MMF - Music Seminars

[Aaron]

Dr. Bob,

I think I remember you saying that you lead music seminars. Is that right?

What do you discuss at your music seminars?

[ September 08, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[Dr. Bob]

(1) BIBLICAL BASIS FOR LOCAL CHURCH MUSIC - Scriptural principles, all related verses, purpose of music and how it fulfills needs in our lives

(2) DEVELOPING A GOD-HONORING MUSIC PHILOSOPHY FOR YOUR FAMILY AND CHURCH - Tests of all music to listen to/employ in ministry

(3) CONFLICTING STYLES OF CONTEMPORARY MUSIC AND TRADITIONAL WORSHIP - critique of various styles of music

(4) BASIC PRIMER ON MUSICAL TERMS AND THEIR USE IN CHURCHES - to help song leaders, accompanists, soloists, choir members

(5) PRACTICAL HELP FOR AN EFFECTIVE MUSIC MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH - setting up programs for implementing the "tests" so that our music will be God-honoring

[Aaron]

Dr. Bob,

Do you have more information posted somewhere. I would be especially interested in your "tests" of God-honoring music.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Do you have more information posted somewhere. I would be especially interested in your "tests" of God-honoring music.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not Dr. Bob, but if you would like to see my philosophy of Christian Music see http://members.tripod.com/~ThomasCassidy/music.html

smile.gif

[Barnabas H.]

Thanks for the URL Dr. Cassidy on your philosophy on music. Enjoyed it tremenduosly! smile.gif

[Aaron]

Thomas Cassidy:

Fantastic guidelines! I'm going to put a link on my web page (http://members.aol.com/ats0922/bible.html) to yours.

I occassionally get requests for printed copies of mine. Could I have permission to include your pages in the printed copies too?

[Bob Alkire]

Dr. Thomas Cassidy, I also must say thanks on your "A Biblical Philosophy of Christian Music". It is great.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
I occassionally get requests for printed copies of mine. Could I have permission to include your pages in the printed copies too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By all means. Be my guest. smile.gif

[Dr. Bob]

Simple summary of the "Tests" for judging music in the local church ministry:

Test #1 - Music must have God-honoring "Christian" lyrics

Test #2 - Music must have God-honoring "Christian" musical composition

Test #3 - Music must have God-honoring "Christian" musical performers

Test #4 - Music must have God-honoring "Christian" methodology (in performance)

So it is pretty basic. There are some absolutes in any field of "art" and music is one of those with good/bad often mixed:

There are good and bad words
These are good and bad melody, rhythm, or harmony
There are good and bad charactered performers
There are good and bad practices when performing

4 hours on this brief outline. Got is coming up this weekend at Liberty Baptist, Casper.

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Test #2 - Music must have God-honoring "Christian" musical composition<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity: By what criteria do you determine whether the composition is God-honouring or not?

[Dr. Bob]

SOME SAY . . .
IF music includes all varieties – jazz, rock, punk, rap, disco, heavy metal, pop, country, rhythm and blues, show tunes, classical, easy listening, even elevator “muzak”, and

IF the only BAD music is music that promotes bad “lyrics” (sin), performed by bad “people” (unsaved, secular, rock), and performed in bad “places” (bars, dances, rock concerts)

THEN the GOOD music can be exactly all the same varieties of music but with good lyrics (mentioning God, love, heaven), performed by good people (Christians) at good places (church, youth rallies). It is all personal taste. We cannot draw a line between good and bad music.

“Some have labeled music moral or immoral but . . . morality dwells in human beings not in black ink on white paper; however, music does have moral value. It serves as an emotional trigger that can be used for good or evil.” – Lenny Seidel 1988

“Words are incidental at best, or monotonous or moronic as usual. But the point is, they don’t matter. What you dance to is the beat, the bass and the drum. Rhythm takes precedence over melody and harmony.” - Steven Halpern

I CONTEND THAT . . .
Music is not neutral. It has the capability of communicating imbalance and sensuality and can confuse any spiritual message (lyrics).

Any music that cannot communicate the message is unfit to use in worship of the Lord. My personal taste is subject to scriptural conviction. We must draw a line between good and bad musical composition!

REASON #1 - The “changed life”. If music were neutral, a new song would not be needed. Good music conforms to God’s principles and the mathematical phenomenon that God created with sound. It must REFLECT God.

God is the CREATOR – beauty, order, climax, contrast, color, texture, purpose, form, and harmony. Satan is out to disrupt, destroy, and create chaos, disharmony in all areas of life and art.

What is our society doing today? Creating great masterpieces of art as we have through the centuries or exalting the immoral and substandard and “calling it” great art?

“The quality of society’s art depends less on its artists than upon what it demands form its artists.” Joseph Addison, 1738

REASON #2 – Notes are notes are notes . . . but notes are NOT music! They indicate variety of pitch, tone, compression and decompression of air.

Music, like any art form, uses "neutral" notes to form good/bad music. An artist may paint a beautiful Mona Lisa, or a nude – what they do with the building block determines “good” or “bad”

And that is what Satan is doing – upsetting the PLANNED RESULT of getting out the message of salvation through the medium of music. He is destroying the “rules” so that the abstract and bizarre are normative.

We see that in ALL THE ARTS, but fail to see it in “MUSIC”

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Just out of curiosity: By what criteria do you determine whether the composition is God-honouring or not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To understand how certain biblical admonitions apply to music a proper understanding of its nature is necessary. Music is more than the "pleasing" arrangement of sound. Like speech it is communication. Speech is primarily concerned with the communication of ideas. Music communicates mood; it communicates feelings, and it can do so despite our best cognitive efforts to resist it.


Music is also related to thought. It is "muse"-ick. The deities believed to inspire wisdom and learning were called muses. To muse is to think deeply and seriously about something, and who can deny the influence different musical expressions have on our thoughts? The idea of musing is akin to the behavior of a sheep chewing its cud. The sheep chews, swallows, brings it back up, chews again, swallows again, and so on until the process is complete. In this way the sheep extracts the full nutritional value of its diet. In meditation, we mull over a thought, gain an insight, bring up the idea again, mull it over, find a fresh application, and so on until we've actually learned from it. It is the same with music. Throughout a composition the melodic structures of motive, phrase and theme, themselves named with words used to describe a person's train of thought, are combined and repeated until the intended aesthetic response is elicited, and this is the ultimate meaning of music, its effect on the listener.

This is where the force of the Biblical admonitions is applied. The Bible has much to say about what should be the character of our general conversation as Christians. Therefore it has much to say about the character of our music.

Music is not neutral. &lt;--Click Here (http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000001)

[Forrest Lowry]

Having grown up in the 50's and 60's my taste in music is far different than my children. But as they have grown up loving the Lord, I have observed how much their music meant to them in their spiritual growth and development. I remember when my oldest son was listening to Petra - and at that time Petra was considered "cutting edge" and for me it was somewhat radical. I criticised their music and discouraged my son from listening to such questionable music. It was not till several years later that I found his Bible with dozens of song titles listed in the opening pages with references to scripture for every song title. I grieved over my critical spirit and my closed mind. Then I remembered how radical I was as a young person - and how critical people had been of "our music." Every generation has it's music - and there have been critics ready to "protect them" from such ungodly rythym or lyrics or sounds. Thank the Lord that some have always persevered and broken the mold and provided opportunities for every generation to express worship and praise to the living Lord. David's style of worship would probably not be popular today - any more than the early church's would. It is hard to believe that neither of them ever sang "Amazing Grace" and could actually be saved. As a 51 year old, I am grateful that God did not specifically speak to some issues regarding style, because He knew that every generation would need to walk in freedom - not legalism - not license - but genuine liberty. And as I allow myself to get to know believers from this younger generation - I find they are radically committed to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They have a passion to share Christ with their generation in relevent ways without violating any Biblical principles. Some of their musical tastes are outside my comfort zone - but then - some of my musical tastes were outside my parent's tastes too. I am convinced there are a lot of things outside the realm of my experience and outside the parameters of my own limited knowledge that can be used to bring honor and glory to God. So young people - "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God...For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."

[Aaron]

Forest,

We hold to the Scriptures, not the warm and fuzzy sentimentality of subjective personal experience.

For every person who thinks that rock music helped his spirituality I can post a testimonial of one who says it destroyed his spirituality. So the real question is, what does the Bible say?

[ April 17, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Anyone here have the Christian satellite service "Sky Angel"? The reason I ask is...

Within the last few months they added a new channel (9705 I think) with so-called "Christian" videos. Take a look, the stuff is downright Satanic. When I called to complain I was told about how dedicated the "young people" are who produce this stuff, and what dedicated Christians the folks are who are making the bucks off of it. Then I saw the folks who put it on interviewed about it and, indeed, they sounded like fine Christians. Maybe they are, none of us are perfect. My point in all of this is that just because a certain style of "music" is promoted by "fine people" or "dedicated Christians" does not serve to justify it.

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
So the real question is, what does the Bible say?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the question of what style of music is God-honouring? Nothing. Therefore it is a question of liberty.

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
My point in all of this is that just because a certain style of "music" is promoted by "fine people" or "dedicated Christians" does not serve to justify it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps so . . . but the converse is also true. Just because a certain style of music is disliked by "fine people" or "dedicated Christians" does not serve to condemn it.

[DocCas]

Christian liberty has nothing to do with being free to do as we please, but with being set free from the law of sin and death so we are free to do as ought to do rather than what we want to do.

[ April 18, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Christian liberty has nothing to do with being free to do as we please, but with being set free from the law of sin and death so we are free to do as ought to do rather than what we want to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is certainly not the picture you get from Romans 14, is it? Paul is talking about such things as eating meat, drinking wine and observing holidays and says that instead of being bound to one or the other option, we ought to be convinced in our own mind.

I submit to you that enjoying certain types of music, or not, is exactly the same kind of activity as enjoying meat, or not.

[ April 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
I submit to you that enjoying certain types of music, or not, is exactly the same kind of activity as enjoying meat, or not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's how you view listening to music, then you must defer to those who have a conscience toward it. That is the message in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
If that's how you view listening to music, then you must defer to those who have a conscience toward it. That is the message in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree totally! So please let me know if you are ever going to visit my place. I'll make sure there's no Dire Straits or Third Day in the stereo to give offense to the weaker brother. smile.gif

[Aaron]

Not so fast, Ransom! I don't see anywhere in those chapters the "if I'm at your house" qualifier. I see Paul vowing, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Also, "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me," Romans 15:1-3 (continuing the thought of Romans 14)

Would you please show me where Paul said, that this only applied while you were in the presence of the weaker brother?

[Rockfort]

&lt; ...show me where Paul said, that this only applied while you were in the presence of the weaker brother? &gt;

This opens a load of questions. The primary focus of the passages is eating meat. In deference to Christians who are vegetarians by conscience, do you never eat meat at anytime, anywhere? Do you do no work on the 7th day of the week (or any other particular day) in deference to sabbatarians? Blood transfusions, birth control, war.... do you refuse to have anything to do with these things, among others, to avoid offending a 'weaker brother,' his presence notwithstanding?

[artofstone]

Good post Forrest.

Since we have strayed onto this subject (again)...two questions:

1. I listen to a lot of classical music (Verdi, Mozart...some contemporaries) and instrumental jazz. Any problems?

2. Is there room in anyone's theology for music for pleasure?

artofstone

[Aaron]

Rockfort,

We don't interpret the Scriptures according to what we are willing to do, at least we're not supposed to.

The focus of the above passages are not eating meat, much less "enjoying" meat, as is Ransom's vulgar interpretation. The focus is how to deal with "doubtful disputations" or "questionable matters" in love.

No matter which translation you read, Paul is clearly admonishing those with knowledge that love requires they adjust their lifestyles, public and private, to accommodate the consciences of the weaker brothers.

The issues you raised are incidental once that point is understood.

[Rockfort]

&lt; The focus of the above passages are not eating meat &gt;

Romans 14:2-3 -- One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Romans 14:20-21 -- Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

The overriding specific issue in these passages, by which one's brother may be caused to stumble, is eating meat. But true, that is a subtopic to not offending another's conscience. I have argued so much with 7th Day Adventists, 7th Day Baptists, UCG's, as well as with others who advocate Sunday closing laws and such things, about Romans 14:5, to have them slap back that "the context here is *eating meat*," that perhaps the meat of this passage is on my mind.

&lt; , Paul is clearly admonishing those with knowledge that love requires they adjust their lifestyles, public and private, to accommodate the consciences of the weaker brothers....
The issues you raised are incidental once that point is understood. &gt;

Your last statement is ambiguous. If the 'issues' raised-- observing days, blood transfusions, birth control, war-- are "incidental," must they be carried out according to the wishes of the 'weaker brother--' as opposed to one's own conscience-- or not?...In both public and private, as you said.

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

[DocCas]

This entire debate, "weak conscience verses strong conscience" Christians is moot, in my opinion. It seems to me that the entire argument is based on somebody wanting to do something which another Christian does not do on the basis of a bible based conviction. It seems to me it is always the "strong conscience" Christian who is wanting to crowd or even cross the line of good conduct, and the "weak conscience" Christian who desires to live a holy separated life. It is, in reality, just another form of name calling.

If we would bother to read the text in question, Paul is not talking about eating meat, but of eating meat which had been offered as a sacrifice to idols! There is obviously a spiritual element to the passage which seems to have been largely ignored. Paul is saying that, in his opinion, it is okay to eat meat purchased from the shambles which he knew had been sacrificed to idols, even though he was, indirectly, supporting the idolic temple by purchasing that meat. The other person refused to purchase the meat for he would not, even indirectly, support the idolic temple. Paul then says he too would refrain from doing so, as it was so questionable a practice, that he may cause his brother to stumble.

There are some things in this life which we don't do, even though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Jesus called this "Going the extra mile." For example, I don't go to movie theaters, not because I believe there is anything intrinsically wrong about a movie theater, but because many people would be offended by my presence there. The same can be said for many things we do, or don't do, in our Christian lives.

Another example is how we dress on Sunday. Every Sunday morning you will find me dressed in a suit, dress shirt, and tie, when I am preaching in the US. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with not wearing a suit, dress shirt, and tie while preaching, but in this country it is expected of preachers to look their best as a sign they are taking their preaching ministry seriously. However, when in foreign countries, I conform to the cultural norm for that country. I do it to avoid offending a brother in the faith,, not because God has established a specific dress code for preachers. By so doing, I am not claiming to be stronger than my brothers, nor am I showing a weakness. I am showing love for the brethren. It is that love for the brethren which seems, in my opinion, to be missing from this argument!

[Aaron]

Thomas Cassidy,

Yes, you are right. As I said above, Paul is instructing us how to deal with questionable matters in love.

Love requires that I do not live for myself, but for the sake of my brothers in Christ.

I must say I am surprised at Rockfort's reasonableness in this issue. :D This issue is not avoiding offending just anyone. The cross is an offense to many. "Brother" is a key word here.

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Not so fast, Ransom! I don't see anywhere in those chapters the "if I'm at your house" qualifier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it your contention that Paul is saying one ought to abstain from any and every activity that might offend some brother, somewhere? Whether you will ever encounter this person or not?

Doesn't sound a whole lot like "liberty" to me. In fact, it turns Paul's teaching right on its head. :(

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by artofstone:
Good post Forrest.

Since we have strayed onto this subject (again)...two questions:

1. I listen to a lot of classical music (Verdi, Mozart...some contemporaries) and instrumental jazz. Any problems?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, yes! Mozart was a Freemason and a rather vulgar man. As for jazz, it brings to mind smoke-filled nightclubs, lascivious and sensual vocals, and unusual rhythms and chords that God never intended his people to play.

So, in the name of Christian liberty, I must request that you abstain from such music and its less-than-savoury associations.

&lt;/irony&gt;

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
This entire debate, "weak conscience verses strong conscience" Christians is moot, in my opinion. It seems to me that the entire argument is based on somebody wanting to do something which another Christian does not do on the basis of a bible based conviction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shall we turn this on its head? Suppose I find the "bible based convictions" of some other Christian personally offensive because based on my study of the Bible, I see no clear injunctions against listening to popular music? Yet, nonetheless, I am being treated as spiritually inferior or even a questionable Christian (I have, in fact, faced both accusations personally for this very reason).

Now it is I that is being pressured to sin against my conscience, to abstain from an activity that the Bible does not condemn. "What is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23) cuts both ways, Thomas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we would bother to read the text in question, Paul is not talking about eating meat, but of eating meat which had been offered as a sacrifice to idols!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed he is - and, in fact, this is the very same issue he takes up in 1 Cor. 8, where he says: "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?" (vv.9-10). It is implicit in Paul's teaching that believers may eat meat bought on the open market with a clear conscience, no questions asked . . . except where it might become a stumbling block to the weak. Paul says "[w]e know that an idol is nothing" as though he understood that his readers would, for the most part, take that for granted - it was for those occasions where a "weak" Christian might not understand this self-evident truth that Paul requests that they be accommodated.

It is clear from this passage and Romans 14 that restricting one's freedom for the sake of the "weak" is not the norm - liberty, exercised with discretion, is the norm.

Perhaps, rather than being doormats for the sake of every arbitrary whim that some hypothetical "weak" Christian, whom I do not know, have not met, and have no dealings with, might be offended by, our efforts would be best spent teaching such Christians the truth about liberty. Paul's use of "strong" and "weak" to describe such people implies a certain immaturity which the Christian is expected to outgrow, does it not? Are we to spend our lives mollycoddling the ignorant, or building them up?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul then says he too would refrain from doing so, as it was so questionable a practice, that he may cause his brother to stumble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be precise, he would refrain if he might be seen by a "weak" Christian (1 Co. 8:10). How does listening to rock music in my car, or on a Walkman, or in the privacy of my own living room when I am alone, violate this principle?

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Is it your contention that Paul is saying one ought to abstain from any and every activity that might offend some brother, somewhere? Whether you will ever encounter this person or not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My contention is for a proper reading of the Scriptures.

I will agree, that to walk in love is a high calling indeed. It is a straight and narrow path. You will find that you must leave a lot of your worldly pleasures and comforts behind if you decide to take that path.

As long as Ransom lives for himself, he will never know what it is to walk in love.

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
My contention is for a proper reading of the Scriptures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so the question being posed, you avoid it. I repeat: Do you contend that Paul is saying that if someone, somewhere might be offended by what we do (which is not, in itself, sinful), we should never, ever do that thing again?

Yes or no?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As long as Ransom lives for himself, he will never know what it is to walk in love.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now you're talking about me! I'm flattered, but how does this explain Paul's teaching on Christian liberty?

[Aaron]

Ransom,

Where the issue is a mere matter of personal preference, my answer is yes.

You started out by submitting that music is simply a matter of personal preference, but when I responded you threw in the red herring of blood transfusions and other matters distinctive of those sects with which whom we have real doctrinal disputes and asked how I would apply the Scriptures to them.

The issue in Romans 14 is "doubtful disputations," or matters of opinion--not doctrinal issues.

We have a Scriptural example we can use to help us discern how to apply this principle. If you study the reasons that Paul had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending some Jews, yet refused to have Titus circumcised though it resulted in offending other Jews you will be on the road to a right application of his admonitions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

If you want to apply these Scriptures to music, don't make the ludicrous assertion that they are adomonishing you to live one way in secret and another way in public. That is classic hypocrisy.

It wouldn't have mattered whether those whose tender consciences were offended by Paul's eating of meat were around at the time he was eating or not. If they knew it was his practice then it would put a stumbling block in their way. Therefore he says, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

If music is, as you affirmed, a simply matter of personal preference, then you are not the better in your walk with Christ with or without rock music.

Therefore, since you vaunt yourself as one who has knowledge and is stronger, it is your duty to Jesus to live, publicly and privately, for the sake of the "weaker" brother. For if you sin so against a brother, you sin against Christ, 1 Corinthians 8:12.

[ April 24, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[Ransom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]Where the issue is a mere matter of personal preference, my answer is yes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for admitting this.

I take it, therefore, that you drive only a black car, so as not to offend our conservative Mennonite brethren who view any other car colour as immodest?

I take it, therefore, that you abstain from drinking coffee, as I understand it is taboo in some European Christian circles.

Do you abstain from wearing neckties and shirts with buttons for the sake of our Amish brethren?

And, of course, to keep this on-topic, I'm sure that in your church assemblies you sing no human-written hymns, but only Biblical psalms, in deference to our Presbyterian and Reformed brethren who regulate their worship according only to what the Bible positively prescribes for public worship. (And those a capella, of course!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You started out by submitting that music is simply a matter of personal preference, but when I responded you threw in the red herring of blood transfusions and other matters . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was not me. Check your attributions. (Is your study of Scripture as careful as your guess at who wrote what?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have a Scriptural example we can use to help us discern how to apply this principle. If you study the reasons that Paul had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending some Jews, yet refused to have Titus circumcised though it resulted in offending other Jews you will be on the road to a right application of his admonitions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an excellent example. Paul had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending some Jews, yes. But Luke qualifies which Jews, doesn't he? He says it was "the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that [Timothy's] father was a Greek" (Acts 16:3) In other words, Paul didn't circumcise Timothy to hedge against offending some Jew, somewhere - it was for the sake of those Jews who knew Timothy's family and whom it was likely they would encounter!

So rather than prove your point, this episode proves mine: guarding against "stumbling" others applies to those with whom one might possibly interact and to whom one might credibly give offense.

As for the example with Titus, Paul calls those Jews "false brothers" who were trying to bind the Gentiles to the Law. They were hypocrites! Titus' uncircumcised condition did not give offense; those Jews [/i]took[/i] offense.

Again, this episode proves my point, not yours. We are certainly in agreement that I am obligated to restrict my exercise of my liberty for the sake of those to whom I might give offense. So I won't play popular music in my living room when I am entertaining guests who are not comfortable with it. But I am under no such obligation when I encounter Pharisees who are not tempted to sin by the playing of rock music, but simply take offense at it and call it "evil" (with no objective proof from the Word of God). I owe them no deference, any more than Paul owed the hypocritical Jews a circumcised Titus. As he later says in Galatians, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want to apply these Scriptures to music, don't make the ludicrous assertion that they are adomonishing you to live one way in secret and another way in public. That is classic hypocrisy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I never said any such thing. I believe I have said that I will simply not do what might give a brother offense if he is there to be given offense. That is not hypocrisy. It would be hypocritical to pretend I never listened to rock music when in fact I often did in secret. But there is a difference between that and simply not doing so under some circumstances where the welfare of a brother is involved. That is not hypocrisy, since there is no deception and no intent to portray myself as something other than I am.

If I had a friend that was uncomfortable around rock music, and I knew he was coming, I would not have it playing when he arrived. If he surprised me at home while I was listening, I would turn it off. In neither case would I pretend it was never on. Nor would I rearrange my furniture to get the "offensive" CDs out of the room where they couldn't be seen. That would be hypocrisy, you see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If they knew it was his practice then it would put a stumbling block in their way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So when Paul says he was as one without the law to those without law (1 Cor. 9:21), he actually meant he was always under the law?Because, no doubt, the Jews knew it was his practice to be out of the Law for the sake of the Gentiles, and they would have been offended by that practice, right?

Obviously Paul is saying that he modified his behaviour, as the situation warranted, for the sake of those with whom he associated. When he was with Jews, he acted like a Jew; when with Gentiles, like a Gentile. I am saying no different.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore, since you vaunt yourself as one who has knowledge and is stronger, it is your duty to Jesus to live, publicly and privately, for the sake of the "weaker" brother.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not said anything different. I do, however, dispute what you call living for the sake of "weaker" brothers.

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
I submit to you that enjoying certain types of music, or not, is exactly the same kind of activity as enjoying meat, or not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is saying to me that you believe music is a matter of personal preference.

Again, the Scriptures cannot be interpreted on what one is willing to do. If you believe the sects you mentioned are indeed your brothers, and that your indulgence of your personal preferences in dress and car color, or whatever non-doctrinal issue is causing offence, and you do not abstain then you are NOT walking in love. That is the message of the oft-quoted chapters.

To walk in love means NOT to please yourself. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Walking in love carries a high price tag, I'll admit.

I'll reply to your hatchet job on Paul's motives later. It's late and I have to get up early tomorrow.

[Aaron]

As promised, here is the second part of my reply to Ransom.

You marginalize the sacrifices made by Paul and Timothy when you assert that they merely made them for the sake of the Jews that they were around "at the time." Circumcision is a permanent condition, and Paul's not eating meat as long as the world stands [again no "as-long-as-they're-around" condition implied here] is also a total, permanent commitment to the consciences of his "weaker" brethren.

The issue with Paul, and what he so deperately tried to convey to you, is the kingdom of God. He did not have Titus circumcised lest he lend credence to the heresies of the judaizers, not because of some personal preference. He had Timothy circumcised to remove stumbling blocks from the way his weaker brethren.

The issue with Ransom, on the other hand, is himself--his liberty, his preferences. But then, isn't self-centeredness the chief characteristic of CCM?

[Rockfort]

&lt; But then, isn't self-centeredness the chief characteristic of CCM? &gt;

What? "I'm, happy, so happy, as onward I go..."... "I'm saved, saved, saved!"..."A higher plain than I have found"..."And he walks with me and he talks with me"..."But that thy blood was shed for me"..."And the burden of my heart rolled away"...

You probably recognize these phrases of "self-centeredness," and they do not come any 'CCM.'

Furthermore, you continue to emphasize the point that living a life which does not offend a brother in Christ is difficult, but you do not answer the specific questions (dress, car color, food, et al, and call blood transfusions a "red herring" [you got the color right on that one, anyway]). To avoid offending any brother or sister at anytime goes beyond difficult to impossible. All these taken together show why I cannot follow the reasoning which says contemporary music should be disallowed, but blood transfusions, meats, style of dress, et al, are not subject to the same denunciation.

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:

What? "I'm, happy, so happy, as onward I go..."... "I'm saved, saved, saved!"..."A higher plain than I have found"..."And he walks with me and he talks with me"..."But that thy blood was shed for me"..."And the burden of my heart rolled away"...

You probably recognize these phrases of "self-centeredness," and they do not come any 'CCM.'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and I agree that songs which focus on 'me' cannot rightly be called hymns, yet even in the gospel songs you quoted, with the possible exception of In the Garden, there is a more definite description of the work of Christ in the individual than can generally be found in CCM as a whole.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Furthermore, you continue to emphasize the point that living a life which does not offend a brother in Christ is difficult, but you do not answer the specific questions (dress, car color, food, et al, and call blood transfusions a "red herring" [you got the color right on that one, anyway]).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are wrong. I answered those issues directly.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
To avoid offending any brother or sister at anytime goes beyond difficult to impossible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you are living for yourself.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
All these taken together show why I cannot follow the reasoning which says contemporary music should be disallowed, but blood transfusions, meats, style of dress, et al, are not subject to the same denunciation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not the one who made the comparison. I am simply correcting Ransom's doctrinal fallacies concerning meat offered to idols.

We can quibble about specifics forever. So this is my last post under this topic about this issue.

[superdave]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
If that's how you view listening to music, then you must defer to those who have a conscience toward it. That is the message in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about those who have been indocrinated into believing that it is sinful and morally corrupt, and have never had a chance to as you infer "develop their conscience" toward it. We are than back where we started, some great and Godly people believe it is sinful and some do not. Your "consicence" on the matter is determined by which of the above groups influenced your decisions as a child, or as a new christian. There is not definitive proof text on musical style, since my Bible didn't come with a cd in the back giving examples of Godly music, or examples of what to avoid. Bummer