February 15, 2010 FB
INTRODUCTION
This is not going to be what you may be thinking. Actually this argument will not be against modern Christian music for everyone. The title was just to gain attention. This is actually going to be an argument against self satisfaction, and an argument for love and sensitivity to one another.
The nature of music and personal beliefs/feelings and their relation to one another is such that there are too many variables to reach an ultimate decision about which types of music are acceptable for all believers. Therefore an objective argument against listening to the whole of both Christian and secular music, either old or new, cannot be applied to every person. Likewise, an objective argument against listening to certain parts of both Christian and secular music, either old or new, also cannot be applied to every person. Rather, the argument must be restricted to a relative nature.
This being said, there are still objective biblical truths that must be determined about what may or may not be listened to, but those truths necessarily cannot apply to any particular type or age of music without first being related to personal beliefs/feelings. And even in this case, both Christian and secular music, as a whole or in part, cannot be argued against and subsequently applied to every person.
In this case, all that can be argued for are the objective biblical principles in application to individuals, and in relation to one another. And all that can be argued against is the violation of these biblical principles both individually and in relation to others.
This is not going to be what you may be thinking. Actually this argument will not be against modern Christian music for everyone. The title was just to gain attention. This is actually going to be an argument against self satisfaction, and an argument for love and sensitivity to one another.
The nature of music and personal beliefs/feelings and their relation to one another is such that there are too many variables to reach an ultimate decision about which types of music are acceptable for all believers. Therefore an objective argument against listening to the whole of both Christian and secular music, either old or new, cannot be applied to every person. Likewise, an objective argument against listening to certain parts of both Christian and secular music, either old or new, also cannot be applied to every person. Rather, the argument must be restricted to a relative nature.
This being said, there are still objective biblical truths that must be determined about what may or may not be listened to, but those truths necessarily cannot apply to any particular type or age of music without first being related to personal beliefs/feelings. And even in this case, both Christian and secular music, as a whole or in part, cannot be argued against and subsequently applied to every person.
In this case, all that can be argued for are the objective biblical principles in application to individuals, and in relation to one another. And all that can be argued against is the violation of these biblical principles both individually and in relation to others.
BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES
Since the Bible contains God’s objective truth, anything that it commands must not be violated. Therefore, there are objectively absolute truths about music that apply to every believer. However, each person has different musical tastes. Therefore, since there are objective values that apply to all believers (biblical truths), and since there are also differing subjective personal components (musical tastes), the subjective components then must fall under and relate to the objective values. However, because the subjective components are different for each person, these same components cannot be applied to others but must remain relative, yet at the same time they must remain as constituents of the objective truths. Simply put, the biblical truths apply absolutely to every believer and to all types of music, but cannot apply absolutely to any particular types of Christian and/or secular music in relation to all believers.
There are basically two objective principles that must be brought into question for determining what types of music one should listen to. The two main objective principles are as follows: (I) Listening to fleshly music is always wrong, and (II) personal freedom must never violate another’s personal convictions.
I. Listening to fleshly music is always wrong
Galatians 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.
The flesh is at war with the Spirit and believers are commanded to not provide their flesh with anything that would lead them to sin. Therefore, if a particular type of music causes a believer to lust and stumble into sin, that type is fleshly and must not be listened to.
But what types of music are to be considered fleshly? In actuality, music itself is not fleshly or sin. What must be determined here is the difference between preference and conviction. A believer may have personal preferences about music that do not cause them to fall into sin, but they may also have convictions about music that, when they are violated, will cause them to fall into sin.
A personal preference about music is something that is normally outside the realm of sin, but can enter into it. A preference is usually determined by something within a person, not by an outside factor. However, if the personal preference causes one to lust and fall into sin, it should be rejected because it violates the biblical principle above.
This can be seen in the following illustration. Jill is a believer who likes rap music (either Christian or secular, or both). However, her preference for this style combined with her fleshly lusts cause her to start dabbling with the stereotypical lifestyles of rappers and this leads her into the sins of that stereotypical lifestyle (i.e. using profane language, using drugs, etc.). In this illustration, the preference did not cause Jill to sin. Rather it was her attraction to and subsequent involvement in a lifestyle that lead her into sin. Please note that this does not mean that everyone who listens to a type of music will have the same experience(s). Because fleshly desires are relative to each person, in this case it was a person not keeping a leash on their preferences that caused them to fall into sin. It is the fleshly lust within a person that leads them to seek out sin and pervert something that is not necessarily sinful in and of itself. A preference then is normally in favor of something, but may also be in opposition to something.
A personal conviction is something that is entirely different. It is something that normally falls within the realm of sin. A personal conviction is dependent upon the past experiences of a believer. This can be seen in the following illustration. Before John became a believer he had an addiction to alcohol. As part of his alcoholic forays he would purposely pair the drinking with country music. So now that he is a believer, whenever he hears country music it reminds him of his lust after alcohol and stirs up that lust, thereby providing his flesh with a temptation to fulfill its lusts and possibly fall into alcoholism again. It causes him to feel as though he were sinning. (A similar biblical example of this is seen in 1 Cor. 8:1-7) In this illustration, the music is actually what provides John with a temptation to fall into sin because it is something that he connects to his past alcoholic addiction. Therefore, listening to country music (both Christian and secular) is wrong for John because it may cause him to lust after sin. This is John’s conviction, and he knows that listening to a specific type of music provides his flesh with something that stirs up lust, so he tries to stay away from that type of music. It is a temptation that comes at the person from outside and stirs up lustful desires. A conviction then is always and only an opposition to something.
A brief note concerning emotion and the flesh: Emotions are normally always involved in music but they are not always fleshly. Therefore one must be careful not to automatically say that a feeling or emotion is fleshly. Because each person has a different taste in music, they will be emotionally involved in some types, but not in others. Likewise, because each person has different fleshly desires, certain types of music may cause one to lust, but others will not. The main point of this section is that a person’s flesh is not to be provided with anything that will cause their flesh to lust and possibly lead the person into sin. Therefore, if a certain type(s) of music leads a person into sin, then that person should not listen to that type(s). This is exactly what Jesus meant when he said “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you…If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you” (Matt. 18:8-9).
Here are some (not all) absolutes and possibilities that we can conclude so far:
- It is absolutely impossible for Christian music as a whole, or in part, to be sinful for every person. However, depending on certain factors, it is possible for Christian music as a whole, or in part, to be wrong for an individual.
- It is absolutely impossible for personal preferences for musical types to only and always be considered sin, but they may lead one into sin. Therefore, depending on certain factors, it is possible for a personal preference in favor of a type of music to change into a personal conviction against it.
- It is absolutely impossible for all emotion to be fleshly. However, depending on certain factors, it is possible for some emotions to be fleshly at certain times. Therefore, depending on certain factors, it is possible for certain types of music, both Christian and secular, to be fleshly for an individual.
Romans 14:1-3 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 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.
1 Corinthians 8:9-13 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
In both of the above passages the issue being addressed is concerning eating meat that was offered to pagan idols. It was the conviction of some people in both the Roman and Corinthian churches that buying and partaking of the meat that was offered to idols was sinful. But there were others who had no problem with eating the meat because, to them, meat is just meat. The issue facing those churches also applies to the issue of music in the life of a believer. Some are personally convicted if they themselves partake of certain things, and others are not. This goes back to the difference between preferences and convictions.
Preferences. The fact that a person likes or dislikes certain musical styles/artists is subject to change and therefore may be imposed upon by others.
Convictions. Since a conviction is dependent on subjective outside determining factors it should not be imposed upon, otherwise the conscience is wounded and fleshly lust may be stirred up.
What is now left to be determined is how one’s personal freedom and another’s personal conviction work in relation to one another.
Let’s look at the above Romans 14 passage first. Paul gives a distinction between the strong and the weak. In the context of the passage the “strong” would be the believers who had no conviction against eating the meat offered to idols and would do so regularly. They are the ones who have freedom. The ones who are “weak” are those who were not free to eat the meat offered to pagan idols because in their past when they ate the meat they sinfully did so at the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:21). These are the ones who are limited to not eating the pagan meat and therefore have a personal conviction against it.
Now let’s relate that to music. The believer who is strong can be characterized as the one who has no conviction against a particular type of music, neither Christian nor secular, and is free to listen to whatever they prefer. The believer who is weak is the one who has a conviction. So the weak believer cannot listen to some music without it reminding them of an old sin and possibly causing their flesh to lust after sin. Or even more to the point, upon hearing certain types of music, the conscience of the weak believer will make them feel as though they are sinning because certain types of music are always connected to an old sin.
Paul says that the one who is strong is not to have contempt for the weak because of their conviction. Apparently, in the situation of both the Roman and Corinthian churches the ones who were strong would actually disrespect and despise the weaker brethren because of their convictions. Paul says not to do this. Therefore, when applied to the area of Christian music, if a weak believer has a personal conviction about certain music then the stronger brother is not to disrespect and condemn the weaker brother or their conviction. Rather, he is to “accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (Rom. 14:1).
We can also assume that the flipside was true (14:3). Apparently in the Roman and Corinthian churches the weaker brethren were condemning the freedom of the strong. Eating meat offered to idols was wrong for the weaker brethren, so they assumed it was wrong for all believers. However, this was not the case because the meat is just meat whether or not it was offered to idols. It was only sin for the weaker brother because of their personal background. Therefore, since it was sin for the weak and not for the strong, the weak were not to condemn the freedom of the strong. The same goes for music. Because one believer may have a personal conviction against some type of music, it does not mean that all believers have the same conviction. Therefore, the weak brother who has a conviction about some type of music is not to condemn the freedom of the strong because “God has accepted [the strong]” (14:3).
Now let’s look at the passage in 1st Corinthians. This passage takes the principle to a higher level. The Romans passage was about a believer’s thinking and feelings (passing judgment), but this passage deals with actions. Paul makes it a point to let believers know that it is possible for our own free actions to cause others to sin. What Paul warns against is a strong believer being a bad example to the weaker. Paul gives an illustration of the strong believer going into the pagan temple and eating the meat there (1 Cor. 8:10). This then would become a stumbling block (8:9) and cause the weaker brother to go ahead and partake of the meat, thereby violating their weak conscience (8:10). This principle is very serious. Paul says that by using our own personal freedom we can actually cause another weaker brother to violate their conviction and stumble into sin. And, not only is it sin for the weak person whose conviction is violated, but Paul makes it crystal clear that in this situation it is also sin for the strong person to use their freedom (8:12a). Paul then makes it even more direct and says that using our freedom in a situation like this is sin against, not only the weak believer, but also against the Lord Jesus Himself (8:12b)!
So one’s freedom to listen to music, either Christian or secular, may wound the conscience of the weak, give them a license to go after their personal fleshly lusts, violate their conviction, and cause them to fall into sin. Therefore, if we know that our freedom will cause the conscience of the weak to be wounded then we must restrict our freedom so that it does not cause the weak to stumble. Here’s a brief illustration that Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave about this: You have the freedom to swing your fist anywhere in the air that you want to. Swing it here, swing it there, it’s all okay. But where my nose begins, your freedom ends. In other words, the only time that the freedom of a believer’s personal musical tastes should be limited is when it violates the conscience and conviction of another. Otherwise it is sin for everyone involved.
Here are some (not all) absolutes and possibilities that we can further conclude so far:
- Passing judgment on someone else’s freedom is absolutely always wrong. But condemning the object(s) of their freedom is okay only for oneself if it is a personal conviction. However, it must be limited to oneself and cannot be applied to or forced upon others.
- Being sensitive to and not violating the convictions of another can never be wrong. So, if there are two individuals who have convictions that seem to be in conflict with each other, remember that convictions are always in opposition to something, never in favor. Therefore, if that case does arise then one of the conflicting values must necessarily be an imposing positive preference because two limitations cannot impose upon each other. Thus, limiting oneself can never actually oppose or violate a conviction.
- Forcing one’s own freedom and/or conviction(s) upon someone else is always wrong, and it is sin against both the other person(s) and Christ. Therefore, since it is possible for listening to Christian music, as a whole or in part, to violate the conscience and be sin for a weak believer, and since the stronger believer must not violate the conscience of the weaker, then this actually is an argument against Christian music as a whole or in part for both the strong and weak believer; however, it cannot apply to every situation.
Finally, we must see that love is the guiding factor. This relates to both (A) the Lord Jesus and (B) to other believers.
A. The relationship between the believer and Jesus.
John 15:9-11"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.”
Anything that comes between a believer and the Lord Jesus is sin. Therefore, if a certain type of music, even if it’s labeled “Christian,” takes precedence over and above the person of Jesus then it is sin. In other words, just because something is labeled “Christian” does not mean that it cannot come between you and Christ. Nor does it mean that it will happen. It simply means that it is possible for music of any kind to become more important than the Lord. And sadly, this often does happen, even with Christian music. Since Jesus wants you to abide in his love and have the fullness of his joy, then you must not disobey his commandments by letting something come between you and him, even if it’s Christian music.
B. Relationships between believers.
John 15:12-13 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
Romans 14:14-15 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
From the verses above we can see that it is a sign of selfishness and a lack of love for us to refuse to limit our freedom when it violates the conscience and conviction of another. We can see that one who is not willing to give up a type of music for another believer certainly would not be willing to give his life for them. We can see that we are not walking in love and that by using our freedom knowingly and spitefully in the face of the weaker brother leads to his destruction. And we can see that it is the responsibility of the stronger believer to limit his freedom so that no one sins.
Some final conclusions and questions:
- It is possible for a believer to allow his personal musical preferences (even Christian) to get in the way of his relationship with the Lord Jesus. However, this does not mean that it will happen.
- It is possible for a stronger believer to listen to certain types of music that the weak may be convicted by, yet not be sinning against the conscience of the weak. However, this can only apply if the strong believer does not know about the conviction of the weak believer, and/or if the weak does not know about the freedom of the strong.
- It is impossible for a believer to love his brother and at the same time knowingly violate their weaker conscience and conviction. Therefore, if we know that a weaker brother has a conviction and we still violate it, it can only mean one thing; that we do not love that brother.
Here are some questions that may be asked about music:
- The question is not “Is Christian music, new or old, wrong for everyone?” The question should be “Is it wrong for me in this specific situation?”
- The question is not, “Does this music make everyone stumble?” The question should be “Is this music coming between me and the Lord and/or cause another to stumble?”
- The question is not, “What kind of music is okay?” The question should be, “Do I love my Lord and/or my brother(s) enough to give up the type of music that is offending?”
- The question is, “Am I going to limit my freedom in this case because I know it causes my brother(s) to stumble?”
Two final notes:
First, this discussion has looked at the area of music as something innocent that the believer comes at either with or without a personal conviction. However, there is another side to it. Musical artists are not always innocent and do not always have innocent songs. In the area of Christianity, Jesus says that Satan has sown evil tares (satanic servants) among the wheat (Christianity), and that the tares are indistinguishable from the wheat until they ripen (Matt. 13:24-30; 36-43). Therefore, it is certainly possible for there to be unrecognizable and indistinguishable satanic musicians (tares) within “Christian” music. In other words, if there are tares within Christian music then it is nearly impossible to tell whether or not an artist is actually a minister of Satan, and we may never discover the difference until the final judgment.
Finally, this discussion about personal convictions and their relation to other believers does not only apply to the area of music. It also applies to all other parts of the Christian life (i.e. movies we go to, TV shows we watch, places we go, hobbies we have, etc.). So we must be careful not to let any part of our behavior become a stumbling block for others. And if any of our behavior does cause another to sin, then we are commanded to limit our personal freedom so that sin will not be committed.
Nehemiah Ryan © 2010
ORIGINAL NOTE COMMENTS
Elisabeth Vander Mey
We totally agree with everything you said. Great note, Nehemiah!One question I'd like to hear your answer to: what do you do with a believer who says that all modern Christian music is wrong because it has a "rock beat" in it? We've known many believers like this. You and I see them as a weaker brother, but they see themselves as more righteous than us. What would you say to them?
Nehemiah Ryan
I'm not sure what I would do. I think that they have a preference but not a conviction. They may have a very legitimate personal reason for their problem with "rock beats" so I would find out why they have a problem first. Then I would try to slowly and carefully try to show them that not everyone else is either offended by or stumbles listening to rock beats.It could be that this is their logical reasoning:Major premise: Secular rock music has some satanic/fleshly artists in it who write worldly/fleshly songs.Minor premise: Christian music has rock beats.Conclusion: Any "Christian rock" music is not from God, but from Satan.The major fallacy is that they made a hasty generalization of rock music.
Another hasty generalization fallacy that I can see them make is that they say that every believer is affected the same way by rock music. But that simply is not true. I mean think about it, some people are affected as little by a Led Zeppelin song as they are by "Old Macdonald had a farm" (both are secular songs with a "rock" beat). Not everyone has the same feelings toward every type of music.
Just remember the loving admonition element to this. If it just becomes a battle of who has the best argument, and about who is right or wrong, then it accomplishes nothing. People come from different backgrounds so some things may be really important to them that may not be important to you. So the goal here is to help the other believer(s) see their error for themselves, not to wave it in front of their face like a bullfighter does with a bull. This is best done by asking questions. That way they can see their own mistakes and prove themselves wrong. I remember I was talking with Esther's step dad and I was just asking him questions and he was showing himself where he was wrong on certain things. Later that night when i was out of the room and i heard him say, "He's trying to prove me wrong." I thought it was funny because all I did was ask questions. He was the one proving himself wrong.
Anyway, just be very careful that you don't start an argument just to prove your point and show them that they are wrong and you are right. Start a genuine discussion to try to help them (and you) have a better relationship with Christ and to help them (and you) love their brothers and sisters more than themselves.
The self-righteousness aspect is pretty much impossible to overcome via logical arguments, even for God. Once a person believes that God somehow can't get along without them, they've moved to making themselves equal with God. Since God cannot allow this, He must humble those who have exalted themselves.
All of us have some self-righteousness in us, don't we? If that's true then how many of us need to be humbled? It's no fun, but it's it worth it.
Elisabeth Vander Mey
Thanks! I think so many believers are like the Pharisees, myself included sometimes. We look at the Pharisees like they were total hypocrites (and they were), but if we lived in that time, we would have seen them as pious, righteous spiritual leaders. They really did try to obey God's laws and live holy, righteous lives. Then Jesus came along, a poor guy who was of questionable birth, who challenged everything they cherished and revered as God's word. Jesus was a threat to their way of life, and they had too much pride to see that they had wrong motives.
Christians don't like to see themselves like the Pharisees, but so many of us are. We forget why Jesus came, to save sinners, because we get so caught up in rules and regulations and forms for church. The longer I live, the more I can see how we, as human beings, have distorted and ruined the perfect plans God has/had for us. We are always adding our own ideas and rules to things, and making them equal to God's laws, just so we can measure our own godliness and the spiritual state of others. How does that lead to freedom in Christ?I have a feeling that if Christ came to us today, we would be called hypocrites and pharisees.
Keith Hess
Regarding Aaron-Elizabeth Vander Mey's question:
Perhaps some people think that rock beats are wrong because they conflate moral/aesthetic values. That is, when they listen to music with a rock beat, they find it aesthetically distasteful (though they don't recognize the distaste as an aesthetic one), and they assume that the distaste they have for the music is a moral distaste.
Or, perhaps they recognize the distinction between aesthetic/moral values, but they think that if some piece of music is aesthetically distasteful, then listening to that music would be morally wrong.
I've also heard some people argue that listening to rock music is bad for your health (they site experiments in which plants are exposed to different kinds of music, and in which the plants exposed to classical music/hymns/etc. thrive and the plants exposed to rock music die). I'm not sure how they get from the findings of those studies to the conclusion that rock music is sinful. Maybe they reason that if it's bad for a plant's health, it must be bad for a person's health. And, they might continue, it is sinful to expose oneself to something that is unhealthy since I Cor. 6:19 is true.p.s. I don't think that all rock music is aesthetically distasteful.
p.p.s. Perhaps I shouldn't use "distasteful" since that might imply that aesthetic/moral values are subjective. I think that some aesthetic values are subjective while others are objective.
We totally agree with everything you said. Great note, Nehemiah!One question I'd like to hear your answer to: what do you do with a believer who says that all modern Christian music is wrong because it has a "rock beat" in it? We've known many believers like this. You and I see them as a weaker brother, but they see themselves as more righteous than us. What would you say to them?
Nehemiah Ryan
I'm not sure what I would do. I think that they have a preference but not a conviction. They may have a very legitimate personal reason for their problem with "rock beats" so I would find out why they have a problem first. Then I would try to slowly and carefully try to show them that not everyone else is either offended by or stumbles listening to rock beats.It could be that this is their logical reasoning:Major premise: Secular rock music has some satanic/fleshly artists in it who write worldly/fleshly songs.Minor premise: Christian music has rock beats.Conclusion: Any "Christian rock" music is not from God, but from Satan.The major fallacy is that they made a hasty generalization of rock music.
Another hasty generalization fallacy that I can see them make is that they say that every believer is affected the same way by rock music. But that simply is not true. I mean think about it, some people are affected as little by a Led Zeppelin song as they are by "Old Macdonald had a farm" (both are secular songs with a "rock" beat). Not everyone has the same feelings toward every type of music.
Just remember the loving admonition element to this. If it just becomes a battle of who has the best argument, and about who is right or wrong, then it accomplishes nothing. People come from different backgrounds so some things may be really important to them that may not be important to you. So the goal here is to help the other believer(s) see their error for themselves, not to wave it in front of their face like a bullfighter does with a bull. This is best done by asking questions. That way they can see their own mistakes and prove themselves wrong. I remember I was talking with Esther's step dad and I was just asking him questions and he was showing himself where he was wrong on certain things. Later that night when i was out of the room and i heard him say, "He's trying to prove me wrong." I thought it was funny because all I did was ask questions. He was the one proving himself wrong.
Anyway, just be very careful that you don't start an argument just to prove your point and show them that they are wrong and you are right. Start a genuine discussion to try to help them (and you) have a better relationship with Christ and to help them (and you) love their brothers and sisters more than themselves.
The self-righteousness aspect is pretty much impossible to overcome via logical arguments, even for God. Once a person believes that God somehow can't get along without them, they've moved to making themselves equal with God. Since God cannot allow this, He must humble those who have exalted themselves.
All of us have some self-righteousness in us, don't we? If that's true then how many of us need to be humbled? It's no fun, but it's it worth it.
Elisabeth Vander Mey
Thanks! I think so many believers are like the Pharisees, myself included sometimes. We look at the Pharisees like they were total hypocrites (and they were), but if we lived in that time, we would have seen them as pious, righteous spiritual leaders. They really did try to obey God's laws and live holy, righteous lives. Then Jesus came along, a poor guy who was of questionable birth, who challenged everything they cherished and revered as God's word. Jesus was a threat to their way of life, and they had too much pride to see that they had wrong motives.
Christians don't like to see themselves like the Pharisees, but so many of us are. We forget why Jesus came, to save sinners, because we get so caught up in rules and regulations and forms for church. The longer I live, the more I can see how we, as human beings, have distorted and ruined the perfect plans God has/had for us. We are always adding our own ideas and rules to things, and making them equal to God's laws, just so we can measure our own godliness and the spiritual state of others. How does that lead to freedom in Christ?I have a feeling that if Christ came to us today, we would be called hypocrites and pharisees.
Keith Hess
Regarding Aaron-Elizabeth Vander Mey's question:
Perhaps some people think that rock beats are wrong because they conflate moral/aesthetic values. That is, when they listen to music with a rock beat, they find it aesthetically distasteful (though they don't recognize the distaste as an aesthetic one), and they assume that the distaste they have for the music is a moral distaste.
Or, perhaps they recognize the distinction between aesthetic/moral values, but they think that if some piece of music is aesthetically distasteful, then listening to that music would be morally wrong.
I've also heard some people argue that listening to rock music is bad for your health (they site experiments in which plants are exposed to different kinds of music, and in which the plants exposed to classical music/hymns/etc. thrive and the plants exposed to rock music die). I'm not sure how they get from the findings of those studies to the conclusion that rock music is sinful. Maybe they reason that if it's bad for a plant's health, it must be bad for a person's health. And, they might continue, it is sinful to expose oneself to something that is unhealthy since I Cor. 6:19 is true.p.s. I don't think that all rock music is aesthetically distasteful.
p.p.s. Perhaps I shouldn't use "distasteful" since that might imply that aesthetic/moral values are subjective. I think that some aesthetic values are subjective while others are objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment