"Church survival doesn't depend on music style."

[Lee]

Bert Perry wrote:

Let’s grow up, abandon our guilt by association nonsense, and start asking real questions about our music, starting with does this particular song effectively communicate the Word of God to the People of God?

Emphasis mine.

Ummmmmmmmmmm, wrong. Guilt by association is exactly what Scripture communicates.

“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils [I Cor. 10:20-21].”

And, like the drum, it may be an identical cup with, likely as not, identical stuff in it. Idolatry taints the object and the action. That is what the whole prohibition of pollutions of idols/meat offered to idols is about—incorporating idolatry into the assembly at the most fringe of levels.

No, that’s not how the guilt by association fallacy goes. It’s an invalid syllogism of this form:

Person X supports idea Y

Person X is a bad person/idolater.

Therefore we should avoid idea Y.

Paul does not do this; he is simply stating that Christians ought not partake of actual sacrifices to idols—meat, wine, bread, whatever. He does not, however, state that Christians ought to avoid these on the grounds that some idolaters use these foods and drinks for idolatry. By that logic, he would overrule Peter’s “take, kill and eat”, as well as the Mosaic permissions to enjoy meats, cheeses, wines, and the like. (even encouragements: see Deuteronomy 14’s encouragement to OT worshippers to celebrate with that which they will enjoy)

In the same way, we cannot proscribe drums (which are pretty much prescribed in Psalms 149 and 150, ahem) simply because some idolaters use drums. Not only is this absurd in light of our own practice—the BJU music department offers a percussion major—but if we took it to our logical conclusion, we’d have to get rid of any string, wind, or keyboard instrument as well.

Again, if Christians want to be taken seriously, they need to stop using this guilt by association nonsense.

[Bert Perry]

No, that’s not how the guilt by association fallacy goes. It’s an invalid syllogism of this form:

Person X supports idea Y

Person X is a bad person/idolater.

Therefore we should avoid idea Y.

…

Again, if Christians want to be taken seriously, they need to stop using this guilt by association nonsense.

Maybe we’re disagreeing on a semantic. What you’ve described as a “guilt by association” is what I would describe as the “poison well” scenario, or maybe even some sort of “butterfly effect”.

But that an object or activity’s corruption can result from its’ association is hardly arguable from Scripture. Again, I Cor. 10—“…If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not…[vs. 27-28] “—clearly indicates that this meat is forbidden/wrong only by what it was associated with. And this is not in a temple; there is not an idol to be seen; a pagan priest is not involved. It takes place in the neighbor’s backyard to celebrate his daughter’s marriage or some other similar scenario. Furthermore, it was perfectly okay when he sat down to eat, but was immediately forbidden when its prior association became known—it was a “pollution of idols”.

Again, I have no issue with an ordained elder identifying a prevalent societal idolatry, discerning certain objects or actions as being uniquely associated with that idolatry, and striving to protect the assembly from being drawn back into the prevalent idolatry through them. It seems to me to be a very biblical response to make as per Acts 15, I Cor. 8-10, Rev. 2, etc .

Lee, it’s not a mere semantic disagreement we’re having. Your arguments against drums are clear examples of the guilt by association fallacy, and that’s all there is to it. For reference, poisoning the well is also another basic fallacy of informal logic, so you get nowhere with that argument, either.

Moreover, your analysis of 1 Cor. 10 ignores the fact that Paul is speaking not just of foods that look like they might have been offered, but specifically foods that were offered and are presented in honor to that false god. Don’t you see the difference? If we indulge guilt by association, we can eliminate any thing that’s been offered to pagan idols or used in pagan worship—trees/wood/paper, most any meat, most any fruit or vegetable, any instrument of music, bricks, metal…..do you get the picture? You’re going to be hungry, homeless, and naked if you apply that method consistently.

And if your pastor is indulging this kind of nonsense, you should point him to a good primer on informal logic or ask him to hit the road. His job is, after all, to make valid inferences from Scripture, and he can’t do that if he doesn’t understand the rudiments of logic. Really, most of the rules for which we fundamentalists are infamous have their roots in bad logic.

King of Logicians, Commander Spock of Sharper Iron…

Is 1 Cor 15:33-34 an example of guilt by association. If it isn’t, why isn’t it.

The problem with claiming the “Guilt By Association fallacy” is that it is a paradigm from some text book. It isn’t real life. If I did this:

Person X supports idea Y

Person X is a bad person/idolater.

Therefore we should avoid idea Y.

That would be a fallacy, but that is not what people do.

Take music. We say “rock music” is associated with people who have corrupted their moral behavior. We want to promote moral behavior. So, we will not use rock music. That is not “guilt by association”. It is common sense! The formal logic would be this:

Y tends to cause people to do Z.

We don’t desire people to do Z.

So, we will not promote Y.

Regarding your comments, the passage you mention is not the guilt by association fallacy. Read it, learn it, apply it. Learn to put your arguments into valid syllogisms—just because you haven’t learned to do this doesn’t mean it’s not a valid, useful tool.

Which is, more or less, my comment on your attempt on rock music, as well as the fact that you’re really assuming your conclusion—circular logic proves nothing, and as Larry notes, most “fundagelicals” today disagree. Now let’s rewrite your syllogism properly:

All (rock music) is (a cause for sin)

All (Causes for sin) are (bad things)

Therefore, All (rock music) is a (bad thing)

Now that’s a “Barbara” syllogism, and it’s logically valid, but the first premiss is, in my opinion, false—the GIGO reality. I am no more drawn into sin by hearing rock music than hamburgers cause me to be a glutton or pretty girls cause me to fornicate, or driving by a liquor store causes me to wake up with a hangover.

Moreover, I want to draw attention to what you did at 1:06; you mocked me with the title of your comment, and proceeded to call me “king of logicians” and the “spock of SI”. In other words, the ad hominem fallacy, and a pretty blatant violation of, ahem, Ephesians 4:32. In other words, it’s sin, and it’s pretty much inevitable if you don’t apply sound logic. If you don’t attack the argument, you are pretty likely to attack the person.

Considering the amount of Wesley hymns I’ve sung in 40 years, why aren’t I an Arminian Methodist?