"God Likes Music of All Kinds"
In his chapter God, My Heart, and Music in the book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, Bob Kauflin writes,
Actually, it seems that God likes music of all kinds. No one style can sufficiently capture his glory or even begin to reflect the vastness of his wisdom, creativity, beauty, and order. That doesn't mean some kinds of music aren't more complex or beautiful than others. It just means no single genre of music is better than the rest in every way.
Tellingly, Kauflin offers no biblical support of his own for these statements.
I believe that wrong claims such as these (by Kauflin and others) about God and His supposedly liking "music of all kinds" is one of the chief reasons that we have the debacle that we have musically in the Church in our day.
- 1572 views
"Is it sinful for believers to sing Goodness of God?"
Since it was our third song this past Sunday morning, I certainly hope it isn't... =)
This is, in my mind, precisely the place to apply Rom 14. Who am I to sit in judgment of my brother because he is free to do this? If I believe he's wrong, I may try to convince him, but I should be very careful about how I think and speak about a fellow servant of Christ who is praising the Lord in sincerity of heart. And if he were not sincere, I would be unlikely to be able to tell, so I should assume he is unless he tells me otherwise, don't you think?
I agree with those who say that musical style is a matter of weakness/strength(Rom14). Someone might object for one of 2 very different reasons:
- “It’s a matter of conscience because it’s impossible for any music style to be wrong for any reason.”
- “It’s not a matter of conscience because some music styles are intrinsically, universally sinful.”
Considered in a spectrum:
AnythingGoes—1—Conscience—2—EvilMusic
You, Don, are concerned about #1. But this thread is about #2.
Those like Rajesh, Don, or Scott Aniol from old SI, clearly believe that music has universal meaning, and thus can make a universal application, but I still can’t see it. That doesn’t mean I don’t make any applications for myself.
I am not sure what you mean by "music has universal meaning." My beliefs about universal application do not stem from any fixed belief about all kinds of music necessarily having some intrinsic meaning to them. Scripture provides multiple bases for holding that not all kinds of music are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship; intrinsically unacceptable meaning is only one such possible basis.
In the OP, I presented some statements about the views of Bob Kauflin about music. In a nutshell, Kauflin's quoted remarks effectively assert that it seems to him that God likes all kinds of music because they all are needed in order that He would fully receive all the glory, etc. that He deserves.
Applying this same line of reasoning to all kinds of animal or plant products, for God to be fully glorified, we should hold that He has accepted the offering of every kind of animal or plant product in worship because they all in some way or another have glorified Him in ways that all the other kinds of animal and plant products have not.
Scripture, however, shows that such reasoning about all kinds of animal or plant products would be false because of what we know that God has not accepted in worship. We know indisputably that God has not accepted any use of honey in offerings made to Him by fire:
Leviticus 2:11 No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.
It is not true, therefore, that God has accepted the offering of all kinds of animal and plant products in worship because "no one [animal or plant product] can sufficiently capture his glory or even begin to reflect the vastness of his wisdom, creativity, beauty, and order."
Because we know indisputably from Scripture that such reasoning is false concerning what kinds of animal or plant products God has accepted in worship, we have a biblical basis to hold that Kauflin's reasoning for why he holds that God likes all kinds of music is false. Those who disagree must provide direct biblical evidence to show that what we know with certainty is not true of all kinds of animal or plant products is nonetheless true about all kinds of music.
Rajesh,
I don't see Kauflin mention worship at all in the OP, so I don't think your comparison to animal sacrifices is valid (unless there's more in the context of the book that you did not share). The fact that God declared all that he had made "very good," does indeed imply that he takes pleasure in the richness of creation, even those things which are not acceptable as sacrifices.
I don't know Bob Kauflin, but I sincerely doubt that he believes any and all kinds of music are appropriate or acceptable in worship. That's certainly not in the brief quote above.
The fact that God declared all that he had made "very good," does indeed imply that he takes pleasure in the richness of creation, even those things which are not acceptable as sacrifices.
Do you hold that God made all kinds of music "very good" at creation?
RajeshG,
If I were to adopt your view on music and what is and isn't acceptable to God to listen to or perform, I'd have to throw out classical music as no longer acceptable because of all the times its been associated with erotic and occultic practices in its history (especially recently due to latter interpretations due to post-modern, sexual-revolutionary, 3rd and 4th wave feminist and queer influences). To sum, contrary to some people believing that classical music is a dying genre of music, there has been a "queering" of classical music that has rejuvenated it throughout America during the 21st century. While the majority of current professional classical music composers, conductors, and musicians are not queer, there is a sizable minority that are and exert considerable influences in classical music spaces, especially in medium-size and large cities across America. Progressive elites fund them, which is why there have been an increase of feminist and queer interpretations of just about any classical music you could think of, whether it is the Boston's Gay Chorus, reinterpreting Handel's Messiah to celebrate "queer resilience" in their 2020 Pride concert, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra's In Unison program, which promotes LGBTQ diversity, including queer musicians and conductors, through concerts featuring works by LGBTQ+ composers like Copland and Bernstein with its 2021 Pride Concert highlighted queer narratives in classical music, and also several dozen blatenly sexualized interpretations of Rite of Spring, Carmen, Tristan und Isolde, and La Bohème by various famous Ballet companies and Opera Companies across America. By the way, there is a network of over 190 LGBTQ chorus groups (GALA Choruses) throughout America. That is 10X more local groups than BLM local groups throughout America.
I don't think that's the logic Rajesh is following, and quite honestly, it is disengenous to argue this way.
It is not the uses a piece of music is put to that are corrupt, but the message and purpose of the music as conceived.
The theory of those who oppose some styles of music is that they are conceived in a compromised or corrupt mind or for a corrupt purpose, and aren't legitimate for Christian use.
I will grant that the case is challenging to make, that's why we keep having these discussions.
But you aren't going to get anywhere by parading sophistry as logic.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Joel Shaffer said:] RajeshG,
If I were to adopt your view on music and what is and isn't acceptable to God to listen to or perform, I'd have to throw out classical music as no longer acceptable because of all the times its been associated with erotic and occultic practices in its history (especially recently due to latter interpretations due to post-modern, sexual-revolutionary, 3rd and 4th wave feminist and queer influences).
No, what you have said here is not my view and never has been. How is that you have not yet understood what I have been saying over and over and over again in my numerous threads and posts on music?
Evil humans all over the world who have been involved in demonic activities that have put them into contact with demons have originated many kinds of music. All such kinds of music are categorically unacceptable to God and totally off-limits to His people. Righteous people do not have any obligation to explain musicologically what is unacceptable with any of that music in order to categorically reject all of it.
It is not the uses a piece of music is put to that are corrupt, but the message and purpose of the music as conceived.
I don't think this represents what Rajesh has been saying at all. He asserts that the origin of a musical kind renders it either acceptable or offensive to God.
Of course, it would really be impossible for anyone to know with certainty if a particular song had been composed in cooperation with demons (aside from obviously demonic things like drums made from human skulls). And it's also difficult to know if a genre could be rendered completely and permanently out of bounds based solely on its original association.
If someone were totally unaware of a particular genre's association with false worship and wrote a song of that kind, would it still be offensive to God?
And it's also difficult to know if a genre could be rendered completely and permanently out of bounds based solely on its original association.
Speaking of "original association" is a misuse of the word "association." That something is unchangeably unacceptable to God for use in worship does not have anything to do with so-called association. The Bible speaks explicitly of evil people who are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30). There is no biblical basis to hold that such evil people are incapable of inventing evil combinations of musical elements such that those kinds of instrumental music are unchangeably unacceptable to God. Such unacceptable kinds of music are not unacceptable because of their association with anything; they are unacceptable because of their evil origination.
If someone were totally unaware of a particular genre's association with false worship and wrote a song of that kind, would it still be offensive to God?
It is irrelevant whether someone is totally unaware of a particular "genre's" origination. Because the "genre" was in-and-of-itself unacceptable to God from its very origination, it does not matter who uses it later or what they use it for at a later point. To argue otherwise is to deny that it was in-and-of-itself unacceptable to God to begin with. There is no biblical basis to claim validly that no kinds of music are in-and-of-themselves unacceptable to God for use in worship.
Just as evil humans have created skull drums made from real human skulls that are intrinsically and unchangeably unacceptable to God for any legitimate use, so there are unacceptable kinds of instrumental music created by evil beings (humans, demons, or both working together) engaged in evil activities that are intrinsically and unchangeably unacceptable to God for any legitimate use.
Rajesh,
Again I am compelled to ask how we are supposed to know with certainty the origin of each of the musical kinds that might be used in worship. If it has nothing at all to do with ongoing association with the occult, then how can we be certain that the hymns and gospel songs which have been accepted by churches in recent centuries are not part of those kinds that have evil origins and therefore are corrupt and devilish?
What liberty could anyone have to worship by any means? We don't even have record of the music used to sing the psalms, so we can't be sure we're even doing that right, if your view is correct. We are left to seek esoteric knowledge without which we cannot freely worship God at the risk of inadvertently dishonoring him.
There is no biblical basis to hold that such evil people are incapable of
inventing evil combinations of musical elements such that those kinds of
instrumental music are unchangeably unacceptable to God.
Where does the Bible tell us they are capable of this?
You’re not appealing to biblical authority in a consistent way. When you have assumed something and want to claim biblical backing for it, you ask “Where does the Bible say this is not so?” And when you want to challenge what someone else is claiming, you ask “Where does the Bible say this is so?”
You’ll be more effective if you decide what your standard for truth is. If your standard is that the Bible has to say it in order for it to be true, then that should be your standard all the time for all of your own assertions, not just other people’s.
But if your standard is, “It’s true unless the Bible says it is not,” then use that standard all the time, for other people’s assertions also and not just your own.
Otherwise, you’re doing a bait and switch all the time. Which doesn’t argue well for your views.
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.
Where does the Bible tell us they are capable of this?
Because the Bible declares that evil humans are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30), we have a biblical basis to hold that there are evil humans who have been inventors of evil kinds of instrumental music.
Those who say that this inerrant teaching of God does not apply to kinds of instrumental music are the one who must prove biblically that is true.
Put differently, many engage in special pleading by taking broad statements such as Romans 1:30 and asserting without any biblical basis that they do not apply to kinds of instrumental music.
Similarly, I have shown from the Bible that there are things that humans have made that are unacceptable to God in worship. Because we know that is true, there is no biblical basis to claim that such cannot also be true for kinds of instrumental music that are used in worship.
On the other hand, I have also shown from undeniably true information that is not from the Bible that evil humans are capable of inventing things pertaining to instrumental music that are categorically unacceptable to God.
Consequently, we have evidence both from the Bible and elsewhere that shows that holding that there are not and cannot be any kinds of music that are unacceptable to God is false.
Rajesh, I wrote a reply to your last, but then I read Aaron’s.
You’ll be more effective if you decide what your standard for truth is. If your standard is that the Bible has to say it in order for it to be true, then that should be your standard all the time for all of your own assertions, not just other people’s.
You really need to understand what he said there.
You really need to understand what he said there.
I have responded to what Aaron has said. Perhaps you have not yet seen my reply.
Discussion