And Can It Be . . . Another Post on Music?

Jim, “guilt by association” is a classical fallacy of informal logic, not my term. It’s always a false argument, and we ought to watch out for it, especially, as I noted above, it’s usually the sin of slander to use it—really like most genetic fallacies of origin. If we want to be people of the Logos (Word), we need to use sound logic.

Regarding the clothing, if it were mere association, why did the Hebrews get to keep trees, animals, buildings, and even young maidens of the Canaanites? The shirt was wrong, but the daughter was A-OK? We may not be told specifically what it was—I’ve only offered a historical likelihood—but mere association is not it.

Same basic thing for meat offered to idols—it was not mere association, but rather the fact said meat was consecrated to that idol—and so in the minds of the weak, it had power from that particular idol. Think the “sacramentalism” of our Catholic friends— it wasn’t just about association here.

And music? Well, what exactly are we objecting to if we decide, say, that using “heavy metal” has the “association” with sin, and thus is out of line? Is it the use of common time and a driving beat, or the use of electronic amplification and instruments, or the use of distortion in vocals and instruments, or what? What do we do, then, with cases where someone does the songs with different instrumentation (say the harp or bagpipes, or the squeezebox), without distortion, and the like?

More importantly, what do we do with other genre that use the same tools—keep in mind that a lot of black Gospel, and the genre derived from it (jazz/blues/rock/most country today), use these tools extensively. For example. And another that reminds me of the recently deceased Chuck Berry.

It’s all musical and poetic tools that will, or will not, work in certain contexts and with certain messages and in certain cultures. They’re not inherently wrong because of some real or imagined association.

[Bert Perry]

Jim, “guilt by association” is a classical fallacy of informal logic, not my term. It’s always a false argument, and we ought to watch out for it, especially, as I noted above, it’s usually the sin of slander to use it—really like most genetic fallacies of origin. If we want to be people of the Logos (Word), we need to use sound logic.

Regarding the clothing, if it were mere association, why did the Hebrews get to keep trees, animals, buildings, and even young maidens of the Canaanites? The shirt was wrong, but the daughter was A-OK? We may not be told specifically what it was—I’ve only offered a historical likelihood—but mere association is not it.

Same basic thing for meat offered to idols—it was not mere association, but rather the fact said meat was consecrated to that idol—and so in the minds of the weak, it had power from that particular idol. Think the “sacramentalism” of our Catholic friends— it wasn’t just about association here.

And music? Well, what exactly are we objecting to if we decide, say, that using “heavy metal” has the “association” with sin, and thus is out of line? Is it the use of common time and a driving beat, or the use of electronic amplification and instruments, or the use of distortion in vocals and instruments, or what? What do we do, then, with cases where someone does the songs with different instrumentation (say the harp or bagpipes, or the squeezebox), without distortion, and the like?

More importantly, what do we do with other genre that use the same tools—keep in mind that a lot of black Gospel, and the genre derived from it (jazz/blues/rock/most country today), use these tools extensively. For example. And another that reminds me of the recently deceased Chuck Berry.

It’s all musical and poetic tools that will, or will not, work in certain contexts and with certain messages and in certain cultures. They’re not inherently wrong because of some real or imagined association.

Bert I never said you invented the term…you are the one that brought it to this conversation…but of course you understood what I meant (: Again Paul’s example I believe is appropriate. I believe the message is clear :

1. Paul knew there was no evil or sin in the meat. 2. When he found out that his liberty offended his brethren he gave it up. 3. He acknowledged their association between the meat and Idolotry.

Now in practical application if I was to dress in baggy pants turn my hat sideways and sing a hymn composed to the same popular “RAP” song containing vulgar language and rebellious themes in the market place at my Church,some would make the association to the former…now Bert we or the church elders can have the debate on whether that is acceptable or not…but to deny that some would not make the association is just not logical.

My musical appreciation has a very wide range , and I don’t believe any instrument is out of consideration but I just dont believe I could worship to “RAP” as I know its roots in rebellion and depravity..I do not judge those that can. To deny that association exists and can hamper some in worship is just non sensical.

Many say “what” you wear to church should not be important….and generally I agree…but if you showed up naked….some would say you went too far (;

There is a real “other side” to the association argument. I’ve encountered people who associate 18th Century type hymnody with the apostate mainline churches they used to attend. I’ve met others who associate Gospel songs from the revivalist era with easy believism. Meanwhile I’ve encountered believers from the inner city who understand things like the Westminster Confession of Faith and issues like false teachers from Shai Linne’s hip hop but who had a difficult time understanding “O Sacred Head Now Wounded”.

Again, to use association as a basis for one’s argument is to take a stand on a hill of sand.

[Ron Bean]

There is a real “other side” to the association argument. I’ve encountered people who associate 18th Century type hymnody with the apostate mainline churches they used to attend. I’ve met others who associate Gospel songs from the revivalist era with easy believism. Meanwhile I’ve encountered believers from the inner city who understand things like the Westminster Confession of Faith and issues like false teachers from Shai Linne’s hip hop but who had a difficult time understanding “O Sacred Head Now Wounded”.

Again, to use association as a basis for one’s argument is to take a stand on a hill of sand.

Ron my position is that like it or not…it exists…..not defending it.

When there are good and godly people on both sides of an issue, perhaps we should recognize that heated debate should be avoided.

To paraphrase someone, “I’d burn at the stake for the fives Solas, but I wouldn’t take a paper cut for music.”

[jreeseSr]

Bert Perry wrote:

And music? Well, what exactly are we objecting to if we decide, say, that using “heavy metal” has the “association” with sin, and thus is out of line? Is it the use of common time and a driving beat, or the use of electronic amplification and instruments, or the use of distortion in vocals and instruments, or what? What do we do, then, with cases where someone does the songs with different instrumentation (say the harp or bagpipes, or the squeezebox), without distortion, and the like?

More importantly, what do we do with other genre that use the same tools—keep in mind that a lot of black Gospel, and the genre derived from it (jazz/blues/rock/most country today), use these tools extensively. For example. And another that reminds me of the recently deceased Chuck Berry.

It’s all musical and poetic tools that will, or will not, work in certain contexts and with certain messages and in certain cultures. They’re not inherently wrong because of some real or imagined association.

Bert I never said you invented the term…you are the one that brought it to this conversation…but of course you understood what I meant (: Again Paul’s example I believe is appropriate. I believe the message is clear :

1. Paul knew there was no evil or sin in the meat. 2. When he found out that his liberty offended his brethren he gave it up. 3. He acknowledged their association between the meat and Idolotry.

Now in practical application if I was to dress in baggy pants turn my hat sideways and sing a hymn composed to the same popular “RAP” song containing vulgar language and rebellious themes in the market place at my Church,some would make the association to the former…now Bert we or the church elders can have the debate on whether that is acceptable or not…but to deny that some would not make the association is just not logical.

My musical appreciation has a very wide range , and I don’t believe any instrument is out of consideration but I just dont believe I could worship to “RAP” as I know its roots in rebellion and depravity..I do not judge those that can. To deny that association exists and can hamper some in worship is just non sensical.

Many say “what” you wear to church should not be important….and generally I agree…but if you showed up naked….some would say you went too far (;

Jim, you’re missing something big here; Romans 14 does not say that we ought to abstain from meat offered to idols simply because it was associated with idolatry. The former idolater had been trained to believe that it had sacramental value.

Regarding music, your comment about “beer joint music” really makes an important point for me, as well as your comments about rap. For reference, the origins of rap date back centuries into Africa and include some thoroughly respectable artists. Yes, there’s some who use the craft to advocate (and participate) in fornication, drugs, and violence—just like a lot of opera composers, or a huge number of people in jazz, rock & roll, country, bluegrass, and of course CCM . Ya wanna point the finger at hip-hop, fine, but let’s be consistent….and then very, very quiet.

In the same way, I’ve also had people tell me things like “such and such music reminds me of the beer joint”, and I’ve started to ask if they’ve ever been in a beer joint, and how Hank Jr.’s “Family Tradition” uses the same techniques as the Gaithers. The answers are generally “no” and “um…..”, indicating that many have their minds made up, but haven’t bothered to learn anything of note. So let’s start to confront these attitudes instead of accommodating them. To be blunt about the matter, when our “rules” for music are more or less “white protestants’ music prior to Elvis is OK, everything else not so much”, our black brothers and sisters, as well as those who know the actual origins of the genre derived from black Gospel and African literature/music, are going to take a very negative message.

And the singing naked; I am pretty sure that you can figure out a set of Biblical and practical reasons why this would be a bad idea, and that one does not need to rely on any guilt by association argument. We can start with “the deacons are going to turn the heat down to 55 if someone says they’re going to give it a try”.

[Bert Perry]

Jim, you’re missing something big here; Romans 14 does not say that we ought to abstain from meat offered to idols simply because it was associated with idolatry. The former idolater had been trained to believe that it had sacramental value.

Bert, you are missing something bigger, Romans 14 doesn’t say anything about meat offered to idols at all. it is meat vs. vegetables. Not meat offered to idols.

But I’m not getting into the rest of this argument, just correcting this point.

Bert is referencing I Cor. 8:4-12, not Romans 14.

4 About eating food offered to idols, then, we know that “an idol is nothing in the world,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many “gods” and many “lords”—

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father.
All things are from Him,
and we exist for Him.
And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.
All things are through Him,
and we exist through Him.

7 However, not everyone has this knowledge. In fact, some have been so used to idolatry up until now that when they eat food offered to an idol, their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not make us acceptable to God. We are not inferior if we don’t eat, and we are not better if we do eat. 9 But be careful that this right of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has this knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, won’t his weak conscience be encouraged to eat food offered to idols? 11 Then the weak person, the brother for whom Christ died, is ruined[b] by your knowledge. 12 Now when you sin like this against the brothers and wound their weak conscience, you are sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to fall, I will never again eat meat, so that I won’t cause my brother to fall.

[Joeb] Also do you have any family in Northwest Ill because some Peet’s married one of my father’s Aunts and their children my father’s cousin lived in Cedar Rapids Iowa right across from Beaver Park.

Cousins - we avoid those miscreant pagans :)

Don, I have to disagree with you on Romans 8. The question that is relevant here is why someone in the NT church would refuse to eat meat. If we start with the Old Testament, we find nowhere that vegetarianism is commanded or even suggested, and we know from history that the pagans were no herbivores, either, with the exception of certain ascetic movements.

That leaves the reality that the major source of meat for those who were not wealthy was….pagan offerings. So if we take a serious look at the historical setting, I don’t think we can find any other reasonable explanation.

And Jay, point well taken; and given that 1 Cor. 8 does explicitly make the connection to idolatry, and given that most musical genre that we fundamentalists have objected to have origins including black gospel, all the more sad that people try to use either passage to justify their rejection of musical genre.

And let’s be blunt about the matter; black gospel was used by God, among other things, to carry His darker-skinned people through three and a half centuries of slavery and Jim Crow. While a complete analysis of how it works is beyond my “word limit” here, suffice it to say that using its techniques both imparts Scripture to memory while providing emotional comfort to people suffering in ways we can hardly even imagine.

With a pedigree like that, maybe….just maybe….fundamentalists ought to overcome their historic culture to consider using the techniques of black gospel/jazz/rock & roll, and yes, even rap.

Bert the point here is that I believe there is a biblical principle throughout the bible old and new of “separation” from the carnal influence of the “world” as part of the “be ye separate” principle..The Israelites were instructed not to keep or wear the garments of the Canaanite as it was associated with their idolatry. They were also instructed not to mark or their bodies as not to associate with the pagans of the time. When the violated these principles and allowed small idols to be brought in then grew into “groves” of standing idols God brought punishment. The new testament gives similar examples of “all things becoming new” The maniac after the demon was cast out was washed and clothed and setting at peace(why was this recorded), the physical association was changed. The saved Jews were taking liberty to the point where Paul had to restrain them as all things may be lawful but not expedient..again , regardless “what” you term the meat it is clear Paul was not in sin when he ate it and gave it up when aware of its effect on the new converts who “associated” it with their prior worship.

Your insinuation that my personal association with RAP as vulgar and ungodly is somehow racist and this is really some sort of historical African expression is just ridiculous and any teenager saved from it could enlighten you to its purpose..or you could download several hundred copies and enlighten me to the redeeming African historical content….

When those saved from Hare Krishna movement years ago came to our youth movement they lost the robe , top knot and chant ..had they just changed the words to the chant , kept the robe , top knot and tambourine and performed at our church would have doubted “they had indeed came out from among them”…….no I am not condemning Tambourines (;

My last word on the subject is that a new creature where all “things” have become new is unlikely to reach back into the environment he left if pained by it.. my point from the beginning is that music has an “association” (valid or not) its just part of human nature , I don’t believe I am alone in associating Patriotic pieces to military, love of country and ball games… Handel’s messiah has an association with “standing” on the last chorus as the King did to recognize Gods authority ..(may or may not be true) I am not saying that all associations are ungodly but for some they have the potential for great damage, but to deny its existence is folly and quite dangerous. The drug addict , alcoholic or homosexual are particularly at risk…

Some music will always have some “association” with a culture/activity/lifestyle for some people…that is undeniable…”How” you address it is debatable and should be.

[Jim]

Joeb wrote:

Also do you have any family in Northwest Ill because some Peet’s married one of my father’s Aunts and their children my father’s cousin lived in Cedar Rapids Iowa right across from Beaver Park.

Cousins - we avoid those miscreant pagans :)

Jim, you’re missing the point. You are saying we ought to abstain from all rap, things like this , and while I concede the depravity of Harold Hill, who predates “Two Live Crew” by decades, that doesn’t mean that nobody ought to use the spoken word in music as does LeCrae. It simply does not follow.

If it did, we would have expected the Hebrews to not only burn the clothes in towns declared “haram”, but also all those of the pagan traders who came through on the King’s Highway. (and we think Trump might be tough on trade!) We would have expected them to eradicate the oak altogether in Israel, rather than just cutting down the sacred groves. That just might have made Jesus’ first trade rather difficult, to put it mildly.

And sorry, but the fact is that most fundamental objections to modern music DO indeed boil down to “white protestant’s music prior to Elvis is OK, other peoples’ not so much.” Here’s some reference to Bob Jones 2 and Frank Garlock on the matter. You might answer “but that’s not my intention”, but I’m sorry; that is what Garlock said. Listen to it for yourself.

You don’t have to fall in love with rap or heavy metal, but for goodness’ sake, let’s leave guilt by association in the circular file where it belongs.