The Pursuit of Excellence in Conservative Christian Music
“Pop culture and the pop style of music in general has infiltrated and reshaped much of the thinking, writing, arranging, and performing of Christian music, even within much of ‘conservative’ Christianity.” - Taigen Joos
- 1246 views
I recently attended the funeral of a long time friend and Christian brother. Part of the service was a 20 person ukelele band that performed a well rehearsed 15 minute medley of familiar Christian hymns and Gospel songs. Was this excellent music?
This is the question that has kept this type of discussion going for decades. Just give us actual examples or a list of excellent Christian music that is acceptable along with actual examples or a list of music that is unacceptable so people don't have to worry.
We are told we should use excellent music. We agree. Yet no one will give us an example of excellent music. We are told we should not use "sinful" or "bad" or "uncheckable" music. We agree. Yet no one will give us an example of that music.
People need simple answers.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I do not expect that I will participate much longer in this thread, given the nonsense and false claims about me that Bert Perry has again injected into yet another thread.
Rajesh (and anyone, really). There is another option when criticism seems unfair/inaccurate/bad tone. It’s an option I’ve used a lot. You can always ignore it and refocus on what you see as the relevant points of agreement and disagreement.
Human interaction is always pretty messy. I often think it’s a miracle that people ever understand eachother at all! So sometimes the line between debate and meta-debate (debate about the debate/other stuff that isn’t really relevant) is murky.
I’m in favor of a “just refocus” approach.
That said, this post is almost entirely meta-debate, so far. … which just goes to show that sometimes it has a place.
But to refocus, questions like “What does the Bible teach about music styles?” are definitely downstream of questions like “How do we interpret narrative and other kinds of OT writing?”
In any debate you have to have points of agreement to use as bases for making your case/defeating the case for another view. In issues concerning arts, entertainment, culture especially, hermeneutical points of agreement are vital. If you don’t agree on a general approach for handling the biblical evidence (or even when it is “evidence”), you don’t have much to talk about.
Well, you could have a debate about sound interpretation/hermeneutics and how we derive that. But you can’t really have a debate about the cultural/arts/entertainment topic… because you kind of don’t speak the same language.
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.
What constitutes "godly music" continues to be fervently argued ad nauseum by (IMHO) those with too much time on their hands. Quite frankly, at this point it's a waste of time and energy to launch into and trace the arguments of another 14+ page discussion on this topic. (How many such music threads do we currently have on SI?) I agree that the 2014 Shai Linne / Scott Aniol discussion was edifying and revealing. Beyond that, the argument ultimately breaks down to one claiming God's imprimatur on one's music preferences.
[Aaron said:]But to refocus, questions like “What does the Bible teach about music styles?” are definitely downstream of questions like “How do we interpret narrative and other kinds of OT writing?”
In any debate you have to have points of agreement to use as bases for making your case/defeating the case for another view. In issues concerning arts, entertainment, culture especially, hermeneutical points of agreement are vital. If you don’t agree on a general approach for handling the biblical evidence (or even when it is “evidence”), you don’t have much to talk about.
Well, you could have a debate about sound interpretation/hermeneutics and how we derive that. But you can’t really have a debate about the cultural/arts/entertainment topic… because you kind of don’t speak the same language.
I think that there is much that can be done even without agreement on everything. The key is to let the Bible itself determine what proper hermeneutics are instead of imposing them from without.
For example, the Psalms are an inspired collection of perfect songs that God has infallibly, inerrantly, and authoritatively directed NT Christians to minister to one another in singing and in other ways. There is no legitimate denial of that fact.
Because that is true, all the content of the Psalms about music has direct doctrinal importance for NT Christians for whatever it says about music. When what the Psalms reveal about music (whether directly or by way of principle) is properly and thoroughly treated, we have a vast amount of information that instructs us about music that is acceptable to God.
If we appeal solely to the Bible for our rules of hermeneutics, we have something of a chicken/egg situation where we must understand the Scriptures to find out our ground rules for understanding the Scriptures.
Pro tip; sound exegesis and heremeneutics can never be grounded in a tautology. Rather, sound hermeneutics begins with a sound comprehension of the language used and an adherence to the rules of logic. That includes a prohibition on personal attacks (e.g. comments like "worthless interaction") as well as a prohibition of guilt by association (e.g. "the roots of rock & roll lie deep in the soil of voodoo") fallacies.
And until we get an agreement from Rajesh that the rules of logic apply--he's actually posted things on his personal blog claiming wrongly that the Bible uses guilt by association--we really don't have any basis for discussing hermeneutics with him. No sound hermeneutic can dispense with the rules of logic, and the prohibitions of personal attacks, guilt by association, and circular reasoning (tautologies) are among the most basic rules of logic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Take care, brethren, that you be not misled by Bert Perry's false statements about hermeneutics. He speaks confidently about that which he does not know.
Examining how the NT writers use the OT is a perfectly legitimate and necessary part of sound hermeneutics. One of the most highly respected professors in the seminary where I did my doctoral work taught us extensively about NT use of the OT in one of our doctoral classes that examined problems in NT Interpretation.
Learning from the Bible itself how to interpret and apply the OT to our lives is an essential part of proper interpretation of the Bible, sound theology, and godly Christian doctrine and practice.
I think that there is much that can be done even without agreement on everything. The key is to let the Bible itself determine what proper hermeneutics are instead of imposing them from without.
This has a great ring to it and I applaud the desire to give the Bible all the authority we possibly can.
I also do agree that there are hermeneutical principles revealed in Scripture itself. We should take that as far as it is meant to go.
But there’s an inescapable reality that plays a huge role in limiting that idea:
We have to approach the Bible itself as readers from the outside, and we do not come from a neutral place.
To put it another way, God gave us a perfect (for His purposes) Book, but He:
- Gave it to us in the context of community—fellow believers.
- Gave it to us in the context of our humanity—created beings with built in capabilities as our starting point.
- Gave it to us through human writers—first, prophets (in the believing community) and later apostles (in the believing community)
Anyway, my point is this: what the Bible is and how it was given to us are just as important as what it contains in determining how to interpret it.
To put it a different way, in order to learn from the Bible how to interpret it, we have to first interpret what it says about how to interpret it.
You can see the circularity there. We can’t get 100% of interpretive principles from the Book itself because we have to have some interpretive principles already in order to get any principles at all.
You have to know how to read and think before you can read more about reading and thinking.
The problem would be unsolvable if it weren’t for the fact that God made us with some innate abilities and providentially guided history in a way that we approach all forms of writing with some basic understandings of how to do that—and He made us in a way that we’re able to engage in reasoning to figure a lot out.
And, even more, after laying all that ground work so He could speak to us in this way, He inspired writers in the context of congregations who would work together to understand what was given.
It works because we’re humans, made in God’s image, bound together in faith. It’s messy because we’re still only humans.
To sum up: It is not possible to get all of our hermeneutics from the Bible because we have to have some hermeneutics already in order to get anything out of the Bible.
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.
Rajesh, the question is not whether we can use the OT to interpret the NT. I don't believe anyone here would deny that. The question at hand is whether sound exegesis and hermeneutics are bound to the rules of grammar and logic. You are on record as saying that they are not, and your conduct in this very thread involves other (sinful) fallacies like the ad hominem.
When I add that to your endorsement of Brennan's Pen's racist claim that "the roots of rock & roll lie deep in the soil of voodoo", what you need most is to repent of these sins and start to learn to understand the Bible properly, bound by the chains of the rules of grammar and logic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
As far as sound hermeneutics go, I do not have to prove anything to you (Bert Perry) or anyone else about my abilities to handle the Bible properly. You fancy yourself to be an expert in hermeneutics and sound logic, but you are not anything of the sort.
Your indefensible advocacy of Christian use of things of the occult make you (Bert Perry) an enemy of God and of God's people. I would say much more about your unrighteousness, but then I would be stooping to your level.
Discussion