Split Thread: Can Musical Notes, Arrangements, and Beats Be Inherently Evil?

[Gloria]

You can point me to all these studies that you like. I take them with the same grain of salt. Why? Because they have not studied all people without exception. Thus, to say that a beat, musical note, or arrangement in and of themselves is inherently wicked for all people without exception is no different than saying that alcohol, in and of itself is a wicked substance. You can quote studies, psychology, etc., but none of it speaks to morality. We derive our morality from God's Law, not psychology or studies. And lest we be like the Pharisees, we should not take our personal convictions (ones not explicitly stated and spelled out in Scripture) and make them binding upon all Christians without exception. Are we holier than God? We cannot be holier than God.

Wisdom.

 

[py3ak]

Christians should be cautious as to the beat of the music and the way it effects thier mood whether or not the lyrics are explicitly sinful.

This is certainly true on an individual level. However, it becomes a problem when it is pushed upon all Christians without exception. Why? Because Scripture nowhere substantiates such an inherent evil with a particular musical note, beat, or arrangement (again, divorced from lyrical content, sinful nostalgia, etc.). There are certainly folks who should stay away from certain types of music. But they may not push that on all others without exception.

Just as many folks should steer clear of alcohol consumption, but shouldn't push it on others.

Josh, let me just raise one question to test your reasoning here. Has it been proven without exception that cocaine (upon ingestion) impacts every person's brain negatively? What if someone were to claim that cocaine or heroin or cyanide did not happen to impact them? Can you categorically prove that this isn't so? I'm not saying I disagree with you on music --just wondering how much your argument would go to prove.

 

[bookslover]

I've been exposed to music all my life, as my late father was a semi-pro musician (big band division). I've heard just about every type of music there is. My personal experience is that, while music can, obviously, affect a person's emotions, I doubt very much if it is able to promote altered states of consciousness, or influence a person to do evil. There would have to be something else involved for that to happen, such as drugs or mental illness.

Classic example: Charles Manson. He claimed that listening to the Beatles song "Helter Skelter" (1968) prompted him to organize those killings in 1969, as he claimed that the song contained a coded message for him to start a race war in Los Angeles. Now, the guy was, and is, a totally whacked-out mental case. Obviously, his claim is false.

Music is a wonderful gift from the Lord. While, like just about everything else, it can be perverted by us sinners, there is nothing inherently evil in music. Music, itself, is neutral. It's all in the attitude one brings to it as to whether it is used to uplift or to downgrade.

By the way, I learned my lesson a couple of decades back: I'm not going to hope that rap goes away, because rap is my punishment for wishing that disco would go away!

 

[Grymir]

Not really. Guided imagery is a good form of therapy. Some people can't do it unless they are hypnotized. And there are alot of others. Those were the first couple I could find that seemed o.k., and would serve as an introduction. The ones I had access to in college I did not see. ie, Beck and others of the Cognitive psychology movement. Which was just starting to take over from the behavioral dominance in the field. Which is why this type of thing is so hard to believe. The behavioral stuff so permeated society at large, that most people's view of man is behaviorally governed. But our behaviors are more affected by how we think and not necessarily what we think. (ie, Ayn Rand's Anti-Conceptual mentality) Which would explain why Rap music is inherently wrong, if not evil. It keeps people from developing their higher forms of thinking, and just keeps them on a primitive level. Ie, just operating on the range of the moment, instead of thinking about what will happen if they do such and such. And if people can't even think correctly, wrong behavior will follow.

That's why the N.T. talks about having the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit comes in and gives us God's thoughts. That's why I kind of allude to wrongness or evil. It is a way to keep people from even comprehending the ways of God, or even His existence. Even though that which may be known is known by His creatures that He made, our thought process can be derailed. Joel Osteen's crowd is a good example. Watch a video when the real gospel is presented to them. And how angry they get at people that do. And he did it without any rhythm or beats at all. Just words alone.

 

[panta dokimazete]

By the way, I learned my lesson a couple of decades back: I'm not going to hope that rap goes away, because rap is my punishment for wishing that disco would go away!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Christians should be cautious as to the beat of the music and the way it effects thier mood whether or not the lyrics are explicitly sinful.

This is certainly true on an individual level. However, it becomes a problem when it is pushed upon all Christians without exception. Why? Because Scripture nowhere substantiates such an inherent evil with a particular musical note, beat, or arrangement (again, divorced from lyrical content, sinful nostalgia, etc.). There are certainly folks who should stay away from certain types of music. But they may not push that on all others without exception.

Just as many folks should steer clear of alcohol consumption, but shouldn't push it on others.

Josh, let me just raise one question to test your reasoning here. Has it been proven without exception that cocaine (upon ingestion) impacts every person's brain negatively? What if someone were to claim that cocaine or heroin or cyanide did not happen to impact them? Can you categorically prove that this isn't so? I'm not saying I disagree with you on music --just wondering how much your argument would go to prove.

Reuben -- You may wish to read the link in post #25.

 

[Grymir]

Panta, neither. I was setting some ground rules for this thread. So many times people get mad or say things that seem rude. and people try to get them kicked off the thread or keep them from saying things. I like to hear all people, whether I agree or not. So I always say that when I start a thread. I wasn't speaking to you specifically. I also started my looong post above before I had a chance to see you ask.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Not really. Guided imagery is a good form of therapy. Some people can't do it unless they are hypnotized. And there are alot of others. Those were the first couple I could find that seemed o.k., and would serve as an introduction. The ones I had access to in college I did not see. ie, Beck and others of the Cognitive psychology movement. Which was just starting to take over from the behavioral dominance in the field. Which is why this type of thing is so hard to believe. The behavioral stuff so permeated society at large, that most people's view of man is behaviorally governed. But our behaviors are more affected by how we think and not necessarily what we think. (ie, Ayn Rand's Anti-Conceptual mentality) Which would explain why Rap music is inherently wrong, if not evil. It keeps people from developing their higher forms of thinking, and just keeps them on a primitive level. Ie, just operating on the range of the moment, instead of thinking about what will happen if they do such and such. And if people can't even think correctly, wrong behavior will follow.

That's why the N.T. talks about having the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit comes in and gives us God's thoughts. That's why I kind of allude to wrongness or evil. It is a way to keep people from even comprehending the ways of God, or even His existence. Even though that which may be known is known by His creatures that He made, our thought process can be derailed. Joel Osteen's crowd is a good example. Watch a video when the real gospel is presented to them. And how angry they get at people that do. And he did it without any rhythm or beats at all. Just words alone.

Brother - you make some good points about a variety of things - none which help prove your original case, but I will take the stance that we agree to disagree on this matter.

By the by - I could imagine - in the right circumstances and context - a form of God-honoring rap music. It would be a BIG stretch, but I could see it.

now...Death Metal? I dunno - this type truly seems to be an alignment of the worst aspects of emotion influencing music as I have heard.

 

[Grymir]

Panta, that is sooooo interesting you should mention that. I wanted to form a Christian Death Metal Band. (I'm an 80's hair band left over) But the Contemporary Christian Music movement squashed my desire. Sigh, when they asked me to play an instrument at Church, They were shocked when I talked about how wrong I thought is was. Man-centered vs. God-centered. There are some Christian Rappers on this board already. I'm sure I'll hear about it when they find this thread.

How come nobody's picking on me p) for my statements about the CCM movement, only the rap part??

 

[Coram Deo]

I won't pick on ya... I agree that with ya.... Of course I think I might believe a few things stronger... Like I do believe a beat alone can cause both mental and health problems... I have in the past posted medical studies to this affect...

Panta, that is sooooo interesting you should mention that. I wanted to form a Christian Death Metal Band. (I'm an 80's hair band left over) But the Contemporary Christian Music movement squashed my desire. Sigh, when they asked me to play an instrument at Church, They were shocked when I talked about how wrong I thought is was. Man-centered vs. God-centered. There are some Christian Rappers on this board already. I'm sure I'll hear about it when they find this thread.

How come nobody's picking on me p) for my statements about the CCM movement, only the rap part??

 

[JBaldwin]

Panta, that is sooooo interesting you should mention that. I wanted to form a Christian Death Metal Band. (I'm an 80's hair band left over) But the Contemporary Christian Music movement squashed my desire. Sigh, when they asked me to play an instrument at Church, They were shocked when I talked about how wrong I thought is was. Man-centered vs. God-centered. There are some Christian Rappers on this board already. I'm sure I'll hear about it when they find this thread.

How come nobody's picking on me p) for my statements about the CCM movement, only the rap part??

This is an aside, and I promise not to hijack this thread, but several times you have made comments about CCM, could you please define what you mean by that? Some of what I consider to be CCM has entire sections of the Psalms for lyrics.

 

[Coram Deo]

CCM is more then just lyrics... It is a combination of lyrics and melody in a rock style which would include metal, rap, trance, etc.... Praise choruses are a sub category of CCM...

Panta, that is sooooo interesting you should mention that. I wanted to form a Christian Death Metal Band. (I'm an 80's hair band left over) But the Contemporary Christian Music movement squashed my desire. Sigh, when they asked me to play an instrument at Church, They were shocked when I talked about how wrong I thought is was. Man-centered vs. God-centered. There are some Christian Rappers on this board already. I'm sure I'll hear about it when they find this thread.

How come nobody's picking on me p) for my statements about the CCM movement, only the rap part??

This is an aside, and I promise not to hijack this thread, but several times you have made comments about CCM, could you please define what you mean by that? Some of what I consider to be CCM has entire sections of the Psalms for lyrics.

 

[Grymir]

Contemporary Christian Music movement - Take a form of secular music and inject Jesus' name a few times. Have a few not-so-modestly dress girls on the cover and voila! A CCM band is born.

I'm doing a longer post. Just wanted to give the quick answer. Because the Psalms for lyrics would probably not be included in this catagory.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

By the way, I learned my lesson a couple of decades back: I'm not going to hope that rap goes away, because rap is my punishment for wishing that disco would go away!

So you're the one to blame for rap!

Thanks alot!

 

[panta dokimazete]

Contemporary Christian Music movement - Take a form of secular music and inject Jesus' name a few times. Have a few not-so-modestly dress girls on the cover and voila! A CCM band is born.

I'm doing a longer post. Just wanted to give the quick answer. Because the Psalms for lyrics would probably not be included in this catagory.

Would you consider Red Mountain Music to be CCM?

 

[Coram Deo]

Sigh, I knew I was going to be dragged into this.... Ok, I am just going to post some medical findings and then let you all talk about it and leave it at that.....


"Physicist Harvey Bird and neurobiologist Gervasia Schreckenberg subjected different groups of mice to the sound of traditional voodoo drumming, to Strauss waltzes, and to silence, and then tested each group's ability to navigate through a maze to get food. All music was played continuously at low volumes to eliminate possible behavioral effects from loud sounds generally. The groups that were subjected to either silence or Strauss waltzes had no problem learning the maze, with the Strauss waltz group having a slight edge in performance. However, the voodoo group performed progressively worse over the period of time they were exposed to the music and eventually became so disoriented that they became unable to complete the maze at all. These mice were also hyperactive and aggressive, often engaging in cannibalistic behavior.

On dissection of the brains of these mice, highly abnormal neuronal growth patterns were found in the hippocampus region, with excessive dendritic branches growing out in all directions yet making few connections to other neurons; the hippocampus region is known to be important in learning and memory formation. Significant increases in messenger RNA, which is involved in memory formation, were also found. This latter effect probably corresponds to the increase in dendritic branching, as if the brains were persistently attempting to make sense out the sound stimulus, but could not. Some researchers and health professionals have suggested that the common use of anapestic rhythms (persistently syncopated, with two short beats, a long beat, then a pause) might be the cause.

Effect of music on cortisol levels in humans

Different types of music may significantly affect blood cortisol levels. Cortisol and adrenaline are two "stress" hormones that are secreted by the adrenal glands in response to ACTH. In one experiment, patients who had just been informed of their need for imminent surgery, were tested for blood cortisol concentrations after listening to a calming piece of music, chosen by each patient in consultation with a music therapist; cortisol levels were reduced by 50% compared with the control group that did not listen to any music.

Music and its effects on plant growth

Plants have been shown to significantly increase their rate of growth when stimulated by specific sound frequencies. In the 1950's, Indian botanist T.C. Singh observed under a microscope the protoplasm streaming in an Asian aquatic plant, which normally increases at sunrise, and discovered that such streaming could be induced at other times of the day by activating an electrically driven tuning fork. He then experimented with recorded South Indian violin music played to a wide variety of plants, with frequencies of the fundamental tones in the 100 to 600 Hz range; significantly increased growth rates resulted. About the same time, a Canadian named Eugene Canby began subjecting test plots of wheat to recordings of violin sonatas by J.S. Bach, and found that yields increased by 66%. Other tests in Russia, the U.S., and Canada with ultrasonic frequencies yielded similar increases in the growth rates of other plant species.

Various researchers then determined that the range of frequencies around 5000 Hz were especially potent in stimulating plant growth. During the 1960's, researcher Dorothy Retallack determined that these frequencies were best administered in the form of classical music (compositions of J.S. Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, and other European 18th and 19th century composers; traditional North Indian music performed on sitar and tabla), played intermittently for several hours per day. A Minnesota plant breeder named Dan Carlson collaborated with a music teacher named Michael Holtz to create an audio tape with a combination of frequencies centered about the 5000 Hz range, which Holtz immediately recognized as being very similar to the sound of a bird chorus at dawn. Carlson then used this music to induce record-breaking growth rates in Purple Passion vine plants.

Retallack also experimented with various types of rock music to see what effects they would have on plant growth. Plants "listening" to selections from Led Zeppelin, Vanilla Fudge, and Jimi Hendrix became stunted or gangly, with long stems and sparse leaf growth, some bending away from the sound source; after 16 days, most of these plants died.

Retallack also found that the discordant music of 20th century composers Arnold Schönberg and Anton von Webern also caused plants to atrophy, but not to the degree of the rock music. Schönberg is considered to be the father of 12-tone music, characterized by a total "freedom" from harmonic contraints, wherein all 12 tones of the western musical scale are ideally considered to be of equal weight and value. Twelve-tone principles of composition were eagerly embraced by avant garde faculty at music schools during the early 20th century, and over the following decades began to appear in popular music, and in background music for television and radio programs. The 12-tone style is what gives music for horror and suspense films its particular capacity to shock and terrorize. "

 

[py3ak]

Andrew, I suppose you were directing me to this paragraph from the article you linked.

This may be illustrated as follows: Beyond doubt it is sinful to commit suicide by drinking carbolic acid. This, however, is not because the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself, but because it is used with suicidal intent. In such a case, the sin committed is the sin of suicide, not the sin of drinking carbolic acid. Carbolic acid being a material thing cannot be sinful in itself. If its use were sinful in itself, that use would be sinful regardless of the quantity used. If one drop of carbolic acid were to be dissolved in a thousand gallons of water, and one drop of the resultant solution drunk, the drinking of that one drop would be a sin deserving the punishment of eternal death, provided the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself.

-J.G. Vos

And obviously cocaine is not a sinful substance. It is not a moral pimple on the face of the universe that poppies grow in fields. But that was not the point I was raising. Cyanide is considered a lethal substance; cocaine is considered an addictive substance. I am not saying they are therefore bad: I am asking if it has been universally proven that they are such (which obviously in the nature of the case it can't be: in order to prove that cyanide was universally lethal we should have to give it to everybody --and if it did turn out to be, it would still be a failed experiment in that no one would be around to publish an article about it in Nature). Unless I misunderstood him, that was the standard Josh wanted in order to demonstrate that, say, the rhythms of Swan Lake are relaxing, or ranchero music is annoying. That is the point I am interested in, and that is why I asked him for clarification.

It is really a question of whether the lack of exhaustive data in induction ought to prevent us from reaching a generalization.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Coram - can you post links to the full studies? I'd like to look at their methodology, control specs and other criteria for the studies.

Also - this does not substantiate the premise of the OP. Long term physiological/psychological effects vs an altered state of consciousness caused by a particular beat type.

 

[Thomas2007]

As my Pastor says, "Music that is designed to be felt through your feet is intended to stir up the sexual energies and the lust of the flesh." I've learned that he is right, music is not just neutral tones strung together - they come from the heart and are an audible expression of it just as much as words are.

 

[panta dokimazete]

This guy certainly agrees...

The world and it's ways loves a yo-yo. The string is let out. We learn advanced spiritual techniques. We strive, do better, climb up the spiritual path of the world's mainstream religions or the feel good philosophies of today's movements. We stay at that plateau for awhile, feeling connected to God, to pure Love and wanting to serve the Christ in others. But these paths are lacking certain spiritual truths. One of these is a secret the vampires of the Spirit do not want you to know. They know how easy it is to steal the Light. The string gets jerked back. They pull on your chain. The Light garnered in the chakras is lost in a fit of anger, a moment of lust, depression, etc. Add the rockrap beat to those emotions and you have the perfect formula for keeping the populace dumb and happy while sucking their Light and preventing them from becoming their true divine potential.

from here

This article uses the same research Coram posted...

 

[Coram Deo]

I don't have links to the full studies.. Most of what I have I have saved on the PC from a few years ago... But I have some references and some of the links don't work anymore... but here is what I have...

Dieleman, Adrian; "Of Mice and Music"; Reformed Perspective, January 2000. In: webpage at http://spindleworks.com/perspective/00january.html

Retallack, Dorothy L.; The Sound of Music and Plants. DeVorss and Co., Santa Monica, Calif.

Robertson, Don; "About Positive Music: The Plant Experiments"

"The Musical Hormone"; Research Notes, Vol.IV, No.2, Fall 1997

Lipkin, Richard; "Jarring Music Takes Toll on Mice"

Coram - can you post links to the full studies? I'd like to look at their methodology, control specs and other criteria for the studies.

Also - this does not substantiate the premise of the OP. Long term physiological/psychological effects vs an altered state of consciousness caused by a particular beat type.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Andrew, I suppose you were directing me to this paragraph from the article you linked.

This may be illustrated as follows: Beyond doubt it is sinful to commit suicide by drinking carbolic acid. This, however, is not because the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself, but because it is used with suicidal intent. In such a case, the sin committed is the sin of suicide, not the sin of drinking carbolic acid. Carbolic acid being a material thing cannot be sinful in itself. If its use were sinful in itself, that use would be sinful regardless of the quantity used. If one drop of carbolic acid were to be dissolved in a thousand gallons of water, and one drop of the resultant solution drunk, the drinking of that one drop would be a sin deserving the punishment of eternal death, provided the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself.

-J.G. Vos

And obviously cocaine is not a sinful substance. It is not a moral pimple on the face of the universe that poppies grow in fields. But that was not the point I was raising. Cyanide is considered a lethal substance; cocaine is considered an addictive substance. I am not saying they are therefore bad: I am asking if it has been universally proven that they are such (which obviously in the nature of the case it can't be: in order to prove that cyanide was universally lethal we should have to give it to everybody --and if it did turn out to be, it would still be a failed experiment in that no one would be around to publish an article about it in Nature). Unless I misunderstood him, that was the standard Josh wanted in order to demonstrate that, say, the rhythms of Swan Lake are relaxing, or ranchero music is annoying. That is the point I am interested in, and that is why I asked him for clarification.

It is really a question of whether the lack of exhaustive data in induction ought to prevent us from reaching a generalization.

{As an aside, I know this conversation is a bit but it pertains to the principle under discussion. This will likely be my last post on this thread, however.}

Actually, Reuben, I had in mind the discussion by Vos of the use of "opium or marihuana." The point that Vos makes, similar to the point that Josh was making, I believe, is that beyond looking at individual Christians / cases, generalizations about sin concerning something, whether it be a musical note, or a drink of alcohol, or "cocaine or heroin or cyanide" (as you noted), without Biblical warrant, are violations of the principle of Christian liberty. Science can never determine what is or is not sinful, and Vos rightly refers us to the saying of J.G. Machen, wishing that Christians might be delievered from "the tyranny of experts."

Someone may object that opium and marihuana, for example, are not indifferent, but sinful in themselves. We have already shown that no material thing can be sinful in itself. Now if opium, marihuana or any other particular material substance is to be regarded as an exception to this principle, the problem is raised as to what authority is competent to decide which substances are exceptions to the principle that no material things can be sinful in itself. There is, no doubt, general agreement among Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana, for example, are so dangerous and harmful that they should not be used at all. This general agreement is, however, no proper ground for church judicatories authoritatively pronouncing such substances sinful in themselves, or declaring their use to be sinful per se. The Word of God, not the so-called Christian consciousness, is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. What authority is competent to determine the harmfulness and on this basis to infer the inherent sinfulness of the use of a particular material substance, withal making this inference binding on the consciences of the Lord’s people? Are church judicatories qualified to issue authoritative pronouncements on such matters? By what right does a synod or assembly composed of ministers and elders decide questions concerning the physiological action and toxic properties of various narcotic drugs? If we grant to ecclesiastical bodies the right to decide concerning opium and marihuana, do we not thereby concede the entire principle that the church may legitimately decide for its members concerning the use of things indifferent? And if so, could we consistently object, for reasons of principle, if a church judicatory were to enact a rule prohibiting the use of tea or coffee? We are far from holding that it is legitimate for Christians to use dangerous drugs. What we are contending for is not license to use poisonous drugs, but freedom under God to decide for ourselves what material substances we ought to leave alone. We would keep the consciences of Christian people free from what Dr. Machen called “the tyranny of the experts.” We maintain that the individual Christian, and not the church, must pass judgment on the pronouncements of experts concerning such things, so far as questions of morality are concerned. We are far from holding that it is “all right” to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use. We fully agree with the general opinion of Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana should not be used at all, except possibly by a physician’s orders; but we claim the God-given right to make this decision ourselves, and not to have it made for us by an ecclesiastical judicatory. The conscience of each and every one of the Lord’s people is enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to require Christian people to accept ecclesiastical regulations on such matters is akin to the “implicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience” which is required by the Church of Rome.

 

[Grymir]

O.k. now for the longer post.

I want to make a distinction. I'm a traditional, liturgical person at Church. I want Hymns with a Pipe organ. Liturgy service too!. (That's what my church was when I joined) But there is and should be variety in church's. I tell people at my church, that if they want the praise bands, go up the road to Calvary Chapel. They do a better job of it, and doctrinally, they would fit the teaching of Calvary Chapel better that what Presbyterians are supposed to teach and preach. When the projection screen came down and the praise music started, the theology of our church changed (Come' on Tim, we need to make things relevant, to meet people where they are, to attract new people)

I HATE praise music at church. Church is supposed to present God!! and His Holiness (and Gospel) each and every week. My church did Hymns and Organ. Then came the priase band. They can't even keep a beat together. I feel betrayed. Jesus gets most Sunday's off at church. No gospel, just how to have a better life if you follow these three step and inject a little Jesus. Music and Liturgy, if changed, affect the theology of the church.



Know with that aside, what people listen to outside of Church is another matter. People can listen to what they want. (So to speak, if it doesn't violate what the parent thread was getting at.)

CCM is usually just secular music styles with Jesus thrown in a few times. And not so modestly dress people. Usually not very good musicians either. Out to make a buck on Jesus. Just because you have a few thousand people crowded in a stadium chanting Jesus, does not a worship service, or even a God glorifying event make. That's one of the major differences. CCM music is man centered and man glorifiying. Take the popular song "I glorify thy name Lord". 'I' glorify His Name??? That puts man in the drivers seat, not God. It's the enlightenment all over again. Man is the measure of all things.

I went to the Red Mountian site linked above. How different that is from the CCM movement. They require excellence in the performers. They have God glorifing lyrics. And not one not so modestly dressed person on the covers!! Read their philosophy page(s). That is what is not in the CCM movement. Thanks Panta! That's what I'm talking about.

If a church wants to have a particular style, there is nothing wrong with different styles. What we listen to outside of Church matter. Plato even talks about it in his Republic (thanks Panta!), which speaks volumes to what we see going on in the culture outside of the church. And the church should be speaking out!! (anybody remember KISS and the Knights In Satan's Service). If more intellegent things were said, like what I'm trying to talk about in this thread, we be more effective in the world. So many parents in the church don't care about what their kids listen to. If we would start in the church, we could once again be what determines the culture in the world. Not the world determining what the church culture is.

 

[Grymir]

There is no off topic when I start a thread. Its all germane somehow. Someway, just squint a little.

 

[Coram Deo]

Virginia,

I do believe scriptures speaks about immoral music (not just the lyrics) but for the sake of time and such let me quote something else... I also do believe firmly that the Westminster Larger Catechism Speaks of this topic....... Music even absent from words can be lascivious and lustful which would be a violation of the seventh commandment... Rock Music is very lustful and Sexual... It was so in the beginning and it is so today.. It can't be changed.. It is part of what it is... "Sex, Drugs, & Rock and Roll" and "Lets Rock and Roll" are all part of the music which can not be divorced it is the music that makes it so. Ever watched a Rock Star up on the stage singing? It looks like he is making love to the microphone and ready to swallow the thing... Rock Music is lascivious....


Q139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A139: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,[1] are, adultery, fornication,[2] rape, incest,[3] sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;[4] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;[5] all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;[6] wanton looks,[7] impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel;[8] prohibiting of lawful,[9] and dispensing with unlawful marriages;[10] allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;[11] entangling vows of single life,[12] undue delay of marriage;[13] having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;[14] unjust divorce,[15] or desertion;[16] idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,[17] unchaste company;[18] lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;[19] and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.[20]

1. Prov. 5:7
2. Heb. 13:4; Gal. 5:19
3. II Sam. 13:14; I Cor. 5:1
4. Rom. 1:24, 26-27; Lev. 20:15-16
5. Matt. 5:28; 15:19; Col. 3:5
6. Eph. 5:3-4; Prov. 7:5, 21-22
7. Isa. 3:16; II Peter 2:14
8. Prov. 7:10, 13
9. I Tim. 4:3
10. Lev. 18:1-21; Mark 6:18; Mal. 2:11-12
11. I Kings 15:12; II Kings 23:7; Deut. 23:17-18; Lev. 19:29; Jer. 5:7; Prov. 7:24-27
12. Matt. 19:10-11
13. I Cor. 7:7-9; Gen. 38:26
14. Mal. 2:14-15; Matt. 19:5
15. Mal. 2:16; Matt. 5:32
16. I Cor. 7:12-13
17. Ezek. 16:49; Prov. 23:30-33
18. Gen. 39:10; Prov. 5:8
19. Eph. 5:4; Ezek. 23:14-16; Isa. 3:16; 23:15-17; Mark 6:22; Rom. 13:13; I Peter 4:3
20. II Kings 9:30; Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 23:40

Andrew, I suppose you were directing me to this paragraph from the article you linked.

This may be illustrated as follows: Beyond doubt it is sinful to commit suicide by drinking carbolic acid. This, however, is not because the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself, but because it is used with suicidal intent. In such a case, the sin committed is the sin of suicide, not the sin of drinking carbolic acid. Carbolic acid being a material thing cannot be sinful in itself. If its use were sinful in itself, that use would be sinful regardless of the quantity used. If one drop of carbolic acid were to be dissolved in a thousand gallons of water, and one drop of the resultant solution drunk, the drinking of that one drop would be a sin deserving the punishment of eternal death, provided the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself.

-J.G. Vos

And obviously cocaine is not a sinful substance. It is not a moral pimple on the face of the universe that poppies grow in fields. But that was not the point I was raising. Cyanide is considered a lethal substance; cocaine is considered an addictive substance. I am not saying they are therefore bad: I am asking if it has been universally proven that they are such (which obviously in the nature of the case it can't be: in order to prove that cyanide was universally lethal we should have to give it to everybody --and if it did turn out to be, it would still be a failed experiment in that no one would be around to publish an article about it in Nature). Unless I misunderstood him, that was the standard Josh wanted in order to demonstrate that, say, the rhythms of Swan Lake are relaxing, or ranchero music is annoying. That is the point I am interested in, and that is why I asked him for clarification.

It is really a question of whether the lack of exhaustive data in induction ought to prevent us from reaching a generalization.

{As an aside, I know this conversation is a bit but it pertains to the principle under discussion. This will likely be my last post on this thread, however.}

Actually, Reuben, I had in mind the discussion by Vos of the use of "opium or marihuana." The point that Vos makes, similar to the point that Josh was making, I believe, is that beyond looking at individual Christians / cases, generalizations about sin concerning something, whether it be a musical note, or a drink of alcohol, or "cocaine or heroin or cyanide" (as you noted), without Biblical warrant, are violations of the principle of Christian liberty. Science can never determine what is or is not sinful, and Vos rightly refers us to the saying of J.G. Machen, wishing that Christians might be delievered from "the tyranny of experts."

Someone may object that opium and marihuana, for example, are not indifferent, but sinful in themselves. We have already shown that no material thing can be sinful in itself. Now if opium, marihuana or any other particular material substance is to be regarded as an exception to this principle, the problem is raised as to what authority is competent to decide which substances are exceptions to the principle that no material things can be sinful in itself. There is, no doubt, general agreement among Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana, for example, are so dangerous and harmful that they should not be used at all. This general agreement is, however, no proper ground for church judicatories authoritatively pronouncing such substances sinful in themselves, or declaring their use to be sinful per se. The Word of God, not the so-called Christian consciousness, is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. What authority is competent to determine the harmfulness and on this basis to infer the inherent sinfulness of the use of a particular material substance, withal making this inference binding on the consciences of the Lord’s people? Are church judicatories qualified to issue authoritative pronouncements on such matters? By what right does a synod or assembly composed of ministers and elders decide questions concerning the physiological action and toxic properties of various narcotic drugs? If we grant to ecclesiastical bodies the right to decide concerning opium and marihuana, do we not thereby concede the entire principle that the church may legitimately decide for its members concerning the use of things indifferent? And if so, could we consistently object, for reasons of principle, if a church judicatory were to enact a rule prohibiting the use of tea or coffee? We are far from holding that it is legitimate for Christians to use dangerous drugs. What we are contending for is not license to use poisonous drugs, but freedom under God to decide for ourselves what material substances we ought to leave alone. We would keep the consciences of Christian people free from what Dr. Machen called “the tyranny of the experts.” We maintain that the individual Christian, and not the church, must pass judgment on the pronouncements of experts concerning such things, so far as questions of morality are concerned. We are far from holding that it is “all right” to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use. We fully agree with the general opinion of Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana should not be used at all, except possibly by a physician’s orders; but we claim the God-given right to make this decision ourselves, and not to have it made for us by an ecclesiastical judicatory. The conscience of each and every one of the Lord’s people is enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to require Christian people to accept ecclesiastical regulations on such matters is akin to the “implicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience” which is required by the Church of Rome.

 

[JBaldwin]

I do believe scriptures speaks about immoral music (not just the lyrics) but for the sake of time and such let me quote something else...

I did a study on this once a while back, and it seems the only reference I could find to "bad" music was when the Israelites were worshipping the golden calf, they were performing "bad" music. It's late and I don't have time to look up my past study, but if you want, I will see if I can dig it up later.

 

[Grymir]

Oh my, Dexy's Midnight Runners song is on the 80's station. Am I hellspawn or what??

Disco isn't dead.

Just relegated to the oldies stations.

 

[kalawine]

As an ex-charismatic reading this thread I think back to when I used to lead worship with my guitar in the Charismatic church. At the time I had no idea that what I was doing was manipulating the emotions of the congregation. It was such a serious issue in our fellowship that we often left church wondering why the Lord "had not visited with us" that day. If the emotions weren't there we thought that we had not "had church." We wondered if we had "grieved the Spirit." After becoming Reformed and now worshipping in a Preby church that uses only "the" hymnal I have come to realize that the hymns can also stir our emotions in a way that may be "unsanctified." With all this in mind I try to approach worship reminding myself that I am only human and I cannot please the Lord with any intentions that he hasn't gracefully given to me as a gift. I try to focus on what he has done for me and how I do not deserve even my next breath. In my own personal case (which may or may not mean anything), the toe-tapping and contemporary stuff cannot satisfy me as the worshipper. Nor do I believe that it pleases God in my case because he knows my heart. I believe that there are people out there who are focused on pleasing God who do use the mod music. But I also believe that more often than not it promotes a "feeding of the flesh" that has little or nothing to do with worship. Outside of worship I do listen to secular music but it was worship music that I wanted to comment on here.

 

[py3ak]

Andrew, I actually agree with Vos. I don't intend to present some thing as sinful. To take the example he uses of adultery, as something which is always sinful in the least degree, it is not the physical act of sex, but the context in and the use for which it occurs that determines the sinfulness or righteousness thereof. That being said, though, my question for Josh still stands. As far as I'm concerned, there is no question of seeking church rulings, or pushing for ecclesiastical discipline, or condemning a chord or a beat or a style as intrinsically, physically sinful. But it is my understanding that individual Christian prudence is going to have to use generalizations on frequent occasions, and Josh's post seemed to rule out all generalizations. Hence my interest.

 

[nicnap]

I have not read this thread...merely the title. With that said, my first impression is to say, remember music, wine, cars are not inherently evil...you are.