"If we reject a form of music out of hand because it is not the form of music we prefer, then we are trying to kick against the variegated world that the triune God created"

Doug Wilson is so smart. I hope I can be like him one day. Satan, the world, and the flesh can’t corrupt anything. Everything is made by the triune God that is therefore without flaw or defect in every way.

This is truly a marvel that a person can be so smart like this. He has thought through everything and those who disagree apparently haven’t. I want to be that smart one day. Take art. God is the one who created beauty. The woman was created beautiful for man. I am glad that the beauty of the woman cannot be corrupted or exploited by Satan, the world, and the flesh.

Wow. Doug Wilson is so smart.

gracious? No that’s not it. Christ-like? No, still looking for the word…

I would think he might add “association” to his list though I think conservatives take that one too far. And I am not sure about his #2. But the general premise is a very valid one.

Jeff, sorry you were offended. Your judgmental attitude isn’t very gracious or Christlike by your standards though either.

In all my 42 years, I have never been in a worship service quite like what I experienced at Christ’s Church in Moscow, Idaho.

And Douglas Wilson is pretty smart.

So is his son, Nate. Funny, too.

And Doug’s dad - well, he is the humble pioneer of Christianity up North. Still is. He just loves Jesus and wants everyone to know the Savior.

All three are leaders in the worship of the King in Idaho.

James K, speaking for myself, I don’t mind your attitude a bit since I don’t agree with you and you make your side look bad. But if I did agree with you, I would not want you representing me, lol. :) :) :) ;) (just trying to balance out a blunt remark with some smilies)

The gist of the article…
1. Music is amoral.
2. As long as it isn’t badly done, at the wrong time, or really, really bad.
Then it must be OK.

Let’s ignore the musical content for the time being and ask about the words of the songs he was listening to. Do any of them glorify any sort of sin? Or are we just supposed to ignore that? I can’t say that I know all the songs. I’m over 50 and therefore am an official old fogey about this. However, it is folly to just say I don’t really care what I listen to as long as it isn’t real bad. Isn’t saying all musc is God’s music like saying all truth is God’s truth? Are we just supposed to accept that?

This is not surprising to read from Wilson. The circular logic he uses is quite charateristic of his approach toward theological considerations and satisfies many of those who are comforted by this form of dogmatism. He is IMO, a Neo-Reformed version of Jack Hyles.

a Neo-Reformed version of Jack Hyles?

He was specifically addressing the music and not lyrics.

Can those of you who disagree point out the flaws in his reasoning rather than resorting to personal attacks?

I don’t think he argues music is amoral. He cites the compositions of Cage and Schoenberg (whose music rarely had words) as declaring rebellion against God.

I do think he over simplifies the mass production/distribution of pop (Yes, classical is available through many of the same mass outlets, but that distribution system has yet to impact the way art music is created to the same extent that pop has been impacted.) and leapfrogs, without sufficient basis, to the notion that pop is non-problematic.

I am glad that he seems to imply though that some genres are not sufficient for communicating what may be needed during certain functions. Like, say, expressing praise to the King of Heaven.

By the way, the quote grabbed at the top of this posting cuts both ways. In fact, music leaders who omit Gregorian chant, sacred art songs, and traditional hymnody might be the primary group implicated by it.

If we reject a form of music out of hand because it is not the form of music we prefer, then we are trying to kick against the variegated world that the triune God created

At least the folks who come right out and state that traditional hymnody, classical music etc. are examples of the redeeming influence of Christianity on culture are being honest. Theologically suspect, sure, but at least honest. The New Testament does not lay out guidelines or instructions for music and worship. Because of this, notions of what constitutes things that are reverent, orderly and propriety are determined by the culture. So, whenever conflict over these issues arise, it really does come down to “my culture is better than yours” and contriving theological reasons why this is the case.

Take classical music for example: back then it was the popular music of the day. Many of the leading composers were feted in much the same manner as rock stars are now, lived scandalous lives, and only did religious-themed works because the times required it, not out of any sense of personal belief or devotion. And of the composers that were pious, most of them were papists, and their works very much reflect Romanist theology and worldview. Yet that is what gets upheld as reverent these days merely because of its antiquity, and because it isn’t being played on MTV. If that is not judging things by the external standards of men, then what is? Honestly, the KJV-Only position makes more historical and theological sense.

As far as the hymnody goes, how “traditional” is it actually? In nearly all cases, the “tradition” doesn’t extend further back than Charles Wesley, and further a great many of these “traditional” hymns are less than 100 years old. And in addition to the musical genre not reflecting anything that might have actually been sung in the early church, a great many of the “traditional” hymns were written by people that were extremely suspect theologically. Isaac Watts, for example, http://www.tlogical.net/bioiwatts.htm denied the Holy Trinity .

On one hand, it could be said that my position flies in the face of fundamentalism. But on the other, the true fundamentalist position on worship is that of the Reformers: hymns (and with a very strict definition of what actually constitutes a hymn, mind you … nearly all of the entries in the “traditional hymnody” would not qualify) sung without musical accompaniment. While it can certainly be said that their position was a reaction to their revulsion of the decadent, self-indulgent man-centered excesses of papist music and worship of the era, at least their position was theological. There were no references to anything other than hymns and doxologies being sung by believers in the New Testament text, there were also no reference to music or musicians, so they took the position that the things pertaining to worship that were present in the Old Testament but were not mentioned in the New Testament were of the Old Testament religion that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. While one is certainly free to disagree with their position, the point is that their position is a lot more defensible theologically than claiming that the same Roman Catholic music that the Reformers found as garishly repulsive as Lady Gaga in their era should be considered God-honoring and reverent music by Protestants today.

Either take the position of the Reformers, or acknowledge that there are other forms of reverent, orderly and proper worship beyond traditions established by British and American churches 200 years ago. (I don’t go further than that is because the first and second great awakenings DID transform Protestant worship; a fact that fundamentalist and other traditionalist attitudes toward worship conveniently overlooks). There is no other theologically - or even historically - honest alternative.

I have to replace my driveway. The choices are asphalt, gravel or concrete. Me thinks that all choices are either moral or immoral.

What think ye?

[Jim Peet] I have to replace my driveway. The choices are asphalt, gravel or concrete.

Wrong. You have listed only some practical, moral choices. Other choices include shattered glass, 24K gold, a rubber composite made from stolen tires, and the crushed bones of murdered neighbor children. Culture, conscience, and purpose have narrowed your choices.

Or, to paraphrase an adaptation of a certain Crichton novel, just because one can does not mean one should.

;^)