Almost all obedience to the Bible requires an application of scriptural implication. I've talked about it a lot here. For instance, God's Word does not say, "Thou shalt not smoke crack pipes," but that does not mean the Bible doesn't prohibit smoking crack. We can judge things.
The Bible contains teaching about dress, clothing, or apparel. Is there a verse, however, that prohibits a woman from wearing a skin-tight, lycra top that covers her breasts, but leaves almost nothing to the imagination? As long as the breasts are covered, is it permissible for a woman to enable everyone to see the cloth clinging directly to her upper body parts in public? It's tough even typing those two questions, because the reading of them alone could bring one to an inappropriate imagination. Again though, what verse stops a woman from wearing something that allows for witnessing all the contours of the woman's upper body parts, while keeping them covered? There is none, so does that make it permissible?
To be consistent, many if not most evangelicals, and many fundamentalists, would need to allow for smoking crack and the above clothing style. They will protest this. "Uh-uh, no I wouldn't." But to be consistent, they need to do that. I've seen 1 Corinthians 4:6 used very selectively for practices about which the Bible doesn't say something explicitly: "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written." Prohibiting the lycra and crack is "above that which is written." Mind you, they only throw down this verse when it is a practice they like or want to get away with. They would not likely use it against "smoking crack" and the skin tight clothing, but they will use it if you say something about their dress or music.
The Bible doesn't say anything about the style of music, evangelicals would say, so you can't judge it. Certain types of dress, immodest in the past, are now permitted by evangelicals, and any frowning upon this apparel is "above that which is written." Did you know that the Bible does not prohibit abortion? Most Christians are against abortion, but scripture doesn't say it's wrong. Opposition to abortion requires an application of scriptural implication. You could probably make the argument, but it is life begins at conception, we know because in sin did our mother's conceive us. Since that is a person in the womb, aborting that life is murder. It's a few moves away from saying, the Bible condemns abortion. This is how we determine a lot based upon the Bible.
Did you know that the Bible doesn't prohibit same-sex marriage? Show me a verse that says that same-sex marriage is wrong. Good argument? Many evangelicals, at least right now, would say that's a bad argument, but it is a similar argument that they make about a lot of different issues. But they are selective about it. They don't think you can judge their music, but they might think you can judge gambling, even though scripture does not forbid gambling.
I don't know of anything that Christians have historically said was wrong that is now right. Evangelicals may say it is right, but it isn't. For instance, rock music is wrong. Evangelicals said it was before, but now it's right. No, it's still wrong. At my Christian college, we were expelled for listening to it. Were the leaders wrong? I didn't know anyone who said that rock music wasn't wrong. Everyone I knew said it was wrong. Now evangelicals say you can't judge. If you judge, you're a legalist or even a racist depending on what wrong music you're talking about.
What is happening now is that Satan and his world system have fooled evangelicals and those duped by them that they can't or shouldn't judge in areas where it was once obvious to judge. When I say, judge, I'm talking about Christian discernment. Any discerning believer would know that the Getty music at the summit on inerrancy was wrong. Any. Now you have a room full of pastors being led by them and singing along with them, a large group of them fundamentalists (as seen in a tweeted photo by Phil Johnson).
We can and should judge music. It is wicked to say you shouldn't. It is a Satanic lie to say you shouldn't. Don't let evangelicals fool you with this. They judge too, but only when its convenient for them.
I had someone anonymous tell me that I needed to repent because I said that the music at the summit was effeminate. I was watching a Q and A with John MacArthur and his son at a men's breakfast at their church, and they said in no uncertain terms that certain churches and behavior were effeminate. MacArthur also called certain churches, the rock-n-roll churches. I thought, really? What's wrong with rock-n-roll? Does anyone else get the contradiction? Should MacArthur repent too? I think he's right to call these postmodern style churches effeminate, which is what he titled them. But he is making a judgment that is "above that which is written."
There is truth in the real world, God's world, which is why we can call "smoking crack," sin. Certain foul language, not mentioned in scripture, is corrupt and is sin. Rock music is sin. Certain art is ugly. It is a lie to call it beautiful and it is a sin against beauty. This is where men will say this is only opinion. They have relegated or shifted what is true, good, and beautiful to the subjective. We can judge these things and we should.
What I'm writing here is now very controversial. There are many, I think, who would agree with me, but they wouldn't tell me. They might comment, but anonymously, because they want to stay with their group. Some might say that this is heretical teaching, because it causes division among the brethren. They are trying to keep unity, so they will allow differences here, like that's a good thing. The unity of which they speak is just toleration. It isn't biblical unity and, therefore, actual unity. They are saying that you can't judge and so now people are not judging where we can and should judge. If we won't judge, then we've given up on what is true, good, and beautiful.