Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner)
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:50:09 EST
Distribution: usa

noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes:
> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
> >prove it. you've made a lot of statements that you haven't backed
> >up. i'm not using sarcasm. would you at least do me the favor of
> >substantiating your claims?
> 
> Instead of replying to all of your individual questions, I'll just 
> put forth some Scriptural bases against the amorality of music.

thank you. i'd prefer you addressed the issue, but this is good.

> Perhaps I should begin by stating what music should be.  According 
> to Scripture
>  the Lord should be our music - "The Lord is my strength and song, 
>  and He has become my salvation.." (Ex. 15:2)  The Lord is to be 
>  our music, not a group of unbelieving, unrepentant sinners singing 
>  to their own gods.

unless you believe that God physically manifests himself in harmonic
pressure disturbances, it should be quite clear that this passage
is poetic, not literal. God isn't our muscles either. the Psalmist
was making a very good point, that God is our motivating force.
poetic comparisons (and logical statements) aren't commutive.

> As for the precedent for using music as praise, the Scriptures are 
> replete: Ps 33:1-5,68:25,92:1-5,144:9,Neh. 12:36 and IIChron 23:13 
> to name but a few. My favorite, of course, is Ps 150 "Praise God in 
> His sanctuary, Praise Him in His mighty expanse...Praise Him with 
> trumpet sound,Praise Him with harp and Lyre, Praise Him with 
> timbrel and dancing, Praise him with stringed  instruments adn 
> pipe.  Praise Him with loud cymbals, Praise Him with resounding 
> cymbals.  Let everything that has breath praise the Lord"

wonderful. we should praise God with our music.

> However, regarding music that does not praise the Lord, the 
> Scriptures are strangely silent.  The only significant passage is 
> after Moses has been gone and the people make a golden idol and 
> sing and dance to it.  This is summarily condemned.

hmm. i wonder if the Israelites invented a whole new style of music
for worshiping the calf. i'd be willing to wager that it sounded
quite like the stuff they had played before. as i said before, it's
our idolatry that God hates, not the object.

> It seems to me, then, that if Scripture talks about what is 
> important to us, if it mentions music that is in praise of God (and 
> I stopped counting the references after about 40), then it seems to 
> me that even if our sole purpose through music is this, then it 
> should at least occupy a large majority of our time with music.

agreed.

> Regarding the amorality of music more specifically, though.  Let's 
> take a look at a couple more Scriptures Found in II Chronicles.  In 
> 7:6, the chronicler refers to "music _of_ the Lord" and in 30:21 he 
> speaks of "instruments _of_ the Lord".  Now it seems to me logical 
> (how's that, ME being logical :)) that if there is music and 
> musical instruments OF the Lord, then there is  also music and 
> musical instruments that are NOT "of the Lord".

so what makes an instrument "of the Lord" or not "of the Lord?" i would
contend that it's how we approach them individually. if there -are-
specific devices that produce "holy" waveforms and others that 
produce "evil" ones the church is in a lot of trouble, 'cause we
haven't used traditional middle eastern music or instruments in
thousands of years.

> This should alert the believer to arguments of supposedly "neutral" 
> music. There is music meant for God, and meant for selfishness.  
> For instance, in I Chron 16:42, we are told that there were those 
> with instruments for the "songs of God" (denoting ownership by God).

and how does something become Gods? when we -give- it to him. offering
up our idols to his power and wisdom. you don't have to like my
sacrifice, but God has made it pretty clear that he'll take -anything-
these days, as long as it's done to his glory. (at the time the issue
was meat. hot dogs and pork & beans are easy for us to consecrate
today. "dear god, bless this meal, amen." music just happens to be
the tough point for many of today's Christians.)

> As a counter-example to the above, let's take Eccl 2:8-12.  In this 
> passage, Solomon laments his downfall.  And what should he list as 
> a contributer but music! "Also, I collected for myself silver and 
> gold, and the treasure of Kings and provinces, I provided for 
> myself male and female singers and the  pleasures of men - many 
> concubines...and all that my eyes desired I did not  refuse them, I 
> did not withhold my heart from my pleasure...thus I  considered all 
> my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had 
> exerted, and behold all was vanity and striving after wind"`

was -music- Solomon's downfall? as if. (sorry, Eccl is my favorite
book of the Bible, you're -not- going to mislead me on this one.)
Solomon's problem was that he wasn't giving God his honor and dues.
would his music have still had the power to lead him astray had he
kept his focus where it belonged from the beginning? i doubt it.

> It seems significant that in the list of those things he considered 
> as  providential for his "earthly pleasure", music was included.  

amazing. like i've been saying all along: music can be used for good
or ill. thanks for providing so many good examples.

> This  seems to be a basis for an argument that music can be used 
> solely  for selfish, earthly pleasure, and not for praise of God.  

uh-huh. so tell me: when it comes to a particular piece or style of
music, do you believe that it can be used in a variety of different
ways or not?

> And what  is the result of such a lifestyle - vanity and emptiness. 
>  Later,  Solomon notes "For who can eat and who can _have enjoyment 
> without  God?" (2:25).

emptiness is right. this is good stuf noel.

> It is clear, then, that music is NOT amoral.

WHA? where'd you suddenly pull this out of? no such thing is clear.
what's clear is that our -use- of music, like any other amoral device
that makes it holy or unholy, profitable or unprofitable.

> When David was 
> composing his Psalms of praise, they had one purpose - to glorify 
> God.                                         ^^^^^^^
                                  see that word? purpose?
do you think that perhaps one person's purpose might possible be
-different- than anothers? i'll offer some historical tunes: the
well known A Mighty Fortress, which was once a bar tune. remember
Yankee Doodle Dandy? originally meant to taunt the American rebels,
we appropriated it for ourselves as a fighting anthem.

so: here's the -REAL- question: do you believe that the -author's-
intent is more powerful than the intent of the listener? i would
say not.

> This is a clear point in favor of the fact that the intent of 
> the author IS vitally  important.  David made Psalm 150 so clear, 
> that one could not get any  interpretation from it other than the 
> author loved and wanted to praise God.

great. and if someone chooses to sing that while mocking the song, is
the intent still there? was the intent in the music (long lost) or
the words? if the words are lost instead of the music, is the intent
still evident?

> So, we can choose music that praises and Glorifies our God, or we 
> can  listen to music that praises and glorifies the world's petty 
> gods - " money, sex, self-pleasure,selfishness, humanism, 
> 'independance'", among others.
> 
> I often think God probably laughs at what we humans call "reality". 
>  The next time you insist on logic in an argument, Jason, remember 
> that you're talking about _your_ human logic, not God's (which is 
> often directly in contradiction to our own).

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

noel, it has been my sad experience that whenever this "It's God's
logic, you wouldn't understand" argument rears it's ugly head it's
because the person stating it is incapable of proving their point
using mere "human" logic. the very statement that "God's logic
contradicts our own" is nothing more than a vast & unfounded criticism
on par with "well, everyone knows the Bible is full of inaccuracies."
please open your Logic 101 textbook and tell me which one of the
postulates is in contradiction with what God has told us. you might
be interested to find that many of history's greatest thinkers were
devout Christians. Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, and many more both
modern and ancient have utilized the minds God has given them to
find out more about the nature of our reality and God himself.

> Remember the proverb that says the ways of a man lead to death.  

the -ways-, actions, habits and nature of a man lead to sin. while
we are prone to err with logic, as with every other thing God has
provided, if you are going to state that someone is in error you had
better be prepared to point out where with more wise use of that
same device, rather than blanket statements.

> Our "logic" is fatally  flawed by our sin - we do not have God's 
> mind, thus the importance  on relying on His word, Word and  
> Spirit.

flawed as we are, God -did- make us in his image. we can discern. we
-must- discern. and when someone interprets the Word falsely you can
be damn sure i -will- discern.

> One of the most eye- opening pieces on this came from CS 
> Lewis in "The Screwtape  Letters".  If we knew what was really out 
> there and what true  reality is all about, we would all probably go 
> crawl into a  corner  and hide - at least that was Adam and Eve's 
> first reaction.

yup. we would. fortunately, encountering and contemplating are two
entirely different things. have you realized that in writing Screwtape
Letters CS Lewis had to contemplate those very things that would
send us screaming for the exits if we were to encounter it face-face?
God didn't give us minds that will unthinkingly absorb anything.
-everything- we hear, see or experience is filtered through our
intellect. i will -not- use the excuse that "it's imperfect anyway,
so why bother to improve or excercise it?"

> Hope this has been complete, and I hope that I have backed up my 
> claims with the only source worth the paper it's written on - 
> Scripture, not human  reasoning.

if Scripture cannot stand in the relatively minor light of man's
reasoning then it is not worth the paper it's printed on. 

 CHALLENGE MY FAITH DAMMIT! CHALLENGE THE WORLD! DON'T LET CHRISTIANS
  HIDE BEHIND EXCUSES ANY MORE! DON'T LET SATAN STOMP US IN THE DIRT
           BECAUSE WE CAN'T MAKE A CASE FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE!

             IN THE NAME OF GOD PEOPLE, WAKE UP AND THINK!

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`, "I'm the keeper of the cheese, and you're the lemon merchant!" - Ren Hoek ,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian