Archives For CCM

Why 2 Kings 4:38-41 Shows That 1 Timothy 4:3-5 and 6:17 Do Not Automatically Justify CCM

January 2, 2014

I have deleted this post at this time so that I can fix parts of the article to clarify the position that I have held all along. I have not changed my position on the relevance of 2 Kings 4:38-41 in relation to 1 Tim. 4:3-5 and 6:17 and how they pertain to the issue of justifying CCM, but I do believe that the article will be better by my clarifying what I wrote.

Update:

While I continue to work on the full revised version of my article, I would like to share the following brief statements that present the basic gist of how 2 Kings 4:38-41 argues against the validity of justifying CCM through an argument based on creation.

1. Second Kings 4:38-41 shows that something that God originally created as good for food (the wild vine that produced gourds) was no longer good for that God-given purpose. Based on that data, it is illegitimate to claim based on the nature of the original good creation of God that all substances that God originally gave to man for food (plants and animals) are necessarily all still inherently good for the purposes for which God originally created them.

2. God did not create any musical styles. Even if He had created all musical styles originally as inherently good, a claim that all musical styles are all still inherently good for the purposes for which God originally gave music would similarly not be automatically true just because God would have originally created them.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

On Singing, Dancing, and Playing Instruments in Scripture

December 31, 2013

Scripture speaks in at least 26 passages about various people dancing.[1] A close examination of three references to dancing in First Samuel brings out an important point about interpreting other passages in Scripture that mention both singing and dancing.

First Samuel 18:6-9

After David had killed Goliath, he served Saul faithfully wherever he sent him (1 Sam. 18:5a). David prospered, he was exalted by Saul to be over his army, and he was pleasing to all the people, including the servants of Saul (1 Sam. 18:5b-c).

When David was returning from killing Goliath, women came out from all the cities of Israel (1 Sam. 18:6a). These women were singing, dancing, and playing musical instruments when they went out to meet King Saul (and David):

1Sa 18:6 And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.

 7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.

This musical exaltation of David above Saul led to Saul’s becoming very angry and suspicious of David “from that day and forward” (1 Sam. 18:8-9).

This passage teaches us that there were at least some women in every city of Israel at this time who were able to sing, dance, and play musical instruments at the same time (cf. Exod. 15:20-21). Moreover, they thought it fitting to do all three in honoring those to whom they believed honor was due.

From this passage, we infer that music was an important part of life in all Israel at this time in its history. Two later references to the same event teach us an important point about music in relation to singing and dancing in the thinking of the people in one of the neighboring nations.

First Samuel 21:11 and 29:5

The Philistines were one of the key enemies of Israel in the days of Saul and David. Yet, when Saul began to try to kill David, David fled (1 Sam. 21:10) to Achish the king of Gath (a key city of the Philistines and the hometown of Goliath). Somehow, the servants of the king knew about the musical reception that Saul and David had received earlier when they returned from his killing Goliath:

1Sa 21:11 And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?

Comparing their report of that event with what actually took place (1 Sam. 18:6-7) brings out two key points. First, the servants of Achish do not mention that it was the women of Israel who sang and danced when they greeted Saul and David with these words. Second, they make no mention of the women playing musical instruments on that occasion.

At a later time, a different situation yet included similar omissions in the reporting of that same event: When the Philistine princes were preparing to go to war with Israelites (1 Sam. 29:1-7), they objected to Achish’s allowing David and his men to join the Philistine forces in fighting the Israelites (1 Sam. 29:1-4). The princes said,

1Sa 29:5 Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousands?

Comparing all three texts shows that both of the Philistine reports do not mention that it was the women who sang and danced and that they played musical instruments when they sang these words about Saul and David.

This comparison shows that in two later reports about people who sang and danced on an important occasion, the people reporting the event did not think that it was necessary to mention that those who were singing and dancing on that occasion were also playing musical instruments while they were singing and dancing. Apparently, these people took for granted that telling others about singing and dancing taking place would be enough for their hearers to understand that the actual event included singing, dancing, and playing musical instruments.

Alternatively, their failure to mention the playing of music on that occasion could have stemmed from their not being told (by the source of their information) about any music being played at that event. In this case, we still see two clear instances in Scripture of people whose report about an event only talks about singing and dancing taking place when actually the event also included the playing of musical instruments.

The Relevance of These Passages for the Interpretation of Another Key Passage about Singing and Dancing 

Based on the biblical evidence treated above, I believe that we have scriptural warrant for understanding that any account in Scripture of people both singing and dancing was also an instance where there was the playing of musical instruments as well—whether or not the report of that event explicitly says anything about musical instruments being played. The strong Scriptural connection between instrumental music and dancing in many other passages supports this interpretation.[2]

This line of Scriptural reasoning has important implications for how we are to interpret what took place at another key occasion in the history of God’s people. The report of the Golden Calf incident shows that the people were singing (“the noise of them that sing do I hear” [Ex. 32:18]) and dancing (“he saw the calf and the dancing” [Ex. 32:19]) as part of their shameful behavior at this time (Ex. 32:25). Common sense, many other passages that link playing instruments and dancing, and the comparison of the three passages from First Samuel in this article point to the people playing musical instruments as well in the Golden Calf incident while the people were shamefully singing and dancing.

Based on this interpretation of the Golden Calf incident, the passage would further show that the composite sound that Moses and Joshua assessed from a distance to be ungodly—without hearing any of the words—was produced by the people singing and playing of instruments as well. The assessment of Moses and Joshua thus would point to the propriety of holding that music that includes both instrumental accompaniment and lyrics can be assessed to be ungodly by assessing its composite sound without knowing what the words are that are being sung.

 

[1] Exod. 15:20; 32:19; Jdg. 11:34; 21:21, 23; 1 Sam. 18:6; 21:11; 29:5; 30:16; 2 Sam. 6:14, 16; 1 Chr. 15:29; Job 21:11; Ps. 30:11; 149:3; 150:4; Eccl. 3:4; Isa. 13:21; Jer. 31:4, 13; Lam. 5:15; Matt. 11:17; 14:6; Mk. 6:22; Lk. 7:32; 15:25.

[2] Exod. 15:20-21; Jdg. 11:34; 2 Sam. 6:14-15 cf. 1 Chr. 15:27-29; Ps. 149:3; 150:4; Jer. 31:4-7; Lam. 5:14-15; Matt. 11:17; Lk. 15:25

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Music
 permalink

On Jubal, David, and the CCM Debate

December 21, 2013

As a justification for using CCM, some believers assert that good king David worshiped God using a harp that may have been invented by Jubal, an ungodly man. Is this a valid argument for using CCM?

Jubal as the Possible Inventor of Two Musical Instruments

In the first statement about musical instruments in Scripture, Moses tell us through inspiration of the Spirit that Jubal, a man in the ungodly line of Cain, may have invented[1] two instruments:

 Gen 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

Why did the Spirit inspire Moses to give us this information and what are we supposed to learn from it? Because the passage itself does not expound further on the significance of this statement, there is uncertainty about its purpose beyond informing us about who originated some aspect of the playing of these instruments.

Because the Noahic Flood destroyed all humanity living at the time of Noah except Noah and certain members of his family, we cannot be certain that there was any direct connection between these instruments and the instruments called by the same names after the Flood. If neither Noah nor any of his surviving family played these instruments or knew of these instruments through some other means, it is possible that the knowledge of these two instruments was completely lost after the Flood and somebody else later invented similar instruments or even the same instruments without knowing anything about the harps and the organs of which Jubal originated the playing.

Furthermore, Scripture provides no indication that Jubal was the inventor of the other musical instruments mentioned in Scripture, such as the timbrel and the psaltery. This fact further cautions us not to make too much of his possibly inventing the instruments that he may have invented.

In fact, Scriptural emphasis on King David’s making musical instruments for divine worship (1 Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 7:6; 29:26-27; Neh. 12:36) makes a dogmatic assertion that David played the same instrument that Jubal possibly invented all the more a debatable point. If David actually invented some or all of these instruments instead of just commissioning the making of them or crafting them himself, the instruments that David played in divine worship may not have been traceable at all to the harp that Jubal possibly made.

A proper consideration of Jubal’s possibly inventing these two instruments, therefore, must account for these other truths from Scripture. These considerations show that David may or may not have played a harp possibly invented by Jubal.

Nevertheless, the rest of this post will examine what significance there would be for the debate about CCM if David did in fact play the same instrument that Jubal may have invented. To understand that significance, we need to take a closer look at Jubal’s originating the playing of the musical instruments that he did and the morality of David’s use of one of them.

A Closer Look at the Morality of David’s Use of the Harp that Jubal May Have Created

When Jubal originated the playing of the harp and the organ that he did, he either created or played musical instruments that obviously only produced instrumental music. As a member of the ungodly line of Cain, Jubal may have invented and likely played these instruments with wicked intent.

Our understanding of the actual nature of the instrumental music that he produced, however, depends entirely on the position that we take about whether instrumental music is inherently neutral or even moral.

Case 1: Instrumental Music is Inherently Neutral or Moral

Let us consider first what would have been true if we do hold to the inherent neutrality or morality of instrumental music. Holding the position that music itself without lyrics cannot be sinful requires that we also hold that no matter how wicked Jubal was and regardless of how wicked his intent was in his playing, it was impossible for him to produce any instrumental music that was in and of itself evil.

Because there was no way for him to play those instruments to produce instrumental music that was itself evil, all the instrumental music that he produced must have been either neutral or moral. Since his instruments, therefore, produced, only neutral or moral music, neither his instruments themselves nor the music they produced were evil.

In that case, even though Jubal would have been a wicked man who originated the playing of his instruments for a wicked purpose, he could not have accomplished his wicked intent solely through the intrinsic nature of the music that he played through his instruments. Any wicked activities for which he used his instruments, therefore, would have been wicked not because of the intrinsic nature of either the instruments or the music they produced; some other aspect of the activities had to be wicked for him to use those instruments for evil.

Because neither his instruments nor any of the music that they produced would have been capable of being evil, the use of those instruments that he may have made by godly people (especially many centuries later) would have posed no moral issues whatever. Even if David had used the same instrument that Jubal may have invented for his wicked purposes, there would have been no moral problems with his doing so because the instrument itself was not evil and it was incapable of producing any inherently evil instrumental music.

Case 2: Instrumental Music Can Be Sinful

What happens, however, if we hold that music itself without lyrics can be sinful? In this case, Jubal would have been able to produce instrumental music that was itself wicked.

He could then have accomplished his evil intent solely through playing those instruments. Would that therefore have made his instruments evil or their use by someone else wrong?

The only way that his instruments themselves could have been evil was if they were capable of only producing sinful instrumental music. For that to have been true, no matter what notes or combinations of notes he played or how he played them, the resulting instrumental music would always have had to have been sinful.

Of course, his creating such instruments was impossible because individual musical sounds or tones in and of themselves cannot be evil. We must conclude in this case, therefore, that his instruments were not inherently sinful and that they were inherently capable of producing both godly instrumental music and ungodly instrumental music.

Because his instruments were not inherently sinful and because they were capable of producing godly instrumental music, David’s use of one of those instruments for godly purposes could not have been inherently wrong.

In either case, therefore, David’s use of the harp that may have been invented by Jubal could not have been wrong based on the consideration of who may have invented it.

Does David’s Use of the Harp Possibly Invented by Jubal Justify CCM?

The above discussion shows that regardless of what position we take about the possibility of music itself without lyrics being sinful, David’s using a harp that Jubal possibly invented could not have been intrinsically wrong because the harp itself was not evil nor could it have been. This conclusion is true whether Jubal invented the harp or its playing or both as a wicked man with a wicked intent or as a wicked man with a humanly good intent.[2]

Is the same true for CCM? For the same to be true of CCM, it would have to be proven that music itself without lyrics could not be evil.

Conclusion

Brethren who wish to show that using CCM is legitimate cannot do it by pointing to David’s use of a harp that may have been invented by Jubal as a valid parallel to their use of CCM because the harp itself could not have been inherently evil even if Jubal’s intent for possibly making it, using it, or both was evil. Because the same is not true of the instrumental music used to create and play CCM, David’s use of the harp possibly invented by Jubal does not justify CCM.

 

[1] Most interpreters understand his being the father of those who handle the harp and the organ as signifying that he invented them. The verbs used in this verse, however, do not mean to invent, so it is unclear whether Jubal invented these instruments or not.

[2] Obviously, if Jubal was a good man, the same conclusion holds.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Does This Argument Justify “Christian Rock” and “Christian Rap”?

December 19, 2013

 

An avid supporter of “Christian rock” and “Christian rap” recently presented to me a “thought experiment” as part of his refutation of an argument that I made against these genres based on the sinful origins of rock music. This post carefully examines whether this argument justifies these genres of music.

A “Thought Experiment”

Here is what this believer offered as a “thought experiment” in defense of his views about these genres:

Let’s do a hypothetical Stone Age. A violent people invent a tool that allows them to sharpen rocks into flint knives. This has never happened before, and soon they’re cranking out knives by the dozen. That’s all they’ve used that tool for, so in their minds, it is ONLY a tool for creating weapons. They use it to kill and maim people, and they talk about how great it is that they’ve discovered this awesome knife-making tool, a tool that, as far as they know, is only for making knives.

There’s also a pacifistic people. They hear about this new tool, and they abhor it as an instrument of violence. After all, that’s all they’ve ever known it as, and that’s all they hear about it. However, someone soon discovers that the tool, which had previously been known only as an instrument of violence, can also be used to sharpen hoes, shovels, and other farming implements.

The tool, which came out of a culture of violence, that had previously only known one use–an evil use of violence and death–was actually revealed to be a lot less specific. Instead of a tool for making knives, it was merely a tool for sharpening. It could be used for good or ill, to make weapons or plows.[i]

Based in part on what he believes this argument establishes, he argues that it is invalid to oppose “Christian rock” and “Christian rap” based on the sinful origins of rock music. A close examination of this “thought experiment” as a justification for these genres of music shows that it does not justify them.

(Read the rest of this article here.)


[i] In a comment made on December 18, 2013 at 3:40 pm; available at http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Theology
 permalink

Should Christians Not Heed What Secular Musicians and Music Experts Say concerning the Morality of Music?

December 14, 2013

A Christian recently advised me, “Don’t appeal to the authority of secular rappers or rock musicians: Appeal to Scripture.” He holds a view that many believers today hold about what sources of authoritative information are valid concerning the moral aspects of music. Is this view correct?

Two key Scripture passages answer this question by showing that both believers and unbelievers have validly assessed the shamefulness of people in various respects. The first passage records that both believers and unbelievers did so at a time when the sinfulness of God’s people even included their producing ungodly music.

Righteous Believers Validly Assessed the Ungodliness of Music Produced by Some of God’s People

The Israelites’ profound sinfulness in the Golden Calf incident included music that two righteous believing authorities recognized from a distance as being music unfitting for worship by God’s people:

Exo 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

 19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Although he was at a distance from the camp that did not allow him to know exactly what the people were doing, Joshua discerned that the composite[1] sound that they were producing was a rough-sounding noise of people who were wildly excited, a sound that apparently was quite similar to the noise produced by people engaged in (all-out?) combat. Moses, however, from the same distance that prevented knowing what the words being sung were, was able to discern accurately that the raucous and frenetic noise that these reveling people were producing was the noise of people who were singing.

Moses, therefore, was able to tell from a distance that these out-of-control people (Exod. 32:25) were wildly reveling people who were producing an ungodly sound that certainly was not the sound of Spirit-filled people singing godly music (cf. Eph. 5:18-19). Arriving at the camp, he saw that their reveling also included sensual dancing of such vulgarity that it (and the idol that he finally saw in person) incited him to righteous flaming anger (Exod. 32:19).

Moreover, we know that these people who were singing and dancing wildly were people who had partaken of meat offered to an idol (Exod. 32:6). Having partaken of that meat, these wildly singing and dancing people were people who were doing so after having come into direct contact with demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

These demon-influenced Israelites were thus engaged in an immoral “playing” (1 Cor. 10:7) while they were supposedly observing a “feast to the Lord” (Exod. 32:5). Although they may have thought that they were singing acceptably to the Lord, righteous Israelites who were not influenced by demons on this occasion validly assessed their great wickedness, including the ungodly sounding music that they were producing.

Both Joshua and Moses were able to discern the unfitting-for-divine-worship composite sound of their music from a distance that did not allow them to know at all what they were singing. Regardless of what the words were that they were actually singing, the sound of their singing from a distance was ungodly.

This passage, therefore, teaches us that righteous believers can make a valid assessment that music of people who are supposedly worshiping the Lord is ungodly by assessing the nature of the overall sound produced even by people who are singing words. As Joshua and Moses did, such valid assessments can be made without knowing what the lyrics are that the people are singing.

Even Ordinary Unbelievers Validly Assessed Their Shamefulness

Not only righteous believers, but also their unrighteous enemies validly assessed the great sinfulness of these uncontrolled revelers on this occasion:

Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies.[2]

This text shows that Scripture records an instance when unbelievers could and did make valid moral assessments about unrighteous worship by God’s people (Exod. 32:17-19)! The people among the Israelites who engaged in the Golden Calf incident had became so openly sinful at this time that even their enemies were ashamed of them.

This passage is especially telling because it shows that a high-level leader among God’s own people sinned so egregiously on this occasion in how he allowed God’s people to get out of control that even the sinful enemies of God’s people plainly recognized that what they were doing was ungodly. Not only were they able to assess validly the immoral behavior of these people, but also they regarded their behavior to be shameful!

Moreover, the passage provides no indication that these who regarded the behavior of the Israelites as shameful at this time were expert authorities on various aspects of human morality. Rather, the passage shows that even ordinary unbelievers validly made these moral assessments about their unrighteous religious activities![3]

Apostolic Recognition That Unbelieving Experts Can Make Valid Moral Assessments

In agreement with Exodus 32, Titus 1 reveals that the apostle Paul held that unbelievers do have the ability to make valid moral assessments of unrighteous human behavior (of various types) by unbelievers (Titus 1:12). Moreover, Paul shows us that it is righteous for Christians to heed such assessments when they are made by unbelieving experts who confirm the believers’ own assessment of such unrighteous behavior (Titus 1:13; see this post for a full explanation of this key point).

Conclusion

Scripture shows that righteous believers can make valid assessments of purported worship of the Lord that is in reality ungodly behavior by believers whose religious activities include producing music that is ungodly (Exod. 32)! Amazingly, it even shows that such assessments of singing can be made without knowing what the lyrics are of such ungodly music.

Scripture also provides us with clear teaching that shows that unbelievers can make valid assessments of unrighteous human behavior both by God’s people (Exod. 32:25) and by other unbelievers (Titus 1:12). Moreover, it is right to heed and appropriately make use of such valid assessments (Titus 1:13).

Applying all this biblical data to the issues concerning music in our day, we learn that Scripture teaches us that Christians should heed the warnings of secular musicians and music experts who warn us about music that is immoral and unfitting for Christian worship (for example, see this brief testimony).

 

[1] Although the passage does not mention their playing any musical instruments, based on the available Scriptural data concerning human feasting (cf. Gen. 31:27; Exod. 15:20; Luke 15:22, 25; etc.), it is highly probable that they were. Either way, the term composite signifies the totality of the sound that they were producing, whether through singing alone or through both singing and playing.

[2] NAU Exo 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control– for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies–; NET Exo 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them get completely out of control, causing derision from their enemies; NIV Exo 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies; NKJ Exo 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies); ESV Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies). What all these translators recognize is that the people became profoundly and openly sinful at this time.

[3] Although the passage does not elaborate at all who these enemies were or what the extent of their knowledge of the Israelites’ sinfulness on this occasion was, we can be certain that what they knew about the ungodly reveling of these Israelites caused them to be ashamed of them.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exhortation, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Refute What Shai Linne Says They Do?

December 11, 2013

In his first rebuttal to Scott Aniol on the subject of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts, “Scripture clearly refutes” the notion “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.” More fully, he writes:

You [Scott] said:

“Yes, I believe that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

I wholeheartedly disagree and I believe Scripture clearly refutes that notion. A few relevant texts:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Timothy 4:4-5 )

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself…” (Romans 14:14)

Those are amazing statements coming from the Apostle Paul, a Jewish man who was familiar with the many old covenant dietary restrictions. The key phrase in Romans 14:14? “in itself”. Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value. The heart of the one eating it determines how God views the act, not the food itself.

You yourself said, “God created the ‘stuff’ of music (sound, pitch, rhythm, timbre, etc.)”. Agreed. Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that “stuff” that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it. But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful. [1]

Is what Shai Linne asserts here a valid handling of these passages? Various considerations from Scripture combine to answer this question.

Does Paul Teach That Food Does Not Have Inherent Moral Value?

Concerning Romans 14:14, Shai asserts, “Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value.” If that were what Paul is saying in Romans 14:14, then Paul would be contradicting himself because he explicitly says in the other passage that Shai quotes that everything that God has created is good: “For every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4).

Contrary to what Shai asserts, therefore, Paul teaches that food does have inherent moral value because what God has created as food for man is good. Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 teaches that food does not have inherent moral value.

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Support Shai’s Understanding of Music?

About music, Shai says, “Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that ‘stuff’ that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it.” With these statements, he acknowledges that people can arrange the ‘stuff’ of music with an evil intent and that they will have to answer to God for doing so.

He then, however, asserts, “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.” When he says this, Shai clearly is asserting that man cannot do something, but what exactly does he mean by what he says here?

If what he means by this statement were that the various elements (the musical “stuff”) that God created (such as individual musical tones) cannot themselves be transformed into something inherently sinful, that would be one thing. Because, however, he means that the resulting product of the human arrangement also cannot be inherently sinful, he is saying something far beyond what either of these passages is saying because neither passage directly addresses what happens when man alters or combines good things that God has made.

Can Man Create Something That Is Inherently Sinful from Something Good That God Created?

Because neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 or Romans 14:14 actually does what Shai asserts, we have to look elsewhere in Scripture to see if it teaches anywhere one way or the other whether man can take something good that God has created and make something that is in and of itself evil. Deuteronomy 9 provides revelation that addresses this matter explicitly and decisively.

In Deuteronomy 9:1-7, Moses reminds the Israelites of their previous wickedness in the wilderness. He then rehearses their exceeding wickedness in the Golden Calf incident (Deut. 9:8-21).

Moses notes multiple times in this passage that they sinned by making a molten image (Deut. 9:12, 16, 21): They quickly “turned aside out of the way” that God had commanded and “made them a molten image” (Deut. 9:12). They “sinned against the Lord [their] God” and “made . . . a molded calf” (Deut. 9:16; cf. Exod. 32:31).

When he speaks for the third time in the passage about the calf that they made, he says,

Deu 9:21 And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.

The exact wording of this third reference to their making the calf is striking: “your sin, the calf which ye had made.” Saying this, Moses puts “the calf which ye had made” in apposition to “your sin.”

Moses thus referred to the calf that they made as their “sin”! He thus said that the calf was itself sinful.[2]

It was not just their evil intent for the calf or their evil use of it that was sinful—the calf itself was a sinful object! These people took gold, an inherently good and highly valuable substance that God created (cf. Gen. 2:12), and made an object out of it that was in and of itself sinful.

Although the gold itself did not become inherently sinful, the golden calf was a manmade fashioning of that gold into something that was inherently sinful! Based on what Scripture says about what man did with gold on this occasion, we understand that this passage refutes the basic principle underlying what Shai asserts is true about the musical “stuff” that God created: “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.”

Discussion

As a key basis for his support of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts that humans cannot take something inherently good that God has created and make something out of it that is in and of itself sinful. Deuteronomy 9:21 refutes this assertion by showing that man did take something inherently good that God created and make it into something that was inherently sinful.

It is important to note that the gold that they made the calf from was from their earrings (Exod. 32:2-3), and we have no indication that their possessing and using gold that had been fashioned into rings to be worn in their ears was sinful. When they took the gold of those earrings, combined it, and molded it into the calf, however, the resulting object that they made for an evil purpose was wicked.

On the one hand, man’s use of his creative powers to make something out of the gold (the earrings) was not sinful. On the other hand, when they through “art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29) made the golden calf, they sinned by making an object that was in and of itself sinful (Deut. 9:21).

Moreover, the golden calf could not be “redeemed.” In spite of the fact that the gold that constituted it was a precious good metal that God had made as good, the golden calf that had been made for and used for a wicked purpose had to be obliterated (Deut. 9:21).

Conclusion

Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 supports the view that man cannot take musical elements and arrange them to make instrumental music that is inherently sinful. Scripture does not “clearly refute” the view “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

In fact, Deuteronomy 9:21 shows that Scripture provides a clear basis for saying that human beings can take good things that God has made and create something out of them that is inherently sinful.[3] Applying this principle to what many biblical passages reveal about music provides believers with ample justification to say that instrumental music made for and used for wicked purposes is inherently wicked music.


[1] See the full rebuttal by Shai Linne here.

[2] Multiple translations confirm this understanding: “I took your sinful thing, the calf which you had made” (NAU); “As for your sinful thing that you had made, the calf” (NET); “Also I took that sinful thing of yours, the calf you had made” (NIV); “Then I took the sinful thing, the calf that you had made” (ESV); I took the sinful calf you had made” (CSB).

[3] For another argument that establishes the same point see this post.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Daniel 3 and the Debate about the Inherent Morality of Instrumental Music

December 7, 2013

Daniel 3 records that religion, international politics, and instrumental music converged in a prominent context of idolatrous worship in ancient Babylon. Was the instrumental music on that occasion inherently neutral or even moral?

Instrumental Music Used by Nebuchadnezzar for Idolatrous Worship

King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of the greatest Gentile Empire in human history (Dan. 2:36-38). He served many gods (Dan. 3:12, 14, 18) and decided to erect a colossal golden image (Dan. 3:1) for the purpose of idolatrous worship. He gathered all the leading officials of his kingdom to fall down and worship it (Dan. 3:2-6).

He decreed that all the people assembled were to do so (Dan. 3:4-5), accompanied by music produced by a noteworthy group of instrumentalists:

Dan 3:5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.

A four-fold repetition of the list of instruments used on this occasion greatly stresses this aspect of the event (Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15).

When the musicians played at the appointed time, everyone assembled worshiped the image (Dan. 3:7), but three Jewish leaders did not (Dan. 3:12).

What Can We Know about The Musicians Who Played On This Occasion?

Because this was an international event of great importance, we can be certain that Nebuchadnezzar would have employed only the finest musicians available to him. Because he was the king, he had the resources and authority to secure and gather the best musicians who would know what kind of music would best suit the occasion.

These highly skilled musicians themselves (or some official over them, possibly even King Nebuchadnezzar) undoubtedly chose a style or styles of music that they knew would be best for the idolatrous worship of the image. They surely rehearsed the music properly so that their playing that music for this event would be fully pleasing to the king.

These musicians knew how to play several instruments proficiently, including both wind instruments and stringed instruments.[1] Their willingness to play these instruments for this occasion shows that any of them who may have been Israelites who were brought to Babylon in the captivity (cf. Dan. 1:3-5) were no longer faithful worshipers of only the Lord.

In all likelihood, the vast majority or perhaps even all of these musicians were idolaters of long standing prior to this occasion. It only makes sense that whoever chose the musicians for this event would have chosen as much as possible people who were well known for their devotion to the gods that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped.

Of the musicians who played for this idolatrous worship, those who had been idolaters prior to this occasion would undoubtedly have partaken of meat sacrificed to idols on those previous occasions of their idolatrous worship (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; Acts 14:13, 18; 17:16, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 10:20). Doing so, they would have had direct contact with demons at those times (1 Cor. 10:20-21).

All of the musicians who had been idolaters prior to this event, therefore, were people who had previously been demonically influenced—they thus would not have been just ordinary sinners who had not had any prior fellowship with demons. Consistent with the nature of the occasion, demonic activity unquestionably played a major role in what actually took place, including the demonic energizing of these musicians (cf. Eph. 2:2-3; 1 John 5:19).

Was the Instrumental Music on This Occasion Neutral or Even Moral?

Scripture does not provide any evidence for holding that the musical instruments that these musicians played were inherently evil. As seen above, however, the musicians who played these instruments were evil people; if for no other reason, they were evil for their agreeing to participate in such idolatrous worship.

When these musicians played for this idolatrous worship “service,” they were knowingly sinning against the true and living God (Rom. 1:18-22). Through their music that contributed to that worship, they robbed Him of the glory that only He is due (Rom. 1:23; cf. Ps. 106:19-20).

Was the demonically influenced music played by the instrumentalists on this occasion still neutral or even moral because God created music? Did “common grace” somehow safeguard that instrumental music so that neither the style or styles of music used nor the music that was played was sinful?

Although God created the basic elements of music, Scripture does not teach that God has created all musical styles or all the music produced by humans using those styles. It is untenable, therefore, to hold that the demonically influenced instrumental music played by evil people on this idolatrous occasion was still neutral or even moral because God created the style or styles that they used—God did not create their styles or their music.

Conclusion

Strong Scriptural emphasis on instrumental music used by these evil people for this exceedingly evil purpose on an evil occasion of international significance demands holding that the music itself was evil unless proven otherwise by compelling biblical data.[2] Brethren who yet wish to hold that the instrumental music on this occasion was inherently neutral or even moral have the burden of proof of showing from a careful handling of Scripture why such was the case.

 

[1] Establishing further the precise identity of each of the instruments listed is not necessary for the purposes of this article.

[2] For much additional biblical teaching that supports this conclusion, see the resources here.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Can Music (without Lyrics) or a Photograph Ever Be Inherently Sinful?

December 6, 2013

Because I have been closely following recent online developments concerning “Christian” rap music, I have been thinking a lot recently about the claim that music without words cannot be inherently sinful. An analogy from photography helps to show how this claim is false.

How Photographs Themselves Can Be Inherently Sinful

Based on what I have read and heard in recent years, it seems that many Christians in our day apparently believe that no arrangement of things that are in and of themselves inherently good can be inherently sinful. Applying this belief to photography, many would probably argue that no photograph could in and of itself be sinful.

Based on the clear teaching and implications from many biblical passages (Gen. 3:21; 9:21-27; 2 Sam. 11:2-4; Hab. 2:15; Matt. 5:28; 18:6), however, any nude photograph of a very precocious but prepubescent girl in a sexually provocative pose is inherently sinful. The materials from which the sinful image of the girl is created are not inherently sinful, but the sinful image created when such a photograph is taken renders the end product inherently sinful.

According to Scripture, God has not authorized anyone to see such an image (cf. the clear implications of passages such as Hab. 2:15)—neither a parent, nor a doctor, nor any other human being has any right to create, see, or possess any such image. In fact, not even the girl herself has the right to pose for or in some other way create such an image.

It does not matter whatever good intent someone may claim for creating such an image—making such an image is sinful. The “style” of photography that creates such pornographic photos is inherently sinful and the photos themselves are also inherently sinful.

Although unbelievers may reject this position, Christians who believe the Bible are bound by Scripture to hold that such pornographic images are inherently sinful. No claim of Christian “liberty” can legitimately justify rejecting such a view simply because Scripture does not explicitly talk about pornographic pictures being wrong.

How Music without Lyrics Can Also Be Inherently Sinful

Just as it is false to say that no photograph can ever be inherently sinful, it is also false to say that music without lyrics cannot be inherently sinful because its constituent elements (such as musical tones) were created by God as good entities. If those tones are intentionally arranged in a way to create music for wicked purposes, although the tones themselves remain good, that combination is inherently sinful.

Scripture shows that this view is correct by recording several instances of people producing music that was wicked (Exod. 32:17-18 [see the articles in point 11 here]; Ezek. 33:32 [see this treatment]; Amos 6:5 [see this explanation]), including a key passage about instrumental music used for idolatrous worship (Dan. 3:7 [see this treatment]). Furthermore, Scripture is not silent about musical styles that are unacceptable to God, and it also supports in other ways that it is right to hold the view that music without lyrics can be inherently sinful.

Conclusion

It is understandable that unbelievers would hold the view that neither music without lyrics nor a photograph can be inherently sinful. Based, however, on a thorough treatment of what Scripture reveals both explicitly and implicitly, believers should reject this false view.

For more help with many important issues concerning music that is acceptable to God for Christian worship, please see all the resources here.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Theology
 permalink

On “Cultural Racism” and Christian Opposition to “Holy Hip-Hop”

December 2, 2013

As an American of Indian origin, I have personally experienced on various occasions suffering caused by genuine racism. As a dedicated Christian who has had to learn to submit to God’s ordaining of those painful experiences for my life, I have learned about my own sinfulness in various respects through these difficulties.

Given my background and life experiences, I was appalled to read recently that some Christians are asserting that “cultural racism” is a root cause of opposition by many believers to “holy hip-hop.” Having viewed the NCFIC video,[1] read several blog posts concerning it,[2] and worked through a vast number of comments on these posts, I feel compelled to respond biblically in a specific respect to this charge of “cultural racism.”

Scriptural Data concerning God’s Judgment on All Aspects of Many Cultures

The validity of the assertion that “cultural racism” is a leading cause of opposition to “holy hip-hop” hinges upon a belief that all cultures have certain neutral or even positive elements worth either preserving or “redeeming,” including especially their musical art forms. Does Scripture support such a belief?

A careful examination of Scripture reveals that on multiple occasions God decisively and comprehensively made known his appraisal of all aspects of many cultures. Three passages show this divine appraisal unmistakably.

Genesis 6-9

At the time of Noah, God infallibly assessed that all humanity had so profoundly debased itself that God was going to annihilate all humans from the earth (Gen. 6:5-7). Out of all humanity living on the earth at this time, only Noah and seven members of his family found grace from God to escape this universal destruction (Gen. 6:8-9; 18).

In light of earlier Scriptural references, we know that there were a vast number of other peoples living at this time (Gen. 4:16-24; 6:1-4) from whom there were no survivors after the Flood. Not only did all those people perish, but also everything about their cultures, societies, lifestyles, etc. was obliterated.

We have no basis for holding that Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives had ever had comprehensive exposure of any kind to all of these other cultures that were annihilated. We further know that at least some of these people were instrumentalists whose music had considerable time to degenerate (Gen. 4:21 cf. 6:5; see my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a full explanation of this important point).

Through the Flood, God thus rendered comprehensive judgment on all aspects of many cultures, including their musical art forms. Genesis 6-9 therefore refutes the notion that all cultures have had musical art forms that were worth preserving or “redeeming.”

Genesis 18-19

In the time of Abraham and Lot, the Lord noted that “the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah [was] great” and that “their sin [was] very grievous” (Gen. 18:20). Because of the profound wickedness of these people, God annihilated them:

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

God spared only Lot, his wife,[3] and their two daughters from this judgment (Gen. 19:16).[4] We have no basis in Scripture, however, for holding that Lot and his two daughters somehow preserved all the musical art forms of Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction because those art forms were of some supposedly inherent worth.

God’s total obliteration of everything about Sodom and Gomorrah does not support holding that they had musical aspects of their cultures that were worth preserving or “redeeming.” Both Genesis 6-9 and Genesis 18-19 show that God has assessed many cultures in human history as having no aspects of their cultures that were worth preserving or “redeeming,” including their musical art forms.

Joshua 6-8

God ordained that the Israelites were to conquer the Canaanites (cf. for example, Josh. 3:10) and place whole cities and everything in them under a ban (cf. Josh. 6:17-18). Although God did graciously preserve and redeem Rahab the harlot and all who were with her in her house (Josh. 6:17) from His destruction of Jericho, everyone else was utterly destroyed (Josh. 6:21).

We have no indication in this passage or anywhere else in Scripture that God preserved Rahab and her household because He desired to preserve or redeem some supposedly inherently worthy cultural aspects of the culture of Jericho. We furthermore have no basis to hold that Rahab and her household were proficient at all the musical art forms of Jericho and served as a means of preserving them.

Rather, God’s judgment of Jericho was a judgment of all aspects of it, including its musical art forms. What transpired next in Ai provides a striking implicit confirmation of this interpretation.

When the Israelites attempted to conquer Ai, they were soundly defeated (Josh. 7:4-5) because Achan, one of them, had violated the ban and sinned by taking some things that God had forbidden (Josh. 7:11-13; 20-21). Among the forbidden items that he coveted was “a goodly Babylonish garment” (Josh. 7:21).

God does not provide any explanation for why this beautiful garment had to be destroyed. Even though this garment was apparently in at least some respects a valuable work of human artistic ability, God did not want it to be preserved or “redeemed.”

At God’s direction, the Israelites rendered a fierce judgment on Achan, his household, the garment, and everything that belonged to him (Josh. 7:24-26). They then proceeded to annihilate all the people of Ai (Josh. 8:24-29), showing that God did not preserve any of its cultural art forms.

God’s catastrophic and comprehensive judgment on Jericho, Ai, and many other Canaanite cities and peoples (cf. Josh. 10:29-43) shows that these cultures did not have any cultural art forms that God wanted preserved or “redeemed.”

Is “Cultural Racism” Responsible for Much Christian Opposition to “Holy Hip-Hop”?

Scripture provides abundant evidence for believers to know that it is wrong to hold that all cultures have art forms that are worth preserving or “redeeming.” Christians who are well taught in Scripture and whose thinking is steeped in what Scripture teaches therefore have strong justification for holding that it is legitimate to believe that certain musical art forms of certain cultures are not worth preserving or “redeeming.”[5]

Furthermore, unless a believer has the ability to know infallibly what is in the heart of those believers who oppose “holy hip-hop,” it is wrong and unhelpful for him to charge them with “cultural racism” because they reject this particular musical expression of some human cultures. Injecting racism into the debate about musical styles is illegitimate and dishonoring to people who have suffered painfully because of genuine racism.

 

[1] Available for viewing here.

[2] http://www.mikedcosper.com/home/creation-culture-redemption-and-hip-hop-a-response-the-ncfic-panel; http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/2013/11/death-rattle-or-life-preserver-an-appeal-to-the-ncfic-panelists/; http://brenthobbs.com/index_files/Christian_Rap.php

[3] Lot’s wife perished soon thereafter because she looked back toward Sodom (Gen. 19:26).

[4] At Lot’s request, the Lord also spared a small nearby town called Zoar from the destruction that He had purposed to bring at this time (Gen. 19:17-23). Although He graciously spared this town, we know from the judgment that he had planned to bring on this town at this time (Gen. 19:17, 19, 21) that His assessment of its wickedness was no different from that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[5] For another helpful article explaining why it is legitimate to reject “Christian rap,” see On Reformed Rap.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral?

November 21, 2013

Some believers hold that all musical styles are inherently moral. I have been investigating for many months now all that I can find in Scripture that might pertain to this position.

Meditating on various passages about music early in human history led me recently to examine Genesis 6:5, a verse that I had never previously considered for its relevance to the issues of our day concerning music. In particular, does this key statement about all humanity support the view that all musical styles are inherently moral?

Musical Development before the Time of Noah

Genesis 4 provides the earliest information in Scripture about human music. Jubal, the eighth in the ungodly line of Cain (Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusahel, Lamech, Jubal [Gen. 4:17-21]), “was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ” (Gen. 4:21).

This text reveals that Jubal and others played musical instruments, but it does not mention that they sang as well when they played. Although it is likely that these people were also singing at least some of the time when they played their instruments, lack of any Scriptural mention about human singing at this time or at any time prior to it requires that we focus on the nature of their playing the instruments that they possessed.

In order for any musical instrument to be played intelligibly, the player must produce a distinction of tones with the instrument (1 Cor. 14:7). How he chooses to make those distinctions is guided by his thought processes.

Regardless of whatever style or styles of music Jubal and those who followed him devised for playing the harp and the organ, we can be certain that those styles were the products of human mental activity. As such, they would necessarily reflect what was in their hearts.

Extensive Musical Development by the Time of Noah

Genesis 4:21 is the only explicit information in Scripture that we have about human music prior to time of Noah. As we saw, it teaches us that men in the ungodly line of Cain were playing musical instruments in the eighth generation from Adam.

Genesis 5 reveals that Noah was the tenth in the godly line of Seth (Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah [Gen. 5:3-29]). Given that Noah was two generations later in his line than Jubal was in his line, we can be certain that human musical ability in playing those instruments had developed extensively from the time of Jubal to the time of Noah.

Can we know anything more about that development? Because Scripture does not give us any explicit revelation about human music in the time of Noah, some would say that we are unable to know anything more about that development. A close examination of Genesis 6 in comparison with Genesis 4-5, however, proves otherwise.

Profound Musical Degeneracy by the Time of Noah

Genesis 6 does not provide any explicit information about music. It does provide, however, key implicit information that has profound relevance for our understanding of music by the time of Noah.

From when Jubal originated playing the harp and the organ to the time of Noah, human beings had degenerated so profoundly that God assessed them to be only continually evil in every intent of their thoughts:

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Does this statement include the musical imaginations of the thoughts of their hearts? As discussed above, human production of music necessarily reflects the thinking of those who produce the music. For this reason, this statement must also pertain to their musical imaginations.

Moreover, because God had already explicitly noted earlier in Genesis the musical activities of ungodly men who lived long before this time, we know that God wants the reader of Genesis to have in mind that humans had been playing music for quite some time by the time of Noah.

Based on both of these considerations, we have no basis to think legitimately that Genesis 6:5 does not also apply to human musical endeavors at the time of Noah. We must understand rather that every imagination of the thoughts of human hearts in Noah’s time concerning music was also only evil continually.

Were There Profoundly Degenerate Musical Styles at the Time of Noah?

When Jubal became the father of all that play the harp and the organ, he and the others who learned to play those instruments obviously had to use their mental abilities to use those instruments to produce the sounds that they wanted to create. By necessity, whatever music they did play had to be of one or more styles because musical styles are nothing more than “distinctive man-made musical patterns of sounds that the player uses his mental processes to create for whatever purpose or purposes he desires to use those sounds” (my definition).

Because playing the harp and the organ originated in the ungodly line of Cain, we might infer that the styles that they played on those instruments were also ungodly (in keeping with their character). Although this inference may be valid, we do not have enough information to prove its validity rigorously.

By the time of Noah, however, much time had elapsed and mankind became increasingly evil. In fact, all humanity had profoundly degenerated to such an extent that God infallibly declared that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

Because musical styles necessarily reflect the thought processes of those who originate or use those styles, we have no basis for saying that there were not musical styles of corrupt humanity at this time that matched the corruption of their hearts. On the contrary, man’s profound degeneracy at this time guarantees that there were profoundly degenerate musical styles at the time of Noah.

Discussion

From what we have learned through studying Genesis 4-6, we conclude that Scripture does not support holding that all musical styles are inherently moral because immoral musical styles certainly existed at the time of Noah. People may nevertheless raise various objections to this conclusion and the reasoning from Scripture employed to arrive at it.

Some may say that the musical degeneracy of the people in Noah’s time was in the words that they sang but not in their styles of playing the instruments. This is an invalid objection for at least two reasons.

As discussed above, Scripture provides no explicit evidence that these people were also singing when they played. To argue that their degeneracy was in what they sang, therefore, has no basis in Scripture.

Furthermore, regardless of whether they were singing or not, human production of instrumental music requires the use of mental processes to play the instruments, and what people play reflects their thinking. Because mankind was utterly corrupt in its thinking at this time, their musical styles were also certainly corrupt.

Another objection that some may offer to this conclusion is that “common grace” from God “insulated” their musical styles from being corrupt. Genesis 6:5 pointedly refutes this objection by saying explicitly that every intent of their thoughts was evil. We would need explicit biblical revelation or indication to hold legitimately, therefore, that “common grace” somehow insured that their musical styles were an exception to the force of this revelation.

The successive revelation further implies that this objection is invalid. Moses makes clear that Noah and seven members of his family were the only human beings to receive saving grace from God so that they were not destroyed. By the grace of God, Noah alone was found righteous in the sight of God at this time.

Because the rest of humanity did not receive such grace from God, we can be certain that their musical styles were not insulated somehow from the pervasive corruption of their intents concerning all other areas of their lives. “Common grace” did not prevent their musical styles from being degenerate.

Conclusion

Sound biblical reasoning applied to Genesis 4-6 teaches us that there were evil musical styles at the time of Noah because their musical styles necessarily reflected the pervasive corruption of all their thinking. We, therefore, know that the position that all musical styles are inherently moral is incorrect.

In light of this biblical evidence (as well as other biblical data), Christians who wish to continue holding the opposing view have the burden of proof of showing from Scripture that their position is nonetheless valid in spite of what Genesis 4-6 reveals about human music.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink