Thanks for the heads-up. I looked through the debates, and I really couldn’t see how the persons involved were honestly trying to understand my points and critique them logically and scripturally. Just to cite one small example of many possible, the case was made that, because “NOT EVERY PSALM CALLS FOR UTMOST EMOTIONAL INTENSITY”, therefore my point was utterly overturned that “It is commanded or exemplified that we ought to do so [i.e. sing praise] with the utmost emotional intensity.” I suppose if I said, “Let’s have a cup of coffee”, he would say, “Not every appropriate drink calls for the coffee bean,” and suppose that he had made manifest the utter lack of scriptural basis for my desire. But a positive statement does not assume universality, or the negation of the legitimacy of different, non-contradictory realities in different times/circumstances, unless a modifier such as “always” is included in the proposition.

Anyway, in such a case, I don’t know what would be gained by engaging in debate, other than defending myself against someone whose mind is already firmly settled. If I cared about the strawmen, I would voice my protest against these strawmen burnings, but I can’t really say that it breaks my heart to see them go up in flame. The true issues remain untouched by all the smoke and clamor.

You might want to be aware of the fact that your article is being debated over at my blog, and was just linked to from Jackhammer. Just in case you want to enter the debate and clarify your position any. Should you choose not to, I totally understand.

Blessings from the cross,

Bob

God bless.

Thanks,

Bob

Thanks for stopping by, and good observation.

All, I enjoyed the debate and the clarifying/reinforcing statements from Nathan. Really, doesn’t the 150th song from that great Hymnbook of Christ (Psalms) sum up the matter with great glory and power? Hard to imagine a divinely-sanctioned case for musicological nitpicking from that one…

While issues of conscience and uneducated brethren should be handled delicately and with much wisdom and grace, it is important that we “take every thought captive to Christ” and soundly confront divisive and needleesly inhibitory teachings. We must stand firm in our Blood-bought, Christ-commanded liberty.

Longing to be a more faithful steward of the staggering freedom of the children of God,

Dave Hayton

If God created all things to be used for his glory, and if the biblical testimony indicates that we must make a distinction between moral and immoral in various subsets of each class of his creation (because apparently if music is an exception to this general principle, it’s the only one), then on what basis must we do so? Foods should be used for moral purposes, and only some types may be used morally – so are raspberries wrong and oranges ok? Or is buttered toast wrong and dry toast ok? Or is it ok to eat apples cut in slices, but not in cubes? Or in building materials: is concrete wrong but wood ok? Or in music: is common meter wrong but short meter ok? Or jazz wrong, but classical ok? If we have to make a distinction between subsets of each created species, when God didn’t do so, then does that not make us judges of things that God himself has not given us any standard of judgment for?

However, the bible clearly says that nudity, gluttony, and worship of anything but God is sin.

Blessings.

I would just say that music is not by itself in this category. All foods are good, and may be used to God’s glory, but may be used in praise of something other than God, and hence evil. All building materials are God’s good creation, but architecture may be used in evil or good ways. Music is not its own beast, it is the same as these things.

I still think that the profane/holy distinction between substances that were not inherently immoral was appropriate for the era of shadow revelation, but not for today. Pork was unclean, but is not inherently immoral, and may be eaten to God’s glory today. I think that any clinging to the shadow distinctions is at the same time a minimization of the substance, which is of Christ, to which they pointed (as per Col. 2).

To be clear, I believe there is much more music that I can accept on the grounds of personal enjoyment than I can accept for corporate worship. I hate the analogy like the dickens, but it’s the same reason I don’t wear a swimsuit to a wedding. Now, to go nude to the beach or the wedding would be immoral, but the other two choices are merely a matter of appropriateness (dang, the ‘a’ word). I guess that sums up my personal beliefs on the subject.

Because the Bible is unclear on this matter, I don’t believe it will ever be solved and I would never dream of making it a matter of separation. I simply try to apply what the Bible does say about corporate worship and I think there’s a clear distinction between the sacred and profane throughout.

Just one quick observation: at the end of paragraph one, you mentioned the morality of music. Then, at the beginning of paragraph two, you mentioned its meaning, in a logical apposition. I think your blending of those two distinct concepts is unfair to my position. While I would agree that music is meaningful, it is not specifically meaningful; that is, it is incapable of specifying the precise subjects to which its meaning applies. Whether it is ultimately moral or immoral has to do with how its general emotional meaning is made to comment on outside realities. Music can praise the God of heaven or the gods of wood and stone (and the American dollar). It can be angry at sin or at the “bad things” that have befallen the “undeserving” singer. But it can do neither of those things specifically without words or some other preciser conveyor of meaning to direct its intention.

Fitzies (I’ll lump you two together since you’re brothers, and besides, I think you’re saying basically the same thing),

Yes, God created music, and yes man perverts it by using it wrongly. But we have to be clear on exactly how he does that. Would you agree with me that sin is, generally speaking, loving anything more than God or not for his sake, that is, putting something in the place of one’s affections that should be reserved for God alone; and specifically speaking, sin is any transgression of what he has commanded? Now, God has not commanded that we only sing according to certain scales or meters, so we can scratch that possibility off from the start. In order to say that a musical style is sinful, then, we’ll have to substantiate that it is capable of conveying meanings which are inherently against God’s explicit laws, or inherently value other things more than him. The problem with the sex analogy is that God has clearly commanded when and under what circumstances that gift should be indulged in. If God had said, “Only sing with your wife,” then we could quite easily mark certain musical practices as wrong. But on the contrary, he commands us to sing at all times, with all the saints. The problem with the speech analogy is that it makes clear the subject of its discourse, and can be analyzed against God’s standards with precision. If speech consisted of nothing more precise than, “Beauty, joy, pleasure!” Then, we could not call it moral or immoral, until we knew the source and goal of this ascription of beauty – and music is the same way. If you played me a track of Beethoven or else African drum beats, I couldn’t tell you the specific denotation of those tracks – and neither could anyone else.

By the way, no God did not “invent” major and minor scales, but he created all the sounds and the time frame upon which they must be stretched, and he invented the human sensibility which is capable of recognizing a pleasance in certain sound/rhythm patterns. He didn’t create Gothic or monolithic architecture, but he created the stones and invented the human sensibility which is capable of recognizing beauty in the massive, solid, structured vastness of Stonehenge or the soaring, breathtaking magnificence of Notre Dame. Architecture may be used immorally by perverted humans – hence the Druidic witchcraft that went on in Stonehenge and the papal heresies conducted in Notre Dame. But the immorality is not contingent upon the style. I couldn’t fault one on moral grounds for loving monolithic architecture more than Gothic, but I could fault him for loving to perform human sacrifice in either. I couldn’t fault one on moral grounds for loving rap more than hymnic common meter, but I could fault him for loving to sing about idols in either genre, or else for offering up heartless and insincere praise to God through either.

To reframe your question, Fitzy,

“Do you not think that [stones], like all other things in this fallen world, have been perverted by sinful man, even though created by God?

Wouldn’t it make sense, then, that sinful man can put these building blocks together in away that is perverted?”

I would say yes, if he used them to build an altar for human sacrifice. But in any case, it would be the function and end, not the physical layout, that would constitute the perversion. In the same way, the end to which music is directed, and not the chordal progression or rhythm, determines whether or not it has been perverted.

Now, if you could make the case from either Scripture or common sense that God did create music (which you can’t – it’s just not there), other of your arguments break down. Specifically, if a) God created the building blocks of music, and b)God created all things, and c) nothing God created is immoral, and d) therefore the music man makes with God’s building blocks is not inherently immoral, then e) God as Creator of the mere building blocks of anything means that the end product that man comes up with in any case can not be immoral. That applies to sex, speech, thoughts, acts, etc. It is a path that quickly leads to blasphemy.

Do you not think that music, like all other things in this fallen world, have been perverted by sinful man, even though created by God?

Wouldn’t it make sense, then, that sinful man can put these building blocks together in away that is perverted?

Let me see if I understand your position (in a discussion on music, I prefer clarity rather than agreement). Goodness and badness is not defined by intrinsic meaning, but by use and function. Any and all musical forms and styles (etc.) are intrinsically neutral. Their morality is determined by their focus and end.

If that is the case, I disagree with you. I would say that the meaning of music is intrinsic within the music itself. I would say that God has either a positive or negative opinion on each form and style. Normally, I state in a discussion of music, that there are three levels of agreement.

1. Whether music can be good or bad objectively.
2. The standard of the objective goodness and badness is God – His character and works
3. My application.

We would disagree on the first issue. Therefore, We really have no grounds of discussing individual styles (which we have not yet done) or even goodness and badness, beauty and ugliness.

I must say that I appreciate your civility in having this discussion with me, even though we disagree.