Musically Challenged

hi Alen,

there is a sense in which this debate has already been fought.

Musicians (who are also theologians) like Frank Garlock, Tim Fisher and Scott Aniol have already written extensively on the ‘music is neutral’ position. they address this from the Biblical standpoint and yes ultimately you need do decide where you stand on this.

I hope you would consider their studied positions.

Your take on music is identical to the charismatic and new evangelical positions.

the world understands that music is not neutral. companies and political parties spend billions each year getting music for their ads to fit the product.

I have taken the step of commenting early since I am a regular contributor to Infocus and minister in different places.

I don’t think the views you have shared reflect the overall commitment Infocus has to fundamental theology and by necessary extension, a commitment to conservative music styles that reflect God’s holiness, His order and the command of Scripture to be separate from the world.

The morality or amorality of music is not really the question. All fair minded Christian know that there is a whole lot of music out there that is morally wrong because of its lyrical content, it’s purpose and the sinful fruit it produces in people’s lives.

That being said, I believe debates over whether certain styles of music are permissible for Christians to listen to are not particularly worthwhile. Too much of the time this whole issue of music gets caught up in pointless arguments over ‘musical style’ and what is OK for Christians to listen to and what is not…to me, these are the wrong questions.

The real and worthwhile question is this – “what kind of a Christian do I want to be?” Our choices about what we let into our life will determine what kind of Christian we are – growing, progressing in the spiritual life, walking close to the Lord or not.

We can choose to live the Christian life by the lowest common denominator, that is, “if it’s not sinful I’ll do it”, but that will hinder our walk with God and our spiritual growth. Or, we can choose to make our decisions about music and other media based on “what’s best for my spiritual life.”

If we genuinely want a close walk with God, if we want to grow, we’ll make choices about music that assist our spiritual growth and encourage our walk with the Lord.

The truth we ought to be guided by in our musical choices is clearly spelled out in Galatians 6 – ‘he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption’.

This is the principle that questions about music and other media ultimately come down to for the Christian, otherwise you end up in endless arguments over the neutrality of music etc., which by the way, I don’t think are quite as finalised as Bro Rob suggests they are. We all have the liberty to listen to everything that’s not clearly sinful, but is that what’s best for our spiritual life?

So, if I was in your situation Alen, I would not be asking if ‘Lecrae’s’ music is morally right or wrong, I would be asking, “is listening to ‘Lecrae’ hindering or assisting my walk with the Lord and my spiritual growth. Is it sowing to the Spirit or to the flesh?”

I agree with Robert’s response and would like add a couple of thoughts. First the reference to food offered to idols seems to imply that only those with weak consciences sinned when they knowingly ate idol food, when the actual teaching of that passage is that eating was forbidden to everyone with knowledge. The application of the teaching on eating idol food is expressly given by Paul:

I Cor 10: 31* Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32* Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33* Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
11:1* ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

That is, Paul did not knowingly eat idol food because there was a higher goal, that of giving glory to God. An analogy can be made for the exclusion of worldly music. Rom 12:2 forbids conformity to the world: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” So in a sense it doesn’t matter whether a brother with a weaker conscience is present, it is still expressly forbidden by Scripture.

My other point can best made by a question: Does the “music is amoral” position imply that God has no musical preferences? If the answer is given in the affirmative, I would be curious as to why we have musical preferences and He doesn’t.

As editor of InFocus and as one who has spoken around the country on the issue of music, I want to make a few comments.

1) I generally disagree, not only with the way Alen has taken this position, but with the position Alen has taken. While I suspect we would all agree that music is not a moral agent capable of acting or thinking in moral/immoral ways, I do believe that music communicates ideas and emotions which can and do combine with the human heart in moral/immoral ways.

2) I was asked just this week whether I screen the InFocus articles that other team members put up. I answered that I don’t and gave the following two reasons:

a) I am careful about who I select to write.
b) I am firmly committed to diversity of perspective.

At the end of the day, if Alen is wrong, I am confident that his arguments can be refuted here. I want to at least hear his arguments so I can be sure I’m not mistaken in my position.

Truth is more important than what I think or believe.

In reality, it is often less clear cut than that. Sometimes there are nuances to the discussion that need to be defined and clarified and even then, good men will differ.

3) On the one hand, not only am I happy to have Alen post his perspective, but I am confident that he can give a constructive response to those who differ with him. On the other hand, I hope that those who differ with him don’t go easy on him.

Straight ahead.

Alen,

There’s much I could say to your last post, I do wonder what kind of response you expected given the way you approached the subject…anyhow I’ll limit my comments to the following:

i) I’m not sure I suggested that you are ‘carnal’ as a result of your musical choices. I don’t think I made any comment at all about your musical choices except for this -

“So, if I was in your situation Alen, I would not be asking if ‘Lecrae’s’ music is morally right or wrong, I would be asking, “is listening to ‘Lecrae’ hindering or assisting my walk with the Lord and my spiritual growth. Is it sowing to the Spirit or to the flesh?”

All I suggested was for this question to be asked – the answer is between you and the Lord.

ii) You pointed out the lack of Scripture in my response, I did quote the first half of Galatians 6:8 and suggested that this ought to be our guiding principle in matters of music.

iii) What I was attempting to explain (and probably didn’t do it so well) was that in the Christian life there are many things that are ‘indifferent’ – they have no inherent morality or, their moral status is a matter of debate. Much secular art, literature, movies and music falls into this category. This things are not strictly sinful, but they do satisfy the desires of our flesh, so how do we decide whether to listen, watch or read?

In these areas of ‘indifference’ if I can call them that, we have to be guided by Biblical principles – and I believe in the case of what we might call “questionable music” we have to observe the principle of Galatians 6:8 – and base our choices around what is best for our spiritual life and not on what is merely permissible.

If we simply decide to consume everything that is not sinful we will continually do what our flesh wants and there will be negative consequences for our spiritual life – “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17)

iv) I agree that it is difficult to argue that music is moral – but its the effect on our lives that is the question and that’s where the ‘flesh vs Spirit’ principle ought to be our guide. I don’t think this is a personal conviction – I think it’s Biblical truth!

If, as you say, you are “personally edified by your musical repertoire and it draws me personally near to God,” then that is between you and the Lord – it is not for me to judge.

To answer your question as to whether or not music is moral.

1. Language is moral, it can communicate good ideas and bad ideas.
2. Music is a language, it communicates ideas, moods, emotions.
3. Therefore, music is moral.

Since music is a language, the same scriptural principles and precepts that apply to verbal, written and thought language, apply to music, of which examples abound.

The weaker brother principle applies to music as well, since many Christians in our circles struggle with it. Out of agape, it would be right to avoid being a musical stumbling block to these ones.

Also, if your church has a conviction regarding music or indeed any other conviction, the scriptural mandate for unity within the local church would apply as well. If a Christian disagrees with the convictions of his local church, he is free to leave but he is not free to cause division amongst the brethren.

The brother with the weaker conscience is the one who doesn’t doesn’t see any problem with the course of action being suggested, whether it is eating idol meat, listening to worldly music or drinking alcoholic beverages, etc. Paul had the strong, fully developed conscience and therefore abstained from those things he knew to be wrong for the glory of God. Once we can agree on the fact that listening to or performing worldly music is wrong, then it is up to each Christian to define “worldly” for music in the same way we define “worldly” in any area of life, whether it be in dress, literature, videos, etc.

Alen,

Would you at least grant the premise that Christians shouldn’t go out and push the envelope just to prove he can? That we should be discerning in all things?

My argument is valid because it was not an analogy. The second premise in my argument states that music is a language, not that music is like a language.

The definition of music is not individual notes, which are indeed amoral like the letters of the alphabet, but the combination of those notes. Music conveys ideas, moods and emotions whether the musician intends to or not, and whether the hearer admits it or not.

I think you will find that the logic in my argument is irrefutable.
Therefore, the same scriptural principles that apply to verbal, written communication also apply to music.

One caveat on the discernment of worldliness in music is that all Christians are not equally good at it. Heb. 5:14 indicates that a certain amount of Christian maturity is needed to make a correct judgment. I would suggest to the young people following this discussion that they ask their parents and church leadership for help in this area.

The first premise in my argument is the strongest. If you disagree that language is moral, then you are completely alone. Morality cannot be commmunicated apart from language, therefore it is moral. Of course, individual symbols like letters and musical notes are not in themselves moral but the combination of those symbols constitute language, which as my first premise states, can convey ideas of good and bad, making it moral. Plenty of immmoral literature is out there, for example.
So the first premise stands.

Since you agree that music is a language, regardless of its accuracy or ability compared to verbal and written language, the conclusion is logically correct. Most people who say that music is morally neutral take the position that music is not a language. Since you agree that it is, and the first premise is strong, even irrefutable, then the conclusion stands.
I refer you here for a better explanation of music as language. http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/CD.music.lang.htm

Just to clarify, my argument is in the form of a syllogism, with two premises and a conclusion. What you refer to as my second and fourth premises where just an explanation. More simply stated:

1. Language is moral,
2. Music is a language,
3. Therefore music is moral.

Music as a language is far less precise than verbal language, but far more powerful.

I didn’t say anything about music being used for good and bad purposes, my argument is that it can communicate ideas of good and bad. Also music is not an object like paper, printers and the internet. Those objects that you mention are the media that written language uses. Musical language uses a musical instrument as its medium of communication. You need to stick to the argument at hand.

You cannot admit that music is a language (post #15) and then go back and say that it is not a language. I think you should admit defeat in this argument, just like the Labor party needs to concede defeat. Now that’s an analogy.

@Alen,

There are many kinds of language. I would think the sine qua non of language is that it is a means of communication.

In Communication, we talk about “body language.” Such subtle things as dress, posture, inflection, hairstyle, and lighting are universally accepted within the field as significant means of communication.

In Theology, we talk about “indirect revelation.” The earth and the sky speak the glories of God.

Other examples of language are as diverse as secret numerical codes, hieroglyphics, C++, architecture, animal noises, Baby Einstein, etc.

@Steve,

I have difficulty with the premise that “language is moral.” Your comment that “Morality cannot be communicated apart from language, therefore [language] is moral” does not follow. That would be like saying “trains cannot be transported apart from train tracks, therefore train tracks are trains.”

I think the valid point that can be drawn is that train tracks can transport trains. This is not to say that they always do.

Good discussion all. Have been enjoying it. Ideally this kind of talk would be had over numerous cups of tea but this will have to do for now. Hopefully one day we can meet up and talk about things like this into the wee small hours of the morning.

Just to clarify, some of my comments were a little tongue in cheek, especially the one about conceding defeat. Also, when I say argument, I mean in a logical way, not in an emotional outburst as the word is popularly used. So far, this discussion has been good and in keeping with the spirit of this website.

@ Jason. I admit the sentence of mine you quoted was poorly structured. The morality of language is hard to argue against though. Sure the units of language are neutral, e.g. letters but even words themselves can be classed as moral. A swear word is not morally neutral to those who understand it.
A combination of words made with the intent to communicate an idea is language. That idea becomes embedded in the language used to communicate it. I would therefore argue that language is moral because it carries with it the morality of the person it originated from. If language were random, then it would be amoral or morally neutral. Since it must come from an intelligent source, it is moral because the morality of the originator of the language is embedded into the language.

I must say I am surprised that the premise language is moral is even being debated. It seems axiomatic to me.

@Alen, I don’t think you’re lying but your critique of my second premise was ambiguous. You actually ended up agreeing that music is a language and then qualified it by saying its ability to communicate was inferior to “human language.” Your clarification of that point was just as unclear, you said “I am saying I don’t consider it a language because it doesn’t function as completely as one.”

We are not arguing whether it functions as completely as a language like English. We are arguing that music functions as a language at all.

For example, the writer of a piece of music can have the idea that the music is to be used for the purpose of seducing someone. It would be written with the tempo, beat and style that would suit its purpose. It would convey the idea and morality of the writer to the hearer of that music. I would argue that any person hearing that music would not mistake it for a lullaby. It has unmistakeable ideas and morality embedded in it.

It seems to me that the article itself and all of the comments, starting from the very first response, are all centering on and around reasoning and arguing from a particular theological and cultural perspective.

Alen, you threw down the guantlet, saying “I think music is amoral” then in the article and the ensuing comment meta insisted that your detractors show you “book, chapter and verse to prove otherwise”.
Yet you, yourself offered no positive scriptural justification, defense or exegesis to support your own position.

As I read through some of the responses, I can’t help thinking that any negativity was/is self-inflicted. Not that I necessarily disagree with you or think that was a bad thing – just an observation ;)

I do think this is an issue that (despite Robert’s assertion at the beginning has been dealt with by “theologians”) is culturally charged and is argued from a presupposition concerning separatism and the extent of it’s application in music (and all arts for that matter).

Compare the views above (echoing Garlock et. al) with John Calvin, i.e. he of the dreaded TULIP that championed the doctrine we today call Total Depravity (among others!):

- “the human mind … is still adorned & invested with admirable gifts from the creator” (Inst 2.2.15)

thus arguing that the image of God is never so removed as to be completely destroyed regardless of the expression it finds in various artistic endevours.
A classic CCM/Charismatic/NE argument?! Perhaps! But in a pre-CCM day, it does serve to demonstrate that views of art and music are influenced by culture and the views of our contemporaries – if Garlock et.al. could be considered as such :)

However, all that said, I would recommend you check out the MP3′s and transcripts from the Desiring God 2008 conference, “The Power of Words and The Wonder of God”.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/41/

All of the speakers, to some extent deal with the question of the “morality of language” – though they may not use that precise wording.

In particular I suggest you closely review Bob Kauflin’s, “Words of Wonder: What happens when we sing”.
If you have the bandwidth, I recommend you view the video version. No, he’s a not a fundamentalist, so he doesn’t share the separatist presupposition of some of the commenters and readers here, but both they and Alen, I think will be exhorted and challenged by his biblicaly based premise.

with grace,
Al – the blacklistee :)

That’s a very gracious and humble comment Alen. I for one enjoyed the discussion and was edified by it. So I thank you starting it and for your well thought out responses. In dealing with these controversial issues, we sometimes have to agree to disagree.
Whenever iron sharpens iron some sparks will fly.

God bless brother.