If you know me much, you know the soundtrack of my life consists of symphonies, operas, oratorios, string quartets and other delicious things. But for the life of me I can’t quite see why that isn’t the case for everyone else — and that’s what I’m going to rant about.
Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.
How I Discovered Classical Music
I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.
At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.
My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.
Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like
In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,
The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:
What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?
But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.
What They Give Up
What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!
I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.
The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.
The Biblical Approach
What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:
Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.
Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.
Tapering Off
I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:
Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.
How I Discovered Classical Music
I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.
At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.
My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.
Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like
In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,
Which is worse, listening to rock CCM or watching football? The former, naturally, as the latter, rather than making you want to commit a mild act of violence, prompts the desire to do something that in some way stimulates the brain. This last desire is a good one, better [however] without such inducement.It doesn’t take a psychologist to divine that I do not take a sanguine view of rock music. Dear me, I still have problems appreciating Stravinsky, let alone the far less sophisticated writings of various rock (and jazz) artists, as they are so quaintly termed. Gladly would I endure 15 minutes of a football broadcast if it meant forgoing 15 minutes of hoarse women, incorrigible drum players, and screaming “Are those men?”-quartets. (Those of you who have magnanimously deferred to my obstinate predilections have my heartfelt thanks — I do notice.)
The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:
Richard Bonynge: If [audiences] want something modern, they’ll go to Broadway, but even the Broadway pieces that have success are as old-fashioned as they can possibly be. The idiom is almost 19th century with a bit of beat behind it, that’s all.My feelings align more with Joan Sutherland than Richard Bonynge, but the latter does have a point. He must, or else 90 percent of radio stations would be playing classical music (which, by the way, in its widest sense makes up the vast majority of music in existence).
Interviewer: Is “rock” music?
Joan Sutherland: Don’t ask me that.
RB: I don’t think we’re in much of a position to say because we don’t know much about it. It doesn’t appeal to us very much, but it certainly appeals to a great many people, so there must be something about it. It’s primitive and very easy to listen to.
JS: Not for me it’s not! It’s taxing, sort of bang, bang, bang, bang...
What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?
But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.
What They Give Up
What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!
I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.
The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.
The Biblical Approach
What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:
But all things should be done decently and in order. (ESV)However, as unpleasant as rock music is, it cannot be denied that it has some sort of order. There’s the guilt by association argument, which I think holds some water. Though we often forget it (unlike some rock artists — eek), a fair number of classical composers were less than saints, which opens up a whole new can of worms (which I won't open here).
Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.
Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.
Tapering Off
I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:
- I’ve come to love classical music without being prodded
- I don’t understand rock, pop, jazz, rap, country (did I mention how little I can stand country music?)
- I don’t understand why people don’t like other kinds of music
- I’m frustrated that I can’t formulate a satisfactory Biblical answer in either direction (or another direction I have not considered)
In truth I could pursue this painful theme much further, but behold, I have said enough.
80 comments:
Quite an interesting post! However, for lack of time I will have to dissect this later.
But I do have two interesting remakrs:
1) I've never heard a sound case that presented real reasons for why beats are inherently wrong. I've come to the place where I would say, no. No, there is no beat that is inherently wrong. All beats are not inherently wrong. A beat cannot lie. A beat cannot cheat. A beat cannot murder. A beat's just a beat. So I have yet to hear a strong case for the inherently evil nature of beats.
2) What of other cultures and their music? Have we limited music to simply American culture? This would be rather narrow-minded (I'm not pointing fingers, but simply stating what's true in all of us). It seems we forget that there are other peoples out there with other styles of music. It would be interesting to analyze and compare. I'm certain that somewhere in another country, there is a least one person who does not listen to rock or classical, but their own style of music. I would also wager that there is at least one person out there in some other musical culture who would consider classical music boring, strange, and even possibly evil. I'd wager that this person may even consider his or her music the better of any or all else none.
More may follow. Depending on life and how long it lasts.
1) Exactly. A beat is, in itself, as evil as a toaster. The only way in which it could be argued that beats (not the red vegetables, of course) are bad to use would be in how they affect humans. Example: Christians generally consider smoking to be wrong not because the cigarettes themselves are inherently evil but because of the effect they have on the body. Of course, the effects of smoking are a lot more clear-cut than musical influences, as they are primarily physical rather than primarily mental or spiritual.
I don't know if a definitive answer can be made; I claim ignorance on the matter: I wouldn't be surprised if it was proved either way.
2) Someone else having a different opinion doesn't mean anything except that people are people. It just clouds the issue.
Other cultures music is not excluded from what we cheerfully term classical. These days, Japanese, Chinese, Middle Eastern, Indian, and African musical styles have made their way into the canon of acceptability. Certainly, not every element of those cultures' music may be agreeable to our Western ears, but that is on account of unfamiliarity more than an inability to enjoy. And even then, those elements are (like the elements of Western music) game for criticism.
One Western piece that I won't listen to is Carmina Burana. From what I understand, it is shamelessly erotic and should have no place in a Christian's life.
Anyway: I'm not unfamiliar with rock music (I wish I were). It's hard to avoid. It's not that it's from a different culture or that I didn't grow up with it. It's just there and it makes me want to shrivel up or pass out - and I can't tell why.
And: Classical music is not *my* music. It is everyone's. Also, I don't particularly care for Mozart, but respect the person who loves Mr. M's music. I could say the same about dozens of other composers (Wagner, yuk). There is little to criticize in a Mozart symphony. It doesn't drive you into a frenzy or promote sinful reflection - at least, I've never had a Mozart symphony have that effect on me. But I don't know about some of the music today. I just don't know...
And: I'm not trying to sound confrontational, so forgive me if I am sounding hostile. :)
And: I'm rambling, so I'm just going to stop. I just want to know the truth!
Post Script Question: Are we hardwired to enjoy certain types of music? If so, how far can we take that in this discussion?
1) You do know that toasters can be pretty evil, right? I mean, just the other day I was trying to pop a tart but was quite exasperated for the toaster had swallowed my pop-tart in such a way that made it difficult to remove surgically without unplugging it first. Of course, I jest....
a. I think that you have made a great point here. One thing that I may venture to say: I do think that we can have a definitive answer about the moral nature of music. (Now, at some point we must define music or at least provide a definition in context) In this context, music means simply the musical notation of music and what it represents in the mediums (instruments) that are utilized to bring about sound waves of specific lengths, amplitudes, etc. This could be anything anywhere, from pianos to drums, from winds to vocal chords. One thing that I namely exclude from this definition in context is the lyrical aspect of music. I would wager very heavily that a song containing certain lyrics of immoral stature is definitively something that is immoral by its inherent nature (not just simply the words, for words themselves are not inherently evil; but I take the words being evil insomuch as the concepts they bear as being potentially evil). With this definition in mind and context, I would say that we could come to a definitive conclusion on the moral quality of music (as defined above). I will jump to the conclusion (having not made a case for it just yet, quite) and say that all things in the domain of discourse are such that if it is music (as defined above) then it is not inherently evil.
b. Now, by definitive, I do not mean that I cannot be wrong in saying this at anytime or anywhere for all time and all places. I most certainly could be proven wrong (a simple word from the Lord at Judgment would clear everything up in an instant; unfortunate that it is so, such that we are not privy to said experience as of yet). I simply claim that as far as human reason can take us, we have not yet come across a clear-cut case for music (as defined above) is inherently evil.
All of this just to say that I think it is definitive. But this says nothing about music being a matter of preference or even conscience.
c. Which brings up an interesting sub-point: We tend to think of music being a matter of preference. What of it being a matter of conscience? Not just simply being appalled at certain styles of rock music (and here, by rock music I mean anything that is not classical), but having the conscience violated. "For whatever is not of faith is sin." The entire discussion ends up in Christian Liberty at some time and place. I do not advocate that we necessarily bring it in now, but it certainly is something that should also be addressed at some point.
2. By no means do you sound confrontational (save concerning the issue, of course) or even the slightest bit hostile. Its ranting. And ranting is what we do best here. If anything, I were afraid of my being or sounding hostile. Note: in none of my posts do I intend hostility. Only honesty and open-mindedness on both parties in both an accepting of ideas and a willingness to change (though it be not necessary that one must change, though it be quite necessary that one must be accepting).
Post Script Question: Quite interesting indeed. My first inclination is to say yes. From a psychological standpoint, I would think that we could be conditioned to like certain styles of music. I would also think that in some persons it may be a genetic tendency (I have no proof of this claim and am willing to abandon this claim if someone were to come along and refute it).
My second inclination is to call into question what is meant by hard-wire? As in, perhaps, God having created in us certain desires and tendencies? Preferences? (If I may tie this into the previous sub point: It seems pretty clear that God gave us a conscience)
In the end, I think this is another area that can become worth some time and exploration.
So:
1) Toasters can be evil.
a. I believe that the statement "All music is not inherently evil" is definitive.
b. I believe that the above statement is definitive insomuch as we have not yet come about a clear case for it.
c. Is music a matter of preference or conscience?
2) Clarifications of the standings of the authors.
Post Script: Hard-wired?
a. Yes
b. Depends
Post Script: Is music a matter of preference or conscience?
(I'm moving the sub point into a new point, labeled under post script questions)
I like your outline. :D Our discussion is getting more, not less, organized as we go forward! Yeah!
1) Toasters are not evil. Watch "The Brave Little Toaster" and try to tell me that toasters are evil.
a. All music not inherently evil... Yes, it makes sense. I can still envision, however, music (without words even) designed to drive humans into frenzies -- music that causes one to lose control of one's self. Granted, we don't see this, but I think it is possible. Would the notes themselves be inherently evil? No, but the use of them would be.
b. Ditto.
c. (See Below)
2) Clarification clarified.
3) Post Script: Are we hardwired for certain music?
a. Yes. It's true that the piece which appeals so strongly to person A won't have the same effect on person B. The thing is, how far is too far when it comes to built-in preference?
b. Depends. That is interesting, and I'm not sure what to add, so I'll leave it as is.
4) Music as a matter of conscience. I like that. It think it is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If food could be a matter of conscience, I think music can be too.
This is a fascinating discussion.
I don't have too much to articulate on this matter, partially because music is not something that flows through me. I do not take any joy that this is the case, I would love to be able to play a variety of instruments with splendor (or at least have the time to learn,) but it is the case nonetheless.
Regarding the inherent evil in musical sounds, I thoroughly reject any sound, or organization of sounds, as evil.
Lyrics are another matter. I will gray Aronne's hair by saying that I really do enjoy rock music at times. What I enjoy is what I hold to be a great organization of sounds, even sounds which illicit emotions - emotions that are void of any sinful character. I am uplifted and energized. The lyrics, however, I do not care for. The next argument would then revolve around if the whole should be taken if a part is flawed, but that may be another matter.
The stance I must take is that if I appreciate certain types of music, I should not disregard or trivialize the appreciation another has for a different genre of music.
Of course, the only music I believe is worth entertaining is that which glorifies God. In this area I too am flawed. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak!
Coincidentally, music is the only art-form which we are literally commanded to do! (Of course to His glory.)
There you go, hinting that I need to respect other people's preferences! Just kidding. I completely agree that people's tastes should be respected. I'm not going to start hating on you if you start listening to Wagner or say that Donizetti is too flowery. That doesn't mean, however, that other people do not have horrible taste. I am not, however, hinting that everyone is musically ignorant and unable to appreciate true art. (Just putting that out there.)
Is there no place to draw the line in music without words? Atonal? Multi-tonal? Anarchically constructed? – This is definitely a question I'd like to know the answer to.
As for music's words: If the song is about people on drugs (e.g. Jeremiah was a Bullfrog), it would probably be advised to toss the whole thing out. Even if you had an instrumental arrangement of such a song, I would argue that it would still be unadvised to listen to. Guilt by association, causing other Christians to stumble, and being unprofitable all come to mind.
How easy it is to persuade one's self that something is indeed profitable enough to pass the test! I know from experience, alas. Being able to look objectively at what you've come to like - even love - is all too difficult when that something's correctness is in question. (Not saying you're doing that...just saying.)
I don't know if that adds to the discussion at all, but there it is.
(My hair is already graying without aid...)
Haha, I think you would look very distinguished with gray hair. Maybe you should dye it!
Interesting discussion indeed. And I must admit that I've been in the business of lacking hair myself. So nothing said need be afraid of causing me to lose what I've already begun losing. Unless of course, there exists a type of music that decreases hair loss (i.e. relaxation music).
And just for closure, The Brave Little Toaster is one of several movies that frightened me as a child. Among such videos: Tim Burton's Beetlejuice, Steven's Spielsberg's E.T., and Disney's The Rescuers. Got that off my chest...
Okay, now to the real work. Indeed, as I have already stated, this discussion becometh more fascinating as we hash it out.
1) a. I'm still not convinced that the use of music for evil makes the music evil. I think of a crowbar. Sure, it comes in handy when trying to pry apart a door to save the life of someone trapped in a smashed overturned vehicle. But that does not make the crowbar good (in the inherent sense). Crowbars also come in handy when trying to kill people. Now, I say it comes in handy to kill people because it does. However, such an action is not morally right. In fact, it is morally wrong to go around hitting people with crowbars. But that does not make the crowbar evil (in the inherent sense). So simply because music is used for evil, that does not make the music evil. I like what Grafted has so stated: "I thoroughly reject any sound, or organization of sounds, as evil."
And as Grafted follows, lyrics are an entirely different matter from plain sound. More in a moment's notice.
4) Music as a matter of conscience. That is exactly what I had in mind, Aronne. Food. It seems that if food can be a tool of evil, then so can music. I would like to explore this in some depth a little later.
Now, if I may make a point that Grafted made, and turn it into another point.
5) a. "Emotion-illiciting" sounds. I think that some sounds (I have not clearly defined music yet, for the sake of atonal works) procure emotion from the one who hears it. Now, I would venture to say all sound is as such, but I have not searched every last sound that exists. Perhaps it may be the case that there is a sound that does not procure emotion for the listener whatsoever (and I must quickly disclaim that when I say "sound" I namely mean "sound as it pertains to that category of things we call music"; again, for sake of atonal works, I won't clearly define music). I think it safe to say some (if not all) sound does indeed illicit emotion.
b. Do sinful emotions exist? I would think that one must needs define emotion in order to answer this. If emotion is characterized and defined by feelings of only sadness, happiness, love (in the eros sense of the word, namely), and no doubt others, I think it to be hard-pressed to find such an emotion that is sinful. Now, again, just because emotion is potentially not inherently evil, this does not mean that emotion cannot be evil, if such were used as a tool for evil. For example, love is an emotion that is good but can be used for evil, i.e., love in the wrong place.
c. Now, this may be an interesting example, because to some extent it relates to music (or at least some specific types of music). What if some specific type of music were to somehow illicit the emotion of love but in a wrong sort of way? Does that mean that the music is inherently evil? No, I would say not. Rather I would say, the music became a tool for which evil became present (or apparent) in the emotion of mis-placed love. But this same music could (in fact) illicit another sort of emotion from another person (I would also say the same person, but I think that the context and environment and state of heart and mind would contribute to this person as factors affecting the conditions of states and placements of his emotions, namely his love-emotions; i.e. in order for the same music to not affect the same man in such a way as to not illicit the mis-placed love emotion, the context would have to be different in some way, either location or the state of mind and heart, that is, the spiritual aspect of his being; listening to that music may arouse desires within him that would not necessarily arouse another unless they too had the same spiritual misalignment as he). All this to say, no, once again. Music does not seem to be inherently evil even though it may illicit immoral emotion (if such a thing exists). (Not that I deny its existence but that I wait for someone to say something on the matter) It is not an external means by which man sins, but internal! "But each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed." Music has nothing to do with it, almost.
6) Should the whole be taken if a part is flawed? Indeed, 'tis another matter, but it seems to be related, and I think it deserves to be hashed out like the rest of this discussion.
7) How are we to define music? (And by music, we do not include lyrics here. Lyrics are simply words on a page, recited with or against music. But what is music!) We traditionally have to trains of thought: Tonal music and Atonal music. I will leave this open for now. I have my ideas, but already I can see this has gotten quite long. I look up at the clock every now and then and it seems that virtually time has sped by me. So I leave it open for now.
8) Lyrics. We can go on and on about this. But I think that it can be a simple answer. However, it must needs be concise! Not necessarily exhaustive, but it must be well-articulated.
a. I'm not sure if guilty by association goes under this heading. But I think that's also something worth discussing.
Final remarks: Yes, we must come about this objectively (impossible, sad to say). We cannot let our bias' affect the way we look at things. It collapses in the end for we see only what we want to see. I don't doubt that we aren't like that here, quite thankfully I must add.
Ha! Dyeing gray hair....
How did we get from graying hair to losing it?
Well, you’re supposed to skip the scary clown part of The BLT, of course!
1) I think we’re splitting hairs here. Sure, the music itself is not evil perhaps (in the same way as cigarettes as I contended above), but that doesn't mean that it can be used very ill - or that it is not used very ill - or even that it is *easily* used very ill. My point isn’t only that it’s so awful that it can’t be born, but that there simply isn’t any point in listening to it. WHY LISTEN TO ROCK (et. al.) MUSIC AT ALL? How is it profitable for Christians to listen to something that thrived on - sprang from - the 60s/70s drug culture? Something that other Christians could easily stumble on account of your listening to it? Something that can be abstained from without damaging one’s happiness in any material way?
So: I'm also viewing this positively (“why”) rather than just negatively (“why not”).
4) Yes, a matter of conscience...I'm not sure I fully understand it, but still... Let’s just say it is easier to kill someone with a pistol than a bottle of saline nose spray (and no, I’m not saying guns are evil - but there is a reason to use guns, unlike the music which we are discussing).
5) Music and Emotions
a. I agree: Sound definitely elicits emotion. Listen to the Act I Finale of Les Troyens and try to tell me otherwise! Just last night a sound effect of a door opening made me very happy (probably because it reminded me of Myst).
b. I can testify that certain emotions exist which, if evoked properly, can lead *very* easily into sin. Some states of feeling are...delicately balanced, to say the least.
c. If a tool (in this case music) has become an instrument of ill, is not the logical to repair the tool to mend the deleterious effects? How can the music be fixed so as to not have this result? Change the way it sounds by altering the way it is written. If a gun is firing at your comrades, should you not change the direction of the gun’s fire if it lies in your power? Same thing with music. If it’s broken, fix it. Unless it’s Baroque, which is an entirely different matter.
6) Should the whole be tossed out if a part is flawed? Depends on the flaw – can it be removed? Is it large? Can you consume the whole (with the flaw intact) without violating your conscience?
7) I believe that the words are as much a part of the music as the notes themselves more often than not. Sure, they don’t make the tones and sounds — but they give them shape and distinction. Well-written words can bolster a melody beyond its capabilities were it to go solo.
8) Words (or Lyrics). See also: 6)
a. What do you mean by guilt by association not going under this heading? Under this point or under this topic?
I thought of a great example this morning, and now I've forgotten it. Alas. I’m still thinking about all this, though...
Stay (at)tuned for the next AD (Aronne Digression) concerning Computer Games!
I don't quite know, but I guess I skipped the graying and went straight for losing it. Sad, sad day...
1) Okay, I see what you're saying. We do seem to be splitting gray hairs here, but I think it of some value. In fact, I just had a recent discussion with someone about cigarrettes and smoking. 'Is it wrong to smoke?' I asked. Well, it is and it isn't. Smoking, the act of puffing a smoke from a cigarrette, is not evil (in the inherent sense). But if smoking is something that is wrong, it is so for reasons other than itself having the inherent nature of wrongness (evil). These other reasons might be as Aronne noted above; it causes damage to the human body (this is of course, assuming that damage to the body is inherently evil). I can't think of too many other reasons. Perhaps causing another believer to stumble is another good reason not to smoke.
Again, for sake of argument, consider: killing a human being is not inherently wrong or evil (in the inherent sense). Why? Because the act is simply the action that manifests a larger issue at work. A man can kill another man out of justice. We don't call that wrong. But when a man kills another man out of anger, desire, etc., then we call that evil; we call that murder. But it's not evil to kill a human being. (For the sake of an audience who hasn't the foggiest as to what I'm saying, no, I'm not saying that it's good to kill people. I'm simply saying that it's an action that has moral value attached to it) So we need to be careful of calling things like' killing a human being' or 'smoking' or 'music' (in the non-lyrical sense of music) inherently wrong or evil.
That does not mean, however, that music is never wrong or evil. If it is, it is so for other reasons, reasons other than because of its inherent value. What might be some of the reasons for which it is evil? Well, again, I like what Grafted said. I agree in thinking that no organization of sounds can be inherently evil. Can an organization of sounds cause or effect evil? If so, then like smoking and killing people, that specific organization of sounds may be evil insomuch as it has a causal relationship with evil.
I'm going to jump here. Stay with me!
5) c. i. Use as a tool. I'm not sure I agree with this. Like the crowbar, simply because crowbars can and are used as a tool for evil does not mean that the crowbar is flawed in someway. There seems to be nothing wrong with the crowbar other than what is inherent to its nature, i.e., it's quite lethal, in fact. If we set about trying to fix or modify the crowbar in some way or fashion, we end up with something that a crowbar is not. Its inherent features are what makes it what it is.
ii. Music seems to work the same way. Just because people take and use it as a tool for evil, this does not make the music evil. And I don't think we can help modify it lest it become something that it isn't, hence, changing the enitre situation into something else. One disclaimer: by changing music, I do not at all mean lyrics or notation. Lyrics are coming up in just a bit, so be patient! But since its right here: if the lyrics are inherently evil, or cause evil, or effect evil, would it not help to change them? Yes, it would; it would remove it altogether (if it is inherently evil), or it would remove the cause or effect of evil. Change it or avoid it. (I think for clarity of discussion, a case needs to be made for this claim: Ought one change or avoid it if it is inherently evil or if it causes or effects evil?)
iii. So, I'm not certain that fixing the tool is what is necessary or even possible in this discourse on music. The question must then be asked, "Is there something wrong with rock (et al) music such that it needs fixing? If so, what is wrong and why is it wrong?" I'm not certain that the gun is pointed at the comrades.
6) a. Should the whole be tossed out if a part is flawed? I agree with this criteria, but espeically so with the last part of your phrase, Aronne. "Can you consume the whole (with the flaw intact) without violating your conscience?" Is this possible? Most certainly! Assuming that the object or idea in question is not inherently evil, one could most certainly possibly consume it without violating his or her conscience. Why? Because I see it as though it were food sacrificed to idols.
9) (New topic) Christian Liberty. a. We know there is no such thing as real idol-god. So if people think that food used in cult practices is evil, this does not make food inherently evil. And if we know and understand this, that food is just food, we can eat it without having our conscience violated, for we know that we are none the nearer or farther from God if we eat that food. Now I know what you're thinking. What about the rest of the context? What about puffed-up knowledge and love that edifies? Yes, we do need to consider what the weaker brother stumbles in. But read the text carefully. "If what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall." Is what we engage in truly, genuinely causing another believer to fall into sin? If so, examine to see that its genuinely the case. None of this, "Oh, let's not even go there. Can't we just play it safe?" Yes, we could, but what if what we perceive as being evil is a tool used by the devil to cause us to stumble? By this I mean, what if we are held captive by a small frame of mind? If what I do, causes another brother to fall into sin, I won't do it. But if my brother falls into sin, is there something wrong with him? Perhaps he is held captive by superstitious thoughts, believing that certain things are meat sacrificed to idols. Does he not need to be instructed that "there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live"?
This was a short-hand version of Christian Liberty. Rather, this was a quick answer. More discussion is necessary.
7) Music. Let's keep this on the table. What is music and how ought it be defined? Keep in mind: I strictly mean the musical aspect and not the lyrical aspect. The notation and not the words. Yes, words can be used in music and are a part of music but only the musical category that uses lyrics. In this section, I hope to narrow the focus onto the music only! Lyrical music is dealt with in 8).
8) Lyrics. By lyrics I mean the words that are used in a specific category of music (e.g. opera, broadway, chant, some rock music, et al). The purpose of discussing lyrics here is to determine how they relate to music morally, and if it has any effect on the nature of music. (Unless I am mistaken, I believe that is what we are trying to get at; I'm always willing to be corrected)
a. I think that so far as the lyrics reflect inherently evil concepts, the lyrics themselves are bad. In no way are they inherently evil (they are simply words on a page). Lyrics are the linguistical form of communication in music. The important thing to remember is that the lyrics are representations of things and are not the things themselves. I can say the word "baseball." We can conjure up images of what a baseball looks like. But we never actually achieve a connection betweent the word and what it represents. The word, after all, is simply an organized collection of symbols that was assigned to a round, white object. Now, if the baseball were evil (in the inherent sense), the word "baseball" is not. In fact, it is no more evil than the spanish "bola." It's simply a word.
b. Lyrics that do reflect evil concepts might be considered evil insomuch as they have a causal relationship with evil concepts. These lyrics cause or effect evil.
10) (New topic) Evil and relationships. Up until now, I've been assuming that if something has a causal relationship with evil, i.e., it causes or effects evil, then that thing must be evil (in the causal relational sense). But now, is this the case always? Is it always such that if something has a causal relationship with evil, then it too must be evil, not in the inherent sense but in the causal relational sense? If this is the case, then how does one justify it with the rest reality? Or is it that only some things that have a causal relationship with evil are evil, leaving some things which have causal relationships with evil not evil?
I think that causal relationships with evil is a better way of putting it than guilty by association. What if potato chips started supporting abortion? Would not potato chips then become evil by association? Would I continue to buy potato chips? If so, would I be evil by association? What of God and His immanent presence amongst sinners? He is somehow able to associate with the guilty. He would not then be guilty by association, would He? I think that stating that music's association with drug culture and what-not says nothing about music itself. I think causal relationships is a better way of looking at it.
4) Conscience. Still on the table.
11) (New topic) Why listen to rock (et al) music at all? What are the positives?
I've ranted enough for today. Off to other things...
Alright, before I leap in again, I’m providing an outline:
Comment Discussion Outline
1) Can beats be inherently evil?
a. Possibility of a definitive answer
b. Clarification of definitive
c. Music: A matter of Preference or of Conscience? See 4)
2) The Opinions of Others
3) Are we hardwired for certain music?
a. How far does built-in preference go?
b. Definition of hard-wired
4) Music: A matter of Preference or of Conscience?
5) Does music elicit emotion?
a. Explanation
b. Do sinful emotions exist?
c. Misaligned emotions: Fault of the music or the person?
6) Should the whole be forsaken if part is flawed?
7) Definition of music
8) Words and music
a. Can words be inherently bad?
b. Good words still having an ill effect
9) Christian Liberty
a. Guilt by association
10) Causation of evil
11) Why listen to rock (et al) music at all?
1) I think we’re getting hung up on this “inherently evil” discussion. Whether our subject is inherently evil isn’t the issue quite as much as whether it should be listened to. I’m after a practical, not purely philosophical explanation. The point isn’t: It’s evil; therefore, let’s avoid it. The point is: Christian’s shouldn’t do it; therefore, let’s avoid it.
Alright, we’re getting somewhere with your concession that music can be wrong. I’m not sure I ever contended that it could be its inherent value that made it wrong. It’s construction perhaps leads to whether it is right, but not its basic nature. More below under point 10).
2) I think we’ve cleared this up. The reality of different opinions doesn’t particularly add to our discussion here.
3) Are we hardwired for certain music? I’d still like to discuss this. At the present, I believe that everyone is rigged (to an extent) to like different types of music. But that brings us to a problem:
a. How much of an allowance can we give for that built-in preference? The easy answer is: until it leads to sin.
4) Is music a matter of Preference or of Conscience? Something tells me that the crux of our debate lies with this point. It is related to the subject of Christian Liberty, addressed below. See 9)
5) Does music elicit emotion?
a. I think we’re agreed that music does prompt emotion.
b. Do sinful emotions exist? What was it we learned in youth group a few years back? That emotions are fine until they are manifested in desires for something wrong? Or was it just that desires are basically good until they are misdirected towards something bad?
c. Misaligned emotions: Fault of the music or the person?
Crowbars and music are not directly analogous. A crowbar is a particular physical item that is strictly defined and easily grasped (pun not intended but there nevertheless). Music is a category of things and is not perceived through touch or sight. How does this apply here? I see it like this:
Crowbar: If a crowbar is being used to do damage, the solution is to stop using the crowbar in that way. This involves dropping the instrument or placing it back upon the shelf where it was found. The evil desires that turned the crowbar into a weapon, once quelled, result in the crowbar’s evil use being terminated.
Music: If a piece of music is influencing a person to act sinfully, the solution to ending the music’s influence is to cease the subject’s exposure to it. This involves turning the music off or removing the person affected from earshot. Another conceivable solution would be to recompose the music so that it would cease to exhibit whatever trait it was that caused a problem in the first place. This would result in something that is still music, unlike if you tried to solve the crowbar problem by melting the implement. If you did that, the crowbar would cease to be a crowbar, but would become rather a blob of metallic mass.
6) Yes, that was my point, more or less.
7) Dictionary.com has this to say: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/music?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
I’m not sure if there’s any point in preserving this section for strictly music apart from words.
8) Words and music
a. Can words be inherently evil? Words are a means of expression. Certain words are bad in that they express something bad. The question isn’t, “Is this combination of letters morally objectionable?” — Rather it is, “Are these words sending a morally wrong meaning?” We think in words. Evil thoughts use words (good or bad) to express themselves in our minds.
Really this whole sub-point is silly. We may as well have the same discussion for whether it’s okay to think sexually promiscuous thoughts as long as we don’t use swear words. The point isn’t, are the words bad, but is the message bad? I believe that is what you were leading into with point 8) b.
9) Christian Liberty
This is the final resting place of the Guilt by Association point. Should we avoid something because of what it is associated with? Some people use this principle to avoid movie stores and theaters, television, certain movies, certain styles of clothes, certain video games, and, yes, certain kinds of music. Doubtless, many of those things (or at least parts of them) can be condemned apart from this principle.
That people use the principle isn’t enough to condone our use of it, however. And that is where Christian Liberty comes in. I know many pastors refuse to go to movie theaters, not necessarily because they are convinced of theaters’ evilness, but because people are watching them — some members of the congregations they pastor could be offended (could stumble) because of the pastor’s choice to go to at movie theater.
I’m not prepared to go any further in this area without a bit more thought and Scriptural research. So on to:
10) Causation of evil. That something can be a cause of evil does not necessitate, I think, that the thing itself evil itself. Often, however, the two are inseparable. I refuse to drink alcoholic beverages not because the drinks themselves are evil, but because the effect they produce is not permitted for a Christian. The two are not easily separable.
11) Why listen to rock (et al) music at all? ...Yeah...you tell me...
I just stumbled across the paper that had the criteria for whether to do something - the one from Youth Group way back when. Here's what it says:
1. Could I cause another believer to stumble if I practice this?
2. Could this activity harm my body?
3. Could this thought or practice become habit forming and enslave me (dominate my life)?
4. Will this experience build me up physically, intellectually, or spiritually?
5. Can I engage in this activity with a clear conscience, believe that it is right for me?
6. Will this activity glorify God?
Another thing to add to the discussion...
One thing to add - I don't know if you've already touched on this since I just skimmed the comments.
Is there a distinction between what music we listen to or perform for pleasure / recreation and what we use in a church setting?
I tend to hold to the fact that there is a distinction. Do I have some real clear Biblical proofs to add to that - well, more might be forth coming as I have time to contribute.
Curious to see what you think on this . . .
That is something, en karin, that I forgot to bring up, but wanted to discuss.
I think that there is perfectly acceptable music which shouldn't be used in church in addition to the unacceptable which shouldn't be listened to at all. As an example of the former, I wouldn't reset Lucrezia Borgia's final march song from Donizetti's opera of the same name to be sung for a church service. It just wouldn't be profitable. If the song had bad connotations, it would be wrong because, instead of lifting people up, it would tear them down. :(
Do make more come forth, for I find this entire discussing profitable.
I must admit that I currently stand frustrated in my state of being rather than in my argument.
I wish only to touch on one thing in this particular comment. That is the inherent nature of music.
Disclaimer: Understand!!! My discourse is in no respect lyrical music!!! There is a substantial difference between music with lyrics and music without. I am strictly speaking concerning the nature of music et al! Not lyrics! Music! And please do not attempt to say that we need to evaluate both, because that is self evident. But first, let's talk about (and strictly adhere to) music!
No. Music cannot be inherently evil. Music et al cannot be inherently evil. I have not heard, never heard a convincing argument concerning the inherently evil nature of music. I would like those who disagree to stand and deliver! The question is not what's the point. We can decide what's the point once we have accurately addressed what it is that is in question which point it is we question! (Break it down and read it slowly.)
I will specifically address rock music (because it seems to be the topic of discussion). Rock music, the style of rock, cannot be something inherently evil. Accented beats 2 and 4 are not inherently evil. Electric guitars are not inherently evil. Drums are not inherently evil. The collection of these instruments is not inherently evil. Simply non-lyrical rock music is not inherently evil.
What about sensual? Well, define sensual! If it means that it appeals to the senses, then okay, rock music is sensual. But if by sensual you mean immorally carnal, fleshly, I have three things to say. 1) You, by saying that rock music is inherently immorally sensual, are saying that rock music is inherently evil (for all things that are inherently immorally sensual are things that are inherently evil). 2) You have to make the case that non-lyrical rock music can be inherently evil. 3) You also by way of implication say that anything that is appealing or gratifying to the flesh in any way is wrong. Like asceticism...
Music cannot be inherently evil. Okay, we’ve agreed on that, more or less. I too cannot see a particular combination of notes being, in and of itself, evil. Allow me to ask: So what? We aren’t trying to figure out if rock music is constructed inherently evil, but if it is wrong and/or unprofitable for a Christian to listen to. Practically and all that (I’m a practical person, on the whole, so be forewarned).
Before I continue, permit my dictionary to define sensual:
sensual (adj.)
1. Of the body and the senses as distinguished from the intellect or spirit; bodily [sensual pleasures]
2. a) connected or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures; voluptuous b) full of lust; licentious; lewd
3. resulting from, or showing preoccupation with, bodily or sexual pleasure [a sensual expression]
DM, you may be thinking of the word sensuous. This is what my dictionary has to say about the distinctions between the two words:
SYN. — sensuous suggests the strong appeal of that which is pleasing to the eye, ear, touch, etc. and, of a person, implies susceptibility to the pleasures of sensation [soft, sensuous music]; sensual refers to the gratification of the grosser bodily senses or appetite [sensual excesses]
(Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition)
Okie dokie. The very word sensual, while it has one definition which isn’t entirely connected to lust, has the connotation of lust. Besides, the other two definitions are entirely connected, so let’s take sensual to refer to those “grosser bodily senses.”
(I’m giving your numbers letters so it doesn’t confuse the outline.)
A) By saying that rock music is sensual says that it incites a certain pattern of behavior is not the same thing as saying it is inherently evil. I would say though, that for a Christian, using that sort of music just doesn’t make sense. Why use music that people use to encourage things I’m not even going to write about?
What does “rock and roll” even mean?
As a noun:
1. The type of music
2. The dancing associated with the music
3. “An intangible feeling, philosophy, belief or allegiance relating to rock music (generally from the 1970s"1980s), and heavy metal bearing certain elements of this music, pertaining to unbridled enthusiasm, cynical regard for certain Christian and authoritarian bodies, and attitudes befitting some degree of youthful debauchery.”
As a verb:
1. “to start, commence, begin, get moving (Let’s rock and roll)”
2. “a euphemism for sexual intercourse.”
(http://www.allwords.com/word-rock+and+roll.html)
Wikipedia has something similar to say about the verb meaning of the phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll#Origins_of_the_phrase).
Someone may somehow justify listening to rock music personally (I couldn’t), but I think I may safely say that using this kind of music in a church setting is foolhardy at best.
B) I do not have to make the case that rock music without words is inherently evil. Rather, it would be better to discuss what it was created to do, what it is used for, and whether it has any place in the life of a Christian.
C) Most curious. I’ll have to think on that a bit more before venturing an answer. At first glance, however, I’d say this has something to do with the distinction between sensuous and sensual.
P.S. I'm going to be writing a new post on the matter once we get closer to an answer.
Excellent idea, A. I think that once we hone in on what may be an issue in itself, it may be worth its own post. Then we can lay down a format and address it in an orderly fashion.
A, I like your observations and definitions. However, I'm not certain that you, EK, and I are on the same page.
I agree with those definitions. Now the question becomes this: Can we apply those definitions as labels to rock music? That is, does rock music inherently embody those characteristics? Those traits, such as defined by sensual, etc.? In other words, can we really call rock music sensual according to those definitions? Again, I am not calling out lyrical music. I am specifically addressing non-lyrical music. Is non-lyrical rock music sensual?
And that is my question. We can move on once we get a clear, definitive answer on that. (Or at least I can sleep then...)
12) Is non-lyrical rock music sensual?
A) Is non-lyrical rock music inherently sensual?
B) Does non-lyrical rock music incite sensuality?
These are two questions which I'm sure we desire to address.
Here is where we question the point of rock music:
11) Why listen to rock music (et al) at all?
Why listen to rock music et al...at all...
One quick addition - hopefully more later as time permits.
There is a lot of music that is labeled as rock music. I think in last night's discussion N wasn't trying to say that all non-lyrical rock music is inherently sensual. Just that some is.
12) Is non-lyrical rock music sensual?
A) Is non-lyrical rock music inherently sensual? This has been to some extent discussed already. I would add a few words, however:
Definition of sensual:
1. Of the body and the senses as distinguished from the intellect or spirit; bodily [sensual pleasures]
I'm not certain I understand how this could be applied to music in general at all, seeing that the concept of music is less physical and bodily than we make it out to be.
2. a) connected or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures; voluptuous b) full of lust; licentious; lewd
Again, I'm not certain that you cannot connect music to this, other than through conditioning (see 13); that is, unless it is inherently those things, which I cannot see.
3. resulting from, or showing preoccupation with, bodily or sexual pleasure [a sensual expression]
Once again, apart from lyrics, I cannot see how music (rock, et al) can be preoccupied with this, in and of itself!
I think that if anything, rock music could possibly incite (as A so aptly noted) sensuality. This is where my confusion lies at any rate.
B) Does non-lyrical rock music incite sensuality? "Aye, there's the rub!" I would say, no, not in all cases; in some, possibly, but not all.
I might try to introduce a new point as a sub-point; we can only see where it goes, I suppose. And that is the point of conditioning. Can we be conditioned to respond sensually, rather, to view rock music as sensual? Don't take this too far! I am offering you the disclaimer right now! I am not a Freudian psycho-analyst! But I think there is something to say for why we call rock music sensual. If it isn't something that is inherently sensual, why would it incite sensuality?
13) Can humans be conditioned to become sensually aroused as a result of exposure to non-lyrical rock music?
We usually associate rock music with sensuality because that is what it was born out of. Bad beginnings, so to speak. But that does not render it completely, utterly evil, immoral, pointless, or sensual; simply because it is not those things.
Also, I am not offering any point as to rock music and its use for worship. Not yet...
Good point to have been made, EK. I may not have taken it that way at first, but I didn't think much of it or give it the benefit of doubt. Which is why I think the same, that some rock music (non-lyrical) can be sensual, but not all. I'm sure that there is a case in which sensuality is not provoked. I could most definitely compose a piece, were it to become necessary...
Not sure if my comment fits under 12 B) or 13.
But, let's take a look at how the world uses the music that it does. If you asked the average person to categorize what different types of music goes with what, they do have a general idea of how to classify it and they associate it with certain things. (and I'm not just talking about origins)
So, why when we start talking about music in the Christian's life does this seem to be such a point of confusion?
Alas, EK, I did ask somewhat a similar question! Take a few minutes and read the post! And the comments! You might help us more in knowing what we've discussed! But, alas, as time permits us...
I like the idea, but what are you saying exactly? That rock music is inherently associated with sensuality? It is not sensual, but it is always, forever, in all cases associated with sensuality? (This, as supported by other cultures and what they would have to say about rock music.)
Two points of clarification:
1) I said Freud, but it was Pavlov, I believe.
2) I never quite finished my thoughts on the definitions. I sort of left the discussion hanging there. My apologies. Perhaps we will pick things up again once we've sorted through my mess!
Again, my most sincerest and affectionate apologies! I hope it wasn't sophomoric...
Alas, one serious error after another. Under my rebuttal concerning the definition of sensual, I wrote "Again, I'm not certain that you cannot connect music to this," and it must be noted that I used a double negative when I had no intention of making usage such. So I meant to say that I'm not certain that you can connect music to this...etc.
Thank you for your kind indulgence. As I read over what I've written, it seems rather disjunct. Clarification must be made at another point in time, however.
11) Why listen to rock music, et. al. at all? Still not hearing an answer to this. I’m certainly not going to provide this, because I don’t fully know why.
12) Is rock music without words sensual?
Some of it definitely is (thanks for clarifying, EK). Trying to fit every piece of music under the category of “sensual” will probably be as effective as setting every Baroque piece down as “happy.” Even Vivaldi wrote some wistful music.
A) Definition of sensual discussion:
1. Of the body and the senses as distinguished from the intellect or spirit; bodily [sensual pleasures]
2. a) connected or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures; voluptuous b) full of lust; licentious; lewd
3. resulting from, or showing preoccupation with, bodily or sexual pleasure [a sensual expression]
Alright: Music makes you feel a certain way, right? Happy, sad, elated, cultured, nauseous, bouncy — doesn’t it make sense that music could provoke sensual feelings too?
Also, imagine an individual who is very sensual. He is preoccupied with the things listed above and wants to embody that preoccupation musically. He composes a piece of music that provokes those feelings in the listener. Is the music sensual? I would say so.
B) See above
13) May I flip the question? Can humans be conditioned to fail to become sensually aroused by listening to rock music with or without words? If anything, this is probably the case. We train ourselves to tune out the elements we don’t like — to act with inhibitions so as to avoid others’ alarm. But when all that’s stripped away — when one is, say, anonymously mixed with a crowd sensitive to the music’s promptings — might not the suppressed feelings be more likely to emerge?
DM, you ask if EK is implying if rock music is inherently associated with sensuality. Huh? You’re asking if rock music is inherently bound by current human opinion to a particular trait. Associations change over time, whereas something inherent doesn’t. Right?
EK wrote, So, why when we start talking about music in the Christian's life does this seem to be such a point of confusion?
Because Christians, unlike unbelievers, would often be obliged to make appropriate changes were these classifications and associates to be made. At least, that is what my first impulse tells me. There is probably more to it than that.
If you may indulge yourself once more...
I was reading over the post and I wanted to address another issue, one that extends back farther into the early comments. It concerns something A stated. I will bring the quotation at the proper moment, but for the sake of one who's mind is scattered know that it was referenced under 5) c. I shall call it:
14) Shall we dismiss rock music altogether?
Each one is tempted by his own evil desires! Rock music may only provide an opportunity for the flesh to manifest itself, but rock music is not in and of itself fleshly!
So ought we listen to rock music if it provides an opportunity for the flesh? I'm not certain that I'm convinced. In fact, it seems more reasonable to say that there isn't anything wrong with rock music that wasn't already wrong with ourselves in the first place. Okay, rock was born out of drug and sex culture; but if that's the case, it was man's evil desires caused rock to be born.
So does saying that "man's evil desires caused rock to be born" mean that rock music is bad? No, for there are a lot of things that are born out of men's evil desires that are not evil! For a literal example: consider out-of-wedlock babies. These are quite literally born out of man's evil desires. This does not make the child evil! (Don't take the analogy too far; I've said enough that needs be said about it.)
To use another illustration: guns. Guns are wrought out of man's desire to kill. Sure, it could be used to kill wild animals for food, but man's evil desires wrought the gun to kill others. It was man's evil desires that caused him to use the weapon for ill purposes. But the gun is not evil.
I quote A: "Crowbar: If a crowbar is being used to do damage, the solution is to stop using the crowbar in that way. This involves dropping the instrument or placing it back upon the shelf where it was found. The evil desires that turned the crowbar into a weapon, once quelled, result in the crowbar’s evil use being terminated."
Whether or not, A, you intended to say it like this, I'm not sure. But here I disagree (and you will see why, I hope; I hope its not due to a faulty understanding of the above quote, but that's the way I took it). Simply because it is being used for evil doesn't mean we ought to stop its usage altogether. It simply means we ought to not use it for our evil purposes anymore. If we sing of drugs and sex with rock music, stopping the use of rock music altogether is not the proper solution (throwing the baby out with the bath-water). The proper solution would be to stop using rock music to sing about drug and sex culture, stop using it as a means for such evil and use it as a means for good (a most plausible experience). Perhaps what I'm saying is what you, A, have been saying. But this then leads into the discussion that I've been longing to bring up! Perhaps here we can solve all our problems!
15) Music and that which glorifies God. What is your input?
A: you bring up a very interesting point under the new 13). My first question to that is this: what is the objective state of humans?
I tried wording this in a few different ways but was unable to come up with the proper question. Hopefully this suffices.
More later. Now, I transfer locations...
13) Conditioning
The objective state of humans is that which is base and degenerate. I believe that if there is any conditioning going on, it’s to make the influence of rock music acceptable to the scruples of society rather than to bring out its sensual elements.
14) Shall we dismiss rock music altogether? Sure, why not? Or: 11) Why listen to rock music at all? (Still waiting for an answer...)
“Rock music may only provide an opportunity for the flesh to manifest itself, but rock music is not in and of itself fleshly!”
Ephesians 4:27 “and give no opportunity to the devil.” Sure, most anything could potentially provide an opportunity to the flesh — but exactly what do you mean by that? Is rock music the opportunity for the flesh? Or is it something that accompanies said music? Clarify, pretty please.
Can the originator (drug culture, etc.) be separated from the product? Is the thing an expression of the culture from which it originated? Is that acceptable? (I’m starting to feel like Socrates...)
Also, comparing rock music and a baby doesn’t work: a baby’s a baby no matter who birthed it. Each one is equally human. A style of music is not a unit, something I’ll expound upon below.
The gun illustration doesn’t work. Guns have a purpose (protection and survival) that outweigh the bad uses. i.e. Guns, properly used, work no weal. To make the illustration work, you would have to prove that A) rock music has multiple uses, B) at least one of those uses is good, and C) the good uses outweigh the bad. Is it man’s evil desires that makes rock music provocative? It made it that way in the first place, yes, but does it sustain it? Can it exist without it and still have a bad effect? Remember, guns don’t kill people; people with guns do.
The other reason why the illustration doesn’t work very well is that guns and music are analogous, not guns and rock music.
I am viewing rock music as a unit — a subcategory of music. DM, you may be viewing it as a pool of units or a category by itself. I see music as the category and all the styles of music (subcategories) as ways that music can be used. Like this:
Crowbar : Music
Uses of the crowbar : Types of music
Bad use of crowbar : Rock music
That is more or less what I was getting at. I’m not comparing the crowbar to rock music — or guns to rock music. I’m comparing the uses of crowbars and guns to the uses and styles of music.
I have not much time at present but I would like to ask a question. I could call it 16, but I won't unless we concur. Shall I just ask it?
What do you think of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)? I by no means ask what you think of all of it. And in no way does this question ask about the use of CCM in the local church. This is music limited to personal use. The reason I ask (and here's a shocking twist...not really) is because I knew plenty of CCM music that has very Christian lyrics attached to the music. I mean, very Christian lyrics. As in, biblical words; words taken directly from the Scriptures. I can provide examples of such songs if necessary. (Also, there are songs that have very theological lyrics) The question is what are we to make of those? Some of those songs employ the style of rock music.
Clarification #01: I do not stand such that I think all CCM music is good. Some CCM can be too "rocky" and even sappy lyrical-wise. But not all CCM is like that. Not all songs that employ the style of rock music is like that.
Again, ignore CCM in the church. This point is limited to personal use, enjoyment, worship (yes, worship; this is apart and separate from corporate worship in a church).
I see clarification is needed. But I must limit myself, else my comments come at the expense of more pressing obligations with ultimatums of impending natures. Alas, I will return next week, if not this week.
But it probably will be this week....
Alas, I return...and in a most ironic setting. I'm sitting a room filled with college students singing praises to the Lord. With what means you may ask? We could call it rock. I would call it rock. But perhaps I have a faulty connection between the music I'm listening to now and the actual definition of what constitutes rock music. In either case, I'm going to assume that the music I listen to is rock music, some of which is more than likely CCM.
I so very much would like to know what we think of rock music and songs with Christian lyrics. Songs like "Jesus Paid It All."
The reason I ask this goes way back to the very beginning of this discussion. My argument goes something like this.
Rock music (non-lyrical) is not inherently evil. Rock music (non-lyrical), if anything, provides an opportunity for the flesh to manifest itself. By flesh, I mean those sinful desires that arise within us (James 1:14-15); it comes not from within the music. Music is not inherently evil. Rock music (non-lyrical) is not, cannot be inherently evil. Rock music (non-lyrical) can incite evil desires within us. So if there is a problem with rock music (non-lyrical), then it lies within mankind.
Should we dismiss it on this basis? No, because there are many things that incite us to evil. Not all things that incite us to evil are dismissed on that basis. Why? Because it is essentially trying to address the symptoms and not the problem. If I write rock music that incites sinful behaviours, the problem lies within me. Change me first, and then I can write rock music that does not incite sinful behaviours.
I would like to know what kind of sinful behaviours rock music incites (both lyrical and non-lyrical).
Should we dismiss it on the basis of its bad origin? No, because there are many things that are the result of bad origins that we do not dismiss. We can try to draw distinctions between those things and things like rock music (both lyrical and non-lyrical), but it fails in the end. Why? Because however you put it, rock music is a result of something else.
Is all rock music (both lyrical and non-lyrical) bad? No, not all rock music (both lyrical and non-lyrical) is bad. Some rock music (both lyrical and non-lyrical) can be/has the potential to be good, just as it has the potential to be bad. I do not agree with all rock music (both lyrical and non-lyrical) but you cannot call something like "Praise You in This Storm" evil, or even bad. If you do, you are doing so on the basis of aesthetics and preference. Not moral qualities. Because as far as moral qualities are concerned, "Praise You in This Storm" has good moral lyrics.
I have more to say, but battery power limits me. More clarification is needed, but I did my best to make a clean summary of where I stand.
We need to make distinctions between lyrical and non-lyrical music. To maintain clarity, I think...
I guess I do somewhat disagree. Non-lyrical music is not amoral. In other works there is a morality - either good or bad - attached to music.
Also, by way of clarification:
Rock music is the result of a bad beginning. The beginning's badness does not carry over (at least, not in all cases). Especially not in rock music.
"Praise You in This Storm" has good, moral lyrics (just try calling them evil!). "Praise You in This Storm" has (in my opinion) acceptable musical notation and arrangement of instruments. When my heart is right with God, I can honestly, genuinely sing that to His praise and glory. Why? Because it comes from the heart of a true, genuine believer. What does our Lord say to the woman at the well? Those who worship me will worship me in spirit and in truth? There is obviously some dimension of spirit in singing "Praise You in this Storm." But you know what, you could sing that, or any old hymn like "The Old Rugged Cross" and have the spirit but not the truth! It's the truth that matters! You need to worship God with spirit and truth! So there needs to be a sort of genuineness about worship!
And here's my argument for why we ought to utilize rock music. Because we are to do all things to the glory of God. Yes, all things includes rock music. How can we do this? Rock music is something that is not inherently evil! Things that are inherently evil cannot be used or done to the glory of God (there is one, and only one exception and it is not for music!). Therefore, rock music is not something that cannot be used to glorify God. Things like "Praise You..." can be used to glorify God. But as with anything, one must have sincerity about it. It cannot be unreal, fake, false, phony, etc.
Rock music used in a proper sort of way can yield the same fruit as with any old hymn. The proper sort of way entails 1) a right view of God (I'll touch on this later, as I already have back up a couple posts) and, 2) a right relationship with God. These are two similar things that are of great importance when considering God and music.
I cannot see how non-lyrical music can be inherently evil. I'm not saying that it is devoid of all morals. I'm saying that at its core, it is not evil.
If I may ask, EK, how is it that music (non-lyrical) can be morally evil?
DM: I think this is where we won't see eye-to-eye. I do believe that non-lyrical music is moral.
I don't have any clear cut statements to make yet. Hopefully more to follow as time permits.
I'm sorry, I'm posting comment after comment. Space and notification could be saved if only I would post it all at once. But as I'm sure its the case with you, EK, and A and G, we think as we write, and then we think more after we write.
I would very much like to know how music can be inherently evil. Inherently is the word I've chosen to use because it best gets us to where we need to be at. If I may quote you, EK: "In other works there is a morality - either good or bad - attached to music."
The problem with you statement lies in the fact that you and I see eye-to-eye on this (if that's truly what you wanted to say). I think that music has morality attached to it. Not inherent to it. And if morality is attached to it, we can call it evil or good, but from whence comes this morality? How is it attached to music?
Haha. You used eye-to-eye and I used eye-to-eye. But I think we don't see eye-to-eye on how we use the phrase "eye-to-eye."
Please do provide a statement. I have not heard an argument for that yet. In fact, I have only been arguing from the beginning that I do not think music is inherently, morally evil.
And again! How do we know that we aren't conditioned against rock music (non-lyrical)? Can you not see that we are inevitably biased in one sense?
Last comment for now: by inevitably biased, I do think that we have come to view most rock music as bad simply because of the way it was used and is used. Can we look at it objectively? It would be hard, but try to at least!
Where is Aronne when you need him?!?
I think you must know what I think of CCM as a whole. *Mince mince mince* My musical sensibilities do not tend in that direction. At all.
“I cannot see how non-lyrical music can be inherently evil. I’m not saying that it is devoid of all morals. I’m saying that at its core, it is not evil.”
Huh? If music can be moral, that means that it must be Good or Bad or a combo of both. Music elicits emotion and feelings — even actions. What kinds of emotions and actions are being provoked? That is part of the morality of music. (But like EK, I need to think before I put down a definitive answer.)
Will Christian lyrics pardon anything? I return once again to 11) Why listen to rock music at all? Why why why? Do we need to have CCM? Is it not safer to scrap something so closely associated with bad stuff?
True, a lot of CCM songs, stripped of rock styling, aren’t that bad at all. The problem is, I can scarcely sing them without thinking of the originals, which may just be a personal problem, but it sort of spoils the songs. (And CCM people seem most dreadfully prejudiced against sopranos and tenors. The usual tessitura of that music is unpardonably low. It’s quite scandalous.)
So what about the desires come from within us? Isn’t that generally the case? Illicit magazines don’t come and place evil desires in your heart — they arouse them. Ditto with certain kinds of music. Naturally, the problem dwells within all mankind. And if it weren’t for that problem, rock music would not exist, which leads me to the origin point:
“I would like to know what kind of sinful behaviours rock music incites (both lyrical and non-lyrical).”
I’d like to keep this discussion PG, but remember what “Rock and Roll” means. “Hey, let’s listen to some illicit-sexual-behavior-music...with...Christian lyrics.” I just don’t see the point of even trying to go there.
“No, because there are many things that are the result of bad origins that we do not dismiss.”
Such as? You see, rock music is an expression of the drug culture, and I cannot identify myself with that culture without going against my conscience. I’m probably not going to read Beatnik Novels for a similar reason.
I’m not concerned with the inherent value of music as much as its practical value, though both have importance.
“How do we know that we aren’t conditioned against rock music (non-lyrical)? Can you not see that we are inevitably biased in one sense?”
Ho, don’t get me started on that one. If anything, we are conditioned to accept rock music without thought. What do 80% of radio channels play? I came to loathe rock music quite independently. It’s not until you do the research of where it came from that you can even begin to look at it objectively. I’m not saying I am being completely objective, but the more accurate data you have, the easier it will be to be objective.
Okay, I’m posting now before you all pour in a further batch of 10 comments.
Two comments on worshiping God:
1. God is holy. Therefore, when we worship Him, we should be reflecting His holiness. That means that the music we use in our worship should also reflect His holiness.
2. When Judah fell away from God, the problem wasn't that they completely stopped worshiping God. The problem was that they worshiped God using pagan means. They had the "God has to accept whatever I bring to Him" attitude. Sort of like Cain. However, God has the right - and states that He has the right - to tell us how to approach Him. Since Scripture delineates that we are to "speak to one another with hymns, spiritual songs, and psalms," then there must be inferred that there are songs that we should not use.
EK,
You still have not made the case that all rock music is unholy, or that rock music is always in all cases evil. You need to make this case before we can continue. Thus far, I believe that we have been (or at least, my opponents have been) operating under that assumption. That rock music is unholy in all forms. In so saying, we must toss it altogether.
EK's Comment 1) I definately agree. Now you need to make the case *here* that rock music in all forms does not reflect God's holiness. And you need to use objective statements. None of this, "Well, it sounds bad."
2) You have to make the case that rock music is altogether (through and through) inherently pagan. Sorry, but if you don't say that rock music is inherently pagan, then you really don't have a case.
I await your response! In a most patient, long-suffering, loving manner!
One more comment:
Neither party quits. Sorry, but if your confident that you're right and rock music is bad, then you will inevitably find a way of saying so and convincing me...that is, if you're right! But if I am confident that you will never bring to light something that will convince me, then I will inevitably stand on my position...that is, if I am right! Either way, there is no giving in and saying, "We just can't come to some conclusion about this." We can. We just may not have the time. And for time alone will I allow one to back out and call it "quits." He or she is not really quitting. It's only a leave of absence. An indefinite leave of absence...
What I mean by me being confident: I mean not that I will never be convinced. Rather, I mean that nothing can be found that will convince me. Not that I cannot be convinced. I can, and I will...if something is found that is convincing not only to me, but such that it is reasonable and backed up by sound scripture.
I have an argument about rock music that concerns Christian Liberty that may or may not turn the tides, depending on it's reception.
But I'll bring cake to the reception....
I believe your inference from Scripture is incorrect, EK.
When we speak to one another, we are to "speak to one another with hymns, spiritual songs, and psalms." That says nothing about only certain songs being acceptable to God! But what does the rest of the passage say? "Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
?
EK, you need to make a connection between your inference and your statement. Here you cannot simply say 'It must be so.' Because no, it mustn't be the case always! At least, not until you have made a good connection! I call this argument out as a Non-Sequitor! It does not follow!
I apologize, but ever since I took Logic, I can see how things connect and how they do not. Sometimes you can use enthymemes, but in many cases (not all) they fail to crossover to other minds. I may not be seeing all that you see. As my professor liked to say, "Just say what you see!"
Why does someone need to make the case that all rock music is evil? Why? Aren’t we trying to justify it’s use, rather than why it shouldn’t be used? That is to say, I’m looking at this situation positively, not negatively. And here we are again at 11) Why listen to rock music at all? Tra la.
Envision this: say 90% of rock music is definitely bad. The other 10%, however, could be acceptable. But why, I ask, would you want to involve yourself with the 10% when the general idea of rock music would align much more closely to the 90%? It does not seem profitable.
You’re setting up arbitrary standards for use to follow. Why does anyone have to prove that rock music is inherently 100% pagan? The point is it came from pagan sources, it excites pagan tendencies, and it is (in general) pagan. You’re asking us to apply a label to an entire style when there will naturally be a few pieces that constitute an exception. Of course we won’t be able to say that every piece of music given the label “rock” will be categorically evil.
This business about you being convinced is making my head hurt. I’m getting signals not wholly unmixed. Our presenting you with a satisfactory answer does not assure your accepting it, nor even of the answer being recognized as satisfactory. The reverse is similarly true. Each of us must decide what we believe is right, though we certainly can’t all be right.
EK’s inference from scripture made sense to me. What’s so revealing about the rest of the verse? “Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Sounds quite compatible with what EK was saying.
Are you saying intentions justify the means? What, would you allow the use of Ouija Boards in worshiping the Lord? (Extreme example, sure; but really...)
EK brought up a fine point: The “God will accept what you bring” attitude. This principle underlies much of the CCM movement (do you still have that book I lent you, DM?). But it ain’t true, people. God accepts you “as is” when you’re saved, but He does have standards for how you relate to Him! Of course, you know this well. Alright, keep with me:
The passages speaks of not just songs, but spiritual songs. And I ask again: Will Christian lyrics pardon anything? Are there no lines to be drawn? While listing some CDs to sell on eBay, I noticed that there were sections for “Christian Metal” and “Christian Rap.” Something tells me this stuff doesn’t sound quite like Peace Like a River. When Paul tells us to speak to each other in spiritual songs, it follows that it’s probably not the best idea to speak to each other in unspiritual songs, right?
First of all, DM, my point is not to draw conclusions for you. My point is to lay out thoughts and Scripture passages and let you draw the conclusions.
Secondly, I think the burden of proof is upon you to prove that rock music is holy. I don't need to prove that it is unholy, but if you want to worship God with it, then you need to prove that it is holy.
Next, the two passages that talk about "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" are Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. In Colossians 3:16 the first part of the first says that we are to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly. As a result then teaching, admonishing one another, and singing flow out from us as we soak ourselves in God's word. In the Ephesians passage, the preceding command is for us to be filled with the Holy Spirit. What follows then are the statements that we are to address one another in songs, that we are to sing to the Lord with all our heart, that we are to give thanks to God, and that we are to submit to one another. These four actions are results from our being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Thus, the music that we use as worship has two requirements upon it. 1) We are to first be steeped in God's word - like a tea bag (that's for you, Aronne). 2) We are to be filled with the Holy Spirit. When those two requirements are filled, then our worship is a natural result. So, my question then is, when you have fulfilled those two requirements, what music flows out of you? If you can honestly answer "rock music," then I believe you and have no bone to pick with you. But, that is the question you need to answer.
Furthermore, DM, I would like to hear your thoughts on the "God has to accept whatever I bring to Him" attitude.
One final point for this post. DM, you said that I needed to clarify my inference. I simply was trying to say that if God took the time to point out music - albeit not a genre (since the Bible is cross-cultural and cross-historical) - that should be used in worship, then as far as I can see it, there is music that should not be used. Otherwise, He would not have to point out that there is music that should be used.
Curse you Aronne! You beat me!
Okay...I am posting a post that follows the very last post that Aronne made. Before this new one that he just posted!
And it might answer some questions in his new post! Maybe...we'll see!
A: I think you must know what I think of CCM as a whole. *Mince mince mince* My musical sensibilities do not tend in that direction. At all.
Do you mean, tendencies that lead you to listen to it? Or knowledge of it? I’m a little foggy on what you mean by sensibilities! Sorry!
DM: I cannot see how non-lyrical music can be inherently evil. I’m not saying that it is devoid of all morals. I’m saying that at its core, it is not evil.
A: Huh? If music can be moral, that means that it must be Good or Bad or a combo of both. Music elicits emotion and feelings — even actions. What kinds of emotions and actions are being provoked? That is part of the morality of music. (But like EK, I need to think before I put down a definitive answer.)
What is your (and EK’s) stance on the morality of music? If it is moral, is it so inherently? Or is it so through another means? Does rock music always in all cases elicit emotions and feelings that are evil? This is where a definitive answer needs to be made, Aronne! I chuckle as I say it with desperation in my voice!
I’m not saying that music is amoral. I’m saying that it’s inherent nature is amoral. And if it is moral, it is moral because morality is attached to it. But through a means other than it being so itself! Music is not something like murder! Music is not something like lust! It may incite murder! It may incite lust! But it is not in and of itself! All music is like that! (Yes, I said all music is like that!) And rock is included under that! Please, I want to know especially what you think of this last statement.
A: Will Christian lyrics pardon anything? I return once again to 11) Why listen to rock music at all? Why why why? Do we need to have CCM? Is it not safer to scrap something so closely associated with bad stuff?
I think you mis-typed here, but I believe I understand what you were saying. No, I’m not saying that Christian lyrics pardon anything. That’s partly why I drew a line between non-lyrical music and lyrical music. Because when you have something like lyrics, it changes the way you have to evaluate the music! Now I’m not saying that we take a rock song like “Jeremiah was a Bulfrog” and Christianize the rock tune with good lyrics. I’m not saying we write Christian lyrics to heavy metal. There are things that are closely associated with bad stuff that we do not reject. Take the dating relationship model! So many people engage in an activity that is questionable to others and to even some Christians! Does that mean we cease to engage in the activity altogether simply because its associated with something that may be wrong? I think I would benefit (and be turned in your direction) if only I were to hear an argument or an example of something that we do not engage in at all simply because its associated with something bad. Not because there are other things that are bad about it! Simply because it is associated with something bad. I do not like this association argument. The thing in question never is the thing questionable if ever it were associated with the questionable thing!
A: True, a lot of CCM songs, stripped of rock styling, aren’t that bad at all. The problem is, I can scarcely sing them without thinking of the originals, which may just be a personal problem, but it sort of spoils the songs. (And CCM people seem most dreadfully prejudiced against sopranos and tenors. The usual tessitura of that music is unpardonably low. It’s quite scandalous.)
Kudos to Aronne! For the songs part; I’m not certain I can give you credit for the styling part, though. The problem with you saying that you can’t listen to them without thinking of the originals says something about you having been conditioned to associate them with the bad. It’s almost as if the association were being made by us! If the reason you can’t sing them is because you can’t sing them without thinking of the originals, what of if you hadn’t ever heard the originals? (I’m not certain if I’m talking about the same thing here as you are, but maybe I am; see also the discussion down a few paragraphs)
True in some cases about the tessitura! I give you credit there!
A: So what about the desires come from within us? Isn’t that generally the case? Illicit magazines don’t come and place evil desires in your heart — they arouse them. Ditto with certain kinds of music. Naturally, the problem dwells within all mankind. And if it weren’t for that problem, rock music would not exist….
Perhaps this is so. I like to think that with the onset of electricity, it was only a matter of time before someone invented electric guitars and drum kits. The style may have been different if we existed in an alternate universe. But alas, I will not go into this discussion, for it does not pertain to music. It concerns Molinism and their belief about God, the future, and what “could have been.”
Yes, certain songs give rise to these emotions. But I have still not heard a case for the entire style altogether as being the instigator of these perverse emotions! (Again! Does “Praise You…” lead one to think of perverse thoughts? Or engage in perverse actions?)
DM: I would like to know what kind of sinful behaviours rock music incites (both lyrical and non-lyrical).
A: I’d like to keep this discussion PG, but remember what “Rock and Roll” means. “Hey, let’s listen to some illicit-sexual-behavior-music...with...Christian lyrics.” I just don’t see the point of even trying to go there.
If I may correct myself, maybe I didn’t word that question correctly. It would have been better to say something like this: does all rock music provoke this feeling or emotion? If so, what about songs like “Praise You in this Storm”? I find no immoral behavior in it. Now, I understand that that was a very subjective statement. Who cares what I find in music? Well, to some degree it counts. But if it is subjective, it is no more so subjective than it is subjective in saying that it (“Praise You…”) is a song that promotes sexual feelings. How have you come about this knowledge? Certainly not because it was dictated somewhere!
DM: “No, because there are many things that are the result of bad origins that we do not dismiss.”
A: Such as? You see, rock music is an expression of the drug culture, and I cannot identify myself with that culture without going against my conscience. I’m probably not going to read Beatnik Novels for a similar reason.
Just because druggies express themselves the way Christians express themselves through praise and worship says nothing about the expression! We need more objectivity here! Or an example! If I may use something rather non-PG rated:
If an unmarried couple expresses their love for each other in a very immoral way, and that expression happens to be the same way that a married couple expresses themselves, then it seems that there is something else other than the expression that makes it wrong for the unmarried couple and right (at least okay) for the married couple. (Don’t take this illustration too far! Read that last statement very carefully! That was the point for the example.)
A: I’m not concerned with the inherent value of music as much as its practical value, though both have importance.
I understand. But I think that if we can’t get it’s inherent vaule right, we aren’t going to derive much from its practical value. This appears to be the same thing with everything (though I say the latter statement without certainty).
DM: “How do we know that we aren’t conditioned against rock music (non-lyrical)? Can you not see that we are inevitably biased in one sense?”
A: Ho, don’t get me started on that one. If anything, we are conditioned to accept rock music without thought. What do 80% of radio channels play? I came to loathe rock music quite independently. It’s not until you do the research of where it came from that you can even begin to look at it objectively. I’m not saying I am being completely objective, but the more accurate data you have, the easier it will be to be objective.
Okay. I would like to hear what you think about the conditioning.
So you came to dislike music independently. I would venture to say that that statement is subjective. How came you about it this way? Preference? You had a distaste for it? If it was a distaste, that is subjective. You didn’t like it. You certainly did not stumble upon a direct law that states it to be something to be avoided or disliked (and for clarification purposes, I’m not talking about the wacky whats-it songs like “Bulfrog”). I don’t think that research of where it comes from makes us objective (but I would agree and say it makes us more so objective). It goes back to the association argument. The data is not law. (If in any of these posts and statements, like this last one about data not being law, is in any way coming across to you as something I think you’re saying…it’s not. I tried my best to label what I think you’re thinking by stating so. If I failed, bring it up and we’ll clarify!)
Oh I love venting! (In a non-hostile way! I accept you guys and you’re opinions and what-not! I’m not trying to be mean! In fact, I tried to lighten up the mood by adding in some expressions here and there…since I’m sure you, A at least, know how I feel about text and the absence of emotions. That’s why I dislike emoticons! Their limitied!)
Oh…more on Christian Liberty tomorrow! Still coming along….
Aronne, you have previously stated:
I am viewing rock music as a unit — a subcategory of music. DM, you may be viewing it as a pool of units or a category by itself. I see music as the category and all the styles of music (subcategories) as ways that music can be used. Like this:
Crowbar : Music
Uses of the crowbar : Types of music
Bad use of crowbar : Rock music
That is more or less what I was getting at. I’m not comparing the crowbar to rock music — or guns to rock music. I’m comparing the uses of crowbars and guns to the uses and styles of music.
I'm not certain I can agree with the correlation that you have made, Aronne. The correlation with the crowbar seems incorrect. I argue that all music is the crowbar. Rock music is also the crowbar. Rock music is music nonetheless! If the crowbar represents music, and rock music is music, it stands to reason therefore that the crowbar is rock music. And its the use of the crowbar that represents the use of music, viz. the use of rock music! And "Bulfrog" would be a bad use of the crowbar.
That's how I see it leastways. I'm not certain what you meant earlier stated in that paragraph, about "A style of music is not a unit, something I'll expound upon below" and the below you stated "I am viewing rock music [a style of music?] as a unit - a subcategory of music."
Also, I am not certain that something must have good outweigh bad in order for us to justify its use. Does this mean that if guns are used to kill people more than they are used for good purposes that we ban guns altogether? No, we do not. After all, its the person, not the gun that kills, as you so stated Aronne. Therefore, it seems that the problem with rock music is not its usage (though it can be a problem) but its user. If God were at the base of rock music, there is no doubt that it could be used to glorify God by people who desire to glorify God.
There is something else I wanted to say...but my half-hour "break" is over. I must take my leave.
More will come, after my previous obligations are met, at least more than half-way met. By then, I hope to have a greater grasp on all these topics, and an organized forum. But don't wait up for me if you want to start organizing. We should printout a proof-read before we post it.
Oh! I remember now what I was going to say! Here's what I'm getting at, at least for now. I'm not trying to justify its usage...as if it needed justification! I'm trying to dispel what seems to be erroneous thinking in regards to rejecting all rock music altogether (this includes Christian Contemporary Music). I mentioned that this blog post seemed to be moving in the direction of profit and what-not. Just because it is so that there seems to be no apparent profit in something, it is not so such that we dismiss it altogether. Whether or not that's what we meant is up for question. I tend to steer away from that sort of thinking.
Why listen to rock music? Do we need to have a good reason? or just a reason?
More later...
De Mentor wrote:
I'm not certain I can agree with the correlation that you have made, Aronne. The correlation with the crowbar seems incorrect. I argue that all music is the crowbar. Rock music is also the crowbar. Rock music is music nonetheless! If the crowbar represents music, and rock music is music, it stands to reason therefore that the crowbar is rock music.
Wait a minute. How can the crowbar be all music and be rock music? Rock music is not all music. I was using the illustration (with greater precision) to illustrate my point. I didn’t make a bad correlation: we’re just using the same illustration differently.
My View:
Crowbar : Music
Uses of the crowbar : Types of music
Bad use of crowbar : Rock music
Your View:
Crowbar : Any kind of music
Uses of the crowbar : Particular songs
Bad use of crowbar : A bad song (determined case by case only?)
DM: I'm not certain what you meant earlier stated in that paragraph, about "A style of music is not a unit, something I'll expound upon below" and the below you stated "I am viewing rock music [a style of music?] as a unit - a subcategory of music."
Yeah, I think I mispoke there. I was rearranging my paragraphs, and probably forgot to delete something that wasn’t supposed to be there.
Also, I am not certain that something must have good outweigh bad in order for us to justify its use. Does this mean that if guns are used to kill people more than they are used for good purposes that we ban guns altogether?
Are you saying that something can be more bad than good and have us still using it? Huh? What’s the point of that — especially when there are better things available? (I believe that the good outweighs the bad in the case of guns, by the way.)
If God were at the base of rock music, there is no doubt that it could be used to glorify God by people who desire to glorify God.
The point is, He’s not. That’s been shown. Rock music was invented to express the lust, et al. of the drug culture. Rock music definitely has bad aspects. But where are its good aspects? That’s why I continue to ask 11) Why listen to rock music at all? If there are already proven disadvantages (association with carnal behavior, etc.), then what’s the point of listening to it unless there is some amazing benefit that somehow outweighs this negatives? Even then, can something be justified as profitable or even nutral if it has such disadvantages? Will a few good aspects pardon any ill? (That covers most of what you wrote in your last major paragraph, which I shall not reproduce.)
Why listen to rock music? Do we need to have a good reason? or just a reason?
It is my contention that we have neither.
Again, you beat me...
Aronne stated:
Of course we won’t be able to say that every piece of music given the label “rock” will be categorically evil.
Excellent. Now if there is at least one exception, then there can most certainly be more! More along the lines of this in coming posts, but for now, you have to see that you have now a problem. You cannot reject all rock music for the reasons you have so stated; it is the case that there are some exceptions (the existential word "some" means that there is at least one, and it is indefinite as to how many there actually are). You cannot say the majority...because you do not know. I cannot say minority, majority, 50-50, because we do not have an accurate account of all songs and we do not have the time to categorize every last one of them. Hence, you cannot cast out all rock music!
God is not concerned with what so much as how, lest we become pharisaical in thinking! Obviously anything inherently evil is out. Music is not inherently evil. Obviously there are some songs that are not appropriate for use in corporate worship. But its the the song so much as the attitude! If I have that attitude-God must accept anything I bring him-I make one fatal error. I assume that God is in a box, having must do/accept certain things.
As far as the verse that EK used is concerned, I would venture to ask you to spell out the connection in actual words! If I can't see it, show me what you see!
You bring up a hot topic, Aronne. Intentions and motivations and the means and the ends. I will discuss this one later. Let's call it: 16) Intentions and Means! I will address the wedgie board later!
Can I have an extension on the book, A? I still have not forgotten! It has never actually left my mind! I just got busy with another issue. Please!
Define spiritual songs! Define Hymns! It seems that its obvious that the Apostle Paul was not referring to Thy Hymnal or Majesty hymn books. What was he referring to? If a specific category of music, what was that category? And then, if we know what that category was, how can we justify the use of our "contemporary" hymns? They were obviously not singing "Turn your eyes upon Jesus" or "Nothing but the Blood" or etc.
"Peace like a river" is not the standard for spiritual songs.
Unspiritual songs: correct! I like that distinction. You would convince me to reject all forms of rock (esp. CCM) if you could make the case that all forms are unspiritual!
I would first like to hear your basis for using hymns! And it can't be your basis (very subjective and we need more objectivity). It has to be something else and other than what we think.
(Actually, I chuckle as I write this, because I know where this is going; both parties have the burden of proof, to prove his/her own and to disprove the others;')
Also, Aronne, I'm not advocating that we use rap and metal in worship. I'm saying that it can be done if done genuinely! There are some rappers who have, and you cannot deny that they have done an okay job at doing it (without first denying that there is nothing inherently valuable about rap or metal).
EK: You drew a conclusion from that passage, and I politely ask that you show me how you came to that conclusion. Actually, as I type this now, sitting at a table, eating noodles for lunch, I read over the posts and I see now what you mean. Aronne has pointed it out to me and it makes sense. Unspiritual songs would be the ones to avoid, if indeed we are to truly use and only use spiritual songs. I'm okay with that. Now, what songs are those that are spiritual and what songs are those that are unspiritual? Are you saying that all rock (and CCM) are unspiritual? I'm saying that not all rock is unspiritual. Are you saying that all hymns are spiritual? All hymns being those that we find now, in our contemporary hymnals and those in ages past?
As far as our attitude, what makes us think that God accepts Gregorian chants any more so than CCM? Pagan means have absolutely nothing to do with it (maybe).
When Judah fell away, their problem was not that they used pagan means to worship God; their problem was that they were not really worshipping God in the first place. The pagan means was just a manifestation of/symptoms of a larger issue. (If you could bring forth an example of a pagan means that they used it would help!) Again, just because pagans express themselves in a way that we also have the potential to, that does not mean that our expression of those same things is wrong! Consider the illustration of the man and the woman and their expression of love! Whether or not they express it is not the problem, for there is a larger issue at work within their beings! Whether or not they are married! It's not the expression! But the state of being! (Again, don't take analogy too far!)
Yes, and how are we to approach him En Karin?
Again, the burden of proof lies on all of us. If all rock music is evil, you certainly should be able to show it. And if it is holy, then I should certainly be able to show it.
BUT!
I advocate that rock music is neither holy nor unholy until it is used! And its usage determines whether it is holy or unholy! If you wish to deny this, you must first make the case that all rock music is only either morally good or morally wrong.
EK: "So, my question then is, when you have fulfilled those two requirements, what music flows out of you? If you can honestly answer "rock music," then I believe you and have no bone to pick with you. But, that is the question you need to answer."
I'm sorry to say, EK, but my honest answer is yes, there are some people who have the potential to say yes. And I'm afraid that you have to admit that as well. It can be genuine. A believer can genuinely in spirit and truth, sing rock songs that are saturated with God's word and be filled with the Holy Spirit and genuinely focus their attention/have their attention focused on God by rock music. *deep exhale*
And I feel that you must admit that is the case, though it certainly is not the case always, and perhaps it is not the case even fifty percent of the time. But still, you must admit it. And if you can't, then I would like to know why.
I know appealing to examples of people might not do much here. But I know several Christians who are completely, through and through Christians. And they worship God with rock music. If you deny their worship, you must first deny their Christianity. And if my word is trustworthy, I am not willing to deny their faith. Hence, I am not willing to deny the genuineness of their worship.
EK, Cain's problem can be inferred from Hebrews 11:4. It seems apparent that God does not need or desire sacfrices.
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."
A: Wait a minute. How can the crowbar be all music and be rock music? Rock music is not all music. I was using the illustration (with greater precision) to illustrate my point. I didn’t make a bad correlation: we’re just using the same illustration differently.
My View:
Crowbar : Music
Uses of the crowbar : Types of music
Bad use of crowbar : Rock music
Your View:
Crowbar : Any kind of music
Uses of the crowbar : Particular songs
Bad use of crowbar : A bad song (determined case by case only?)
I don't think it has greater precision. I'm saying that if the crowbar represents all music, and rock music is music, the the crowbar represents rock music. The crowbar represents rock music just as much as classical music and chant music. Types of crowbars might be types of music. But if a crowbar is music, and rock music is music, then a crowbar is rock music.
Ugh...the logic is there but my formula is not....
I think I understand what you are saying now. And I think I disagree. I do not think that rock music is a usage of music. I believe that rock music simply is music. That's why I don't like your crowbar analogy.
I see now! I had it backwards!
All rock music is music. All music is represented by the crowbar. Hence, rock music is the crowbar!
There's another way of writing this and I'm trying to figure it out....
Just one thing for the moment:
DM wrote:
Also, Aronne, I'm not advocating that we use rap and metal in worship.
Why wouldn’t you allow for rap and heavy metal in worship if you allow rock?
De Mentor wrote,
Do you mean, tendencies that lead you to listen to it? Or knowledge of it? I’m a little foggy on what you mean by sensibilities! Sorry!
Okay, you asked for the unminced version: I can’t stand CCM as a rule, and it envariably makes me feel like I should be ill. I wish CCM didn’t exist, not only on account of the pain it gives me, but on account of the congregations it has torn apart and the pain I can see it give around me. Got that off my chest...
What is your (and EK’s) stance on the morality of music?
Music is not morally neutral. It has either a positive or negative effect. There is some music that Christians should not listen to.
If it is moral, is it so inherently? Or is it so through another means?
Does it matter? What exactly do you mean by “inherently?” Some music, when used, can be wrong. It has a bad effect: it shouldn’t be listened to. Whether the thing is immoral in itself or has immorality quite attached to it doesn’t make much of a difference in how we treat it, unless I’m just not seeing something.
Does rock music always in all cases elicit emotions and feelings that are evil?
I can make no categorical statement, not having exposed myself to every composition in said genre. I can say that, as a rule, rock music (literally sexual-immorality music, remember) is indeed sensual. It is meant to evoke illicit behavior.
No, I’m not saying that Christian lyrics pardon anything. […] Now I’m not saying that we take a rock song like “Jeremiah was a Bulfrog” and Christianize the rock tune with good lyrics. I’m not saying we write Christian lyrics to heavy metal.
Why not? Why is “JWA Bullfrog” more contaminated than the entire rock genre? Why not heavy metal? From your other arguments, I can detect no reason to reject heavy metal, et al., as being unacceptable.
There are things that are closely associated with bad stuff that we do not reject. Take the dating relationship model! So many people engage in an activity that is questionable to others and to even some Christians! Does that mean we cease to engage in the activity altogether simply because its associated with something that may be wrong?
The dating analogy does not correlate. Dating, aside from not being generally associated with evil, was not created for immoral purposes, but for the finding of a spouse, which is, in itself, quite harmless.
The problem with you saying that you can’t listen to them without thinking of the originals says something about you having been conditioned to associate them with the bad. It’s almost as if the association were being made by us! If the reason you can’t sing them is because you can’t sing them without thinking of the originals, what of if you hadn’t ever heard the originals?
If any conditioning has taken place, I have done it myself. I still stick to the argument that our culture conditions us to accept, not reject, rock music.
Yes, certain songs give rise to these emotions. But I have still not heard a case for the entire style altogether as being the instigator of these perverse emotions! (Again! Does “Praise You…” lead one to think of perverse thoughts? Or engage in perverse actions?)
Isn’t that more or less what we’ve been talking about? I haven’t heard said “Praise You” song, and can therefore have no specific opinion on it in particular.
If an unmarried couple expresses their love for each other in a very immoral way, and that expression happens to be the same way that a married couple expresses themselves, then it seems that there is something else other than the expression that makes it wrong for the unmarried couple and right (at least okay) for the married couple.
Analogy doesn’t correlate. The expressions of love were not created for immoral purposes. Rock music is not only used for immoral purposes, but was created for it.
A: I’m not concerned with the inherent value of music as much as its practical value, though both have importance.
DM: I understand. But I think that if we can’t get it’s inherent value right, we aren’t going to derive much from its practical value.
Why not?
So you came to dislike music independently. I would venture to say that that statement is subjective. How came you about it this way? Preference? You had a distaste for it?
I certain have a distaste for it now, though I didn’t always. All I’m saying is that I haven’t been indoctrinated by a hyper-conservative program or something of that nature.
Aronne stated:
Of course we won’t be able to say that every piece of music given the label “rock” will be categorically evil.
Now if there is at least one exception, then there can most certainly be more! More along the lines of this in coming posts, but for now, you have to see that you have now a problem. You cannot reject all rock music for the reasons you have so stated; it is the case that there are some exceptions [...]. Hence, you cannot cast out all rock music!
Can’t I though? When I made the statement above, I meant that not everything called “rock” is necessarily rock. Nor does everything that is exude evilness. But the majority is sensual, and it would not be the end of the world to cast out all of rock music. The style and name are both tainted to the point that more harm than good can possibly come of using it.
Can I have an extension on the book, A? I still have not forgotten! It has never actually left my mind! I just got busy with another issue. Please!
Of course! Just don’t bend the spine or covers. ;)
Define spiritual songs! Define Hymns! It seems that its obvious that the Apostle Paul was not referring to Thy Hymnal or Majesty hymn books. What was he referring to? If a specific category of music, what was that category? And then, if we know what that category was, how can we justify the use of our "contemporary" hymns?
Hymns were invented to to glorify God, not embody the philosophy of the drug culture. Modern hymns carry on the old tradition, if with some variations. These variations (in general) I do not believe constitute a departure from the nature of the music that caused Paul to give the appellation of a “spiritual song.”
Unspiritual songs: correct! I like that distinction. You would convince me to reject all forms of rock (esp. CCM) if you could make the case that all forms are unspiritual!
(Actually, I chuckle as I write this, because I know where this is going; both parties have the burden of proof, to prove his/her own and to disprove the others;) […] I advocate that rock music is neither holy nor unholy until it is used! And its usage determines whether it is holy or unholy! If you wish to deny this, you must first make the case that all rock music is only either morally good or morally wrong.
Actually, what EK originally said was right: You have the burden of proof to show that rock music is holy, since anything that fails in that regard cannot be properly used to worship God. Also: Rock music is used. That is manifestly clear, alas. I believe I have made a fair case that rock music is not, in itself, a good thing. Paul says that a song must not simply be a song, but a spiritual song. It’s up to you to prove that rock has the capacity to be a spiritual song.
As far as our attitude, what makes us think that God accepts Gregorian chants any more so than CCM? Pagan means have absolutely nothing to do with it (maybe).
Gregorian chant is a method of conveying the praise of God. Rock music on the other hand: do expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of its connections?
Yes, and how are we to approach Him En Karin?
Boldly, humbly, in Christ, and in the love that brought us out of the pit of sin in the first place. (I’m probably forgetting something of import vital...)
I’m not even going to touch on the experience of people who use CCM. If I do, I just know I’ll say something unpardonably indelicate. :)
EK, Cain's problem can be inferred from Hebrews 11:4. It seems apparent that God does not need or desire sacrifices.
Expound. How does this refute EK’s point?
I do not think that rock music is a usage of music. I believe that rock music simply is music. That's why I don't like your crowbar analogy.
No, you don’t like my crowbar analogy because it doesn’t support your arguments. :D
All rock music is music. All music is represented by the crowbar. Hence, rock music is the crowbar!
Just because it fits the logic formula doesn’t mean it makes sense. Your formula seems to say that rock music is a part of the crowbar, not the crowbar itself; after all, rock music is not all music — how could it be the entire crowbar?
And are you trying to annoy me with exclamation points? Alright, back to Western Civ I.
In an attempt to make our discussion more organized, I have revised the outline we’ve been working from into something more compact. I tried to order it logically; if you can think of a better order, do tell.
PROPOSED OUTLINE
1) Definition of Music
a. Definition of sacred music – See 8) for application
b. Definition of secular music
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
a. Are we hardwired for certain music, conditioned for certain music, or both?
b. Opinions and experiences of others
3) The moral nature of music
a. Is absolute music moral in nature?
b. Can music be inherently evil?
c. Can music be practically evil?
4) Music and emotion
5) Music and words
6) Should the whole be dispensed of if part is flawed?
a. Should an entire song be discarded if part is flawed?
b. Should an entire genre be discarded if it is flawed?
7) Rock music
a. Definition and origins of rock music
b. Is rock music sensual?
c. Why listen to rock music at all?
8) The Biblical answer
a. Music used to worship God
b. Music glorifying to God
c. Christian liberty
Ooh! Excellent! Most excellent indeed! Do let's post-bone this post for just a bit! That way, I can finish up my work, examine the posts and see if there is anything I can add to the outline, and we can all continue to rant!
Oh, and thank you for the extension on the book! Don't worry! I won't bend the spine of covers! I barely cracked it open!
Have a good day!!!
!!!
De Mentor wrote,
!!!
Very funny, DM, very funny.
You have a good day too. Rant as soon as you consider yourself able. Tomorrow is a fair prospect for me, provided I get a good start on my next paper. (I.e. provided I can stop myself from writing fiction parodies.)
Aronne wrote,
De Mentor wrote,
!!!
Very funny, DM, very funny.
I agree!
Yes, you must get those fictional parodies finished and sent my way for closer examination. Of course, I can only examine them under less stressful conditions, such as next week.
Next paper? Do expound on what you mean by this.
More later...
Alright, an updated article has been posted. It includes a very brief summary of most of what we've covered so far.
Hm, the link didn't work. Try this.
Post a Comment