From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 20:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.181802.28253@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.175010.9641@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>>>  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.
>
>Well, no, I don't have a problem with God manifesting Himself as music.  
>After all, He's manifested Himself as a cloud, a bush and He's spoken 
>through a donkey, so I won't restrict what form He may choose to take.


In the context of the verse, did it state that the Lord is LITERALLY
manifesting himself as music?  If you read the chapter, starting at
verse 1, and ending at verse 21, you find that this whole passage is a
song.  Is it possible that Moses was using a Hebrew idiom to say "I'm
singing about God", when he said "The Lord is my strength and my
song"?

You say that you have "no problem with God manifesting Himself as
music."  Does that mean that you have no problem with the idea that
this passage literally says that "God is Music", or possibly that
"Music is God"?  Neither of these possibilities seem reasonable in the
context, and both possibilities raise VERY disturbing thoughts; they
suggest that when I make music, I "create" God.  You certainly don't
mean this.

The REAL issue is that poetic comparisons are not commutative, and you
can't generalize based on poetic comparisons.  Not by attaching
music's attributes to God, nor by attaching God's attributes to music.

>In fact, in II Chron 5:10, the music that was played was so powerful that
>a cloud (the glory of the Lord) filled the entire hall.  In a way, you're
>right, this is poetical language, but in another sense, it can indeed be
>taken literally.  If all of our musical effort is put forth to glorify Him,
>then He has, in effect, become our song (or at least the Source of our
>song).

Ah, so we can summon God by playing powerful music, just like Saul's
witch at Endor summoned the spirit of Samuel?  Music contains some
sort of magical power that controls God?  Or was it the situation that
the people were worshipping God, both in spirit and in song, and God
chose to show Himself?

>>> 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.
>
>Yes, and if we can do that with music, why should we even look for another
>reason for music besides worshipping Him?
>(I know, you'll flame this as escapist, emotional and illogical, but hey,
>that's life)

Have you ever read the psalms?  Not all of them are {\it purely}
worship to God, and they are ALL songs.

Have you ever read the SONG of Solomon (a.k.a. Song of Songs)?  It is
not DIRECTLY worship of God, but a love song shared between a man and
a woman (most probably Soloman, and the Shulamite (?sp?) woman).  Is a
love song considered to be a wrong reason to sing?  If love songs
between puny human beings are wrong, than I guess that the Song of
Solomon doesn't belong in the Bible.

And how about the song that the Israelites sang about David (not yet
as king)?  Clearly against the CLEAR teaching of God as to how ALL
music MUST be in worship of God.  

Too bad there is no such CLEAR teaching.

Nobody is LOOKING for other reasons for music than worship - people
ALREADY see some pretty good reasons.

>>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.
>>
>
>No, I don't believe a particular wave form or rythm pattern is Satanic.
>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.

Is the SONG a moral agent, or is the moral agent the SINGER of the
music?

>>> 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
>
>I would say to "look at the fruits".  If a particular piece of music is
>being used to glorify God and edify believers, it is "of God".  If it is
>not being used for these two purposes (as proposed by Scripture) it is
>not of God.  Quite simple.

Ah, so you're allowed to "edify believers" with music.  THAT'S NOT
WORSHIP.

>>and how does something become Gods? when we -give- it to him. offering
>
>Wrong. God owns everything
>>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.)
>
>I don't think God will accept "just about anything"  We are to be 
>sanctified, set apart for His holiness.  Else why would Romans tell us
>to present our bodies a living and HOLY sacrifice?  Possibly because we
>CAN defile our bodies and offer an UNHOLY sacrifice that is unacceptable?

-anything- was most probably a poor statement.  It's pretty difficult
to rob a bank to God's glory, for instance.

But if something is not INTRINSICALLY sinful, and is in fact done to
God's glory, then by what grounds is it UNACCEPTABLE and UNHOLY?  We
need to look carefully to scripture in order to find answers to this.

>Sorry, I don't think I was misleading anybody.  I simply pointed out 
>that music was one of the things Solomon listed as contributing to his
>falling away from God's ways.  You're right - he wasn't giving God his
>honor and dues, and obviously he felt that his music was one of the ways
>in which he wasn't doing so.  If I misled anyone, I ask forgiveness.

Was it the NATURE of the music that was the problem?  The issue that
we are dealing with is whether or not certain types of music are
"good" or "bad".  One of the major points of Ecclesiastes is that the
"striving after the wind" is pointless.  It's not relevant whether you
strive "well" or strive "badly" - both are vanity.

>>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.
>
>Possibly.  Besides, this is a chicken/egg question.  Did the things of
>the world cloud his focus, or did his removing his focus cause him to
>get involved in "worldly" things?

This is starting to leave the realm of music, since the 3 MAJOR areas
that Solomon got involved in were:
(1) Seeking wisdom/knowledge 1:12-18
(2) Seeking pleasure (the place you'd EXPECT to see music listed!)
    2:1-3
(3) Seeking great accomplishments (2:4-17) - the place where music IS
    mentioned!

If you want this passage to talk about music, you have to look at
music from the perspective of the musician/composer/sponsor that wants
to look important because they've made good music.  QUITE separate
from the current thread of discussion!

>>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?
>
>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.  

Alteration can take many subtle forms, and it's difficult to draw ANY
line as to what is the SAME, and what is DIFFERENT.  Two people could
sing the SAME words, to the same instrumentation, and if they accent
the words differently, one could express praise, and the other could
express sarcasm/denigration.

>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.

NO song is ever heard exactly the same way twice.  The fact that the
audience, singer, some of the words, notes, instruments, lighting, and
a hundred other little things will change between hearings of the song
means that it's at least a LITTLE different EVERY time it is sung.

You're either being excessively restrictive in saying "it can not be
used to glorify God" by requiring EXTENSIVE alteration, or you're
saying that ANY song can be used to glorify God, because it is trivial
to make MINOR alterations.  You're trying to describe a principle
here, but there's no content here on which to BASE a principle.

>>
>>> 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.
>
>I didn't think it was sudden at all.  Remember my argument above, once a 
>piece of music is made (which is the only point at which we can judge it),
>it DOES become a moral agent, one way or another.  I don't even think we
>can discuss music in a vacuum and somehow separate it from it's uses or
>intent, because that's not the way music works.  It IS an agent.

IF your argument that the music becomes a moral agent is valid, THEN
the second argument, "It is clear, then, that music is NOT amoral."
would correspondingly be valid.  Unfortunately, it is NOT clear that
the FIRST argument is valid.

>>
>>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.
>
>I would say so.  I guess we'll just disagree on that one.  Unfortunately,
>I don't think there is any Scripture that would back up either assertion.

It "takes two to tango."  If there's no listener, then no message gets
passed on.  It's pretty obvious that the intent of BOTH actors is of
at least SOME importance.  You clearly feel that the authour's intent
is much more important than the listener's intent.  

We could try to take this to extremes, and say that one side feels
that the authour's intent is unimportant (IMHO, incorrect!), and that
the other side feels that the listener's intent is unimportant (also,
IMHO, incorrect!)

I feel that BOTH intents ARE important.  I tend to avoid meat
sacrificed to idols, which is a sign of spiritual immaturity.  But
there ARE times when it is most prudent to ask no stupid questions,
and graciously accept an offered meal.

>>> 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?
>
>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'm sure that if
>we heard Psalm 150 played the way David wrote it, it would have much more
>meaning and impact than when it's simply read aloud.

Which means that there is relatively little that is INTRINSICALLY holy
or unholy about even the most clearly Biblical songs.

>>
>>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."
>I didn't say it's God's logic, you don't understand - I said it's God's
>logic, WE don't understand.  I defy you to explain in a worldly logical
>manner why God, being the Creator and Supreme being above all else, 
>decided to lower Himself to become human, so that He could be ridiculed
>and killed, in order to save our petty lives.  No fair saying "because
>He loves us".  The fact remains that God's logic is not human logic.  It
>seems logical that if we do enough good stuff and are basically a good
>person, we should make it into heaven, whether we've done it in God's
>name or Confucius name or Buddha's name - but God doesn't work that way.
>It has to be HIS way or no way at all.  If you can pretend to know all the
>mysteries and thoughts of God, I guess I can't refute it, just shake my
>head.  If I have misinterpreted what you're saying, please enlighten me.

This may all be true.  It's beside the point.  We're trying to figure
out how to determine what is appropriate music.

You state some possible criteria, and then when someone disagrees, you
argue by saying "It's God's logic, and we can't understand it."  

Are you saying that God gave you these arguments by some form of
direct revelation, and that nobody can argue with you because of this?
If you're putting YOUR interpretation on scripture, then I can
CERTAINLY argue with the logic of YOUR interpretation.  I won't argue
with God's revelation - but it is anything but clear that your
interpretation represents that level of importance.

>>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.

And when searching for a sorting algorithm next month, I trust you'll
check your scriptures.  There's nothing in volume III of The Art of
Computer Programming by D. E. Knuth that Scripture can't tell you better.

>>if Scripture cannot stand in the relatively minor light of man's
>>reasoning then it is not worth the paper it's printed on. 
>
>I think the more important point is, can it stand up to God's reasoning -
>I don't really give a rip if it can stand up to my feeble brain or not.  I
>want to know if it's TRUE and if it's God's mind revealed - and I believe it
>is.

It is unfortunate that in order to get the Scripture into our heads,
we have to INTERPRET it.

The Bible was written in various languages, in several countries, over
several thousand years.  It takes THINKING and REASONING in order to
put it into my brain, and the reasoning takes place at various levels,
from the most simple aspects of the translation of symbols on the page
into words, to the issues of trying to translate from the original
languages to English, my mother tongue.  A great deal of thinking and
reasoning has had to take place in order for me to be able to say "For
God so loved the world..."  It took the work of many skilled scholars,
full of knowledge, able to think and reason, AND much prayer, in order
to get the Bible translations that we have today.  Logic was NOT
irrelevant to them.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is the "great teacher," to show us the mysteries
of God.  But if human thinking and reasoning was irrelevant, then why
are we told to fill our minds with the Scriptures, which is a process
that requires both thinking and reasoning?

My tone in this posting is more sharp than it perhaps should be.  For
that, I ask forgiveness "in advance."

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian