish the legitimacy of using percussive instruments in any and every possible way created by fallen humans.
I’ll buy that. So how do we know which uses are legitimate and which not? Especially since ALL uses of them (that we have here on earth) are “created by fallen humans.”
Dave Barnhart
Jesus never employed any sexually suggestive vocal tones or techniques in anything that He said or sang.
I don’t believe that Jesus is recorded giving any teaching on music or musical styles at all in the gospels, although there are a few passages that refer to singing or music in a descriptive way (eg “when they had sung a hymn, they departed.”). I would have to look that up to be sure. Anyone know of any other passages?
"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
[dcbii]To answer that question requires a thorough treatment of all that Scripture says about music, worship, and more. For starters, because God has commanded His people to use those instruments in worship, we know that it is possible for fallen but redeemed humans to do so.RajeshG wrote:
Citing the use of percussive instruments in Pss. 149-150 does not in any way establish the legitimacy of using percussive instruments in any and every possible way created by fallen humans.
I’ll buy that. So how do we know which uses are legitimate and which not? Especially since ALL uses of them (that we have here on earth) are “created by fallen humans.”
We never find anywhere in Scripture that God’s people ever borrowed musical forms from the wicked or learned the musical practices of the wicked and incorporated them into their worship. In fact, God authoritatively directs us not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly (Ps. 1:1), which most certainly forbids us from imitating the ungodly instrumental musical practices of wicked people who have repeatedly testified that they have specifically designed their instrumental musical ways to promote wickedness.
Once you have accepted that fundamental starting point with which the Spirit begins His inspired book about music, the rest falls into place in line with much other biblical teaching, both about music and about worship in general.
RajeshG wrote:
We never find anywhere in Scripture that God’s people ever borrowed musical forms from the wicked or learned the musical practices of the wicked and incorporated them into their worship.
I suppose the Israelites in Judea, Samaria and Galilee, not to mention the Syrian provinces where Jesus frequently traveled and preached, all imported their musical styles directly from heaven, lest they be defiled. I also suppose they had access to some divinely inspired set of musical standards (alas, now lost to us!) that allowed them to jettison their own Hellenistic culture to embrace the “otherness” of truly sacred music. Oh, that God had preserved that lost book for us …
In fact, God authoritatively directs us not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly (Ps. 1:1), which most certainly forbids us from imitating the ungodly instrumental musical practices of wicked people who have repeatedly testified that they have specifically designed their instrumental musical ways to promote wickedness.
Some questions:
- Please define an “ungodly instrumental musical practice.”
- Please define “wicked people.”
- Please identify which instrumental musical ways were “specifically designed” to “promote wickedness,” and provide references to substantiate your claims for each.
- Please provide a set of objective criteria by which you can identify a musical style that is not “specifically designed” to “promote wickedness.”
- Please tell us which musical styles are safe to use for corporate worship, and also explain how you can be sure these approved styles were not “specifically designed” to “promote wickedness.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[RajeshG]Wait a minute. Are you saying that Cain was bound by “the later revelation in Leviticus” regarding what he could offer? Was he also required to keep the feast days and practice temple worship? That reasoning doesn’t make sense to me.The cursing of the ground prior to the rejection of Cain’s offering shows that God’s universe was no longer the same as it was when He first created it as all good. Because of that change, it cannot be argued that of necessity the problem(s) with whatever Cain offered that was from the ground couldn’t have been to do with whatever he offered because God created it all as good and it was all still good.
Furthermore, the later revelation in Leviticus only establishes that God authorized the offering of certain things that were from the ground and He did so in very specific ways. His doing so does not prove that anything and everything else that also ever came from the ground was also ever accepted by Him after He had cursed the ground. If Cain offered something from the ground that was not among the items that God later authorized or offered it in ways or combinations that God never authorized, his rejection and the rejection of his offering would also stem from his offering something that itself was not acceptable to God.
Therefore, you cannot establish any necessity that the only problem with Cain’s offering was his attitude and did not have anything to do with what he offered or how he offered it.
Your attempt to guess at the instructions by saying they were the same as the later Law ones is as good a guess as any, but we have no indication this is true. As I said before, we have no record of the instructions, and looking at God’s later instructions is not proof of former instructions. We have, in the record, a rejection of Cain’s attitude, so we know that God uses attitude as a standard. We cannot, from the record, establish with any necessity that some other standard was broken.
I’m curious if you would agree with something Larry wrote to me in another thread. I was trying to think of something that God would actually see as neutral, neither pleasing nor displeasing to Him. I presented “paint” as an example of that. Not a finished artwork, just the paint itself. He told me God would be pleased with paint. He said “It seems that paint is part of the result of the image of God in man being demonstrated in creative abilities and God is pleased with that.” Do you think that the invention of paint is a demonstration of our creative abilities that God would be pleased with? Or would you agree with me that paint itself is actually neutral in God’s eyes? Or would you say that the Fall of man has produced a condition in which our creative abilities are in opposition to God until we become believers, thus making anything produced by unbelievers to be displeasing to God.?
[Kevin Miller]No, I am saying that the later revelation in Leviticus only establishes that God has ever accepted only some things from the ground that were offered in specified ways; it does not establish any necessity that anything other than those things was ever acceptable to God.Wait a minute. Are you saying that Cain was bound by “the later revelation in Leviticus” regarding what he could offer? Was he also required to keep the feast days and practice temple worship? That reasoning doesn’t make sense to me.
Your attempt to guess at the instructions by saying they were the same as the later Law ones is as good a guess as any, but we have no indication this is true. As I said before, we have no record of the instructions, and looking at God’s later instructions is not proof of former instructions. We have, in the record, a rejection of Cain’s attitude, so we know that God uses attitude as a standard. We cannot, from the record, establish with any necessity that some other standard was broken.
We do not know what Cain offered, and I made no attempt to guess at what he offered or the instructions that were given to him. If he offered something from the ground that was not among those things specified later, we have no basis for arguing that what he offered was acceptable to God just because God later accepted some other things that also came from the ground after He had cursed the ground.
This thread has strayed very far from “Steve Pettit And The Skillman Family”
Discussion