How does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?
We know from 2 Tim. 3:15-17 that God wants Christians to profit from everything that He has inspired in the Bible. How does God want Christians to profit concerning their understanding of proper worship, especially of proper worship music, from the mention of singing and dancing in the following key passage about idolatrous worship:
Exodus 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. 19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.
- 157 views
All I’ve asked for is the application of Biblical truth so that I might be “taught, reproved, corrected and/or trained”. What good is doctrine without application?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]Yes, application of biblical truth is vital. Prematurely moving to application is a great error. Deciding beforehand what kind(s) of applications a passage must have is also a serious mistake.All I’ve asked for is the application of Biblical truth so that I might be “taught, reproved, corrected and/or trained”. What good is doctrine without application?
If you cannot tell whether the music in Exodus 32 was evil or not, I do not have any further application at this time that I can suggest beyond what I have already talked about concerning valuing the discernment of older, more experienced men, etc. If you are convinced that we cannot know whether the music in Exodus 32 was evil, then simply move on from this discussion and use your time in a better way …
No that is not the fundamental point. No one that is serious and knows even a little about music is going to deny that music has meaning and communicates.
I am not sure how that isn’t the fundamental point of this discussion. I agree with your statement. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians who are denying exactly that in various ways. But by “fundamental” I mean foundational. The bottom line. The sine qua non of sorts. And again, you affirm that in your second sentence.
can music communicate beyond the broad brushes of primary emotions? In other words, can music on its own contain moral meaning?
This I am not sure, thoughI tend to think yes. But of course that would depend on what is meant by “the broad brushes of primary emotions” and “moral” meaning. And how would we determine this? When the word “moral” gets attached, people think in terms of evil, and I am not sure that is a helpful way to think of it, so I avoid that.
I would ask this: Why does movie music work for virtually all audiences in virtually all places? Because music contains meaning. Is that beyond the broad brushes? Again, I am not sure what that means.
I would suggest that Albinoni’s Adagio in G Minor has meaning on its own and it is quite different than the Stripes and Stripes Forever. Again, that’s obvious, which is why the whole conversation that has gone on here for the past couple of week is mindboggling. I would suggest that Schindler’s List would be a far different movie with the soundtrack to Star Wars. Even the theme of Schindler’s List would be very different on a trumpet or a tuba than a violin. The timbre itself carries a meaning.
Here’s an example: We could take a death scene in a movie and set it to circus music and make the whole thing a laughingstock. Or we could take a sports scene and set it to waltz music and it would be a laughingstock. No big deal that the music doesn’t match the subject right? It takes something serious and trivializes it, right? But it’s a movie. No big deal.
But what if we take a truth about God and trivialize by the music we set it too. Is that sin? Does it end up saying something untruthful about God?
I certainly don’t think that Exodus addresses this issue either.
Exodus seems to clearly establish that sounds have meaning. What else besides? Probably not much. I don’t think Exodus is a particularly great passage for this subject. The subject in Exod 32 is a side issue, though a real one. But it doesn’t say much beyond this simple fact—that the sounds gave an indication of the activity.
If we were to agree on this, we could move on to the next question which is whether music in context has moral meaning.
This would be the least controversial of the questions, I think.
Rajesh:
After nine pages, this is what I understand your practical implications of Exodus 32 and music to be:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Ron, In another thread, you cited Frank Garlock and showed some familiarity with him. I am curious as to how you can be familiar with Garlock and his book and yet never have heard “actual example[s] of or standard[s] for immoral, bad, and or sinful music (without words).” I disagree with Garlock on a great number of things. But that doesn’t mean that examples weren’t given, does it?
I sat through these seminars 30-40 years ago where examples were played (much to our enjoyment and too few to our liking). We heard concrete standards such as back beats, percentages of the instrumental group that the percussion made up, vocal techniques such as sliding, overemphasis on percussion at the expense of melodic instruments, whether the music influenced your body movements at the toes or at the central part of your body, etc. There were all kinds of attempts to attach concrete standards and give examples. And when we asked questions, these answers were repeated. You seriously never heard any of that?
To say that no standard was ever given and no examples were ever given is strange to me. I have never read Garlock’s book (and don’t intend to), but having heard this genre of talk over the years, I am fairly sure Garlock gave examples. I read Jerry Rubin’s Do It. He is pretty concrete in there (and is in favor of it, in case you wonder). I have some books on my shelf that give concrete standards and examples as well. They are out there.
The question is how good they are and how useful.
[Larry]The sound that Moses and Joshua heard from a distance was the combination of the sounds being produced by the people’s singing whatever words they were singing (and the way that they were singing those words), the people’s playing whatever they were playing on the instruments they were playing (and the manner of their playing those instruments), and whatever other noises they were making in their wildly out-of-control sensual playing, including their dancing. That is why I use composite sound to designate what they were hearing from a distance.No that is not the fundamental point. No one that is serious and knows even a little about music is going to deny that music has meaning and communicates.
I am not sure how that isn’t the fundamental point of this discussion. I agree with your statement. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians who are denying exactly that in various ways. But by “fundamental” I mean foundational. The bottom line. The sine qua non of sorts. And again, you affirm that in your second sentence.
can music communicate beyond the broad brushes of primary emotions? In other words, can music on its own contain moral meaning?
This I am not sure, thoughI tend to think yes. But of course that would depend on what is meant by “the broad brushes of primary emotions” and “moral” meaning. And how would we determine this? When the word “moral” gets attached, people think in terms of evil, and I am not sure that is a helpful way to think of it, so I avoid that.
I would ask this: Why does movie music work for virtually all audiences in virtually all places? Because music contains meaning. Is that beyond the broad brushes? Again, I am not sure what that means.
I would suggest that Albinoni’s Adagio in G Minor has meaning on its own and it is quite different than the Stripes and Stripes Forever. Again, that’s obvious, which is why the whole conversation that has gone on here for the past couple of week is mindboggling. I would suggest that Schindler’s List would be a far different movie with the soundtrack to Star Wars. Even the theme of Schindler’s List would be very different on a trumpet or a tuba than a violin. The timbre itself carries a meaning.
Here’s an example: We could take a death scene in a movie and set it to circus music and make the whole thing a laughingstock. Or we could take a sports scene and set it to waltz music and it would be a laughingstock. No big deal that the music doesn’t match the subject right? It takes something serious and trivializes it, right? But it’s a movie. No big deal.
But what if we take a truth about God and trivialize by the music we set it too. Is that sin? Does it end up saying something untruthful about God?
I certainly don’t think that Exodus addresses this issue either.
Exodus seems to clearly establish that sounds have meaning. What else besides? Probably not much. I don’t think Exodus is a particularly great passage for this subject. The subject in Exod 32 is a side issue, though a real one. But it doesn’t say much beyond this simple fact—that the sounds gave an indication of the activity.
If we were to agree on this, we could move on to the next question which is whether music in context has moral meaning.
This would be the least controversial of the questions, I think.
Because they were hearing a mix of the words and other sounds but hearing it from a distance at which the words could not be understood, we could make the mistake of thinking that what was being sung and how it was being sung is irrelevant to evaluating the moral character of the composite sound. Because, however, we know that the entire character of the events that were taking place was permeated by ungodly sensuality, I hold that the composite sound that Moses and Joshua were hearing was of an unmistakably sensual character that was very different from the sound of any godly Israelite worship that they had ever heard before.
What problem(s) do you see with reasoning this way with the information that the passage provides?
You wrote:
I hold that the composite sound that Moses and Joshua were hearing was of an unmistakably sensual character that was very different from the sound of any godly Israelite worship that they had ever heard before.
Good. In light of your comment, how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Profiting fully from the passage requires further attention to details from the larger context of Exodus 32 and then a thorough examination of the primary NT application of Exodus 32 that God has already explicitly given to us in 1 Cor. 10:7.You wrote:
I hold that the composite sound that Moses and Joshua were hearing was of an unmistakably sensual character that was very different from the sound of any godly Israelite worship that they had ever heard before.
Good. In light of your comment, how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?
Specifically, we have to pay close attention to the flow of thought in these verses:
Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies)
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
Observing the chronology of this part of the GCI is also vital. God directed the immediate execution of people at this specific point in the GCI. Although, He did also judge the people later with a plague on the next day, this divine judgment on them on the second day highlights the sinfulness of what they were doing when they were wildly out of control.
The passage also notes that their being wildly out of control was something overtly observable by Moses and for which Aaron was held culpable. Moreover, their state at this time was “unto their shame among their enemies.” These statements adds another dimension of how we are to evaluate the wickedness of what was taking place—it rendered the Israelites as shameful in the perspective of their unbelieving enemies.
We thus have profoundly negative evaluations of their behavior at this time both from divine perspective and from the perspective of unbelieving pagans. They were so vile that they were irredeemably wicked and had to be put to death.
More later, God willing.
[Larry]can music communicate beyond the broad brushes of primary emotions? In other words, can music on its own contain moral meaning?
This I am not sure, thoughI tend to think yes. But of course that would depend on what is meant by “the broad brushes of primary emotions” and “moral” meaning. And how would we determine this? When the word “moral” gets attached, people think in terms of evil, and I am not sure that is a helpful way to think of it, so I avoid that.
I would ask this: Why does movie music work for virtually all audiences in virtually all places? Because music contains meaning. Is that beyond the broad brushes? Again, I am not sure what that means.
I would suggest that Albinoni’s Adagio in G Minor has meaning on its own and it is quite different than the Stripes and Stripes Forever. Again, that’s obvious, which is why the whole conversation that has gone on here for the past couple of week is mindboggling. I would suggest that Schindler’s List would be a far different movie with the soundtrack to Star Wars. Even the theme of Schindler’s List would be very different on a trumpet or a tuba than a violin. The timbre itself carries a meaning.
Here’s an example: We could take a death scene in a movie and set it to circus music and make the whole thing a laughingstock. Or we could take a sports scene and set it to waltz music and it would be a laughingstock. No big deal that the music doesn’t match the subject right? It takes something serious and trivializes it, right? But it’s a movie. No big deal.
But what if we take a truth about God and trivialize by the music we set it too. Is that sin? Does it end up saying something untruthful about God?
I certainly don’t think that Exodus addresses this issue either.
Exodus seems to clearly establish that sounds have meaning. What else besides? Probably not much. I don’t think Exodus is a particularly great passage for this subject. The subject in Exod 32 is a side issue, though a real one. But it doesn’t say much beyond this simple fact—that the sounds gave an indication of the activity.
If we were to agree on this, we could move on to the next question which is whether music in context has moral meaning.
This would be the least controversial of the questions, I think.
Let me explain what I mean by broad brushes. Music can paint emotional pictures in an abstract way. However, music cannot get too specific. For example, music may communicate an emotion of anger. It cannot however tell you when you should be angry. Anger can be good or bad in context but music will not help you find the difference. It cannot tell you to be angry at your wife or to be angry at sin; it just says to be angry. Without such specificity, it is not possible to attach moral significance to the music itself.
Your examples are examples of what I am talking about. Of course there is a different emotional message in “Stars and Stripes” and the second movement of a Beethoven Sonata. But that does not mean the pieces have different moral messages. They are just creating different emotions.
Your examples about setting circus music to a death scene hits at the third question I asked which is whether music has moral meaning when context is added to the equation. I would say that context does introduce a moral component. Again, it is not the music itself but the combination of the music and the context. It is easy for me to say that but actually applying that in real life is a different matter that is not easy at all.
Thanks. I look forward to discussing how God wants Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Your examples are examples of what I am talking about. Of course there is a different emotional message in “Stars and Stripes” and the second movement of a Beethoven Sonata. But that does not mean the pieces have different moral messages. They are just creating different emotions.
I think this is where it gets a bit slippery. You talk of “moral messages” as distinct from emotions but I am not sure how that distinction works in real life. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, can improper emotions be aroused by music? Or can emotions or affections or perspectives be aroused illegitimately?
Music plays a big part in telling us how to think and telling us what to think, doesn’t it?
What problem(s) do you see with reasoning this way with the information that the passage provides?
Because the passage doesn’t say that.
I tend to agree that the carrying on was very sensual, almost certainly sexual in nature, and that it wasn’t the Brandenburg Concertos that were playing or even Bolero. But that is not the point of the passage. The passage distinguishes the sounds, and thereby proves that sounds have meaning that can be identified with certain events, emotions, or experiences. But to make that a major point is to miss the point.
On the one hand there are those who dismiss it too easily, failing to note all that it actually says. On the other hand there are those who attach too much significance to it, failing to note only what it actually says.
So there are those who think we shouldn’t say anything at all about music. But they have to skip vv. 17-18. And there are those who think that we should build a whole theory of music and they have to make vv. 17-18 a preeminent point in the passage when the passage does not justify such a thing.
[Larry]Drawing legitimate and necessary implications from a biblical passage is an important aspect of properly profiting from it. I am not building a whole theory of music from that one passage. There are many more passages that back up what these verses from Exodus 32 point to, but I am not going to digress …What problem(s) do you see with reasoning this way with the information that the passage provides?
Because the passage doesn’t say that.
I tend to agree that the carrying on was very sensual, almost certainly sexual in nature, and that it wasn’t the Brandenburg Concertos that were playing or even Bolero. But that is not the point of the passage. The passage distinguishes the sounds, and thereby proves that sounds have meaning that can be identified with certain events, emotions, or experiences. But to make that a major point is to miss the point.
On the one hand there are those who dismiss it too easily, failing to note all that it actually says. On the other hand there are those who attach too much significance to it, failing to note only what it actually says.
So there are those who think we shouldn’t say anything at all about music. But they have to skip vv. 17-18. And there are those who think that we should build a whole theory of music and they have to make vv. 17-18 a preeminent point in the passage when the passage does not justify such a thing.
Who says that I am making vv. 17-18 “a preeminent point in the passage …” The passage is inspired revelation about worship music that has been given to us to profit us.
These verses are not merely making some detached, abstract point about distinct sounds. In context, they do profit us by showing how the sound of the composite music from a distance revealed the perversely sensual nature of a horrifically defiled feast to the Lord. The wicked nature of the events and experiences that were taking place at that time could be appraised correctly by the character of the composite sound emanating from the camp.
[TylerR]You are welcome.Thanks. I look forward to discussing how God wants Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20.
[RajeshG] In context, they do profit us by showing how the sound of the composite music from a distance revealed the perversely sensual nature of a horrifically defiled feast to the Lord.Really? the verses show us HOW the sound does that? It should be easy to answer then, for our own purposes today, how DOES the sound do that? What is the profit that we get today?
In light of your recent comments on the passage, I still look forward to hearing how God wants Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Thank you, GregH, for your contributions to this thread. We have certainly different in past interactions but I agree with what you have said here.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[TylerR]Very busy work day and church tonight. I should have some time after church tonight. Meanwhile, how about some feedback from you on what I have shared so far?In light of your recent comments on the passage, I still look forward to hearing how God wants Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20.
[Kevin Miller]No, to clarify, when I said “how” in that sentence, I should have said “that.” I have no musicological specifics (if that is what you are seeking) to offer because the passage does not provide such information.RajeshG wrote:
In context, they do profit us by showing how the sound of the composite music from a distance revealed the perversely sensual nature of a horrifically defiled feast to the Lord.Really? the verses show us HOW the sound does that? It should be easy to answer then, for our own purposes today, how DOES the sound do that? What is the profit that we get today?
What was the sound Joshua and Moses heard from a distance? It was the sound of a great horde of Israelites beatboxing:
“Various proponents of CCM have dismissed passages such as Exodus 32 from being relevant to the CCM debate for differing reasons, including because there is no mention of musical instruments in the passage. I believe that factoring the ability of humans to mimic percussion instruments vocally, as in the contemporary practice of beatboxing, substantively changes the discussion of Exodus 32 and many other passages in Scripture that have often been debated in discussions about musical styles and their propriety in Christian worship.” - https://apeopleforhisname.org/2016/11/beatboxing-exodus-32-and-the-ccm-debate/
––––––––––––––––––—
Perhaps this guy’s way, way-back ancestor was there to give them some pointers on how to vocally imitate musical instruments:
How Genesis 4:21 directly applies to the CCM debate
When you applied yourself to receive a PhD, what was your objective?
Thanks
[you may not think the question is relevant to this discussion, but humor me and respond! Thanks in advance!]
A lot of what is going on in this thread is unbecoming of Christians. It seems to me that Rajesh’s goal is to interact with the text. I admire his tenacity, not sure that every aspect of what he says is correct, but at least he is attempting to let the text drive what he is saying.
Those of you who oppose him are just displaying a whole lot of foolishness. You refuse to interact with the text, including some who like to take the posture as “text-first expositors.” Mockery is no substitute for actually engaging in an argument if you care to do so.
I’m not planning on much involvement with the thread, the simple point that Rajesh and Larry argue seems quite obvious on its face. (I realize that Larry’s view is not exactly the same as Rajesh’s view.) Instead of dealing with the arguments that are made exegetically, you all are just resorting to ridicule and mockery. If you think that proves your point or makes your case… well, it’s not working.
This kind of foolishness is how SI has gained the reputation it has. Too bad, because it could be a useful vehicle for discussion and interaction.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]It seems to me that Rajesh’s goal is to interact with the text.
It seems to me that Rajesh’s goal is to impose upon the text.
Asking questions and disagreeing about debatable matters is not “opposition”.
Pointing out statements that strike one as humorous is not “mockery”.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I understand. This is a busy time of year. I look forward to hearing what implications you believe Exodus 32 has for music.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Don Johnson]A lot of what is going on in this thread is unbecoming of Christians. It seems to me that Rajesh’s goal is to interact with the text. I admire his tenacity, not sure that every aspect of what he says is correct, but at least he is attempting to let the text drive what he is saying.
Those of you who oppose him are just displaying a whole lot of foolishness. You refuse to interact with the text, including some who like to take the posture as “text-first expositors.” Mockery is no substitute for actually engaging in an argument if you care to do so.
I’m not planning on much involvement with the thread, the simple point that Rajesh and Larry argue seems quite obvious on its face. (I realize that Larry’s view is not exactly the same as Rajesh’s view.) Instead of dealing with the arguments that are made exegetically, you all are just resorting to ridicule and mockery. If you think that proves your point or makes your case… well, it’s not working.
This kind of foolishness is how SI has gained the reputation it has. Too bad, because it could be a useful vehicle for discussion and interaction.
Don, if you disagreed with Rajesh’s final conclusions, you would not be defending him or his exegesis (if it can be called that) here. Even based on the way you wrote and the way you hedged, you know there is little if any exegesis going on. He is just drawing wild nonsensical conclusions rooted in nothing more than thin air to support what he believes about music (which is also what you believe about music for the most part). Maybe ridicule should not be happening but his “composite sound” and beatboxing stuff deserves to be just ignored for sure.
The problem for you is Rajesh has become a natural strawman for your position. As long as he is presenting his opinions in the way he is, he is making the conservative music position look very bad. I suggest you quit complaining about mockery and go find someone else to represent your position. I actually think it is possible to represent your side in an intelligent way.
Above, Jim referred to an article on Genesis 4:21 and CCM that Rajesh wrote. That article reads thus:
Whether or not all musical styles are inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship is a key point of dispute among believers concerning CCM. Because Genesis 4:21 is the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments, examining its relevance to the CCM debate is vital.
In my experience, however, Genesis 4:21 has not been considered thoroughly by most people on either side of the CCM debate. I have previously written several articles that treat various aspects of what Genesis 4:21 reveals, especially in relation to certain issues concerning CCM.
His conclusion:
the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.
Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.
Rajesh continues:
Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.
Rajesh appears to be very consistent in the way he handles Scripture and draws implications. It fits with the way he seems to analyze Exodus 32.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Don Johnson]Those of you who oppose him are just displaying a whole lot of foolishness. You refuse to interact with the text, including some who like to take the posture as “text-first expositors.” Mockery is no substitute for actually engaging in an argument if you care to do so.
Don, although I disagree pretty strongly with Rajesh and agree with what GregH has been writing (maybe a first for me too!) I don’t believe I have been mocking Rajesh or anyone else on this thread at all.
As to interacting with the text, I’m no expositor, but I have asked how the text shows particular things. If the only answer is that I have to exposit how the text doesn’t show what is claimed, then it is in no way incumbent upon me to do that. I’m not the one making claims about what the text says.
Dave Barnhart
[GregH]Don, if you disagreed with Rajesh’s final conclusions, you would not be defending him or his exegesis (if it can be called that) here. Even based on the way you wrote and the way you hedged, you know there is little if any exegesis going on. He is just drawing wild nonsensical conclusions rooted in nothing more than thin air to support what he believes about music (which is also what you believe about music for the most part). Maybe ridicule should not be happening but his “composite sound” and beatboxing stuff deserves to be just ignored for sure.
Greg, honestly, I don’t think that’s it at all. I agree that I probably share a similar viewpoint with Rajesh. Not sure I agree with all that he is saying as far as this particular passage (I haven’t read everything he says closely.)
However, what I object to is the responses of the usual suspects here at SI. It’s always the same, it never attempts to deal with anyone seriously, just ridicule and mockery. It’s pretty shallow.
Wish we could get substantive attempts at articulating opposing points of view, but no, that’s not how its done around here.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I have tried, with varying degrees of optimism, to understand what Rajesh is saying. Because a picture is worth one thousand words, this is how I would characterize the discussion thus far (I hope this changes):
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[GregH]To be fair to Rajesh, he himself did not make any mention of beatboxing.Maybe ridicule should not be happening but his “composite sound” and beatboxing stuff deserves to be just ignored for sure.
[Don Johnson] A lot of what is going on in this thread is unbecoming of Christians. It seems to me that Rajesh’s goal is to interact with the text. I admire his tenacity, not sure that every aspect of what he says is correct, but at least he is attempting to let the text drive what he is saying.
Have you considered this, Don?
It seems to me that Rajesh is riding an anti-CCM hobby horse. Perhaps he could learn something from his detractors.
[Kevin Miller]GregH wrote:
Maybe ridicule should not be happening but his “composite sound” and beatboxing stuff deserves to be just ignored for sure.
To be fair to Rajesh, he himself did not make any mention of beatboxing.
You must have missed this: https://apeopleforhisname.org/2016/11/beatboxing-exodus-32-and-the-ccm-debate/
[Craig Toliver]Many have commented in unedifying ways on this thread that have not had anything to do with the legitimate question that I asked in my original post. Instead of attempting to engage in courteous discussion in which they explained carefully their understanding of how we are to profit from the text, they have engaged in making me the focus of the thread instead of the Bible. You have now joined their ranks. You have no legitimate basis for making a comment like this from the very legitimate question that I asked to begin this thread.Have you considered this, Don?
It seems to me that Rajesh is riding an anti-CCM hobby horse. Perhaps he could learn something from his detractors.
[Kevin Miller]You are correct that I did not make any mention to that effect anywhere in this thread. My intent was and has been to discuss the text.GregH wrote:
Maybe ridicule should not be happening but his “composite sound” and beatboxing stuff deserves to be just ignored for sure.
To be fair to Rajesh, he himself did not make any mention of beatboxing.
Tyler,
This latest comment by you does not represent accurately my participation in this thread. I am not asking anyone to prove me wrong. I believe what God says about our need to profit from all Scripture regardless of what anyone else says. I asked a very legitimate question about the Bible itself to which you have devoted very little time attempting to set forth your own answers from the text. How about changing your approach from demanding answers from me and saying in detail what you think is the answer to the question?
[Jim]Why do you continue to link to things in my blog that do not pertain to what this thread was intended to be? Is that a courteous way to treat another believer? Is this how you would want to be treated?How Genesis 4:21 directly applies to the CCM debate
https://apeopleforhisname.org/2015/03/how-genesis-421-directly-applies-t…
[dcbii]Dave, I appreciate much that you have not interacted with me in the ungracious ways that so many others have in this thread. Thank you for not making me the focus of your comments.Don Johnson wrote:
Those of you who oppose him are just displaying a whole lot of foolishness. You refuse to interact with the text, including some who like to take the posture as “text-first expositors.” Mockery is no substitute for actually engaging in an argument if you care to do so.
Don, although I disagree pretty strongly with Rajesh and agree with what GregH has been writing (maybe a first for me too!) I don’t believe I have been mocking Rajesh or anyone else on this thread at all.
As to interacting with the text, I’m no expositor, but I have asked how the text shows particular things. If the only answer is that I have to exposit how the text doesn’t show what is claimed, then it is in no way incumbent upon me to do that. I’m not the one making claims about what the text says.
[Don Johnson]Thank you for expressing these thoughts. I am fine with people disagreeing with me strongly, but strong disagreement does not justify the kind of remarks that many have made in this thread. I wonder what unbelievers who understand what courteous exchange looks like even between those who have opposing views would think of the general tenor of so much of what has been said to and about me in this thread. I wish that the discussion were just about the passage instead of about me.GregH wrote:
Don, if you disagreed with Rajesh’s final conclusions, you would not be defending him or his exegesis (if it can be called that) here. Even based on the way you wrote and the way you hedged, you know there is little if any exegesis going on. He is just drawing wild nonsensical conclusions rooted in nothing more than thin air to support what he believes about music (which is also what you believe about music for the most part). Maybe ridicule should not be happening but his “composite sound” and beatboxing stuff deserves to be just ignored for sure.
Greg, honestly, I don’t think that’s it at all. I agree that I probably share a similar viewpoint with Rajesh. Not sure I agree with all that he is saying as far as this particular passage (I haven’t read everything he says closely.)
However, what I object to is the responses of the usual suspects here at SI. It’s always the same, it never attempts to deal with anyone seriously, just ridicule and mockery. It’s pretty shallow.
Wish we could get substantive attempts at articulating opposing points of view, but no, that’s not how its done around here.
Discussion