The devil in music

I think the questioning of "why we sing what we sing" is a good thing. No one should simply go through the motions without evaluating the motions in light of Scripture.

So in that light, I welcome the questions. But I also know:

• There will be some folks who disapprove of everything. There are others who blindly affirm everything without discernment. Neither are healthy approaches.
• There are some people who ignore clear Scriptural directives. There are others who will claim Scripture to say something it does not. I try to avoid both pitfalls.
• I answer to God for how I worship and how I lead others to worship. This is a very serious matter, and I take it as such. And thus, I will listen to affirmers and detractors, but it is not to them whom I answer.

 

I'm with J.D. on the moral character of music. To take extreme examples: there is music that is effective for strippers to dance by and there is music that sent soldiers out to face bloody slaughter. The two kinds of music cannot be substituted for one another while intoning "music is neutral, it's just a matter of whatever you like." Human nature is fixed and music affects us in certain ways.

The Pythagoreans understood a few things. So did all the other philosophers who wrote through the centuries about the effects of music.

The problem I see today is the insistence of Christians that music is neutral and a refusal to attempt to discern the clean from the unclean. It is a denial of the insights of millennia.

 

Then where do we draw the line? Do we ban a song (in church) based on just one "jazz note" or a certain chord structure? Do we cut out all music from a certain composer/singer/time period? Doesn't personal preference HAVE to play a part somewhere?

 

Is ethereal singing wrong, then? I do sing in an ethereal voice depending on the song, mostly christmas carols or lullabyes. It's not meant to be seductive or sultry. If it is, I think the problem lies with the listener, not the singer. After all, songs like "Silent Night" don't work if you're yelling out the verses, right? And there are times when a quiet, somber song is what people need. Music stirs people; that is it's nature.

Love

Sopranette

 

I think we've got different definitions of ethereal going here. I would not classify any of the music you mentioned as ethereal. By ethereal, I mean something like "haunting", "ghostly", or "hauntingly beautiful". Night of the Fawn by Debussy is the primary example that is fixed in my mind. The no-words theme song of the old Star Trek tv show is an example also, although it is much less ethereal than the other one.

But your statement "Is ethereal singing wrong" brings up a crucial point and helps me to clarify my thoughts. Ethereal singing, in and of itself, has no moral characteristic, but it does has a universal EFFECT, even though that effect seems to be greater or lesser depending on the listener, nevertheless, the effect is there. But it becomes a moral issue in the context in which the music is used and applied.

For example, in the course of a stage play we may use an entire range of sounds to represent the given mood of a scene. This is perfectly acceptable.

We begin lying to ourselves and to the audience if we say that we can use the score from one scene in any other scene and the authenticity of the scene not be threatened. One score is just as valid for any scene as any other score, to say any thing different is to be prejudiced and judgemental.

And when we begin making sounds that we claim to represent the voice of God, then it becomes an extremely moral issue. Not just any sound will do.

I would like for someone to explain to me which characteristic of God is represented by be-bop or hip-hop?

Oh, I forgot, God is "down wid it" these days, so I guess hip hop does represent God.

 

JD, I think the problem is your presumption that the effect of certain music naturally evokes a universal response, eg. that Debussy is "haunting" or "ethereal". As NP so well explained, the contextually-appropriate use of certain music is at least strongly influenced by how it has been contextually used in the past and other social interpretations. For example, I fellowship with some who enjoy Christian metal and others who do not. Those that do not enjoy it tend to think the music sounds demonic and scary, whereas those that do find it intense but passionately Christian. Though listening to the same music, the same influence results in two very different moods. Just to be clear, I absolutely agree that the context the music is used is important. Taking the play example, however, it's important to remember that using music to help conveying the scene authentically depends on the context of the audience and how they will interpret the musical accompaniment.

 

Thometimes I have bacon and eggth, somethimes thereal. I can't thing at breakfath no matter what I'm eating. It flieth out of my mouth.

 

Suppose I don't know? Would that leave personal preference as the only alternative?

I defy anyone to delineate the point where "night" begins on any given evening. You cannot do it. You cannot say "This second it is night, but a second earlier it wasn't." But what would you think of me if I therefore denied the existence of night and claimed that it is just a matter of opinion?

If today's evangelicalism abandoned the notion of neutrality in music and affirmed that some music (not words, music) is degrading and inimical to holiness of heart and life, it would be so cataclysmic that we'd probably experience a rupture in the space-time continuum. The catastrophe would not be over where the line was drawn, but over the mere acknowledgment that there is a difference between the clean and unclean.

Yet, it would only be acknowledging what philosophers have always known and said.

 

I agree. I do think, though, there has to be a gray area in between the black and white where personal preference comes in. That's where we need to listen to the Holy Spirit, not someone else's preference.