On Bible Interpretation, Evidence, and Music
Image
2 Timothy 3:16 reveals that all of Scripture is God-inspired and instructive. Taken with Romans 15:4, similar verses, and examples of NT use of OT passages, some have concluded that even incidental narrative details are potential sources of doctrine.
Since OT narrative details reference everything from clothing to cooking, tools, weapons, vehicles (carts, chariots), and so much more, there are, of course, references to music. There are even references to specific instruments, moods, and uses of music.
I want to offer a few thoughts here for two audiences. The first is those who claim the hermeneutic (interpretive approach) that takes every narrative detail as a potential source of doctrine. The second audience is those who have participated in conversations, debates, or quarrels on the topic of “what the Bible teaches about music” and sensed that there was some kind of disconnect regarding how to use Scripture to address features of present-day culture.
Maybe something here can help a few understand each other a little bit better on these topics and more accurately identify points of agreement and disagreement.
Narrative and Evidence
I’ve written about proper use of narrative before, with a focus on why we should avoid “spiritualizing” elements of narrative—whether OT or NT. Many of the same problems afflict efforts to extract doctrine from narrative details.
Here, we’ll focus on the role of evidence in Bible interpretation, especially narrative.
It should be a given that since we’re talking about God’s Word, and teaching we are going to claim is “biblical,” any interpretation we take of any passage of Scripture—narrative or not—needs to be justified by evidence and reasoning. Saying “God meant this when He said that” is a weighty claim! It needs to be justified.
In other words, whenever we claim, “This information in this text has this meaning for us,” we should be expected to prove it. The “proof” may be informal, as it usually is in preaching. Still, we should expect listeners to want reasons. Our beliefs and assertions should be warranted, and we should help others see why they are warranted.
Narrative is no exception to this duty—any more than poetry, prophecy, or epistles.
Classifying Evidence
Some years ago, I wrote about casting lots as a thought experiment on handling biblical evidence. A lot of readers wanted to debate the validity of casting lots—but my intent was to stir curiosity: Why don’t churches or individual believers generally make decisions that way today?
There’s a reason we don’t. It has to do with evidence.
I’m going to talk about three qualities of evidence, two types of evidence, then five sub-types.
First, three qualities:
- Consistent with
- Supportive
- Conclusive
Say a building burned down, and we discover that Wolfgang was at the location when the fire started. His presence there is consistent with the claim that he started the fire, but it doesn’t support that conclusion at all. This is more obvious if lots of other people were there, too.
But suppose we also learn that Wolfgang had publicly said he wished that building would burn. He also bought lots of flammable liquids earlier that day. That still doesn’t prove he did it, but it is supportive. Though inconclusive, it is evidential for the claim that Wolfgang started the fire.
Now suppose Wolfgang was the only person there at the right time to have started the fire. Suppose the building was recently inspected and found to have no faulty wiring. There were no electrical storms that day, either.
We are now probably “beyond reasonable doubt” about Wolfgang’s guilt. The evidence is conclusive in the sense that it warrants a high-confidence conclusion.
On to the two types:
- Internal evidence
- External evidence
In reference to the Bible, internal evidence is anything within the 66 books of the Bible. External evidence is everything from human experience, human nature, and the whole created world outside the Bible.
Simple enough. On to the five sub-types. These are types of internal evidence. We could choose almost any topic, then classify every (or nearly every) biblical reference to it as one of these types. I’ll use music for this example:
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, but no contextual indications of quality or exemplary intent.
What do I mean by “exemplary intent”? Sometimes we read that person A did B, and the context encourages us to believe we’re seeing an example of good or bad conduct. For example, we read that Daniel prayed “as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). The context encourages us to see Daniel’s choices as both good (“contextual indications of quality”) and something to imitate in an appropriate way (“exemplary intent”).
Evidence and Certainty
Why bother to classify evidence? Because classifying the information (evidence/potential evidence) guides us in evaluating how well it works as justification for a claim. In turn, that shapes how certain we can be that our understanding is correct and how certain we can encourage others to be.
Looking at the five types of internal evidence above, the evidential weight and certainty decrease as we get further down the list. By the time we get to type 5, we may not have evidence at all—in reference to our topic or claim. Depending on the size of the claim, there might be information that is consistent with a claim, but not really anything supportive, much less conclusive.
As we move up the list of types, relevance to the topic becomes far more direct, and interpretive possibilities are greatly reduced. Certainty increases because there are fewer options.
There is no Bible verse that tells us this. It’s a function of what is there in the text vs. what is not there. We know there is a difference between an apostle saying, “Do this for this reason” and an individual in an OT history doing something, with no explanation of why it’s in the text. The relationship of these realities to appropriate levels of certainty follows out of necessity.
How Narrative Is Special
Speaking of differences between one genre of writing and another in Scripture, let’s pause to briefly note a few things about narrative.
- Humans pretty much universally recognize narrative. They may not be able to explain what sets it apart from other kinds of writing, but they know it when they read or hear it.
- The characteristics of narrative that enable us to recognize it are not revealed in Scripture. There is no verse that says “this is the definition of narrative.” We just know.
- Those characteristics include the fact that many details in narratives are only there to support the story. They are not intended to convey anything to us outside of that context.
- There is no Bible verse that tells us narrative works this way. We just know. It’s built into the definition.
What does this mean when it comes to evidence and justifying our claim that a passage reveals a truth or helps build a doctrine?
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
The Profitability of All Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4 do indeed assure us that all of Scripture is important. “Verbal, plenary inspiration” describes our conviction that every original word of the Bible is fully and equally from God. So we don’t look at any words and dismiss them as unimportant. What we do is ask how do these words work together in their context to provide us with “teaching… reproof.. correction… and training in righteousness.”
Narrative details are important. They’re so important that we’re obligated to stay out of the way and let them do their job.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 5007 views
Skull drums, however, certainly are not acceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
What does that have to do with whether any given musical style or sound is immoral and therefore off-limits to believers? As I said before, please connect all the dots in your reasoning.
Rajesh, I know for a fact that I haven't used John 1:1-3 in the way you describe, and I'd bet a few shiny new nickels that finding other Christians who do use it that way is going to be difficult. Feel free to show me examples to the contrary if you like, but I am pretty sure that most believers are fully up to speed on the reality that there is a difference between God's creation and man's action.
Moreover, if you rephrase it as you're effectively using it--"Are believers free to use instruments whose very creation or ownership is a sin or crime?", you won't find any examples. As I've noted before, there are laws against abuse of a corpse (and murder) in most areas, and most people understand intuitively that even if the person is already dead, there's something objectionable to lopping off his head (or skinning him) to use as a musical instrument. We bury (and cremate) in part for this very reason--to make such abuse of corpses difficult to impossible.
So what you are arguing is a complete straw man that does not exactly make you look erudite or even honest. Nobody is arguing that we're free to use lyrics that are vile, or instruments that are criminal to make or own. So stop already.
Rather, the central debate here is whether Christians may use instruments or genre from modern music traditions like jazz, rock & roll, rap, and the like--things like drums, electronic instruments (guitar, bass, synthesizer, etc..), the 12 bar blues, spoken vocals instead of sung, scat singing, etc..
And quite frankly, as I look at the Scriptures, I see absolutely no comments about instruments or genre as Rajesh is making. No text of the Scripture says "don't use the instruments of the Babylonians or Egyptians." No text of the Scripture tells us "don't use this bass line" or "don't use this vocal technique." Rajesh is proceeding almost exclusively from eisegesis, followed by the guilt by association fallacy.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh, I know for a fact that I haven't used John 1:1-3 in the way you describe,
I did not use a straw man at all. I did not say anything about you in my post about John 1:1-3. I never made any claim about you using that passage that way.
You are making a false claim about my using a straw man. I did no such thing.
What does that have to do with whether any given musical style or sound is immoral and therefore off-limits to believers? As I said before, please connect all the dots in your reasoning.
It points to the same faulty reasoning that some believers use to support their views about musical "styles" or sound. They argue that the Bible does not say anything against using any "styles" or sound so that means all "styles" or sound are legitimate for use in worship.
Arguing that there are not any unacceptable ________________ because the Bible never says that there are any unacceptable ________________ is faulty reasoning, whether it is used to talk about musical instruments, musical "styles," etc.
You made the argument regarding John 1:1-3 right here. Just because you didn't explicitly connect it with me (though you do implicitly right here) in that given post does not make it any less a straw man argument.
Look it up; I linked it for you. You are arguing against an idea that as far as I can tell, nobody on the other side of the worship wars is making. That is a straw man, and by definition.
And hence skull drums and such have no relevance whatsoever to this debate, because the point about their acceptability is not in dispute for very clear reasons.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Wrong. Skull drums are relevant because they prove that sinful humans have made musical instruments that are not acceptable to God for any use in worship. Nobody, therefore, can make any legitimate claims that there are no musical instruments that are off-limits to believers.
In the same way, nobody gets to beg the question and claim that there are no musical "genres" or "styles" that cannot be used acceptably to God in worship. Saying that the Bible does not say anything to that effect is a fallacious argument from silence.
And quite frankly, as I look at the Scriptures, I see absolutely no comments about instruments or genre as Rajesh is making. No text of the Scripture says "don't use the instruments of the Babylonians or Egyptians." No text of the Scripture tells us "don't use this bass line" or "don't use this vocal technique."
These comments plainly display how some believers use faulty arguments from silence by saying things like the following: "As I look at the Scriptures, I see absolutely no comments about . . . No text of the Scripture says . . . No text of Scripture tells us . . ."
It simply is not possible in this or any other thread to connect fully all the dots in my reasoning concerning instrumental musical practices and products that are unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship. There are just too many biblical truths that would have to be thoroughly developed in order for the whole approach to cohere properly and establish what I believe is true about this vital subject.
Nonetheless, what skull drums reveal to us is a key part of my approach because they indisputably show us that sinful humans can and have taken good things that God has made (human skulls and other materials) and made distinctively occult combination percussive instruments (human skull drums) that are utterly unacceptable to God for any righteous uses.
Along the same lines, proper reasoning with what skull drums and much other related evidence teaches us shows to us that it is fully legitimate for us to hold that sinful humans can and have originated distinctively occult combination ways of sounding such skull drums and other percussive musical instruments so that those ways are utterly unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship. All such distinctively occult musical percussive practices are categorically off-limits to God's people and must be categorically rejected by them.
It simply is not possible in this or any other thread to connect fully all the dots in my reasoning
This admission is significant, imo. If you can't demonstrate how you move from the text to your conclusions about music in worship, then you really should not be surprised if we remain unconvinced by them. This isn't a rebellion against Scripture's authority to direct worship, it is a healthy biblicism that awaits proof.
sinful humans can and have originated distinctively occult combination ways of sounding such skull drums and other percussive musical instruments so that those ways are utterly unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
I thought the problem with skull drums is that they are made of, you know, skulls. Now you're saying it has something to do with uniquely occult ways of playing those drums, but how could you know that the rhythms are evil, if the very instruments themselves render any rhythms played on them evil?
It simply is not possible in this or any other thread to connect fully all the dots in my reasoning
This admission is significant, imo. If you can't demonstrate how you move from the text to your conclusions about music in worship, then you really should not be surprised if we remain unconvinced by them. This isn't a rebellion against Scripture's authority to direct worship, it is a healthy biblicism that awaits proof.
Actually, I was not admitting that I am incapable of demonstrating the fullness of my approach in any manner.
What I am saying is that threads on SI are not a suitable venue for such a comprehensive presentation.
sinful humans can and have originated distinctively occult combination ways of sounding such skull drums and other percussive musical instruments so that those ways are utterly unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
I thought the problem with skull drums is that they are made of, you know, skulls. Now you're saying it has something to do with uniquely occult ways of playing those drums, but how could you know that the rhythms are evil, if the very instruments themselves render any rhythms played on them evil?
Yes, a totally disqualifying aspect of the skull drums is what they are made of. These additional responses were not a change in what I am saying. They were a part of a post that attempted to give you some idea about how I connect all the dots in my reasoning.
I have not yet begun to address the music that is played on skull drums. I am currently laying the foundation for that discussion by first addressing faulty notions about what the Bible does not say and what those arguments from silence do not establish.
Rajesh, if you want to be taken seriously, you actually have to provide an argument for why you think another argument is faulty. Whatever my differences with BJU, I'm pretty sure they would have taught you this. As Deming noted, "In God we Trust, all others must provide data."
So how about it? Do you have a text or two where God does tell Israel and/or the church not to use a certain culture or religion's instruments or musical genre? If you don't, making the case that we actually have Biblical warrant to insist on this today becomes a lot more difficult, to put it mildly.
(the analogy that comes to mind for me is arguing Biblically against abortion--the Bible doesn't appear to mention it directly, so you need to make the case on other grounds)
And regarding the notion that you can't discuss it adequately here, the threads with which you're involved routinely go to hundreds of comments, with the total length of your comments far exceeding the length of a typical dissertation abstract. Moreover, the total contents of your comments most likely far exceed the length of many dissertations. You've had plenty of column-inches to make the case. As any good newspaper editor (or supervising professor, or Professor Strunk and E.B. White) would tell you, Get to the point.
Regarding the thing that you've been pushing lately, the basic difference that you're either ignoring or unaware of the reality that no civilized person thinks you shouldn't use skull drums because of its connection with pagan religious rites. They object because you need to desecrate a corpse or even murder someone to create it, because it's gross (see above), and finally the musicians would remind us that the dissonances will be wrong.
But if you're trying to tell people that they shouldn't use (Baptist) Buddy Holly's five man band or the 12 bar blues (documented first by preacher's kid W.C. Handy), no such obvious moral objection appears. All you have, really, is false, fallacious, and racist guilt by association arguments which have as part of their premiss that African-American music derives most significantly from African pagan traditions, an argument that ignores three centuries of African-American interaction with European genre, not to mention that Buddy Holly and the Crickets were all white.
Really, Rajesh, you need to seriously up your game in terms of your analysis here, or else start being quiet on the topic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh, if you want to be taken seriously, you actually have to provide an argument for why you think another argument is faulty.
I already did. You routinely are arguing from silence about what the Bible does not say:
If you think that such arguing from silence is legitimate, you have to prove that it is.
Bert Perry keeps falsely charging me with being a racist:
All you have, really, is false, fallacious, and racist guilt by association arguments
Why is this ok with the moderators? Why are there no other decent users of SI speaking up against this nonsense?
Rajesh, if you don't want me to remind this forum of the racist bilge that you linked on your own blog, then un-link them and explain why you disagree. And I quote:
The roots of rock and roll lie deep in the soil of voodoo.
Sorry, but a rambling screed of falsehoods trying to link link vodoun (G'be people) to the Yoruba (a different people group in Nigeria) with words linked to a language spoken in Congo has one real import; it is to link that which is wrong and occult to people from Africa. And like it or not, those who actually have ancestors from Nigeria, Congo, and the like are going to take offense. It is racist.
Really, the roots of Brennan's "argument" are racist screeds from the past 150 years as many responded to African-American preeminence in the musical arts by trying to link their distinct musical styles with paganism. It's long past time to give these genetic fallacies a rest.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion