Ironically, Larson is the one to have lightened up on the universal criticism of the beat and Christian music that uses it as evil. He still acknowledges that the beat can capture people's minds (and this is true among the "impure" who do use it to get sexually charged, as I have been pointing out), but says that there are Christian rock acts and songs that are good. Of course, Watkins, Cloud and the others now criticize him for abandoning their position.
Noebel then claims:If what they were saying was true, then we would have started seeing this by now, but there is no sign of it starting to happen. The only exception is "Christian strippers", but then they are not accepted as true Christians by anyone I know, and aren't they apart of a cult called "Children of God"?
Well, there is a slight point to some of this. These arguments always have some grain of truth that they take and try to build on. Any group that is a heartthrob to the teens of the opposite sex (with their raging hormones in that age) are to some extent inciting sensuality, and in the case of those "innocent" teen groups, it is very subtle especially compared to the more explicit stuff we see today. But back when it was new, when the culture was shifting (as in the 60's and 70's when the Osmonds were popular), it stood out much more to the old-timers. For once again, to the impure, nothing is pure, and the majority are not walking in the Spirit, so there is a lot of lust. Then, the beat may help further lead these people don the road of sensuality. But it's true that too much focus is being placed on the beat by itslf, as if it causes all of the sensuality (or no, it is an "expression" of sensuality; whatever), and can never be used in a good fashion. There are a whole lot of other factors, especially the hearts of the people. Still, there should be more caution and discernment used by Christians.
Domino Effect not just in the Power Grid
Discussion in 'Music Ministry' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 15, 2003.
Page 7 of 10
-
-
Must say I think all three of you are arguing your points quite well here. I'm enjoying reading this discussion and am hopeful that it will continue for a while yet.
Some interesting points for consideration from all sides.
Well done,
Enda -
What a day! I will reply, but I'm too tired tonight.
-
When Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, He was tempted to put the needs of his body before the glory of God. I can say with great confidence, that there is no one on this board who, if he had the power to turn stones to bread, would not have justified misusing the power to satisfy his hunger. After all, our body is the the temple of the Holy Spirit, and we must maintain it yada yada yada.
So, does the music stimulate our bodies more than it stimulates our minds? What part of dancing glorifies God? The whole premise of this free dance project is merely a glorification of the flesh, a celebration of the body. It fails the test of spirituality on that alone. It is sensual.
But you want to see evidence of non-verbal communication that expresses sensuality. Now because you only equate sensuality with a sexual apetite, you will probably miss the more subtle forms. When Jesus was tempted with the pride of life, He was tempted to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple. It would prove to the world that He was indeed the Messiah, the King of the world. But Christ, in His perfect and complete humility would wait until this honor was bestowed upon Him by His Father. Until then He made Himself of no reputation and took on the form of a servant.
So Christ prays, "LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." Psalm 131:1.
Lofty eyes. "There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up," Prov. 30:13. A sensual gesture, yet one that is not sexual.
A hard expression is another sensual expression which is not sexual in nature. "A wicked man hardeneth his face." Prov. 21:29.
Besides, we know by nature whether one has a proud attitude or a humble one. Though sensual, it is not sexual.
But why this project to begin with? Is not to make a name for themselves?, Gen. 11:4.
So, something does not have to be sexual to be sensual. Eric would fail something on the basis of its sexuality. That's why I posted the quotes I did.
Now part of dance is also the face. If I see a hard look, or lofty eyes can I fail the music on those points as well?
Notwithstanding, your challenge intrigues me. I have no intention of leaving the Baptist Board, so don't even suggest it. I know nothing of Radiohead, or the kind of music they play. I know little of the real arrangement between them and this dance company. You haven't once truly represented any of my stands, how can I have the assurance you really know what's going on here. Let me make a few calls and send a few emails. I'll get back with you. -
What you are attempting to do is to justify something on the basis of direct revelation from God, a central canon of Charismania and practically any other cult around.
-
-
And you didn't answer my question. How do you know when you are truly worshipping as opposed to just singing a song?
By following the Spirit we know:
Perhaps that is the crux of the argument right there. Do you believe that God could lead someone to do something sensual? Do you believe that God inspired David to dance with joy? Do you believe that God can convict someone of sin? Do you believe that God convicts people of listening to music that has the accent on the upbeat?
What is your Scriptural proof for this?
Galatians 5:18 - But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. -
Very relaxing.
Wait. There's the sound of a jet. Ugly.
A car horn honked.
It's quiet again.
Now a train horn.
I don't hear one rock beat.
I do know it can't happen by accident, so where, in nature does a rock beat exist? You tell me. What animal "sings" to a rock & roll beat? What nonmusical machine creates one with its normal operation?
4
That is not the number four. It is a physical representation of the number four. The number four is an abstract concept.
IV
Again, not the number four. It's a physical representation of the number four.
These symbols are meaningless without education, but we understand by nature the abstract idea of the number four.
Non verbal communication does not require symbols. (Sign language is still verbal communication.) No one needs to learn what proud or humble gestures look like to know that these are proud and humble gestures. Eyes lifted or eyes down are universal and cross-cultural distincitions and mean the same thing. In fact, they are either proud or humble looks in and of themselves. They do not merely symbolize pride or humility.
Music is nonverbal communication. No one needs to learn notation to understand it or get the message. Some folks can play it without the ability to read a single note. The beats, chords and melodies are not symbols of anything. They are the thing, and we respond to them naturally without learning.
Music is not matter. There. That's about as plain as I can make it. It is not made of matter, just like meanings, moods and feelings, real as they may be, are not matter, neither are they contained in matter.
Communication is not matter, for meaning must be present for anything to be classified as communication. Though you use your mouth to say things, it is preposterous to assume that these words and meanings existed for even a nanosecond in your mouth.
Meaning and communication require thought. Thought is not an object. It is an action. The root word of music is "muse" which means to think. The word thought is also used to classify a musical "element."
That's all I'll say on it. That's all I can say. Disagree if you must. But we're done with this particular idea.
Your side has no evidence to present. Don't blame me because the vast body of evidence readily available supports my arguments better than it does yours. -
You continue:
It is true that Christ's temptation was "the flesh", but note it involved "putting the needs of the body before the glory of God". The whole point of the temptation was for Christ to resist Satan's challenges. This was a special circumstance, but otherwise, meeting that bodily need is not wrong. Likewise, dancing in worship can be glorifying God in the body, not putting the body "before" God. This would assume once again, that God is only worshipped in stiff, robotic posturing and lack of all emotion. Anything else, therefore, would come "before" His will. Even marching, which is said to be good and spiritual, is a bodily response to rhythm, and in that case is just as "sensual". This is why Baptist In Richmond earlier said "ALL music is sensual". But you keep shifting the definition of sensual back and forth across the line of sexual. Of course, many people in churches do put the body before God, neglect the mind, etc. But you can not accuse everyone of falling into this, just because you witness some radical charismatics doing it.
[ September 10, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ] -
-
Eric, you've mentioned that false teaching is typically based on a kernal of truth. I'd like to add to that list of characteristics. I'm not sure where the page for Peter Master's rant against music is located, but you will notice that it includes a ton of jargon, or new terminology. When one has to create new meaning for words, or new words altogether in order to describe something they are trying to push as truth, you can generally bet that it is false teaching. A couple examples used in that article (the same I've seen Aaron parrot) are 'sensual' (which doesn't mean sensual), and 'ecstatic worship' (which includes a heck of a lot more than what common sense dictates is ecstatic). There are plenty more but I can't remember them off the top of my head.
But in my opinion the most important characteristic of false doctrine is that it always raises more questions than it answers. I have been to a lot of churches, in my life. I've lived all over the country and seen both extremes of the Christian spectrum and everything in between, and I can say that the most invaluable tool in determining whether something it true or false, is that axiom right there. If someone tells me some thing is true, and it immediately spawns a ton of common sense objections, and all their answers lead to more and more and more questions, until finally the rabbit trails are indistinguishable from the highway, I know with certainty that this is unscriptural teaching.
So later tonite, I will give a detailed rebuttal to you Aaron, and then in order to give you the oppurtunity to live up to this statement here:
-
okiedoke, here we go. Taking it from the top:
"what is it exactly that makes these evil rhythms evil? What is this supposed "sensuality" that is being expressed?"
To which you directly replied: "What makes the beat sensual is its nature. I can discern that nature by the physical responses to it. The dancing that the beat invariably inspires is sexual and enticing to the lusts of the flesh."
I then responded by saying: "Why is it that I am not inspired to dance in a sexual or enticing manner when listening to rock music? If a beat truly can be evil in and of itself, should I not feel at least some compulsion to thrust my hips or strip to my birthday suit?"
Then your response: "Let's say you're assigned to choregraph a dance to the rock beat? Or perhaps your coaching a dancer to move to rock music. What would the characteristic actions be?"
Now I understand that you are saying the 'sensual' responses that music elicits can be more than just sexual, but let's get one thing straight, you are the one who said the danicing that music inspires is invariably sexual, not I. In fact I understand this concept so much that when I issued my challenge to you regarding the free form interpretive dance, I chose my words carefully. If you had actually read what I said, you might recall my words as being: "I promise that if any of those dancers makes a rude, lewd, crude, or otherwise obviously sinful gesture while dancing, I will never listen to rock n' roll again. Could I have left it any more open?
And yet even after that, you are saying all I can focus on is sexuality? If there is anyone who is obsessed with sex here, it's you! Don't try and push your hang ups on me. I have been more than accomodating in my efforts to find out how you believe music can communicate evil (or good for that matter). Now why is it that despite my best efforts to engage you in a meaningful dialogue, you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me? How about a little reciprocity here?
Now let's break this down to a more easily digestable line of reasoning.
When I asked you what this sensuality is exactly that you feel evil music expresses you effectively said that you deterimine the sensual nature by the physical response it elicits. Now this may come as a surprise to you, but there are leagues and legions of people who view rock music to be just as much of a legitimate form of artistic expression as you might think of a classical symphony or opera. This is evidenced by the fact that when you attend a concert by the majority of the artists I enjoy, you will find the audience to be motionless, quiet, and attentive to the musicianship of the performers. When You go to a Mogwai, Sigur Ros, or GYBE show, you will find behaviour no different from that of an audience at a more "refined" classical venue. I'm not even talking about music which is strictly at a slow pace, I'm talking about a wide array of styles.If you were in the least bit interested it knowing the truth, it wouldn't take much effort to find this out.
But regardless of this fact I wanted to continue your line of reasoning which says that you can discern the 'sensual' (whatever that means) nature of music by the physical response it elicits. Okay, so if I was to choreograph a dance to the beat of rock music what would it look like? I'm game. So I give you this challenge which involves dancers (who are artists), performing a spontaneous interpretive dance to the music of Radiohead and Sigur Ros, and I guarentee you that it will not be sinful in nature. SO what's your response? In essence you say It doesn't matter how they dance, the fact that they dance at all is a celebration of the flesh and therefore rock music is evil
:confused:
If this doesn't define circular reasong, then what does? I don't even want to get into a debate about whether or not dancing is "a celebration of the flesh" or not, I've got far too many rabbits to chase as it is. The fact is, if I use your line of reasoning, there can be no such thing as good music, because where there is music, there is an oppurtunity for dance, and when one can dance, it is a celebration of the flesh, therefore all music is evil. So your question was not only misleading, it was purposely deceptive. You aren't interested in whether or not rock music can inspire dancing which isn't sexual or sensual (again, whatever that means), you are looking for any oppurtunity at all to shout "EVIL! I TOLD YOU SO!" without offering any kind of explanation.
I am at a total loss here as to how I should continue. Can you help me? What question do I have to ask in oder for you to explain how music can communicate evil, and what the essential message of that evil is? Is there a magical password or something?
onward:
I'm editing the tempation of Jesus out, because you don't show how it relates to music communicating evil. Or music being evil communication, however you want to put it.
[ September 11, 2003, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ] -
Go ahead - ask Aaron about that part of Psalm 150 that commands the reader to praise Yahweh with dancing. See what happens.
-
This is not happiness. You can insert a picture of a person smiling and it still is not happiness.Happiness, like any state or thought or desire or whatever is something that requires symbolism to communicate. I can put on a happy face, and pretend to be happy, and still not be happy. Have you ever seen someone who was so angry they were actually smiling? How did you know they were angry? Certainly not by the look on their face. I used to work with a guy who did that all the time, and when I saw that look, I knew he was angry about something. There is no possible way that you can ever be truly, fully certain of my state by the look on my face or gestures I make. The reason for that is because we don't have perfect communication.Now you can be relatively certain of my state by the various gestures and communications I make, but none of those gestures or communications are the thing itself. Follow me? In fact there is ony one person in all of existence who doesn't need these expressions, gestures, communications etc. etc. to know your heart, and that is the man who is God, Jesus Christ. It is only with Him that we can have perfect communication, without any doubt that our thoughts and our hearts and our entire being are completely understood without us having to express anything. Do you see now how all of these things are symbols, and not the actual "thing"?
I know I promised a list of unanswered questions that are in this thread for you, but it is crazy late, and I need to get to bed. If you actually bother to read my posts, you will find that many of the questions are restated anyway, so you can work on those if you have the inclination.
Good night.
An exhaustive list will appear at a later date, hopefully tomorrow.
***edit***by the way I had two lengthy responses in this session, the first is the second last post on the last page, it took me a long time to do all this since I am an awful typist, and much cutting/pasting was involved, and I've been up for 24 hours already, so please if you would, take the time to read them both.
[ September 11, 2003, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ] -
-
It's impossible for me to reply to every trifle in the verbose posts of multiple personalities.
So I won't even try. I'm sure you understand.
I see that despite my best efforts to put it in simple terms, you all still kick at the Scriptural concept of sensuality. So I will post the two verses in the NT where the term is used, and Vine's definition thereof.
I'll respond more later. Right now, it's late and I'm tired. -
-
Let's look a little closer at the two passages. First from James 3:
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.Click to expand...
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.Click to expand...
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.Click to expand...1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.Click to expand...1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.Click to expand...
What does that mean for us? Could it possibly mean that for Christians, there is no such thing as "sensual music?" Honestly the evidence points MUCH strongly to that than to Aaron's assertion. Nowhere is music described has having natural or sensual values, and from taking a look at the contexts of when the word "natural" or "sensual" is used, we see that Christians have no worry about sensuality - as we have accepted the Spirit, we are no longer natural. Our very character has changed!
Page 7 of 10