28.6.05
Will Smith on Afro-Urban Culture
Here's an interesting article from WORLD magazine about an even more interesting Will Smith statement. If Will is right and the rest of the world is looking up to Hip-Hop culture, is it time middle-class white America at least examined it? Especially evangelicals who claim to care. Post your comments.
"SAHARA"
Matthew Macanaghey, always a crowd pleaser, stars in this Indiana Jones-esque action/ adventure saga. Penelope Cruz also stars, but the movie is better than that. Despite her presence the movie is genuinely funny at times. Don't go in expecting too much and you won't be disappointed. It's an unbelievable story line with unbelievable crashes, escapes, fights, rescues, and, of course,...he gets the girl. Just like Indiana.
Fights, explosions, rotting dead people, mean people, mild profanity and vague, adventure-seeker ethics constitute the main of the objectionable elements. Of course, PC can't resist tearing her clothes off for the beach scene to end the movie, but it is not sensuously done. And besides, she's not attractive anyway. Anywho...
Solid 6 out of 6 (low expectations; met).
Fights, explosions, rotting dead people, mean people, mild profanity and vague, adventure-seeker ethics constitute the main of the objectionable elements. Of course, PC can't resist tearing her clothes off for the beach scene to end the movie, but it is not sensuously done. And besides, she's not attractive anyway. Anywho...
Solid 6 out of 6 (low expectations; met).
"The New Testament and the People of God" by N. T. Wright
Evangelicals love to hate Bishop Tom Wright. Leaving for the moment the uncertain footing of the grounds of our disdain, and examining the man, this peculiar affection seems wrong headed.
NTPG reads as a sterling example of scholarship, evangelical interaction with liberals, and a well-written, enjoyable piece of literature. (History, no less!) For that and that alone it deserves a reading. This is the trouble with Tom Wright. We cannot pigeon hole him, or anyone for that matter, to his weakest points. We would all benefit much more if we took from authors their best and not focus so on their worst. That is, unless we're just after something to raise a beef over. But most Christian readers ought to be after the betterment of their own souls, drawing closer to God, and the encouragement of their brethren. If such things control our readings, then we will gain much, as people and as a people.
NTPG's main point is that the world of Judaism into which the NT was written and, previously, into which the Christ of God came did not possess a monolithic theological worldview as typically construed. Pharisaism occupied only a part of the pie. Their legalistic tendencies did not dominate the mindset of most Jews to the extent some readers of Paul have thought. Rather, they, along with hellenistic Jews, zealots, essenes, and others reflected individual community interpretations of a broader worldview, to which each of those communities peculiarities and writings point. This worldview was the opperating principle upon which first century Jews lived. They percieved themselves to be still in exile. They valued the land and Torah. All these things point to the reality that first century Jews did not regularly seek to become a part of God's people but rather they took on different practices depending on their setting by which they maintained their status of a right relationship with God. As Wright says, It was not about getting in, but about staying in. He does not yet apply this Judaistic worldview to the doctrine of justification, though that must be coming since that's what everyone is upset about. Rather, he applies the Judaistic worldview to the first century church and shows how many of the presuppositions remain the same but there is a fundamental reinterpretation of the symbols and a retelling of the stories. Christians were not alone in doing this. Other groups did the same sort of reinterpretation and retelling. But the Christians' retelling was based on historical realities and not purely on reinterpretation.
Left here NTPG gives an excellent entry point into the world of first century Palestine. By doing so Wright shows both how shocking Christianity was to the Jews and how shocking its growth was to the Romans and how true, therefore, its claims must be. This is an invaluable, faith-building service for which Tom should be written "thank you" cards, not mocked or vilanized.
NTPG reads as a sterling example of scholarship, evangelical interaction with liberals, and a well-written, enjoyable piece of literature. (History, no less!) For that and that alone it deserves a reading. This is the trouble with Tom Wright. We cannot pigeon hole him, or anyone for that matter, to his weakest points. We would all benefit much more if we took from authors their best and not focus so on their worst. That is, unless we're just after something to raise a beef over. But most Christian readers ought to be after the betterment of their own souls, drawing closer to God, and the encouragement of their brethren. If such things control our readings, then we will gain much, as people and as a people.
NTPG's main point is that the world of Judaism into which the NT was written and, previously, into which the Christ of God came did not possess a monolithic theological worldview as typically construed. Pharisaism occupied only a part of the pie. Their legalistic tendencies did not dominate the mindset of most Jews to the extent some readers of Paul have thought. Rather, they, along with hellenistic Jews, zealots, essenes, and others reflected individual community interpretations of a broader worldview, to which each of those communities peculiarities and writings point. This worldview was the opperating principle upon which first century Jews lived. They percieved themselves to be still in exile. They valued the land and Torah. All these things point to the reality that first century Jews did not regularly seek to become a part of God's people but rather they took on different practices depending on their setting by which they maintained their status of a right relationship with God. As Wright says, It was not about getting in, but about staying in. He does not yet apply this Judaistic worldview to the doctrine of justification, though that must be coming since that's what everyone is upset about. Rather, he applies the Judaistic worldview to the first century church and shows how many of the presuppositions remain the same but there is a fundamental reinterpretation of the symbols and a retelling of the stories. Christians were not alone in doing this. Other groups did the same sort of reinterpretation and retelling. But the Christians' retelling was based on historical realities and not purely on reinterpretation.
Left here NTPG gives an excellent entry point into the world of first century Palestine. By doing so Wright shows both how shocking Christianity was to the Jews and how shocking its growth was to the Romans and how true, therefore, its claims must be. This is an invaluable, faith-building service for which Tom should be written "thank you" cards, not mocked or vilanized.
"BATMAN BEGINS"
One would think that just because a movie is about "The Bat" it should be great. The Nineties, unfortunately, showed us that is not the case. The two final Batman movies of the twentieth century could not have died sooner. The pomp and waste evidenced in the actors, production, story-lines, and ethos of those productions sat for several years as a gravestone, unmarked, but gaudy nonetheless, upon the tomb of the super-hero story.
"Along came a spider..." Spiderman 1 and 2 roared in with the right stuff. Notwithstanding that Spidey is a Marvel comics hero (I haven't held that against him), those movies were great. Acting, effects, production...but most of all, truth. The last thing comic book fans care about is nipples on the bat suit, sales, pyrotechnics even. We want the man behind the camera to be true to the story in the squares. The Spidey shows did this wonderfully. In fact, in my humble opinion there has not been a bad super hero movie since the new batch launched with Spidey 1 (though perhaps the fantastic four may prove me wrong). Yes, I include in that appraisal The Hulk, which I watched twice in the same week because I liked it so much.
We've gone and made a movie about Elektra even. But would anyone touch the Bat? The cape and cowl hung lifeless for long years until...What's that!! Where'd it go!? Just like Batman's disappearing tricks, the waves of shadow cast by his cape, the rustle of cans and disturbed cats in the shadows as he makes his way toward a criminal, so to the last few years brought rumors and shadows. "A new batman?" "Christian Bale?" "Are you serious?"
Wonderfully serious, "Batman Begins" swung into theatres a few weeks back and delivered the most believable rendition of Batman yet (no offense Michael Keaton; we loved you too. What you lost in height you made up in scowl). Christian Bale, who's been off making a killer action movie called "Equilibrium" that no one saw but everyone should, came off far more articulate, cool, and fierce than I expected. The acting was superb; the story solid; the setting true; the ethos right. The only thing that sucked was the "shaky-cam'-up-close-fight-scenes" which jilt the viewer. You know they train for months for this stuff (we've seen the special features enough times to know that); the least you can do for them and for us is give us a good view of the fighting. Sheesh.
Still, since it is the Batman story I give a 9 out of 10 (10 was the "Return of the King"). The violence was not severe; profanity was minimal; sexuality was nill; themes were the sort that qualify it for a PG-13 rating, but to which children should be exposed sooner than that, at least in the pages of the thrilling comics of yesteryear!
"Along came a spider..." Spiderman 1 and 2 roared in with the right stuff. Notwithstanding that Spidey is a Marvel comics hero (I haven't held that against him), those movies were great. Acting, effects, production...but most of all, truth. The last thing comic book fans care about is nipples on the bat suit, sales, pyrotechnics even. We want the man behind the camera to be true to the story in the squares. The Spidey shows did this wonderfully. In fact, in my humble opinion there has not been a bad super hero movie since the new batch launched with Spidey 1 (though perhaps the fantastic four may prove me wrong). Yes, I include in that appraisal The Hulk, which I watched twice in the same week because I liked it so much.
We've gone and made a movie about Elektra even. But would anyone touch the Bat? The cape and cowl hung lifeless for long years until...What's that!! Where'd it go!? Just like Batman's disappearing tricks, the waves of shadow cast by his cape, the rustle of cans and disturbed cats in the shadows as he makes his way toward a criminal, so to the last few years brought rumors and shadows. "A new batman?" "Christian Bale?" "Are you serious?"
Wonderfully serious, "Batman Begins" swung into theatres a few weeks back and delivered the most believable rendition of Batman yet (no offense Michael Keaton; we loved you too. What you lost in height you made up in scowl). Christian Bale, who's been off making a killer action movie called "Equilibrium" that no one saw but everyone should, came off far more articulate, cool, and fierce than I expected. The acting was superb; the story solid; the setting true; the ethos right. The only thing that sucked was the "shaky-cam'-up-close-fight-scenes" which jilt the viewer. You know they train for months for this stuff (we've seen the special features enough times to know that); the least you can do for them and for us is give us a good view of the fighting. Sheesh.
Still, since it is the Batman story I give a 9 out of 10 (10 was the "Return of the King"). The violence was not severe; profanity was minimal; sexuality was nill; themes were the sort that qualify it for a PG-13 rating, but to which children should be exposed sooner than that, at least in the pages of the thrilling comics of yesteryear!
16.6.05
Forgiveness
Fellowship concerns:
Do I need to ask for forgiveness after I've already accepted Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins on the cross?
Yes. 1 John 1:9 presupposes this by equating continual confession with presumably continuous forgiveness.
But how on earth does this work? How can I be forgiven if I've been forgiven everything?
Forgiveness exists in the life of believers in the same way "every spiritual blessing in heaven." We have, in Christ, every spiritual blessing. But we do not know them experientially, rather they are administered to us through means, such as Paul's prayer later in Ephesians 1. Paul hopes the Ephesians will see and know, experientially, the grace of God, which Paul referenced earlier. So also though we have recieved forgiveness in Christ at the cross, once for all. Nonetheless, we continue to sin and so continue to need the appropriation of God's forgiveness. This occurs in the same way as our need of grace, blessings Christ bought, met in a regular way to the Christian community through the ordained means of prayer, fellowship, scripture reading, meditation, exposition, proclamation, the ordinances, fasting, and others. We need grace. God has given us grace in Christ. But so also we need God's grace in Christ today and tomorrow. We need forgiveness because we sin and are sinful. God has forgiven us in Christ. But we also need God's forgiveness today and tomorrow.
Therefore the few allusions to continual asking for forgiveness remain substantiated for our lives. "How can one live with a need for forgiveness?" We walk by the Spirit, in faith. God has forgiven us in Christ. By faith we trust Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. We don't need to list and itemize daily sins; rather, we should always be open to repentance whenever the Spirit brings to mind a sin. If we don't repent in view of sin, what's the option? Being hardened to the sin. One could say a viable option is to turn from the sin toward Christ and praise Him for His sacrifice. In reply, repentance is the name for this turn. "But why 'ask for forgiveness'?" Because it is presupposed in scripture; because it magnifies the cross; because it is a depth of repentance that a simple, "I'm sorry," does not reach.
Do I need to ask for forgiveness after I've already accepted Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins on the cross?
Yes. 1 John 1:9 presupposes this by equating continual confession with presumably continuous forgiveness.
But how on earth does this work? How can I be forgiven if I've been forgiven everything?
Forgiveness exists in the life of believers in the same way "every spiritual blessing in heaven." We have, in Christ, every spiritual blessing. But we do not know them experientially, rather they are administered to us through means, such as Paul's prayer later in Ephesians 1. Paul hopes the Ephesians will see and know, experientially, the grace of God, which Paul referenced earlier. So also though we have recieved forgiveness in Christ at the cross, once for all. Nonetheless, we continue to sin and so continue to need the appropriation of God's forgiveness. This occurs in the same way as our need of grace, blessings Christ bought, met in a regular way to the Christian community through the ordained means of prayer, fellowship, scripture reading, meditation, exposition, proclamation, the ordinances, fasting, and others. We need grace. God has given us grace in Christ. But so also we need God's grace in Christ today and tomorrow. We need forgiveness because we sin and are sinful. God has forgiven us in Christ. But we also need God's forgiveness today and tomorrow.
Therefore the few allusions to continual asking for forgiveness remain substantiated for our lives. "How can one live with a need for forgiveness?" We walk by the Spirit, in faith. God has forgiven us in Christ. By faith we trust Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. We don't need to list and itemize daily sins; rather, we should always be open to repentance whenever the Spirit brings to mind a sin. If we don't repent in view of sin, what's the option? Being hardened to the sin. One could say a viable option is to turn from the sin toward Christ and praise Him for His sacrifice. In reply, repentance is the name for this turn. "But why 'ask for forgiveness'?" Because it is presupposed in scripture; because it magnifies the cross; because it is a depth of repentance that a simple, "I'm sorry," does not reach.
8.6.05
music, morality, and melee
JMC,
Thanks for writing me back and forcing me to be clear. Each counter-point you raised deserves further dialogue (with a liberal?). Allow me to explain further.
1. How can music be neither a "moral thing," nor a Christian liberty issue, and yet be a "moral influencer"?
First, music is not a moral entity. A piece of (wordless) music does not possess objective morality. If a thing has objective morality than it ought to be able to be agreed upon by likeminded Christians. Objective morality, as in the wickedness of murder, the goodness of worshipping God, is not subject to debate. Situations may arise that seem to give exception to this (i.e. was Rahab's lie okay?), but prove the rule in so doing. Morality is objective. If music is directly moral, is itself an entity possessing morality, then we ought to be able to agree on any given piece of music's moral value.
But this is not the case.
Rather, Second, skipping the Christian liberty issue till the next paragraph, music does not possess objective moral weight but does INFLUENCE existing moral dispositions or, in the case of lyrical songs, INTENSIFIES the moral message of the song.
Allow me to present a middle category: I've made the claim that music is not moral, you've maintained that music is "certainly...more than just a matter of taste." You're not comfortable with music being more than just taste, more than just "in the eye of the beholder." Neither am I. The position that "Music is a matter of taste" does not reflect reality. Yet, for reasons stated above, I am no more comfortable saying that music is a matter of moral value. Instead, Music, as a moral influencer, is a matter of wisdom. Allow me to explain.
Music takes the current state of my emotions, psyche, spiritual state, and amplifies the present disposition of my heart. If I am downcast, feeling lonely, sad, distant from the Father, then the piece could be as inoculous as Canon in D, but the effect would be to heighten my negative moral disposition. Likewise, if I am in a positive frame of mind, things going well, my moral disposition heading "north," then the same song could have a vastly different effect, one of moral resolve, strengthening, etc.
Moral Disposition: The moral direction of the thoughts and intents of one's heart. One may not even be aware of them.
Of course, in the case of lyrical songs the moral disposition is replaced with the moral message of the song lyrics, unless, further compicating things, either the lyrics are indistinguishable or over familiar.
Therefore you can see that music is a matter of wisdom. The wise man will have regard to those styles of music and genres of song that turn his eyes toward God, drive him to personal honesty, and spur him on to love and good deeds. The fool will feed the negative dispositions of his heart, will arrange the permutations of his musical diet according to the lust of his flesh.
This is a much better description of reality, that is, the way music works in the real world (you too are a musician, so I know you feel this with me), than is the description of music as moral or the description of music as taste. We know it is neither of these. Rather, it is a matter of walking wise.
This answers some of the questions you pose in your last response. "Is is morally wrong for me to call something ugly beautiful?" No. But it is foolish. "Is it ok for me to enjoy something ugly?" No. It may not be the wisest thing to do, though. "Can anything be devoid of morality in a world created by God?" Absolutely; but everything takes on moral weight by how we use it, whether we use it wisely or not, redeem our interaction with it or not. Thus, driving the car can be foolish, if we are not redeeming that time, just as listening to the Pop Top 10 can be foolish, if we are not laboring to redeem that time (even then, it may not be the wisest thing to do). And that is the point. Wisdom is a walking issue, a life issue, a time issue. Redeem time; walk wisely (Ephesians 5:15ff).
Third, is music a Christian liberty issue? You seem to imply that since there are "weaker" and "stronger" it therefore is a liberty issue. The stakes are too high in genuine liberty issues for this to be a liberty issue. The only offense occuring in the realm of music is the offense of "refined" (read: ha ha) sensibilities. Only by stretching imagination can one concieve of a situation in which an immature Christian stumbles so as to fall because of music style. And few of those objecting to strong music are immature Christians. The only way in which they stumble spiritually is in thier judgmental attitude.
2. You raise an important biblical-theological question: "Can anything be devoid of morality in a world created by God?" I see what you're getting at, I think. But I cannot equate "Cursed" with "Evil." Scripture does not allow this. Things that are in bondage to the curse can be redeemed. You cannot redeem objective moral evil. There is nothing redeemable about the objective evil of pedophilia. But cars can be redeemed, computers, people, etc. Redeemability forces us to admit the neutrality of the object. It is not in itself evil, irredeemable (People are a special case which Christ can remedy; objects and art are primarily on my mind here since any non-human thing can be used for good or for evil). I equate "evil" with "irredeemable", not "cursed". "Cursed" sets the stage for redemption.
Also, and since it's not itemized I'll just stick it here, I think we need to think more about the relationship of morality to absolutes and aesthetics. Can absolutes exist apart from moral declarations? Can the sun absolutely be shining without the sun's shining being love, peace, justice or some other moral good? Can a song be bad music without being evil music? Can a song be good music without being godly or edifying? Yes. Just because there are absolutes does not mean those absolutes are moral absolutes.
3. What do I mean when I say, "At some point we just have to walk away from them"? Allow me to explain. I do not mean what you read me as saying, "let's get above politics and agendas and get things done," or "I am right and don't confuse me with any amount of facts."
Rather I mean what Paul means in Romans 16:17: "Keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them." Note first these men cause dissensions and hindrances. Read those words in the context. Men forcing people to take sides over inconsequentials and men creating hindrances (to fellowship, worship? what?). Response? Turn away from them. That is exactly what I mean by "we just have to walk away from them."
Or hear Paul in 1 Timothy 4 (other pastoral passages could be referenced). In the context of "men who forbid marraige and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who bleieve and know the truth (v. 3 [their problems sound very similar to ours, men forcing others to abstain from that which God created to be enjoyed by believers]), Paul tells Tim in v. 7, "have nothing to do with worldly fables."
At the very least these Pastoral admonitions give us a category for walking away from silly teachings. How the music debate fails to fall into that category will have to be explained to me. At the very least, J, you must concede that there are occasions upon which we must cease arguing with people because thier teachings are so silly and wrong headed. Do you think the false teachers thought abstaining from foods a very important issue? You bet. Did they think there were serious moral implications? You bet. Were they nuts? You bet.
4. Finally, to your last paragraph too, I am indeed saying "that this issue is American, recent, and tertiary." You say, "So what," and "this is certainly an important area." I'm not sure how you can say both things. If this issue is American, recent, and tertiary, then it is not certainly an important issue, in the bigger scheme of things. Sure, we deal with contextual concers. Africans don't fight our fast-food culture. Asians don't struggle with disrespecting their elders like our culture does. Neither do we struggle with polygamy like many cultures, nor worship our dead like other cultures. We must concern ourselves with cultural issues, true. However, in our concern for cultural issues we must keep the bigger picture in view. And at no point in our struggle can we let a cultural concern become a hindrance in the way of the gospel. This is at least what a hypersensitivity to modern music has created.
I am not advocating removing the Christian voice from the realm of Aesthetic philosophy or artistic expression; Rather, let it be there for the sake of the gospel and not for the sake of historic gospel-accompanying forms. Let us preach Christ in our Aesthetic Philosophies and Art and Everything.
d
Thanks for writing me back and forcing me to be clear. Each counter-point you raised deserves further dialogue (with a liberal?). Allow me to explain further.
1. How can music be neither a "moral thing," nor a Christian liberty issue, and yet be a "moral influencer"?
First, music is not a moral entity. A piece of (wordless) music does not possess objective morality. If a thing has objective morality than it ought to be able to be agreed upon by likeminded Christians. Objective morality, as in the wickedness of murder, the goodness of worshipping God, is not subject to debate. Situations may arise that seem to give exception to this (i.e. was Rahab's lie okay?), but prove the rule in so doing. Morality is objective. If music is directly moral, is itself an entity possessing morality, then we ought to be able to agree on any given piece of music's moral value.
But this is not the case.
Rather, Second, skipping the Christian liberty issue till the next paragraph, music does not possess objective moral weight but does INFLUENCE existing moral dispositions or, in the case of lyrical songs, INTENSIFIES the moral message of the song.
Allow me to present a middle category: I've made the claim that music is not moral, you've maintained that music is "certainly...more than just a matter of taste." You're not comfortable with music being more than just taste, more than just "in the eye of the beholder." Neither am I. The position that "Music is a matter of taste" does not reflect reality. Yet, for reasons stated above, I am no more comfortable saying that music is a matter of moral value. Instead, Music, as a moral influencer, is a matter of wisdom. Allow me to explain.
Music takes the current state of my emotions, psyche, spiritual state, and amplifies the present disposition of my heart. If I am downcast, feeling lonely, sad, distant from the Father, then the piece could be as inoculous as Canon in D, but the effect would be to heighten my negative moral disposition. Likewise, if I am in a positive frame of mind, things going well, my moral disposition heading "north," then the same song could have a vastly different effect, one of moral resolve, strengthening, etc.
Moral Disposition: The moral direction of the thoughts and intents of one's heart. One may not even be aware of them.
Of course, in the case of lyrical songs the moral disposition is replaced with the moral message of the song lyrics, unless, further compicating things, either the lyrics are indistinguishable or over familiar.
Therefore you can see that music is a matter of wisdom. The wise man will have regard to those styles of music and genres of song that turn his eyes toward God, drive him to personal honesty, and spur him on to love and good deeds. The fool will feed the negative dispositions of his heart, will arrange the permutations of his musical diet according to the lust of his flesh.
This is a much better description of reality, that is, the way music works in the real world (you too are a musician, so I know you feel this with me), than is the description of music as moral or the description of music as taste. We know it is neither of these. Rather, it is a matter of walking wise.
This answers some of the questions you pose in your last response. "Is is morally wrong for me to call something ugly beautiful?" No. But it is foolish. "Is it ok for me to enjoy something ugly?" No. It may not be the wisest thing to do, though. "Can anything be devoid of morality in a world created by God?" Absolutely; but everything takes on moral weight by how we use it, whether we use it wisely or not, redeem our interaction with it or not. Thus, driving the car can be foolish, if we are not redeeming that time, just as listening to the Pop Top 10 can be foolish, if we are not laboring to redeem that time (even then, it may not be the wisest thing to do). And that is the point. Wisdom is a walking issue, a life issue, a time issue. Redeem time; walk wisely (Ephesians 5:15ff).
Third, is music a Christian liberty issue? You seem to imply that since there are "weaker" and "stronger" it therefore is a liberty issue. The stakes are too high in genuine liberty issues for this to be a liberty issue. The only offense occuring in the realm of music is the offense of "refined" (read: ha ha) sensibilities. Only by stretching imagination can one concieve of a situation in which an immature Christian stumbles so as to fall because of music style. And few of those objecting to strong music are immature Christians. The only way in which they stumble spiritually is in thier judgmental attitude.
2. You raise an important biblical-theological question: "Can anything be devoid of morality in a world created by God?" I see what you're getting at, I think. But I cannot equate "Cursed" with "Evil." Scripture does not allow this. Things that are in bondage to the curse can be redeemed. You cannot redeem objective moral evil. There is nothing redeemable about the objective evil of pedophilia. But cars can be redeemed, computers, people, etc. Redeemability forces us to admit the neutrality of the object. It is not in itself evil, irredeemable (People are a special case which Christ can remedy; objects and art are primarily on my mind here since any non-human thing can be used for good or for evil). I equate "evil" with "irredeemable", not "cursed". "Cursed" sets the stage for redemption.
Also, and since it's not itemized I'll just stick it here, I think we need to think more about the relationship of morality to absolutes and aesthetics. Can absolutes exist apart from moral declarations? Can the sun absolutely be shining without the sun's shining being love, peace, justice or some other moral good? Can a song be bad music without being evil music? Can a song be good music without being godly or edifying? Yes. Just because there are absolutes does not mean those absolutes are moral absolutes.
3. What do I mean when I say, "At some point we just have to walk away from them"? Allow me to explain. I do not mean what you read me as saying, "let's get above politics and agendas and get things done," or "I am right and don't confuse me with any amount of facts."
Rather I mean what Paul means in Romans 16:17: "Keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them." Note first these men cause dissensions and hindrances. Read those words in the context. Men forcing people to take sides over inconsequentials and men creating hindrances (to fellowship, worship? what?). Response? Turn away from them. That is exactly what I mean by "we just have to walk away from them."
Or hear Paul in 1 Timothy 4 (other pastoral passages could be referenced). In the context of "men who forbid marraige and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who bleieve and know the truth (v. 3 [their problems sound very similar to ours, men forcing others to abstain from that which God created to be enjoyed by believers]), Paul tells Tim in v. 7, "have nothing to do with worldly fables."
At the very least these Pastoral admonitions give us a category for walking away from silly teachings. How the music debate fails to fall into that category will have to be explained to me. At the very least, J, you must concede that there are occasions upon which we must cease arguing with people because thier teachings are so silly and wrong headed. Do you think the false teachers thought abstaining from foods a very important issue? You bet. Did they think there were serious moral implications? You bet. Were they nuts? You bet.
4. Finally, to your last paragraph too, I am indeed saying "that this issue is American, recent, and tertiary." You say, "So what," and "this is certainly an important area." I'm not sure how you can say both things. If this issue is American, recent, and tertiary, then it is not certainly an important issue, in the bigger scheme of things. Sure, we deal with contextual concers. Africans don't fight our fast-food culture. Asians don't struggle with disrespecting their elders like our culture does. Neither do we struggle with polygamy like many cultures, nor worship our dead like other cultures. We must concern ourselves with cultural issues, true. However, in our concern for cultural issues we must keep the bigger picture in view. And at no point in our struggle can we let a cultural concern become a hindrance in the way of the gospel. This is at least what a hypersensitivity to modern music has created.
I am not advocating removing the Christian voice from the realm of Aesthetic philosophy or artistic expression; Rather, let it be there for the sake of the gospel and not for the sake of historic gospel-accompanying forms. Let us preach Christ in our Aesthetic Philosophies and Art and Everything.
d
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
