"[T]his declaration focuses on a number of issues that the writers believe need to be reaffirmed in our current cultural context."

You’re going to tell me the fall did not mar physical creation? You’re going to make the case that each individual is responsible for the ways in which their body’s defects diminish the extent to which they reflect God’s glory has he originally intended his creation to reflect?

I have made both poems and children. But I am responsible for the incarnation of my poems in a way that I am not responsible for the physical dimensions and proportions of my children. So, call dichotomy if you wish, but there’s a difference there. It need not result in the tired charge of legalism.

And I won’t ask you to hold Aaron responsible for my statments if you won’t hold me responsible for his. :) I would nuance what he says to say that our regard (which includes love) for something must be commensurate with God’s regard for that same thing. We love people (made in God’s image) in a different way than we love squirrels (not made in God’s image). You’re almost reducing our argument to the point at which it is no longer the same argument. While that probably makes it easier to defeat, it doesn’t further mutual understanding.

[DavidO]

You’re going to make the case that each individual is responsible for the ways in which their body’s defects diminish the extent to which they reflect God’s glory has he originally intended his creation to reflect?

That’s precisely what I do not believe, a reductio ad absurdum. I never mentioned at any time any defects. There are women without any physical defect I may find physically ugly, but those are only my tastes and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fall. I do not believe physical beauty in a human body reflects God’s glory. God’s glory is not physical, unless you believe in the heterodox idea that God has a body. I do not believe a given “beautiful” human body reflects God’s glory more than an “ugly” one. The idea reminds me of the racism of old.

Do the heavens, which are physical, reflect God’s glory?

Do trees reflect God’s glory?

How about whales, butterflies, or crocodiles?

[DavidO]

Do the heavens, which are physical, reflect God’s glory?

God created everything for His glory, and everything at the end of the day brings Him glory, including the dark rainy sky in a flooded area, the bright sky with the scorching sun at the desert, the stormy sky under a hurricane, and the sunny sky at the beach. Not everything is physically “beautiful” to my tastes, but I can definitely see in which way it reflects His glory (not in a physical way, but by analogy to one of God’s spiritual attributes).

[DavidO]

Do the heavens, which are physical, reflect God’s glory?

Do trees reflect God’s glory?

How about whales, butterflies, or crocodiles?

Does God say that some specific trees, whales, butterflies, or crocodiles​ reflect his glory more than other trees, whales, butterflies, or crocodiles​? Are you arguing that some specific trees, whales, butterflies, or crocodiles​ reflect his glory more than others?

;)

I think I get your point. God created all of those things, and they reflect his glory in different ways. God created man to do the same, but man sinned and was deformed. That doesn’t mean, though, that some forms of man’s creation are acceptable to God and others are not. The destructive power of sin ruins all of our abilities.

Someone said that I wasn’t factoring in the effect of the fall on creation in an different music thread. On the contrary, I think that guys like those at RAM don’t take it seriously enough. They argue for the acceptability of certain artistic styles (and I’m trying to discuss broader than music) on the basis that those styles are superior because they reflect God’s ‘truth, goodness, and beauty’. But they don’t have any legitimate (as far as I understand what they are saying) Scriptural means to argue which ones do so. Classical music makes sense as a logical step because it is ‘beautiful’ aesthetically. That doesn’t make it acceptable to God because we are judging these things by their human standard of beauty. It’s a circular loop.

Someone here mentioned a believer who was exposed some form of classical music via Satanism’s black mass (I don’t remember the specifics, or I’d link to it). If what RAM is saying is true, then that music he heard is still acceptable to God even though the circumstances dictate otherwise. Is that really the position you want to take? That’s why Nick and I are making a big deal about the ‘plumbline’ that these men want to use to determine the ‘worthiness’ of styles.

BTW, I don’t read much of RAM. I’ve tried. I have one of Aniol’s books on my Kindle app, although I don’t remember which one (it’s the white cover with the sound dial). Every time I have tried to read his book, or the other works that are posted at RAM with the exception of Dr. Bauder’s Nick articles, I find that I walk away with more questions and confusion on this topic. That being said, I did see that he has a proof of By the Rivers of Babylon: Worship in a Post-modern Culture on Twitter the other day, and that book does sound interesting, so I would like to give it a try when it is released.

I don’t hesitate to agree with you that the fall taints all creative works, period.

[DavidO]

Yah, Ricky, it’s a howler of a shell game they’ve got over there, but don’t tell anyone!

That’s about what RAM does as well…simply dismiss it with a wave of the hand. However, at some point, you have to get down to application of principles and that’s where they generally start making logical leaps. For example, the discussion on beauty perfectly illustrates this. Music used in worship must reflect God’s beauty (here comes the logical leap) and my hymn is beautiful while your music is not. The application of beauty to music is subjective yet they treat it as if there are set rules which define their type of music. When you ask them to apply that to a specific piece of music, they simply can’t. Don’t misunderstand me though….I have no doubt that they have the best of intentions but their application is faulty.

at some point, you have to get down to application of principles and that’s where they generally start making logical leaps.

And I do. In my local church as we discuss these matters as covenanted brothers, sisters, and elders. But, with a few examples, RAM seeks to discuss pertinent principles while allowing local churches who find them helpful to use them in their own application.

You’re not giving them enough credit for filling in where you say they leap. They discuss aesthetic principles or point to where those ideas can be interacted with. (as I did to the Stanford article above). If you want proof texts in favor of Watts and in rejection of Cosper, no, you won’t find them.

you ask them to apply that to a specific piece of music, they simply can’t.

Except I’ve seen it done there. Not that everyone there agrees every time. But they aren’t after agreement in application as much as reaching agreement on principles.

The book is now on sale in Kindle format for $1.99.

I also noticed that there is a Conservative Christian Network that people can join, if they are so inclined.

[DavidO]

Except I’ve seen it done there. Not that everyone there agrees every time. But they aren’t after agreement in application as much as reaching agreement on principles.

I’ve read where they talk about entire genres or styles but haven’t run across any where they were able to get down to a specific piece of music. Take the conversation about rap they did with Shai Linne, for example. Even though the entire series was on rap, Dr. Aniol did not attempt to take one of Shai Linne’s songs and show how the music itself was immoral (Shai asked for this). I agree with much of what they say about worship, but their application fails when it comes to music. Getting more back on point though, like Jay says above I am trying to understand the need for this book as well. It seems like the emphasis of the book (conservative) runs astray from what Scripture emphasizes. However, I should probably read the book before I draw too many conclusions based on the title and short excerpts from the pdf linked above.

I just posted this to the free ebooks thread, but David de Bruyn’s work “Building Conservative Churches” is free on Kindle. I figured I’d mention it here since he’s involved with RAM.

[Aaron Blumer]

Recommend everybody do more reading on the subject.

Of course beauty objectively exists, just as truth does. God created them and expects us to recognize them for what they are and pursue them, and love what He loves and hate what He hates. Further, beauty is a reflection of God’s glory. It shows us something of His character. To the degree we do not love the beautiful and good, we continue to fall short of the glory of God. In other words, we sin.

I think the book is not likely to be all that helpful though, because for the most part, the group does not know how to talk to the people who need most what they have to say. I understand the difficulty. There are so few common denominators/shared beliefs anymore to reason from on these matters. And nobody studies history much anymore. But at the very least, a lot of patience and humility is required. (Some days I might have one or the other, but not usually enough of both… and the whole effort seems pretty hopeless to me, so I guess a whole of optimism is required as well!)

Very interesting observation Aaron- You’re right, one could toss out hyperlinks like grenades to quotes like this:” Those affections that are truly holy, are primarily founded on the loveliness of the moral excellency of divine things. Or (to express it otherwise) a love to divine things for the beauty and sweetness of their moral excellency is the first beginning and spring of all holy affections.” ( http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/religaffect/rapt3sec03.html ), but the ensuing discussion would be nothing but talking past each other due to uncommon denominators. I have a pet theory- tell me what you think. There needs to be a fundamental disposition of willingness to listen to ideas from the past (which I would hold distinct from simple nostalgia). And that needed disposition takes an everyday beating from the physical realities of modern life, even in the absence of an overt attack on ideas from the past. Example: casual mention about how we used to cope with previous technology-phone, cell phone, TV, computer, medicine, etc.- will draw a chuckle and a head shake from any polite listener. Could thinking about that tide be a common denominator? (throat clear..Ken Meyers… throat clear)

Historically, Christians have committed themselves to perpetuating biblical Christianity by pursuing absolute truth, goodness, and beauty.

It’s been a long time since I took Church History in seminary, but I would like to be reminded of when Christians started perpetuating biblical Christianity by pursuing…………. beauty. Examples would be helpful.

Secondly, beauty is subjective.

Finally, is this something like “worshipping the Lord in the holiness of beauty”?

[Ron Bean] Secondly, beauty is subjective.

See Jay’s note above about defining your aesthetic theory only from the Bible. Don’t make me pull out the L-word here.