From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 19:30:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.231308.14600@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.140131.1637@cbnews.cb.att.com> ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep3.150549.19150@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>>But that wasn't the question - the question was whether it was bad for
>>>Greg Volz to perform it.  If that song will cause brothers or sisters to
>>>stumble, then their obligation is not to perform it.  Again, we're dealing
>>>with an issue of rights vs. what is right.  Sure, they have every right
>>>to perform it, but should they?  A song that has the connotations that 
>>>Dream On has for many, I don't think it's appropriate.
...
>>Based on your argument, it may be inappropriate for Christians performers 
>>to sing *any* song because musicians have no way of knowing what
>>connotations the audience may bring to any particular piece of music.
>>Somebody out in the audience may have listened to "Yankee Doodle"
>>once while getting high, so Christian musicians had better not play 
>>"Yankee Doodle" because somebody might stumble.  Somebody might have 
>>been listening to "My Old Kentucky Home" while fornicating, so better
>>not play that one either.  I mean, how far do you want to take this?

>Well, you have a good point, but one thing:  I think there is a question
>of probability here.  Yankee Doodle is not very likely to be a song 
>someone got high to in the past.  Dream On, however, is _very_ likely
>to be a song that could bring back such memories.  In an audience at
>a concert, those who had bad experiences surrounding that song would
>be much great than those who listened to Yankee Doodle.  I agree that
>we can't watch every single little thing we do out of fear of possibly
>offending _one_ person.  

>But if it's likely that our action could
>reasonably cause others to stumble, then that's a different story.
 ^^^^^^^^^^

Unfortunately, we tend to disagree on what "reasonable" means.  And
it's actually symptomatic of what I'd call "proof by anecdote."

For YOU, Dream On DOES bring back some, shall we say "bad memories?"
Since you know that it affects you, you probably OVERestimate that
probability that you refer to.

Unfortunately, one person with "bad memories" does not make up a
concert audience.  It's gonna be TOUGH to generalize about the
audience of a Greg Volz concert.

There are probably a lot of people there for which there is NO drug
association.  I'd be one of those, if I were at the concert.  I
wouldn't be bothered at all.  I've got the album in question, and have
no problem with it.

Interestingly, some people might actually be able to associate the
"drug thing" with something that's actually edifying - They might be
able to say, "Wow!  I used to be messed up, and this song reminds me
of how much God has changed me.  Now He's the one that is foremost in
my thoughts."  They'd be coming from a perspective quite similar to
yours, and actually be edified.

This is NOT an argument that encourages Christians to sing about
immorality as if it were a good thing; there's certainly songs out
there that would be tough to make "righteous."

But it's certainly happened before:
Hallelujah!  Thine the glory, Hallelujah! amen;
Hallelujah!  Thine the glory, revive us again.

When THAT song was originally written, the verses talked about the
"Spirit."  This "Spirit" was something which came out of a bottle, and
which was placed in a glass.  The chorus lauds alcohol, and asks for a
refill.

And many churches that have the song in their hymnbooks have members
that are reformed alcoholics...

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