Should Music (and art) Reflect the order of creation?

[JBaldwin]

This is a shoot off from the "Power of Music" thread under philosophy.

One of the questions discussed in that thread was "Can music be good or evil?" It occurred to me perhaps a discussion of the definition of music would be helpful. Rather than derail the thread, I just started another one.

Should all music and art reflect glorify God and reflect the order we see in His creation?

The answer should be obvious, but when it comes to music and art so often it comes down to what pleases me or what pleases someone else. It would then follow that if music should glorify God (and I would be shocked if anyone on this board said that it shouldn't) and reflect the order found in creation, then that should be the first filter I use when determining whether or not I should listen to something or enjoy something.

Next, (and I have asked this question on this board before), the definition of music which I was given as a music student in the 1980s was this: "Music is the universal language. It is the organization of sounds. The elements of music are [listed in order of importance] melody, harmony, rhythm, form, dynamics, timbre (tone personality)."

In today's textbooks music is no longer defined as a language, but simply "organized sound" which broadens the definition somewhat. The order of the elements of music (in importance) is Rhythm, melody, harmony, dynamics, articulation and tempo. I find it interesting that form (even in the Bob Jones University high school music textbook) is not considered an element of music.

How should a Christian define music? And should the definition reflect the kind of order we see in creation?

I would think that once a clear definition is established coupled with what the Scriptures teach about music, it would be very easy to determine what music is appropriate and what music is not appropriate for a believer. Then and only then should we consider a preference for style.

What are your thoughts?

 

[au5t1n]

Interesting question. Just to throw out some introductory thoughts, I'm thinking of Stavinsky's The Rite of Spring, which was designed to sound like chaos to reflect the tension of the subject matter of the ballet it compliments. In other words, the music is conveying a particular emotional idea, and in this case, it is designed to sound chaotic to go with the story accompanying it. However, appearances can be deceiving...

When composers heard The Rite of Spring for the first time, they thought it was a tangled mass of chaos, but when they took the time to look at the sheet music, they realized Stravinsky knew exactly what he was doing. The music has a definite form and is being used, in this case, to communicate an emotion that fits the situation.

Ultimately, there should be music that expresses the full range of emotions. The problem is when we immerse ourselves in too much of one emotion, or when we use those emotions to express worldly ideas or worldly reasons for those emotions. For example, there should be music that expresses the depths of sadness that can, at times, be legitimately felt, but there shouldn't be music that is about committing suicide.

So to get to my point, the music should have a form that suits the emotion it is conveying, and these forms and emotions should be presented in a God-honoring manner.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 03:19:31 EST-----

Note that the dominant element in The Rite of Spring is rhythm, which was revolutionary in Stravinsky's time. Also note that Stravinsky was friends with Picasso, and their art expresses similar ideas. Picasso's art is certainly relevant here, since we are talking about use of order and form in the arts. Both of them played fast and loose with order and form to get a desired effect. This could be good or bad, depending on how it's used.

 

[JennyG]

That's not one to answer off the top of the head,... but fascinating. It's very interesting indeed if Rhythm has overtaken all other elements in the definition(and form dropped out altogether).
I'm sure music is a language, that's why Christians especially have to pay such careful attention to what it's saying.
I tend to use the shortcut of considering the composer first.
Only a good tree can bear good fruit.

 

[JBaldwin]

Austin,

If music reflects God's creation (if that is what we agree) then would balance also be important? I'll throw that out as well.

 

[JennyG]

Nothing could be plainer to my mind than that God gave men music to reflect his glory and to praise it. I've sometimes thought (though I haven't thought it out fully) that the misuse of such a gift may prove to be a heavier sin than we think

 

[au5t1n]

Austin,

If music reflects God's creation (if that is what we agree) then would balance also be important? I'll throught that out as well.

Yes. I guess my main point is to say that each musical piece will need to make use of the elements differently depending on which emotion it is trying to convey. All of these emotions can be portrayed through music in a God-honoring manner, though music is often abused terribly by our culture. However, sometimes disorder can be used to communicate a "disorderly" emotion, so-to-speak. Sometimes we feel disorderly inside and that's what we need to express, but there are two dangers to watch out for here:

1) Only making/listening to music that communicates anger/sadness, etc.
2) Using emotional music to promote sin (as much modern music does)

However, at the end of the day, I think the elements of music can be used differently depending on the emotion being expressed, and ultimately, I think music can properly communicate all these emotions, if the context is God-honoring.

 

[py3ak]

I think Bavinck puts the matter rather well in Reformed Dogmatics, v.1 p.53, though you have to apply what he says about science, mutatis mutandis, to art.

Misuse has often been made of the slogans "art for art's sake" and "science for the sake of science," but they contain the truth nevertheless, that the true, the good, and the beautiful are invaluable, not merely as means by which each benefits the other but also individually by themselves. (...) But theism, here as elsewhere, furnishes the true solution. For in an absolute sense, neither the intellect nor the will, the true or the good, can be an end in itself; were this the case, they would be elevated to the level of the divine and we would relapse into paganism. A "creature" can never be an end in itself, neither individual nor society nor the state, and neither can abstractions like the true, the good, and the beautiful be ends in themselves. For every creature as such exists by and, hence, for God. Science exists also for God's sake and finds its final goal in his glory. Specifically, this then is true of theology; in a special sense it is from God and by God, and hence for God as well. But precisely because its final purpose does not lie in any creature, not in practice, or in piety, or in the church, amidst all the sciences it maintains its own character and nature. Truth as such has value.

 

[OPC'n]

God is the Creator of art and music. As long as the lyrics are not breaking any of His commandments, it glorifies Him and is good to go! I find that Manowar fits this than most "Christian" music out there which teaches Arminianism....this stuff really does disgrace Him that's why I don't listen to the junk! So far, there is only one Christian artist that I do listen to otherwise I listen to secular music.

 

[Peairtach]

The creation is not as it was.

I think if art didn't reflect on what God has ordained to happen since the Fall, it would be missing out a lot, it wouldn't be fully glorifying God, important things would be unexplored, and it would be pretty bland.

I think a lot is about the motive of the artist, although no-one, Christian or not, has completely good motives.

This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking little book I read recently on aesthetics. Roger Scruton is a philosopher and Christian, I don't know if he's saved. I would hope he was but I doubt it. He writes very well on many subjects from a conservative and Christian viewpoint.

Beauty: Amazon.co.uk: Roger Scruton: Books

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 05:48:04 EST-----

I do know that the "Golden Ratio" is very important for human beauty and is throughout the creation, although I don't know what it means or how its related to God.

Was it in the tabernacle, a lot?

1:1.618

See this programme about the Human Face on Beauty.

The Human Face, John Cleese, BBC, Documentary watch free on MSN Video Player

It sadly has the awful John Cleese who made the blasphemous, "Life of Brian."

There's some evolutionary twaddle too.

Ultimately God is beautiful and the standard for all beauty.

 

[Skyler]

Honest question here: Where do the Scriptures say we should adhere to the order found in the creation? Because without that, the moral necessity behind the proposition is lacking.

edit: Note that this general principle would apply not only to music but also to logic--making logical fallacies not only incorrect, but morally wrong.

 

[py3ak]

God is the Creator of art and music. As long as the lyrics are not breaking any of His commandments, it glorifies Him and is good to go! I find that Manowar fits this than most "Christian" music out there which teaches Arminianism....this stuff really does disgrace Him that's why I don't listen to the junk! So far, there is only one Christian artist that I do listen to otherwise I listen to secular music.

Sarah, doesn't this point of view imply that the ingenuity of man has found no way to rebel against God artistically except by telling lies? You'd think after several thousand years of trying they might have hit on more than one method.

 

[MW]

God is the Creator of art and music.

God is also the Creator of herbs, but some of them can be very harmful.

 

[JBaldwin]

Honest question here: Where do the Scriptures say we should adhere to the order found in the creation? Because without that, the moral necessity behind the proposition is lacking.

edit: Note that this general principle would apply not only to music but also to logic--making logical fallacies not only incorrect, but morally wrong.

While I don't see a direct command to adhere to the order of creation, it is a underlying theme that runs throughout Scripture. We are to have order in our worship, we reflect His glory, we are made in His image, we live in His world, we are His creatures. Is it not logical then that we imitate the orderliness and beauty found in His creation when we make art and write music? Chaos and disorder is what Satan represents. Why would we copy that in our art and music? "You are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do.." comes to mind. Not necessarily that this verse applies to music, but it does teach us that we become like the one we worship.

 

[Skyler]

Honest question here: Where do the Scriptures say we should adhere to the order found in the creation? Because without that, the moral necessity behind the proposition is lacking.

edit: Note that this general principle would apply not only to music but also to logic--making logical fallacies not only incorrect, but morally wrong.

While I don't see a direct command to adhere to the order of creation, it is a underlying theme that runs throughout Scripture. We are to have order in our worship, we reflect His glory, we are made in His image, we live in His world, we are His creatures. Is it not logical then that we imitate the orderliness and beauty found in His creation when we make art and write music? Chaos and disorder is what Satan represents. Why would we copy that in our art and music? "You are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do.." comes to mind. Not necessarily that this verse applies to music, but it does teach us that we become like the one we worship.

But note my caveat. If adhering to the God-given order in music is a moral issue, then it must logically be a moral issue to adhere to(or deviate from) the God-given order in logic as well. So we must then say that not only are those who use faulty logic merely incorrect, but morally culpable for doing so.

That's not to say it's wrong, but that's where the position leads to.

 

[OPC'n]

God is the Creator of art and music. As long as the lyrics are not breaking any of His commandments, it glorifies Him and is good to go! I find that Manowar fits this than most "Christian" music out there which teaches Arminianism....this stuff really does disgrace Him that's why I don't listen to the junk! So far, there is only one Christian artist that I do listen to otherwise I listen to secular music.

Sarah, doesn't this point of view imply that the ingenuity of man has found no way to rebel against God artistically except by telling lies? You'd think after several thousand years of trying they might have hit on more than one method.

I did say His commandments (plural) not just one of His commandments.

-----Added 10/22/2009 at 10:10:14 EST-----

God is the Creator of art and music.

God is also the Creator of herbs, but some of them can be very harmful.

That isn't a good correlation. Those herbs which are not good for human consumption are good for something else. He didn't create music which breaks His commandments man's sinful nature did and that music is good for nothing.

 

[py3ak]

I did say His commandments (plural) not just one of His commandments.

Right, but if the ONLY thing that can be wrong about music is the lyrics, then, artistically speaking, the only way a heathen can rebel against God is through what he says, whether it be lies, blasphemy, etc. When in other ways we find ways to sin in deed as well as in word it seems unlikely that we wouldn't find ways here as well.

That isn't a good correlation. Those herbs which are not good for human consumption are good for something else. He didn't create music which breaks His commandments man's sinful nature did and that music is good for nothing.

I agree entirely. But that doesn't mean that if you just played it, without any vocals, that it would become good for something.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The creation is not as it was.

I think if art didn't reflect on what God has ordained to happen since the Fall, it would be missing out a lot, it wouldn't be fully glorifying God, important things would be unexplored, and it would be pretty bland.

I think a lot is about the motive of the artist, although no-one, Christian or not, has completely good motives.

This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking little book I read recently on aesthetics. Roger Scruton is a philosopher and Christian, I don't know if he's saved. I would hope he was but I doubt it. He writes very well on many subjects from a conservative and Christian viewpoint.

Beauty: Amazon.co.uk: Roger Scruton: Books

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 05:48:04 EST-----

I do know that the "Golden Ratio" is very important for human beauty and is throughout the creation, although I don't know what it means or how its related to God.

Was it in the tabernacle, a lot?

1:1.618

See this programme about the Human Face on Beauty.

The Human Face, John Cleese, BBC, Documentary watch free on MSN Video Player

It sadly has the awful John Cleese who made the blasphemous, "Life of Brian."

There's some evolutionary twaddle too.

Ultimately God is beautiful and the standard for all beauty.

Just as an FYI for those interested the Life of Brian has been discussed on the PB.

 

[Skyler]

Would it be fair to say that the generalized form of this question is "Does the order of creation imply a moral imperative?"?

 

[JBaldwin]

Would it be fair to say that the generalized form of this question is "Does the order of creation imply a moral imperative?"?

While it is true that the idea of requiring music to reflect the order that is found in creation has a moral imperative, I was trying to trying to get across the idea that we should look to God's character and the way that He created (order out of chaos) and mimic that in our music. Too often I think we focus so much on defending a style of music or art we like rather than asking ourselves the question, "What pleases God in our music and art?"

Our society has a relativistic approach to everything including art and music, and we don't always realise this kind of thinking rubs off on us.

So again, I ask what is the proper definition of music? Can we just let it be what pleases us? Or should we line it up with Scripture?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Art is man's selective reproduction of reality based upon his metaphysical value-judgments. A "good" artist is one who is in submission to his Creator, and thus makes artwork which is consistent with the Creation. A "bad" artist is one who follows his own feelings when making an artwork.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[proverbs31woman]

Love the thought provokingness on the subject. Why was man made and who was man made to glorify? Then ask yourself how is man to worship? Gos has given us the bluebook of life--use it.

*side note* Just because someone uses an analogy, doesnt mean it proves the "truth"...it merely makes a circumstance more clear by way of what the person wants you to believe* Just thought I'd say that....although I love some of the analogies being used.

Im not a genius at this, but I will give some info I found to be useful.
----------------------------------------------


Whats your view on this? (im using Satan and rock n' roll here, i suppose you could substitute any "genre" if you will here?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Can Music Be Demonically Inspired?
By: Steve Aguilar

At some point in life it seems that everyone will hear the familiar phrase “Rock and roll is the devil's music" or some variation of this infamous statement. Some of you may have laughed when you first heard this type of claim or perhaps still laugh when you hear it. I must admit I found it humorous when I first heard it as a teenager just getting into the music of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and the likes of these groups. Once into these groups, I had to be honest with myself and as a result I found myself seriously pondering the possibly.

Well if you're at the point of pondering the possibility or simply wanting to understand our position on the issue please continue reading.

I must begin by pointing out that we at Fight the Good Fight Ministries do not claim that all secular music is of Satan or in other words demonically inspired. What we are saying is that music can be demonically inspired - in fact we go on further to point out those artists that are clearly inspired demonically. However, we ask that you not just take our word for it, rather the “artists” own words, as in most cases they themselves admit to supernatural influences and then, of course, you have those that out right admit to satanic influence.

In order to understand our position one must realize that we use the bible as our ultimate source of truth. So if you are reading this and profess to be a Christian then we should, thus far, be in agreement as to what should be used to base truth on.

About Satan, the scriptures say,

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. –1 Peter 5:8

It’s no secret that Satan is out to deceive and destroy as many people as he can. But the question is, why would Satan use music? Well the following scriptures, pretty well sum up the answer.

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, And the sound of your stringed instruments; The maggot is spread under you, And worms cover you. How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! –Isaiah14:11-12

You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. –Ezekiel 28:13-16

The above scriptures clearly reveal to us some facts about Satan:

- Satan is a fallen angel (Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:14, 16 )

- Satan clearly has natural musical abilities (Isaiah 14:11, Ezekiel 28:13 )

No doubt this clarifies the understanding as to why Satan would utilize music as an avenue in deceiving humans. Music is a natural ability of Satan. He’s a musical being and he has extensive experience having used it to worship God before his fall. It’s no wonder we find musician after musician influenced supernaturally when it comes to music. Our prayer is that people would realize the powerful influence Satan has over much of today’s music, as the scriptures above reveal.

--------------------------------------------------------------
also bare in mind....
I can explain everything better through music. YOU HYPNOTIZE PEOPLE... And when you get people at [their] weakest point you can preach into the subconscious what we want to say. That's why the name "electric church' flashes in and out." –Jimi Hendrix:[windows media player]

"Let the music be your master, won't you heed the masters call? Oh Satan" –Led Zeppelin (From the song Houses of the Holy):

"Music is really great, it can, it can, it can move, you know a large group of people, it can inspire and move a large group of people then revolution can happen" –Flea (from the Red Hot Chili Peppers)[real player]

"I'm influencing your children" –Insane Clown Posse[windows media player]

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 10:40:05 EST-----

I found this interesting too. Thinking upon music, even the hymns can be currupt...they are words of men.Remember that. In Romans it says to worship the creator rather then the creation. But this is warding off the original topic.....so i dont want to stray too far.


By GILBERT M'MASTER

M'Master writes,

Whatever obscurity, from the ambiguity of his language and other causes, may hang over his views, the following facts admit of no doubt--that is--that Dr. Watts was an anti-trinitarian, and that the distinct divine Personality of the Son of God, as equal with the Father, had no place in his acknowledged creed.

The labours of his life, in which he manifested more than his usual mental vigour, were in direct opposition to the orthodox faith on this whole subject... He ventured to tell his Maker that the doctrine of three real persons in the Godhead, is a strange and perplexing notion, which we cannot receive; and which is not even inferable from the whole contents of the Book of God!...

What upon this fundamental subject were the views of Dr. Watts? Certainly not those of Christianity. They might be those of a slightly modified Arianism, but not less gross or erroneous than those of the Alexandrian presbyter. The scheme of both was really a form of the old Oriental Gnosticism. The superangelic spirit of Arius and Watts was but an AEon of the Gnostics. The scheme of Watts may be Gnosticism, but Christianity it is not.

We understand his scheme as did Bradbury, Doddridge, (Jonathan) Edwards, and, perhaps, as every one understands him who has attentively read his works. Why then be specially reproached for understanding what they understood, and for saying what they said?

That these vagaries of the Dr. were neither the fruits of youthful indiscretion, nor of the infirmities of advanced years, he assures us himself. In the preface to his "Useful Questions," he certifies his readers that "These papers are the product of that part of his life, when his powers of mind and body were in full vigour." That he abandoned them at a late period of his life, it would be grateful to be assured of, but of the fact no evidence has been given.

The well meant attempt of Mr. ______ to prove it, it is well known, was a failure. And his permission of the continuance of the orthodox phraseology of his poetry will not do it. The Dr's. correspondence with Mr. Martin Tomkins, an anti-trinitarian, will explain why he did not alter, as he wished to do, the sentiments of his religious poetry. The language of poetry is no certain index of the principles of the poet.

The modern Transcendentalist is often poetic in his theology, and in an evangelical strain he can take the language of Rutherford, and Owen, and Edwards, and talk of a close walk with God, and of intimate communion with him. The pantheism of transcendentalists allows them thus to speak a very spiritual language: while they may mean no more than their exposure to a July sun or a December frost, to a gentle shower or a storm of hail.

The poetry of fancy will not do away the heresy of prose. This brings to mind a remarkable coincidence. Bardesanes of Edessa, of the second century, and Watts of Southampton; of the eighteenth century, were both distinguished for their advocacy of error, and both were poets, and are the only poets, as far as recollected, who attempted an imitation of the book of Psalms, each in a book of 150 hymns. If history is to be credited, the Gnostic, as a poet, was not inferior to him of Southampton.

 

[py3ak]

Hi:

Art is man's selective reproduction of reality based upon his metaphysical value-judgments. A "good" artist is one who is in submission to his Creator, and thus makes artwork which is consistent with the Creation. A "bad" artist is one who follows his own feelings when making an artwork.

Blessings,

Rob

When "good" and "bad" are used with reference to art, part of the problem in discussion is that they are made to cover so much ground. Art relates not only to the artist's intention, but also to his achievement: and through a lack of skill or architectonic abilities, it is quite possible that an intelligent Christian would produce a mediocre or even putrid work of art. While his metaphysical value-judgments could be correct, that doesn't make his art everything that is included in the term "good art".

I doubt that it's ever going to be quite so simple as that.