From: hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:17:01 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

Noel made some interesting comments, a few of which I would like to address.

In article <1992Aug23.181802.28253@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP
(Noel Estabrook) writes:
>However, we have reached an interesting point.  You say that music in
>and of itself is not a moral agent.  But consider: until music is actually
>conceived, composed and performed, IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.  Music only exists
>AFTER someone has GIVEN THEIR purpose to it!  When we talk of music, we are
>speaking of something that is already created.  Before man created the wheel,
>we were unable to talk about it.  The same with music - until someone actually
>writes a particular song, we are unable to even discuss it because it doesn't
>exist.  Once it does exist, however, we can discuss it, and it is at that 
>point that we can no longer view it as an amoral agent - because it does have
>purpose and intent.

I for one have a problem with treating lyrics the same as music, as if
they were coequal parts of a given song, the music being imbued with just
as much "meaning" or "intent" as words could possibly convey.  Maybe I'm
construing the debate differently from the intent of the poster(s) as a
result, but if so, I think they should be very clear as to whether it
is the concept of "music" (mydef: melody, instrumental vibrations) or
"song" (mydef: amalgam of music and lyrics) they are treating as either
"Godly" or "ungodly".

>>and how does something become Gods? when we -give- it to him. offering
>
>Wrong. God owns everything

Then why are we (or were the Hebrews) commanded to offer sacrifices
(including the Scripture you cited, about offering ourselves as living
sacrifices)?  Why bother sacrificing your best ram, or a dove, or
anything else?  God owns it anyway, and He knows it, so you might even
say that your sacrifice is implicit.  Which is clearly wrong.

I think (IMHO!!) the answer is that He appreciates just the *act* on our
part of saying, "Here, God, I give this to You" (whether it is some-
thing He created and gave us, or something that we created).

>In a limited sense, yes.  For instance, "It is Well With My Soul" can
>be used in a variety of settings - worship, praise, celebration, etc.
>It can not be used (unless, of course, those using it alter it in some
>way)for Satan worship, God's degradation, etc.  By the same token, a
>song done by someone not committed to God CAN be used in different contexts,
>but (and again, unless it is altered) it can not be used to glorify God.  Keep
>in mind, when you alter a piece, you have in effect made a different piece of
>music - it is no longer the same.

Well, here's a good example.  The Imperials did a very good (IMHO) cover of
Fleetwood Mac's "Stand on the Rock".  They *did* change a few lines in ONE
(1) verse, to make it clear that they were singing about Jesus.  However,
imagine the song without that one verse (as you hopefully will admit it
could have been written).  If the Imps hadn't had that verse to change,
the songs would have been identical (let's not get off on a tangent mincing
words about differences between the two performances) for all intents and
purposes - same lyrics, same melody & beat, basically the same.  Now where
would the difference have lain?

>Like I said before, if someone sings it as mockery, they are going to have
>to alter it, thus making it in essence a different song.

I don't think so.  As you must surely know, meaning also accrues in
inflections of the voice and other "body language".  All it takes for
me to warp the meaning in the sentence, "John is *such* a good actor"
is a different set of cues surrounding the words.  Therefore it would
not take much to sing a CCM song (or even a Psalm, possibly) with a
VASTLY different, mocking meaning.

>As for saying that the "God's logic is not our own" as being vastly 
>unfounded, you should take a look at Isaiah 55:8,9 "For my thoughts are
>not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways' declares the Lord, 'For
>as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your
>ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'".  Saying that we can't understand
>is not a cop-out, it's reality.

Well said.

>>please open your Logic 101 textbook and tell me which one of the
>
>Nah, I'll stick with Scripture.  There's nothing in a logic textbook that
>Scripture can't tell me better.

Granted.  However, don't forget that Paul uses a LOT of "mere human logic"
to explain theology in his epistles.  He was quite the philosopher, and
I think you're maligning Jason's use of philosophical thinking about these
topics.

>Hmm, as far as a human CAN think, I've always considered myself a pretty good
>one.  Sorry if I don't measure up to your standards.  I sure hope I measure
>up to God's, though.

Now who's using sarcasm?!  :^)

Note:  None of this is a flame, and none of it is intended against you or
anybody else personally.  I also refrained from the use of sarcasm (not
that I was so inclined anyway, but I was quite careful to check everything
I said with that in mind).

Thoughtfully and peacably disagreeing in Christ,

			--Michael

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hill   <><  Isaiah 9:6 | "Give me one more chance to do things right/
hill@spot.Colorado.EDU         |  Just one more chance, I'll follow the light/
Ball Aerospace Systems Group & |  But there's no second chances, the Host of
University of Colorado@Boulder |  heaven cried/ No second chances, you listened
$ mv net.flames /dev/null      |  to lies!"   --Whitecross, "No Second Chances"
-------------------------My boss is a Jewish carpenter!------------------------
Did you ever notice that everybody in favor of abortion has already been born?!