"If we reject a form of music out of hand because it is not the form of music we prefer, then we are trying to kick against the variegated world that the triune God created"
[Todd Wood] a Neo-Reformed version of Jack Hyles?You’re right, I might have been too generous. The point here is that much like Hyles, Wilson often engages in circular thinking and is happily immodest enough to publish such obvious fallacies. Not that there isn’t a point of sorts one may find. Music tastes for entertainment are matters of liberty and we are given that liberty by God to express our personal tastes by embracing or categorically rejecting certain forms. Wilson, again in Hylexaggeration, wishes to make such choices offenses against God. Music forms for sacred or spiritual expression, however are to be vetted differently but Wilson did not have this in view primarily or at all so I won’t elaborate down this trail.
Jack Hyles…
The enlightened Fundamentalist’s Adolf Hitler
The enlightened Fundamentalist’s Adolf Hitler
Jack was a flawed servant of Christ whose form of theology and circullar self- justifying thinking brought injury to many and we should rightly learn from his mistakes (and successes as they might be found) and identify them in other Teachers as they arise. But I would certainly avoid compariosons to Hitler, Satan’s device. Besides Hitler quoted Luther. :)
Why are a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ even bothering to argue over such a petty issue? I mean, hey, it’s not like arguing this will advance the cause of Christ at all or anything like that. Or, hey, maybe in a bunch of posts like this we can solve a 30 year problem that (don’t tell anyone about this) EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ABOUT. What if, for once, there was actually unity in the church? We can’t have that could we? So why can’t a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ just read Bro. Wilson’s article and either 1)say something nice and go on or 2) keep their opinions to themselves?
By the way, Bro. Wilson, good article
By the way, Bro. Wilson, good article
Steve Schmidt
Take classical music for example: back then it was the popular music of the day.Whatever else we might say about music, can we please dispense with the argument that classical music was the pop music or CCM of the day? That category did not even exist in the days of most of the music we are talking about. It is anachronistic to use “pop” with respect to anything from that era.
Why are a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ even bothering to argue over such a petty issue?Is this a petty issue? How are we to judge that? Just because you declare it to be so? Wouldn’t you have to make an argument that forms of expression are petty issues? Even though you are willing to assume the age and spiritual status of the participants, I wouldn’t assume the pettiness of the issue.
I mean, hey, it’s not like arguing this will advance the cause of Christ at all or anything like that.Are you sure?
What if, for once, there was actually unity in the church? We can’t have that could we?Doesn’t unity require agreement?
So why can’t a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ just read Bro. Wilson’s article and either 1)say something nice and go on or 2) keep their opinions to themselves?Just out of curiosity, why doesn’t this include you?
And since when is something above interaction and critique? As a cessationist, I would say that era ended about AD 95. Since then, all things written by men are at least potentially flawed and are deserving of something better than “something nice” or “keep their opinions to themselves.”
But the point is that you didn’t feel compelled to read the article and “either 1)say something nice and go on or 2) keep their opinions to themselves?” You felt compelled speak against the views of others. So why are they not able to do the same?
On this day in history, I second Larry’s comments. I feel compelled to play the lottery. :)
The BJU thread looked like it was winding down. What will we all have to talk about now?
A music thread! Wonder who ever thought of that. It’s not been done before, has it? :) Who knew it would get a lot of comments?
For what it’s worth, I (being one of the more conservative guys around here when it comes to music) agree 100% with the statement quoted in the title of this thread. If we reject music simply because we don’t prefer it, we have every right to do that, but we’re missing something.
What I utterly reject is Wilson’s implication — that preference is the only reason for rejecting some of the rubbish he apparently thinks is fine. Someone so smart as he is probably knows better (he’s really, really smart, I hear — James said so, and when James grows up he’ll probably be just as smart as Doug :)). Wilson knows that some people object to some music over more than just “preference.” He may not agree with their reasons (that’s his right to disagree), but he knows it is more than preference. Thus, this is a very disappointing approach to the topic.
Now, someone will say to me (because they always do), “Oh? What reason is there besides preference?” And so to forestall that and to prevent having to rehash stuff over again if anyone really wants to know, I present for your amusement two posts from old SI. Some will agree, some will disagree — probably most of the current SIers will disagree. But if you read especially the last post (it builds on the first, but you can get the point without the first if you feel lazy), and still say it is only preference, then you are either lying or calling me a liar. And since I’m not lying and you don’t want to lie either, we can then discard the whole “preference” discussion for all time, right? Because for some people (actually quite a few of them) it is a lot more than preference.
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3649&] Are the Quotes Accurate (This one refers to a comment by Pastor Mike Harding. The link in it is broken — his original comment is http://20.sharperiron.org/showpost.php?p=54355&postcount=35] here ).
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3677&] Since the Quotes are Accurate
Hmm. I guess there HAVE been music threads on SI before! And they got lots of comments back then, too! :)
A music thread! Wonder who ever thought of that. It’s not been done before, has it? :) Who knew it would get a lot of comments?
For what it’s worth, I (being one of the more conservative guys around here when it comes to music) agree 100% with the statement quoted in the title of this thread. If we reject music simply because we don’t prefer it, we have every right to do that, but we’re missing something.
What I utterly reject is Wilson’s implication — that preference is the only reason for rejecting some of the rubbish he apparently thinks is fine. Someone so smart as he is probably knows better (he’s really, really smart, I hear — James said so, and when James grows up he’ll probably be just as smart as Doug :)). Wilson knows that some people object to some music over more than just “preference.” He may not agree with their reasons (that’s his right to disagree), but he knows it is more than preference. Thus, this is a very disappointing approach to the topic.
Now, someone will say to me (because they always do), “Oh? What reason is there besides preference?” And so to forestall that and to prevent having to rehash stuff over again if anyone really wants to know, I present for your amusement two posts from old SI. Some will agree, some will disagree — probably most of the current SIers will disagree. But if you read especially the last post (it builds on the first, but you can get the point without the first if you feel lazy), and still say it is only preference, then you are either lying or calling me a liar. And since I’m not lying and you don’t want to lie either, we can then discard the whole “preference” discussion for all time, right? Because for some people (actually quite a few of them) it is a lot more than preference.
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3649&] Are the Quotes Accurate (This one refers to a comment by Pastor Mike Harding. The link in it is broken — his original comment is http://20.sharperiron.org/showpost.php?p=54355&postcount=35] here ).
http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3677&] Since the Quotes are Accurate
Hmm. I guess there HAVE been music threads on SI before! And they got lots of comments back then, too! :)
According to most interpretations of Godwin’s Law, you lost the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
[Brad Kelly] Jack Hyles…
The enlightened Fundamentalist’s Adolf Hitler
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Alex Guggenheim] Music forms for sacred or spiritual expression, however are to be vetted differently but Wilson did not have this in view primarily or at all so I won’t elaborate down this trail.Sounds to me when he says: “Comparing Mozart to Vince Gill is like comparing your lawn mower to your dishwasher and asking which one is better. Better at what?” that he at least hints at a different vetting of sacred/spiritual expressions.
Rob,
FWIW I was not trying to compare Hyles to Hitler. Or Hitler to anyone. I was trying contextualize Godwin’s law to a place such as SI where many would have a disdain for Hyles similar-though obviously lesser- to the disdain the general population has toward Hitler.
It was an apparently feeble attempt to identify an ad hominem argument.
So I guess I still lost.
FWIW I was not trying to compare Hyles to Hitler. Or Hitler to anyone. I was trying contextualize Godwin’s law to a place such as SI where many would have a disdain for Hyles similar-though obviously lesser- to the disdain the general population has toward Hitler.
It was an apparently feeble attempt to identify an ad hominem argument.
So I guess I still lost.
[S_Schmidt] Why are a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ even bothering to argue over such a petty issue? I mean, hey, it’s not like arguing this will advance the cause of Christ at all or anything like that. Or, hey, maybe in a bunch of posts like this we can solve a 30 year problem that (don’t tell anyone about this) EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION ABOUT. What if, for once, there was actually unity in the church? We can’t have that could we? So why can’t a bunch of (I assume) grown men who are (I can only assume) saved and (again I can only assume) serving Christ just read Bro. Wilson’s article and either 1)say something nice and go on or 2) keep their opinions to themselves?
By the way, Bro. Wilson, good article
(Assuming you are one of the adults serving Christ - only assuming) Did you post this on Wilson’s website too, or only here? I mean, since his opinion was the first one stated in this conversation.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
As i understand it, Godwin’s Law has many corollaries depending on the topic under discussion. In our case, saying someone is comparable to the late Mr. Hyles would fit.
[Brad Kelly] Rob,
FWIW I was not trying to compare Hyles to Hitler. Or Hitler to anyone. I was trying contextualize Godwin’s law to a place such as SI where many would have a disdain for Hyles similar-though obviously lesser- to the disdain the general population has toward Hitler.
It was an apparently feeble attempt to identify an ad hominem argument.
So I guess I still lost.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Alex Guggenheim] On this day in history, I second Larry’s comments. I feel compelled to play the lottery. :)
If you win, will you split the proceeds with Larry or the site since we motivated you to play? :D
"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
I was kind of tired and in a hurry when I posted before, so I apologize if the post came off as “short”.
Is it accurate to say that Wilson is trying to:
1. Judge “secular” or “pop” music;
2. Speak of “genres” of music;
and make a comparison to say that they not really different or “wrong”?
That was all I was trying to point out, and what his criteria was.
The point for me is the following:
1. We can’t really divorce the music from the words, thus to me it is kind of a false dichotomy. How can I compare different works that glorify sin and give them degrees of right or wrong? I understand the author is saying “divorce the words from the music”, but I don’t really think you can. The words are part of the composer’s “original intent”, should we be so quick to dismiss it?
2. While I can have a respect for the artist’s creativity and technical skill, and even understand the message that they are conveying and be able to “sanitize” it and “filter” it and reject the wrong values of the words, and the wrong feelings and emotions it may create in me, is it really helping me? Does it help me with the things I should think about (Phil. 4:8)? How does it help me?
We only have so much time in this world, and if we want to make it count for God, we can do better. It’s not that I haven’t heard secular music, in fact, if we’re being honest, we can’t help but hear it because it is ubiquitous in some environments. The question is, do I need to hear more of it? is it helpful for me? Wilson may be arguing “all things are lawful”, but I guess I would argue that “not all things are expedient”. What I know of what Wilson gave as examples of listening would not be something I would put on to study to. I might put on Mozart. My teenage sons have been known to concentrate better doing homework and listening to the 1812 Overture!
Music is the sole art that God allowed to be used in His worship. In the OT, He gave a lot of instruction about how it was to be done. I don’t think I have the right to “do” music any way I want (even if I had the skill to do it!).
Is it accurate to say that Wilson is trying to:
1. Judge “secular” or “pop” music;
2. Speak of “genres” of music;
and make a comparison to say that they not really different or “wrong”?
That was all I was trying to point out, and what his criteria was.
The point for me is the following:
1. We can’t really divorce the music from the words, thus to me it is kind of a false dichotomy. How can I compare different works that glorify sin and give them degrees of right or wrong? I understand the author is saying “divorce the words from the music”, but I don’t really think you can. The words are part of the composer’s “original intent”, should we be so quick to dismiss it?
2. While I can have a respect for the artist’s creativity and technical skill, and even understand the message that they are conveying and be able to “sanitize” it and “filter” it and reject the wrong values of the words, and the wrong feelings and emotions it may create in me, is it really helping me? Does it help me with the things I should think about (Phil. 4:8)? How does it help me?
We only have so much time in this world, and if we want to make it count for God, we can do better. It’s not that I haven’t heard secular music, in fact, if we’re being honest, we can’t help but hear it because it is ubiquitous in some environments. The question is, do I need to hear more of it? is it helpful for me? Wilson may be arguing “all things are lawful”, but I guess I would argue that “not all things are expedient”. What I know of what Wilson gave as examples of listening would not be something I would put on to study to. I might put on Mozart. My teenage sons have been known to concentrate better doing homework and listening to the 1812 Overture!
Music is the sole art that God allowed to be used in His worship. In the OT, He gave a lot of instruction about how it was to be done. I don’t think I have the right to “do” music any way I want (even if I had the skill to do it!).
Discussion