- Feb 19, 2016
- 53
- 22
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
I mentioned this article in the thread Why Exactly is Rock Music Satanic? (post #76). It has bothered me for a long time that I threw it out, and I've even searched their website for this article, but I searched again and I found it.
The standards that Calvin Jones elucidates here are rational and sensible. These are standards I can submit to. Jones criticizes Savior Machine here, and I do not object to that. I have all of their music, but I am willing to trim my music collection to meet biblical standards. The issue for me would be 'Does the song I enjoy speak of darkness to me?' I like the song Lunatic Smiles. I think it's a pretty good song. I'm not one to discard a band's whole discography because of something that may not affect one song, but I am open to correction.
I also totally agree that the biblical standard for music cannot include the goal of evangelism. There is no biblical precedent for evangelism being the purpose of Christian music.
Here is the link to the full article: The Biblical View of Music, Part 2: Some Errors Considered
I haven't read Part 1, but here is Part 2:
The Biblical View of Music, Part II: Some Errors Considered
By Calvin Jones – bio
Not Previously Part of the August 1999 Issue
In a previous article, "The Biblical View Of Music,"1 I discussed the key Biblical requirements for good music. Art, by its very nature, is enjoyed by being reflected upon. It occupies our thoughts through the stimulation of our senses. It must be experienced to be enjoyed and to bring pleasure to man. God has given us specific qualifications for the objects of our thoughts and reflections. Paul in Philippians 4:8 gives us by divine revelation this brief but comprehensive list for God-honoring art: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable if anything is excellent or praiseworthy think [or meditate] on such things."
In this article, I want to focus on some of man's erroneous standards for judging music and the consequences of these standards.
A Gothard Fallacy
In an effort to critique the flood of contemporary music being produced, many evangelicals have come up with their own standards for music rather than apply God's standards. Just as many legislators rely on their own sinful minds to come up with their ideas of right law, so also many Christians mistakenly substitute their own judgments for God's in the area of art and music.
One of the mistaken ideas heard often in the evangelical world is Bill Gothard's comparison of music with other disciplines such as chemistry, language, math, and art. In his book Research in Principles of Life Advanced Seminar Textbook (p. 124), Gothard makes the following comparisons and analogies:2
CHEMISTRY LANGUAGE MATH
H2O + CN Truth + Lie Solution + 1
= Poison = Untruth = Incorrect
Then Gothard gives the analogy to art and music on the next page (p. 125).3
ART MUSIC
Figure + Nudity Rhythm + Imbalance
= Pornography = Acid Rock
As Dr. Gregg Strawbridge has pointed out:
It assumes what must be proven. Namely, no one has shown that "acid rock" music style (whatever it is) is evil. Further, the implied argument rests on an analogy between the different disciplines. "Accurate evaluation of music is only possible as we integrate it with the related disciplines of mathematics, science, history and medicine. The laws of these disciplines act as an authoritative reference to confirm that the musical expression is either following or violating established principles....Just as there is balance of power in the three branches of United States government, so the laws of related disciplines provide checks and balances for music." (p. 123). The perceptive reader will see quickly that until one can prove that a music style is analogous to poison, falsehood, mathematical inaccuracy, or pornography, the indicting conclusion is fallacious. The fallacy is the called the fallacy of false analogy.4
The analogies do not have the impact intended when scrutinized. For example, what is poison in large quantities may be medicines in small quantities; mathematical inaccuracies are quantitative measures, not qualitative measures (as music is). Further, "Imbalance" in the last of the series (rhythm + imbalance = acid rock) must be defined. If "imbalance" essentially means modern popular music, the argument has not advanced beyond circularity; if it can be defined so as to prove that a particular style is morally evil, then it must rest on a Biblical definition of "imbalance" in music. Gothard does not show it Biblically.5
The standards that Calvin Jones elucidates here are rational and sensible. These are standards I can submit to. Jones criticizes Savior Machine here, and I do not object to that. I have all of their music, but I am willing to trim my music collection to meet biblical standards. The issue for me would be 'Does the song I enjoy speak of darkness to me?' I like the song Lunatic Smiles. I think it's a pretty good song. I'm not one to discard a band's whole discography because of something that may not affect one song, but I am open to correction.
I also totally agree that the biblical standard for music cannot include the goal of evangelism. There is no biblical precedent for evangelism being the purpose of Christian music.
Here is the link to the full article: The Biblical View of Music, Part 2: Some Errors Considered
I haven't read Part 1, but here is Part 2:
The Biblical View of Music, Part II: Some Errors Considered
By Calvin Jones – bio
Not Previously Part of the August 1999 Issue
In a previous article, "The Biblical View Of Music,"1 I discussed the key Biblical requirements for good music. Art, by its very nature, is enjoyed by being reflected upon. It occupies our thoughts through the stimulation of our senses. It must be experienced to be enjoyed and to bring pleasure to man. God has given us specific qualifications for the objects of our thoughts and reflections. Paul in Philippians 4:8 gives us by divine revelation this brief but comprehensive list for God-honoring art: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable if anything is excellent or praiseworthy think [or meditate] on such things."
In this article, I want to focus on some of man's erroneous standards for judging music and the consequences of these standards.
A Gothard Fallacy
In an effort to critique the flood of contemporary music being produced, many evangelicals have come up with their own standards for music rather than apply God's standards. Just as many legislators rely on their own sinful minds to come up with their ideas of right law, so also many Christians mistakenly substitute their own judgments for God's in the area of art and music.
One of the mistaken ideas heard often in the evangelical world is Bill Gothard's comparison of music with other disciplines such as chemistry, language, math, and art. In his book Research in Principles of Life Advanced Seminar Textbook (p. 124), Gothard makes the following comparisons and analogies:2
CHEMISTRY LANGUAGE MATH
H2O + CN Truth + Lie Solution + 1
= Poison = Untruth = Incorrect
Then Gothard gives the analogy to art and music on the next page (p. 125).3
ART MUSIC
Figure + Nudity Rhythm + Imbalance
= Pornography = Acid Rock
As Dr. Gregg Strawbridge has pointed out:
It assumes what must be proven. Namely, no one has shown that "acid rock" music style (whatever it is) is evil. Further, the implied argument rests on an analogy between the different disciplines. "Accurate evaluation of music is only possible as we integrate it with the related disciplines of mathematics, science, history and medicine. The laws of these disciplines act as an authoritative reference to confirm that the musical expression is either following or violating established principles....Just as there is balance of power in the three branches of United States government, so the laws of related disciplines provide checks and balances for music." (p. 123). The perceptive reader will see quickly that until one can prove that a music style is analogous to poison, falsehood, mathematical inaccuracy, or pornography, the indicting conclusion is fallacious. The fallacy is the called the fallacy of false analogy.4
The analogies do not have the impact intended when scrutinized. For example, what is poison in large quantities may be medicines in small quantities; mathematical inaccuracies are quantitative measures, not qualitative measures (as music is). Further, "Imbalance" in the last of the series (rhythm + imbalance = acid rock) must be defined. If "imbalance" essentially means modern popular music, the argument has not advanced beyond circularity; if it can be defined so as to prove that a particular style is morally evil, then it must rest on a Biblical definition of "imbalance" in music. Gothard does not show it Biblically.5
Last edited: