A Flaw In The Conservative Music Argument?
Here’s Scott’s first part on the rap question: http://www.religiousaffectionsministries.org/featured/can-rap-be-christ…
(I don’t think we have a thread for it.)
First Error: Denial of the Influence of Depravity Upon Human Communication
I think Scott is right here. (!) :)
Shai said, “I believe it’s a preference, it’s a cultural preference, and I don’t think we should spiritualize our preferences…” I am not sure what Shai means by “preferences.” I’ll pick this back up the the next section.
Second Error: Failure to Recognize that More is Communicated than Mere Propositions
I believe Scott makes an error here. It gets tough to recognize because the forms of music are pointers to attitudes/affections. Therefore, it is easy for us to connect them so strongly as to unwittingly switch:
- First we speak about a form that in our culture sounds haughty.
- Then we speak about “haughty speech.” (which is definitely haughty and calls to mind whatever sounds the reader considers haughty)
Scott says, “When an individual who uses a haughty tone of voice becomes a believer, how can that “tone of voice” be “redeemed”? Should he continue to employ this tone of voice that evokes or communicates haughtiness …[?]… His haughtiness is done away with in Christ (save the remnants of indwelling sin), and he, when he is evidencing his sanctification, will speak, not only with totally new words, but with a completely new tone of voice.”
Sure, this is true, but we understand it to be true because we are told that it is a “haughty tone.”
It hasn’t been shown that the “haughty tone” is inherently haughty. It only means that that vocal pattern communicates haughtiness in that culture. Therefore in that culture it will be avoided by the non-haughty.
It doesn’t guarantee that a non-haughty person in another culture will avoid the same tone of speech (which might be cheerful in his culture). The trouble is, if we observe this other culture, we might still reference this tone as a “haughty tone.” Because that’s what we know it to be.
Could the haughty communication be universal? Could it be that the other culture (above) does not exist?
Perhaps. There could be universal meanings of tones and musical elements.
But we will know that they are not universal when we get to know someone, discover him to be non-haughty, and hear him use what seems to us to be a haughty tone.
At this point, we have to conclude that EITHER the tone can mean other things to other people (it’s not universal) OR the person who is using it isn’t as non-haughty as he thinks. That can be a tough rivalry. Which is why I believe that the whole music debate will only be solved when people get to know each other. When you don’t know people and their lives it is easy to listen to a music expert say what their music means. It gets a little more ridiculous when you know them well.
Third Problem: Assumption that Culture is Neutral
I would think that everyone would agree that each culture has elements that its members can use to portray good affections and evil affections.
If you take the signs out of their cultural context, you might find a different meaning in that culture, or no meaning at all.
So cultural elements are neutral until they are seen in culture. Then they have the meaning known by the culture and are not neutral any longer.
(I don’t think we have a thread for it.)
First Error: Denial of the Influence of Depravity Upon Human Communication
I think Scott is right here. (!) :)
Shai said, “I believe it’s a preference, it’s a cultural preference, and I don’t think we should spiritualize our preferences…” I am not sure what Shai means by “preferences.” I’ll pick this back up the the next section.
Second Error: Failure to Recognize that More is Communicated than Mere Propositions
I believe Scott makes an error here. It gets tough to recognize because the forms of music are pointers to attitudes/affections. Therefore, it is easy for us to connect them so strongly as to unwittingly switch:
- First we speak about a form that in our culture sounds haughty.
- Then we speak about “haughty speech.” (which is definitely haughty and calls to mind whatever sounds the reader considers haughty)
Scott says, “When an individual who uses a haughty tone of voice becomes a believer, how can that “tone of voice” be “redeemed”? Should he continue to employ this tone of voice that evokes or communicates haughtiness …[?]… His haughtiness is done away with in Christ (save the remnants of indwelling sin), and he, when he is evidencing his sanctification, will speak, not only with totally new words, but with a completely new tone of voice.”
Sure, this is true, but we understand it to be true because we are told that it is a “haughty tone.”
It hasn’t been shown that the “haughty tone” is inherently haughty. It only means that that vocal pattern communicates haughtiness in that culture. Therefore in that culture it will be avoided by the non-haughty.
It doesn’t guarantee that a non-haughty person in another culture will avoid the same tone of speech (which might be cheerful in his culture). The trouble is, if we observe this other culture, we might still reference this tone as a “haughty tone.” Because that’s what we know it to be.
Could the haughty communication be universal? Could it be that the other culture (above) does not exist?
Perhaps. There could be universal meanings of tones and musical elements.
But we will know that they are not universal when we get to know someone, discover him to be non-haughty, and hear him use what seems to us to be a haughty tone.
At this point, we have to conclude that EITHER the tone can mean other things to other people (it’s not universal) OR the person who is using it isn’t as non-haughty as he thinks. That can be a tough rivalry. Which is why I believe that the whole music debate will only be solved when people get to know each other. When you don’t know people and their lives it is easy to listen to a music expert say what their music means. It gets a little more ridiculous when you know them well.
Third Problem: Assumption that Culture is Neutral
I would think that everyone would agree that each culture has elements that its members can use to portray good affections and evil affections.
If you take the signs out of their cultural context, you might find a different meaning in that culture, or no meaning at all.
So cultural elements are neutral until they are seen in culture. Then they have the meaning known by the culture and are not neutral any longer.
Discussion