Little interest in discussing what the Bible says about music

Yes, the Bible is the “only infallible source,” but my interpretation of “what the Bible says” may be different from what some other person is thinking the Bible is saying. Take Ephesians 5:19, for example. “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” This verse is explicit in commanding us to sing, but nowhere in this verse, or anywhere else in the New Testament, is the Church commanded to use musical instruments. So If I interpret this verse as ONLY allowing singing with no instruments, then my interpretation is going to differ from someone who believes instruments are allowed by God. Is it okay to have differing interpretations of the same passage? If the Bible isn’t explicitly clear as to which interpretation is correct, then we have to be okay with different Christians differing about these specifics. The same thing is true about styles as it is about instrumentation as it is about any other facet of music. People are going to have differing viewpoints, and that’s okay. I don’t really see a lack of discussion on this topic here at SharperIron. As Josh pointed out, there are already a lot of threads dealing with music, and people have discussed Bible verses in those threads.

Considering the results of this poll it may be that the majority hold to the position that the Bible does not address the subject of music in a clear, dogmatic, and defined manner. This may lead to many making this an individual liberty issue.

You asked:

Why then are seemingly so few people seriously interested in discussing in detail what the Bible says about music?

I answered:

may be that the majority hold to the position that the Bible does not address the subject of music in a clear, dogmatic, and defined manner.

RajeshG asked,

what if someone new has useful insight about the Bible that was not brought up in any of the previous discussions?

RajeshG, may I encourage you to share some scripture and some of your insights on music so that others can interact with them on this thread. Perhaps you have on earlier threads, but this one is fresh today, so the opportunity for others to interact is right here and now. I am curious to hear which passages most guide your thoughts on music and look forward to hearing what your thoughts are. I am hopeful that others will interact with your thoughts as well. Welcome to Sharper Iron.

Thank you for reminding us to both joyfully sing and to play instruments before the Lord. May we use our talents for His glory and to remember to do it in worship to our Lord and savior.

[RajeshG]

In your specific example, you are asserting that only what is in the NT is authoritative for the Church. Have you discussed the validity of that assertion on a previous thread?

Has the no-instruments position been discussed in a previous thread? Even if it has, what if someone new has useful insight about the Bible that was not brought up in any of the previous discussions?

More broadly, your response seems to me to show what is part of the problem. Thinking that nearly every thread that I begin must have to do with issues pertaining to musical styles is a seriously wrong notion.

[RajeshG]

Hmm. If more people started actually discussing the stated subjects of the threads instead of bringing their own agendas to the thread, things could be very different.

I’ve looked through previous threads on the subject that preceded my coming to SI. I do not see much actual in-depth discussion of the Bible itself. I see mostly interest in discussing application, musicology, culture, etc.

This has been my experience in other settings as well. Whether you agree with someone’s position or not, if you are a Christian, you should have a strong interest in discussing the Bible itself.

I also wonder if there are not many other people on SI who are interested but remain silent on the subject of music because they see how anybody with a traditional/conservative music position is treated and do not want to endure such treatment.

Rajesh,

If you don’t make a clear statement about your position it’s hard to make a clear response. Since you are interested in in-depth discussion why don’t you post your exegesis of passages that you think are relevant? I would personally be interested in a direct statement or even a solid inference from a passage directed to the church.

What a wonderful text to study as we reflect on music. I noticed that although we are to sing a new song, there are a lot of old ideas that have been repeated in other Psalms as well (remembering that the Psalms were actually songs). For example I noticed that the song talks about the wonderful things God has done. It also speaks of His salvation, righteousness, steadfast love, and faithfulness. As we focus on these characteristics of God, no wonder the Psalmist calls for us to make a joyful noise. The more we know about God the more reason we have to be joyful. I love the Psalms for this very reason.

Another thing I noticed from this Psalm was that in vs 6, our Lord is referred to as King. Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. Then in the last verse of the Psalm it talks of Him coming to judge the world in righteousness. That makes me think of our King Jesus Christ coming on the white horse in Revelation 19. I think I might be able to come up with a new song about this if I keep studying this passage. -Not that I would come up with new ideas, but just sharing these same ideas in a new way would bring joy to my heart as I sing it to the Lord.

I think of my 11 year old son. After one of the morning sermons he put the events that we had covering into a song and sang it. It was his way of retelling the wonderful story of what God had done.

Ps 98:1 (A Psalm.) O Sing to the LORD a new song, For He has done wonderful things, His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.
(NASB)

I look forward to spring when I can again hear the birds singing. Do you think that is part of what Ps 98 and others are referring to?

RajeshG wrote

In context, Psalm 98 has to do ultimately with what will take place when Christ returns as the King to judge the earth. There are other passages that do talk explicitly about birds singing. Because the Bible uses the same Hebrew verb to speak of birds singing as it does of humans singing, we know that birds do not just make random noises—they actually sing. Hearing them sing is one of the ways that God testifies to us that music is not ultimately of human origin and limiting one’s theology of music to only what humans do musically leads to a deficient understanding of music.

I believe this answers the question as to why the whole world is not singing joyfully now.

Well, because we Baptists really don’t want to confront the fact that Psalms 149 and 150 seem to prescribe music with a heavy beat, percussive instruments, to which one might dance. (smile)

Seriously, I think that I’d be very interested in discussing what the Scripture clearly says about music, but to be blunt, Rajesh, you’ve made a habit here of trying to shoehorn any kind of passage in with the music issue, and that’s frankly getting tiresome. Almost as tiresome as guilt by association arguments.

Well, because we Baptists really don’t want to confront the fact that Psalms 149 and 150 seem to prescribe music with a heavy beat, percussive instruments, to which one might dance. (smile)

Turns out that’s not actually true. Many have addressed that and all believe it.

You can read one of the most conservative men deal with the psalm here: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/in-the-nick-of-time/loud-clangi…

Here’s another particularly on the issue of dance: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-worship/shall-we-da…

These articles and many others are freely available which should prevent us from claiming that people don’t like them, don’t deal with them, or are scared of them.

Again, we need to abandon the all too common idea that if someone doesn’t agree with us, then they haven’t dealt with the passage. That’s cheap and easy. It doesn’t deal in reality.

Again, we need to abandon the all too common idea that if someone doesn’t agree with us, then they haven’t dealt with the passage. That’s cheap and easy. It doesn’t deal in reality.

Like this:

https://apeopleforhisname.org/2019/01/poll-results-and-analysis-is-exod…

Like this:

https://apeopleforhisname.org/2019/01/poll-results-and-analysis-is-exodu…

No, not like that. He actually made a case using the text to show his point as opposed to those who simply say they didn’t deal with it. He disagrees with them and shows why. The quality of post (argument aside) is entirely different than what Bert did, and Bert’s was easily disproven. Whatever else you might say about Rajesh’s point in his post, he made an argument from the text in support of his understanding.

[Larry]

Well, because we Baptists really don’t want to confront the fact that Psalms 149 and 150 seem to prescribe music with a heavy beat, percussive instruments, to which one might dance. (smile)

Turns out that’s not actually true. Many have addressed that and all believe it.

You can read one of the most conservative men deal with the psalm here: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/in-the-nick-of-time/loud-clangin…

Here’s another particularly on the issue of dance: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-worship/shall-we-dance/

These articles and many others are freely available which should prevent us from claiming that people don’t like them, don’t deal with them, or are scared of them.

Again, we need to abandon the all too common idea that if someone doesn’t agree with us, then they haven’t dealt with the passage. That’s cheap and easy. It doesn’t deal in reality.

Larry, there are two important points to be made here. First of all, neither source you link is from here, which is what I was referring to. Second, everybody says they “deal with” a passage, but in the same way that all fundamentalists will reject liberal “dealing with passages” in such a way as to destroy their obvious meaning, I reject such attempts on the fundamental side. Neither source really gets to a couple of points that I’d consider core; that at times, the love of God probably ought to get our feet moving, and moreover if Temple praise involved music with a beat and dancing, then certain criticisms of modern music styles are out of bounds.

And it’s precisely that kind of criticism—generally guilt by association fallacies—that are central to every defense of “traditional music only” that I’ve ever seen. For that matter, in his article, Aniol uses a few of them by noting that the dance referred to could not possibly resemble pagan dancing, MTV dancing (whatever that is)….implicitly, again, that’s guilt by association, an association that’s especially tenuous in that he doesn’t really define what on earth he’s talking about in terms of either music or dance.

Really, it’s “dealing with the passage” in a way that makes it a dead letter, which is precisely the criticism we fundamentalists rightly level at our theologically liberal friends.

Why would you suggest that someone doesn’t actually believe what they wrote? Again, the fact that they disagree with you doesn’t mean they haven’t thought about it and doesn’t mean they don’t believe it. They simply believe it means something other than you do, and they (unlike you so far as I can tell) actually made a case for it. And they appear to live and worship in accord with what they say. So interact with the case they made. Show us where they are wrong.

First of all, neither source you link is from here, which is what I was referring to.

Both have been here in the past I believe, and it has been addressed here. So you are incorrect on that front.

Second, everybody says they “deal with” a passage, but in the same way that all fundamentalists will reject liberal “dealing with passages” in such a way as to destroy their obvious meaning, I reject such attempts on the fundamental side.

But you have to demonstrate that is what they did. You have given no indication that musical conservatives reject anything in Psalm 149 or 150, and in fact, I know that a great many don’t, because I have been in their churches where they have all those instruments and use them, loudly at times. You have also given no indication that Psalm 149 and 150 have in view modern musical styles and their use and meaning. The obvious meaning of Psalm 150 is to use a lot of instruments, sometimes loudly, in praise of God. In fact everything is to do that (which means it may not be temple worship) at all.

So far as I can tell, you have yet to tell us what part of Psalm 149 and 150 they disagree with. Your statements here indicate that they disagree with you, which is different than disagreeing with Psalm 149 or 150.

Neither source really gets to a couple of points that I’d consider core; that at times, the love of God probably ought to get our feet moving, and moreover if Temple praise involved music with a beat and dancing, then certain criticisms of modern music styles are out of bounds.

You might reconsider whether your evaluation of what is core is actually core. “Get our feet moving”? One of the articles addressed that very topic. But what does that mean? And how and when? And by what method? Is all feet moving acceptable?

As to your second, again you fail to demonstrate that Psalm 149 and 150 have in view anything resembling “modern music styles.” You can’t just declare something to be true. You actually have to argue for it.

It’s almost like you saying God approves speaking and therefore we are wrong to condemn certain tones of voice or certain words. It’s not a sound argument, no pun intended.

And it’s precisely that kind of criticism—generally guilt by association fallacies—that are central to every defense of “traditional music only” that I’ve ever seen. For that matter, in his article, Aniol uses a few of them by noting that the dance referred to could not possibly resemble pagan dancing, MTV dancing (whatever that is)….implicitly, again, that’s guilt by association, an association that’s especially tenuous in that he doesn’t really define what on earth he’s talking about in terms of either music or dance.

Your logical fallacies arguments have become somewhat humorous, both for the frequency at which you trot them out and for the way in which you frequently misuse them. As I said before, if you think this is guilt by association, then you don’t understand the argument, and the more I have read from you, the more I am convinced that you are well intended and yet don’t understand the argument.

Really, it’s “dealing with the passage” in a way that makes it a dead letter, which is precisely the criticism we fundamentalists rightly level at our theologically liberal friends.

Far to the contrary. When someone takes time to explain the text and what it means, and then apply it, it is not a dead letter.