This link has links to parts 1-7, and the last two days are 8 and 9.
I'm going to get straight to it, but let's review again.
One, we are to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Two, music has meaning.
Three, as an addendum to two -- since music is a means of communication, it can communicate moral or immoral.
Four, we determine what is moral, sacred music by applying biblical principle.
Five, applying scripture requires an understanding of truth in the real world.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
Seven, God is worshiped with beauty (there is objective beauty).
Eight, Christians have historically, characteristically, considered or believed beauty to be objective and measured after the nature of God.
Nine, we now have an idea of what Israel's music sounded like.
Ten, music directed to God must be melodic.
Eleven, music directed toward God must be spiritual.
Twelve, God must be worshiped with true affection. I use the terminology "true affection." Maybe I could say "genuine affection," but better, "ordinate affection." In saying "affection," I'm saying "versus passion," which is the equivalent of "bowels" versus "belly" and "chest" versus "belly" (C. S. Lewis). There have been various ways of designating this in the history of Christianity. I'm also saying "ordinate affection" versus "inordinate affection," so "true affection" in that way.
This also relates to euphoria, enthusiasm, and ecstasy, versus something that is truly spiritual. This overlaps with #11. Those are mistaken for something spiritual. But the last three -- 10, 11, 12 -- all overlap. There's nothing wrong with having a feeling or getting a feeling, but how do you get it? That matters.
If we love God, like He loves us, then our love is impassable, that is, we love God with a lack of passion. Loving God starts with true thoughts about God, which affect the will. Emotions follow, but it is worship based upon truth. This is related to Jesus saying, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." We hear His commandments, think about them, learn them, and obey them. We don't feel His commandments.
The overlap here comes with the nature of spiritual worship. Our worship is to be spiritual (Philippians 3:3), which means, it is genuine, which always starts with the truth, and truth should begin with the mind. We must get the right estimation or value or worth of God first.
When it starts with true thoughts, it will not be deceived by feelings, as it was in Corinth with the mystery religion. They mistook their feelings for spirituality, because they worshiped in passion rather than affection. The feelings can be manipulated, as they were in Corinth.
Affections are directed by the thoughts, and true affections will reflect true thoughts about God. The emotions will be shaped or formed by those right thoughts. Inordinate affections come from the thoughts, but not right thoughts. It is more than just thinking, but thinking right. When we are thinking right, then emotion will be directed. This relates to God's emotion. For instance, God doesn't blow up. He doesn't have mood swings. His emotions are not directed by the outside, but by Himself, which is always the Truth.
Only certain musical forms are conducive to impassability or affection. Emotion is not neutral. There is good and bad and right and wrong. Our thoughts should be after God, but so should our emotions. This is how we love Him with our soul.
More to Come
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Proving the Music Issue in the Worship War: Is there Holy Hip Hop? pt. 9
Go to last post, part 8, to get links to 1-7.
[F]or some people music and melody are the same thing. It's the whole meal so to speak: when you think of music, you think of melody right away — melody: music. And they're right, in a way, because what is music anyway but sounds that change and move along in time? And that's practically a definition of melody, too: a series of notes that move along in time, one after another.
Well, if that's true, then it's almost impossible to write music that doesn't have melody in it. I mean, if a melody is simply one note coming after another, how can a composer avoid writing melodies if he just writes notes. He must write melodies all the time.
Bernstein, of course, wasn't trying to prove anything about rap when he wrote that. Do you think if he liked rap, he would have had to write something different? In order to adjust his definition to his taste? No. It was stating what is patently obvious. Music is melody. You've got music with melody, and without melody, you don't have music. There are other components to music, but on a root level, music is melody.
In my last post I talked about the necessity of melody for directing music toward God. Eleven, music directed toward God must be spiritual. What kind of music is spiritual? Or how is music spiritual? Ephesians 5:19 says that God wants "spiritual songs." The music of Ephesians 5:19 is the result of the filling of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18. The music is produced as a byproduct of Spirit filling, so it will be spiritual music. But what is that?
Some would like professing believers to think that how things are going with music today is about how things have always been. Their narrative is that Bach took secular music and Christianized it, Luther did it, Watts did it, Finney did it, Moody did it, the Jesus movement did it, and we have just kept on doing that, so that here we are today. What's to question? Using rock, rap, jazz, and all of that are just another iteration of that same practice -- that idea. So the people who charge that the use of popular music are the ones outside of the historical stream of worship music. This narrative turns this use of these popular music forms into the same as its always been, a "good thing." No. It's a false narrative. This is a new bad or an all time bad.
For quite a long time now, professing Christians have been misjudging true spirituality. We do know that this is old, going back to biblical times, and what we have today is actually another iteration of that false notion or corruption, something we have been warned about in the Bible. And Paul deals with it in 1 and 2 Corinthians and other places in the New Testament. Satan would have men think they're in the right place spiritually, that whatever it is that is occurring is the Holy Spirit, when it's not. It's actually another spirit, as Paul writes about in 2 Corinthians 11. The level of deceit here is that men think something is spiritual that is really physical, a feeling. Jonathan Edwards warned about this shortly after colonial days with the passions versus affections.
True spirituality relates to thinking. We read that in 1 Corinthians 2. The natural man, who isn't spiritual, doesn't understand the things of the Spirit of God. He doesn't know them, can't know them. Spirituality is about knowing and understanding. Paul had to talk to the Corinthians like they were carnal and not spiritual (1 Corinthians 3), because they were not receptive to the Word of God as they should have been and then been obedient to it. Spirituality is understanding the Word of God and then living obediently to it. The way that this is bypassed is through the feelings, and that's what was happening in Corinth. The mystery religion found in pagan Corinth had worked its way into the church, replacing true spirituality with a false kind. This is also what is happening with music today. The feeling orchestrated in Corinth, that was mistaken for spirituality, came through euphoria and enthusiasm that was created.
Alright. With all that being said, if music is spiritual, it will emphasize the Word of God and the mind. There is music that is like that. There is feeling to it, but the feeling is secondary. The popular forms work against true spirituality, because they deal primarily with the body, with the flesh, with carnality. When the Holy Spirit is working, the body takes a back seat, subjects itself to the mind. We sin when we are drawn away of our own lust (James 1), so Paul commanded that we were to make no provision for the flesh (Rom 13:14). If music is spiritual, it will take the biblical priority of mind and body. Music that prioritizes body over mind is not spiritual. The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God through the mind. He doesn't work through the body, through the lust.
All music has rhythm, but when the rhythm takes prominence in music through various musical means, the body is taking priority in the music. Musicians know how to do this. I remember several years ago that there was a kind of music that you could purchase, called Hooked on Classics. People who didn't ordinarily like the classics could develop a "taste" for them by means of a rock rhythm that was placed in the background. The people who produced this were "hooking" or "addicting" people to that music by changing the rhythm (here's some Hooked on Bach). People weren't questioning what this "hooked on" genre was all about. Almost any imbecile could get what was happening. However, now professing Christians act like they don't know what we're talking about when we talk about what rhythm can do to music. It's an insult to intelligence. We have to go along with the act so that people can have what they want.
That rhythm that is to hook people changes the nature of the music. It becomes more physical, so it has more feeling. The rhythm puts the feelings on steroids, so to speak. Spiritual music is not about that orchestrated feeling, that is multiplied by the rhythm. We can talk about all the ways that music does this, but true affections will come from the mind. It's not that they bypass feelings period. Feelings are involved, but they take the proper diminished role. The mind works toward the will toward the feelings. That is God's order and it is spiritual. It promotes knowledge and understanding.
Right now, right at this time, I was thinking about a typical kind of argument against what I'm presenting, which everyone knows about music. Rock musicians have liked what their music can do in making them more popular and sometimes adding to their harem. Professing Christians play possum, act the part of the village idiot, take on a totally naive posture, in order to keep it. What's worse, they then think it's fine for worship. But I digress. I was thinking about march music, Sousa, John Philip Sousa. Does his music honor God? Rhythm is primary there. I was thinking of that kind of argument. No, I don't think Sousa should be used for worship, but I do believe it is permissible for marching. And the rhythm has most to do with that. There is nothing wrong with marching. But is there anything wrong with jiving? I won't go there right now, but Sousa actually doesn't help someone who wants to argue for a priority of the physical or of rhythm for worship.
Earlier I talked about the beauty of holiness. Holiness is the distinctiveness, the uniqueness, the majesty of God. A quality of God is order, the proper order, a Divinely mandated order. We see it all over the universe. As this relates to classical music, consider what Bernstein said:
Bernstein wasn't arguing for the exclusivity of this type of music. He was just being honest about it. If he did care about how God was worshiped, he could have talked about the order and precision to music after the nature of God. Many today find that kind of music too intellectual. They want their music more emotional. They want to feel more. If you want to feel more, just add to the rhythm in a number of different ways. Musicians know what they are doing. This is what popular music is about. It goes to the lowest common denominator to pull people in. It's marketing. It's making money. It's having a hit. You cannot take that music and use it for worship.
More to Come
Some would like professing believers to think that how things are going with music today is about how things have always been. Their narrative is that Bach took secular music and Christianized it, Luther did it, Watts did it, Finney did it, Moody did it, the Jesus movement did it, and we have just kept on doing that, so that here we are today. What's to question? Using rock, rap, jazz, and all of that are just another iteration of that same practice -- that idea. So the people who charge that the use of popular music are the ones outside of the historical stream of worship music. This narrative turns this use of these popular music forms into the same as its always been, a "good thing." No. It's a false narrative. This is a new bad or an all time bad.
For quite a long time now, professing Christians have been misjudging true spirituality. We do know that this is old, going back to biblical times, and what we have today is actually another iteration of that false notion or corruption, something we have been warned about in the Bible. And Paul deals with it in 1 and 2 Corinthians and other places in the New Testament. Satan would have men think they're in the right place spiritually, that whatever it is that is occurring is the Holy Spirit, when it's not. It's actually another spirit, as Paul writes about in 2 Corinthians 11. The level of deceit here is that men think something is spiritual that is really physical, a feeling. Jonathan Edwards warned about this shortly after colonial days with the passions versus affections.
True spirituality relates to thinking. We read that in 1 Corinthians 2. The natural man, who isn't spiritual, doesn't understand the things of the Spirit of God. He doesn't know them, can't know them. Spirituality is about knowing and understanding. Paul had to talk to the Corinthians like they were carnal and not spiritual (1 Corinthians 3), because they were not receptive to the Word of God as they should have been and then been obedient to it. Spirituality is understanding the Word of God and then living obediently to it. The way that this is bypassed is through the feelings, and that's what was happening in Corinth. The mystery religion found in pagan Corinth had worked its way into the church, replacing true spirituality with a false kind. This is also what is happening with music today. The feeling orchestrated in Corinth, that was mistaken for spirituality, came through euphoria and enthusiasm that was created.
Alright. With all that being said, if music is spiritual, it will emphasize the Word of God and the mind. There is music that is like that. There is feeling to it, but the feeling is secondary. The popular forms work against true spirituality, because they deal primarily with the body, with the flesh, with carnality. When the Holy Spirit is working, the body takes a back seat, subjects itself to the mind. We sin when we are drawn away of our own lust (James 1), so Paul commanded that we were to make no provision for the flesh (Rom 13:14). If music is spiritual, it will take the biblical priority of mind and body. Music that prioritizes body over mind is not spiritual. The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God through the mind. He doesn't work through the body, through the lust.
All music has rhythm, but when the rhythm takes prominence in music through various musical means, the body is taking priority in the music. Musicians know how to do this. I remember several years ago that there was a kind of music that you could purchase, called Hooked on Classics. People who didn't ordinarily like the classics could develop a "taste" for them by means of a rock rhythm that was placed in the background. The people who produced this were "hooking" or "addicting" people to that music by changing the rhythm (here's some Hooked on Bach). People weren't questioning what this "hooked on" genre was all about. Almost any imbecile could get what was happening. However, now professing Christians act like they don't know what we're talking about when we talk about what rhythm can do to music. It's an insult to intelligence. We have to go along with the act so that people can have what they want.
That rhythm that is to hook people changes the nature of the music. It becomes more physical, so it has more feeling. The rhythm puts the feelings on steroids, so to speak. Spiritual music is not about that orchestrated feeling, that is multiplied by the rhythm. We can talk about all the ways that music does this, but true affections will come from the mind. It's not that they bypass feelings period. Feelings are involved, but they take the proper diminished role. The mind works toward the will toward the feelings. That is God's order and it is spiritual. It promotes knowledge and understanding.
Right now, right at this time, I was thinking about a typical kind of argument against what I'm presenting, which everyone knows about music. Rock musicians have liked what their music can do in making them more popular and sometimes adding to their harem. Professing Christians play possum, act the part of the village idiot, take on a totally naive posture, in order to keep it. What's worse, they then think it's fine for worship. But I digress. I was thinking about march music, Sousa, John Philip Sousa. Does his music honor God? Rhythm is primary there. I was thinking of that kind of argument. No, I don't think Sousa should be used for worship, but I do believe it is permissible for marching. And the rhythm has most to do with that. There is nothing wrong with marching. But is there anything wrong with jiving? I won't go there right now, but Sousa actually doesn't help someone who wants to argue for a priority of the physical or of rhythm for worship.
Earlier I talked about the beauty of holiness. Holiness is the distinctiveness, the uniqueness, the majesty of God. A quality of God is order, the proper order, a Divinely mandated order. We see it all over the universe. As this relates to classical music, consider what Bernstein said:
That's what classical music really means: music written in a time when perfect form and balance and proportion are what everybody is looking for -music which tries more than anything else to have a perfect shape - like a beautiful ancient Greek vase.
Now the two giant musical names of these first 50 years of the 18th Century were Bach and Handel. Especially Bach; because he took all the rules that the composers who lived before him had been experimenting with, and fiddling with - and he made those rules as perfect as a human being can make them. For instance, take that form called the fugue. Now the rules of a fugue are something like the printed directions you get when you buy an Erector set; they tell you exactly how to build a house, or a fire truck, or a Ferris Wheel. You start a Ferris Wheel by attaching one metal section to another on the floor; then you add one exactly four notches higher; then another five notches higher than that; and so on.
Bernstein wasn't arguing for the exclusivity of this type of music. He was just being honest about it. If he did care about how God was worshiped, he could have talked about the order and precision to music after the nature of God. Many today find that kind of music too intellectual. They want their music more emotional. They want to feel more. If you want to feel more, just add to the rhythm in a number of different ways. Musicians know what they are doing. This is what popular music is about. It goes to the lowest common denominator to pull people in. It's marketing. It's making money. It's having a hit. You cannot take that music and use it for worship.
More to Come
Monday, December 16, 2013
Proving the Music Issue in the Worship War: Is there Holy Hip Hop? pt. 8
Parts One, Two, Three (links to other posts on it), Four, Five, Six, Seven
Unlike some speculation that the readership here has shrunk, it has only grown every year and every month -- sometimes less comments, but growing readership. However, the statistics show that this series is less popular, belying any theory that I write on things to get a readership. I never have. However, it has interested me that there are less readers. I can only speculate -- this is not scientific -- but I have three theories, starting with my own least favored: (1) It's Christmas season and people have less time to read; (2) It's a long series and there is no suspense, so people don't have to come here to find out what I'm saying -- they already know; (3) People don't enjoy the parts I've written so far, because they're just not too interesting. I think it is all of the above, but I think it's #3 the most because people don't like the foundational aspects of the music argument. It's like watching paint dry. When I have talked to young people about music through the years, they just want to tell you a group or a genre, ask whether it's good or bad, and then get the answer. I'm to part 8 and I haven't said what's wrong with rap music. I've hinted at it, but that's what people are waiting for, I think, just from my experience with this issue.
I have no problem with applying scripture on what music is wrong and what is right. However, the points or principles or truths leading up to that are very important, and they are the vital underlying reasons why people have the music or worship issue wrong. You might not get it right if you don't understand these foundational points. They aren't interesting to some or perhaps many, but they are necessary, and you have them available here.
At the end of the last post, I linked to the musical composition of the psalms found in the original Hebrew language text. Some might think that this couldn't be true, because people didn't know about it "until now." I don't know what people knew or didn't know about this. I don't believe it represents some kind of apostasy on the issue, because people have, that I know of, always been playing the right music. We didn't lose that at any time that I know. Even though people may have temporarily lost track of the meaning of the notation written in the Hebrew text, they did not apostatize on music that would honor God in worship. The music of the quality represented by the notation was still being sung. By the Spirit of God, men still did know what music was acceptable to God.
But what is that music that is acceptable to God? What characterizes music that will honor God? Before I get to more truths and principles to guide us, here's what we've covered so far.
One, we are to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Two, music has meaning.
Three, as an addendum to two -- since music is a means of communication, it can communicate moral or immoral.
Four, we determine what is moral, sacred music by applying biblical principle.
Five, applying scripture requires an understanding of truth in the real world.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
Seven, God is worshiped with beauty (there is objective beauty).
Eight, Christians have historically, characteristically, considered or believed beauty to be objective and measured after the nature of God.
Nine, we now have an idea of what Israel's music sounded like.
Ephesians 5:19 is a classic reference for New Testament worship with music. As a result of being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), a believer will sing and make melody unto the Lord (Eph 5:19). "Sing" and "make melody" are both musical terms. Singing is vocal and making melody is instrumental (psallo) music. Music. Music is by its very nature melodic, so, ten, music directed to God must be melodic. You aren't singing or making melody to God if there is no melody. A composer, using notes, isn't writing anything if he's not writing a melody or a tune. He's isn't writing rhythm. He's writing melody. This is a basic. The music should be musical. It should have a melody. This is prescribed by scripture.
Rap started out of musical absence. The first rappers weren't making music. There might be melody in the background, but the rap isn't music. It isn't being sung. There isn't a tune to it. The words are proclaimed in some rhythm, but rhythm isn't music. It is a quality of music, but you aren't making music without a melody. And if you are making music, you are also rhythmic. But you can be rhythmic without making music. All music has a beat. No one who opposes wrong music does so because it has a "beat." Rap has a beat, but it doesn't have a melody. Without a melody, there is no harmony. Rap isn't music.
Someone might argue that some modern rap has a musical quality to it. I could agree to that. But it still isn't music. It does not carry a recognizable tune. The words are not being sung. They are being shouted or, I don't know, "howled" (I don't know a word for that kind of talking). A dictionary definition, I read, says, "chanting." My connotation at least of "chanting" isn't what I hear in a rap. It's tone sounds like someone who is angry with what is happening. It is ironic that someone could be angry an entire rap with the love of God. I looked for something in rap that was sweet or joyous, but there is nothing that I could find in just rap. The word "joyous" might appear in a rap lyric, but the rap isn't joyous itself. I haven't heard a rap that doesn't sound angry. The rap that attempts, it seems, to be the least angry is just less angry. Compared to the more angry rap, the less angry might not sound angry, but it still has that angry tone that seems to be a fundamental of rap. It doesn't seem that someone is rapping if he doesn't at least communicate anger. I'm going to get to this later, but something can't be all anger and still be right.
There was a day that this point didn't need to be made, but now it does, and it is a point that was already in the Bible. Music that honors God, that respects Him, that worships Him in truth, must be melodic.
Someone might argue that rap isn't intended to worship, that it, perhaps, is a proclamation method, but then I send you back to #6 of the above points in review. We don't need a new method for the gospel. What the Bible says is sufficient.
More to Come
Unlike some speculation that the readership here has shrunk, it has only grown every year and every month -- sometimes less comments, but growing readership. However, the statistics show that this series is less popular, belying any theory that I write on things to get a readership. I never have. However, it has interested me that there are less readers. I can only speculate -- this is not scientific -- but I have three theories, starting with my own least favored: (1) It's Christmas season and people have less time to read; (2) It's a long series and there is no suspense, so people don't have to come here to find out what I'm saying -- they already know; (3) People don't enjoy the parts I've written so far, because they're just not too interesting. I think it is all of the above, but I think it's #3 the most because people don't like the foundational aspects of the music argument. It's like watching paint dry. When I have talked to young people about music through the years, they just want to tell you a group or a genre, ask whether it's good or bad, and then get the answer. I'm to part 8 and I haven't said what's wrong with rap music. I've hinted at it, but that's what people are waiting for, I think, just from my experience with this issue.
I have no problem with applying scripture on what music is wrong and what is right. However, the points or principles or truths leading up to that are very important, and they are the vital underlying reasons why people have the music or worship issue wrong. You might not get it right if you don't understand these foundational points. They aren't interesting to some or perhaps many, but they are necessary, and you have them available here.
At the end of the last post, I linked to the musical composition of the psalms found in the original Hebrew language text. Some might think that this couldn't be true, because people didn't know about it "until now." I don't know what people knew or didn't know about this. I don't believe it represents some kind of apostasy on the issue, because people have, that I know of, always been playing the right music. We didn't lose that at any time that I know. Even though people may have temporarily lost track of the meaning of the notation written in the Hebrew text, they did not apostatize on music that would honor God in worship. The music of the quality represented by the notation was still being sung. By the Spirit of God, men still did know what music was acceptable to God.
But what is that music that is acceptable to God? What characterizes music that will honor God? Before I get to more truths and principles to guide us, here's what we've covered so far.
One, we are to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Two, music has meaning.
Three, as an addendum to two -- since music is a means of communication, it can communicate moral or immoral.
Four, we determine what is moral, sacred music by applying biblical principle.
Five, applying scripture requires an understanding of truth in the real world.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
Seven, God is worshiped with beauty (there is objective beauty).
Eight, Christians have historically, characteristically, considered or believed beauty to be objective and measured after the nature of God.
Nine, we now have an idea of what Israel's music sounded like.
Ephesians 5:19 is a classic reference for New Testament worship with music. As a result of being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), a believer will sing and make melody unto the Lord (Eph 5:19). "Sing" and "make melody" are both musical terms. Singing is vocal and making melody is instrumental (psallo) music. Music. Music is by its very nature melodic, so, ten, music directed to God must be melodic. You aren't singing or making melody to God if there is no melody. A composer, using notes, isn't writing anything if he's not writing a melody or a tune. He's isn't writing rhythm. He's writing melody. This is a basic. The music should be musical. It should have a melody. This is prescribed by scripture.
Rap started out of musical absence. The first rappers weren't making music. There might be melody in the background, but the rap isn't music. It isn't being sung. There isn't a tune to it. The words are proclaimed in some rhythm, but rhythm isn't music. It is a quality of music, but you aren't making music without a melody. And if you are making music, you are also rhythmic. But you can be rhythmic without making music. All music has a beat. No one who opposes wrong music does so because it has a "beat." Rap has a beat, but it doesn't have a melody. Without a melody, there is no harmony. Rap isn't music.
Someone might argue that some modern rap has a musical quality to it. I could agree to that. But it still isn't music. It does not carry a recognizable tune. The words are not being sung. They are being shouted or, I don't know, "howled" (I don't know a word for that kind of talking). A dictionary definition, I read, says, "chanting." My connotation at least of "chanting" isn't what I hear in a rap. It's tone sounds like someone who is angry with what is happening. It is ironic that someone could be angry an entire rap with the love of God. I looked for something in rap that was sweet or joyous, but there is nothing that I could find in just rap. The word "joyous" might appear in a rap lyric, but the rap isn't joyous itself. I haven't heard a rap that doesn't sound angry. The rap that attempts, it seems, to be the least angry is just less angry. Compared to the more angry rap, the less angry might not sound angry, but it still has that angry tone that seems to be a fundamental of rap. It doesn't seem that someone is rapping if he doesn't at least communicate anger. I'm going to get to this later, but something can't be all anger and still be right.
There was a day that this point didn't need to be made, but now it does, and it is a point that was already in the Bible. Music that honors God, that respects Him, that worships Him in truth, must be melodic.
Someone might argue that rap isn't intended to worship, that it, perhaps, is a proclamation method, but then I send you back to #6 of the above points in review. We don't need a new method for the gospel. What the Bible says is sufficient.
More to Come
Friday, December 13, 2013
How Long Were the Original Manuscripts Around? Considerations on the NT Autographa and Early NT Apographa from Scripture and Patristic Writers, part 3
IV.
General Considerations Concerning Patristic Testimony
Patristic
testimony, although it has limitations, provides contemporary information about
early Christian history, and consequently has definite value in the study of
events of its era. A Christian writer
who lived not long after the composition of the gospels would be more likely to
advance correct theories about their origin than would, say, a German
rationalistic critic writing eighteen hundred years ex post facto. Nevertheless,
patristic compositions are manifestly inferior to the NT in matters of
history. First, they are
uninspired. Second, unlike Scripture,
God has not promised to preserve them, so textual questions can arise which
make their current texts uncertain.
Third, assuming a lack of Catholic or other heretical interpolation in
our current texts, many patristic writers held to dangerous doctrinal errors,
which tended to increase in number as their distance from the first century
increased; baptismal regeneration
appears very early, and idolatry, hierarchicalism, the real presence, and other
Popish errors quickly followed.
Believers who opposed the Babylonian apostasy were labeled heretics, and
their writings were destroyed. Many
extant ante-Nicene writers, and certainly those after the Constantinian
revolution, must not be considered members of true churches of Christ, nor
among the number who have received the NT gospel of justification by faith
alone. Despite these drawbacks, valuable
historical testimony, including textual-critical material, may be gleaned from
their compositions.
V.
Patristic testimony to the continued existence of the autographa
Tertullian,
in his The Prescription Against Heretics,
states:
Come
now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the
business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very
thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their
own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face
of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find
Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there
too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get
Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which
there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles
themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their
doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!
Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was
first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his
island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had
with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the
Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of
God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets
she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from
which she drinks in her faith.[i]
The Prescription
was written c. A. D. 200.[ii] Schaff indicates that the phrase “authentic
writings” here (Latin, authenticae),
“may refer to the autographs or the
Greek originals,” or at the very
least to “full unmutilated copies as opposed to the garbled ones of the
heretics.”[iii]
There is no definite reason why the phrase would not refer to the autographs
themselves; this would suit Tertullian’s
argument, that “the Christian Scriptures . . . are a deposit, committed to and
carefully kept by the church,”[iv]
which the heretics have perverted, better than the alternative sense. What would better prove heretical corruption
of Scripture than a reference to the still extant autographs themselves?[v] However, the second sense would still support
a long period of accurate transmission, for “full unmutilated copies” requires
an absence of corruption. Tertullian
continues, “What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it
away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural
soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures?
What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the
beginning.”[vi] His argument assumes the orthodox, unlike
their heretical opponents, possess uncorrupted Scripture. Tertullian affirms that the autographs, or at
least copies a very small number of generations from them, were still preserved
in the churches that had received them at the beginning of the third century.
Furthermore,
Tertullian, in book four of his Five
Books Against Marcion, while arguing against Marcionite alteration of
Scripture, declares:
On
the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is
earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which
has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident,
that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit
in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank
from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction;
what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what
utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter
and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We
have also St. John’s foster churches.[vii]
Context points to the conclusion that the “sacred deposit”
kept in the “churches of the apostles” would include the autographical MSS, the
uncorrupted foundation of apostolic doctrine and the counterpoint to the
corruptions of Marcion and his disciples. He likewise affirms that the “the
(Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity . . . [and]
Luke’s Gospel [which was doctored by Marcion] also has come down to us in like
integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion.”[viii] In his Prescription
Against Heretics, Tertullian speaks of the “Christian Scriptures . . . [as]
my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you [heretics of
his day]. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom
the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully
prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured
(the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it.”[ix] He considered the Scriptures he used “sure
title-deeds from the original owners,” which were “carefully prepared” and
passed down uncorrupted from the apostolic churches to the African churches
where he ministered. Tertullian, in
these texts, appears to affirm that the originals were still extant in the
apostolic churches in his day, while faithful copies made from them were widely
circulated.
Note: this entire study is available as an essay here.
[i] AN:XXXVI:20373.
[ii] Pg. 941, “Tertullianus,” in A Dictionary of Christian
Biography, ed. Henry Wace & William C. Piercy, Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994 (reprint of A
Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, pub. John Murray, London,
1911).
[iii] Footnotes cite by module number, footnote number,
and paragraph number. The patristic work
will also be cited if it is not clear.
This note is AN:383:20808, that is, the Ante-Nicene module, footnote
#383 (to Tertullian’s Prescription
Against Heretics), paragraph #20808 in the module.
[iv] AN:XXXVII:20374.
This is the title to the section of Tertullian’s work, and it accurately
details his point, although these are not his ipsissima verba.
[v] Many other patristic writers likewise affirmed that
heretics deliberately corrupted Scripture; for example, “The Arians are
repeatedly charged by St. Ambrose with falsifying and manipulating Scripture
for their own ends . . . the same charge is a common one against all heretical
bodies in early days” (Prolegomena to St.
Ambrose: “On the Doctrine of St. Ambrose,” NPN-2:IV:58093). Many of the CT’s corruptions are deliberate
alterations of the TR originated by
Arians and others to support their heresies.
[vi] AN:XXXVIII:20377.
[vii] AN:V:22264.
[viii]
AN:V:22264.
[ix] AN:XXXVII:20375
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Proving the Music Issue in the Worship War: Is there Holy Hip Hop? pt. 7
If you look at part five, which was posted late Sunday night or early Monday morning, I have the links to parts one, two, three, and four, and yesterday I posted six. You'll have to do the heavy lifting of scrolling until I get links at the top of a post. I'll also review my points again, perhaps next point.
I'll warn you that there will be a few corollaries to this, and on a few of them, I'll make separate points. I'm headed to a corollary right away. There is objective beauty. Scripture is replete with this.
God Himself is said within His own Word to be beautiful (Psalm 27:4; 90:17). There is nothing to beauty if there isn't something that is not beautiful. God has a unique nature of beauty. If God is defined by beauty, then beauty should remain within the realm of the nature of God.
Exodus 28:2 says, "And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty." If there is "beauty," there is ugliness, and God wanted His worship beautiful, so He designed garments that were beautiful. Many people would not have thought them to be beautiful. If you saw someone wearing them today, you might not think they're beautiful. Why are they beautiful? They reflect the nature of God. Seeing that is so, we could understand more about beauty by analyzing those garments. That's not a point to which I'm referring right now though. Solomon made the temple more beautiful with certain stones (2 Chron 3:6). You get to the primary point here in these verses:
Beauty is most tied into the unique nature of God, His majesty; hence, His holiness.
This brings us to another corollary, which I'm numbering as a separate point, eight, Christians have historically, characteristically, considered or believed beauty to be objective and measured after the nature of God. True doctrine is historical. The idea that aesthetics are neutral is new, and, therefore, should be denied. Aesthetic neutrality is apostate, a turn from the truth. Before enlightenment, all who claimed the one and true Trinitarian God, worshiped God with a particular aesthetic that mimicked God's creation. Artists looked to what God made, because God defined beauty. They would not be imitating something sinful or spoiled by sin. Because of God's grace, not everything is spoiled by sin. There is good out there, or else how could we even say that good gifts are coming from above? We would be bemoaning that we see nothing good coming from above, and that would not be true.
Historic Christianity, true Christianity, has recognized objective truth, goodness, and beauty -- the transcendentals. There is one God, one truth, one goodness, and one beauty. To make beauty amoral, to subjectivize beauty, is a rejection of God's creation. Pre-enlightenment moral imagination saw God's creation as the model for beauty. It was beautiful if it reflected God's Divine nature and His order. Not any more. Ugly is the new lovely.
If you deny or violate beauty, you do it to the other two. Beauty, in essence orthopathy, is on the same level as truth and goodness. Relativistic beauty yields relativistic truth and goodness. God is One. You can't give up one without giving up the others. They are indivisible. Attack or corruption of beauty is the same upon truth and goodness. Again, you just can't separate one from the other two.
Paul could command believers to think on whatsoever is lovely (Philippians 4:8), because there is a lovely to think on. We are commanded to think on the lovely, because there is the unlovely. We are assumed to be able to judge these things in line with previous points I've made in this argument. Christians through history have consistently and unanimously said as much, and they weren't all wrong for several hundred years. It's now with revivalism, the church growth movement, and a postmodern society that we move to aesthetic relativism as a desperate defense of men walking after their own lust.
If you're following along, you might say, "You haven't told me what music is wrong or that rap is wrong." However, with everything I've said so far, something is wrong, and we can begin judging what it is. For anyone who wants to know, we've needed to move through what we have so far. Using the biblical principles that God has given us, what music is acceptable to God, what would please Him, would He evaluate as beautiful? Again, we rely on principles and the confidence from God that we can apply those principles to music in order to judge what is right and what is wrong.
I'm not going to get to that in this post, so it won't be until next week that I will. I understand that this is what people want the most to hear. But I also know, after many of these conversations, that it can't be where someone starts. However, I want to end with another point, that being, the Bible does have a play button of sorts. Nine, we now have an idea of what Israel's music sounded like. Some might not be willing to believe this. I believe it, so I'm going to add it. I believe that the notations are found in the Hebrew Psalms and that they have been figured out (the link is an NPR report). What makes this interesting is that the kind of tunes are codified in the text itself. They are very specific, very detailed. I'm not arguing that we must sound just like this or we're wrong, but that we must have similar qualities. From listening to this, and then hearing the traditional tunes of a Christian psalter, they are very close, certainly of the same basic quality. I'll be writing more about what that is.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I left off with six: Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached. Now, seven, God is worshiped with beauty.I'll warn you that there will be a few corollaries to this, and on a few of them, I'll make separate points. I'm headed to a corollary right away. There is objective beauty. Scripture is replete with this.
God Himself is said within His own Word to be beautiful (Psalm 27:4; 90:17). There is nothing to beauty if there isn't something that is not beautiful. God has a unique nature of beauty. If God is defined by beauty, then beauty should remain within the realm of the nature of God.
Exodus 28:2 says, "And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty." If there is "beauty," there is ugliness, and God wanted His worship beautiful, so He designed garments that were beautiful. Many people would not have thought them to be beautiful. If you saw someone wearing them today, you might not think they're beautiful. Why are they beautiful? They reflect the nature of God. Seeing that is so, we could understand more about beauty by analyzing those garments. That's not a point to which I'm referring right now though. Solomon made the temple more beautiful with certain stones (2 Chron 3:6). You get to the primary point here in these verses:
1 Chronicles 16:29, "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness."
2 Chronicles 20:21, "And when he had consulted with the people, he appointed singers unto the LORD, and that should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and to say, Praise the LORD; for his mercy endureth for ever."
Psalm 96:9, "O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth."
Beauty is most tied into the unique nature of God, His majesty; hence, His holiness.
This brings us to another corollary, which I'm numbering as a separate point, eight, Christians have historically, characteristically, considered or believed beauty to be objective and measured after the nature of God. True doctrine is historical. The idea that aesthetics are neutral is new, and, therefore, should be denied. Aesthetic neutrality is apostate, a turn from the truth. Before enlightenment, all who claimed the one and true Trinitarian God, worshiped God with a particular aesthetic that mimicked God's creation. Artists looked to what God made, because God defined beauty. They would not be imitating something sinful or spoiled by sin. Because of God's grace, not everything is spoiled by sin. There is good out there, or else how could we even say that good gifts are coming from above? We would be bemoaning that we see nothing good coming from above, and that would not be true.
Historic Christianity, true Christianity, has recognized objective truth, goodness, and beauty -- the transcendentals. There is one God, one truth, one goodness, and one beauty. To make beauty amoral, to subjectivize beauty, is a rejection of God's creation. Pre-enlightenment moral imagination saw God's creation as the model for beauty. It was beautiful if it reflected God's Divine nature and His order. Not any more. Ugly is the new lovely.
If you deny or violate beauty, you do it to the other two. Beauty, in essence orthopathy, is on the same level as truth and goodness. Relativistic beauty yields relativistic truth and goodness. God is One. You can't give up one without giving up the others. They are indivisible. Attack or corruption of beauty is the same upon truth and goodness. Again, you just can't separate one from the other two.
Paul could command believers to think on whatsoever is lovely (Philippians 4:8), because there is a lovely to think on. We are commanded to think on the lovely, because there is the unlovely. We are assumed to be able to judge these things in line with previous points I've made in this argument. Christians through history have consistently and unanimously said as much, and they weren't all wrong for several hundred years. It's now with revivalism, the church growth movement, and a postmodern society that we move to aesthetic relativism as a desperate defense of men walking after their own lust.
If you're following along, you might say, "You haven't told me what music is wrong or that rap is wrong." However, with everything I've said so far, something is wrong, and we can begin judging what it is. For anyone who wants to know, we've needed to move through what we have so far. Using the biblical principles that God has given us, what music is acceptable to God, what would please Him, would He evaluate as beautiful? Again, we rely on principles and the confidence from God that we can apply those principles to music in order to judge what is right and what is wrong.
I'm not going to get to that in this post, so it won't be until next week that I will. I understand that this is what people want the most to hear. But I also know, after many of these conversations, that it can't be where someone starts. However, I want to end with another point, that being, the Bible does have a play button of sorts. Nine, we now have an idea of what Israel's music sounded like. Some might not be willing to believe this. I believe it, so I'm going to add it. I believe that the notations are found in the Hebrew Psalms and that they have been figured out (the link is an NPR report). What makes this interesting is that the kind of tunes are codified in the text itself. They are very specific, very detailed. I'm not arguing that we must sound just like this or we're wrong, but that we must have similar qualities. From listening to this, and then hearing the traditional tunes of a Christian psalter, they are very close, certainly of the same basic quality. I'll be writing more about what that is.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Proving the Music Issue in the Worship War: Is there Holy Hip Hop? pt. 6
If you look at part five, which was posted yesterday, I have the links to parts one, two, three, and four, for your convenience.
About a week ago, I bought the kindle edition of rapper Curtis Allen's Does God Listen to Rap? I appreciate that he would dispose himself to defend his practice with some theological explanation for what he does. I mean that. His book is being pushed by many well-known evangelicals. Ligon Duncan, the president of a theological seminary, recommended it. Prominent Southern Baptist pastor, Mark Dever, pushed it. Perhaps the biggest evangelical blogger, Tim Challies, recommended it, as well as nearly as popular, Justin Taylor, at Between Two Worlds. The book is interesting to read and there is much that can be learned by reading it. Allen has far more background than most and presents a lot of information about rap that I'm sure you didn't know. I am not certain that he represents the issue accurately, because the rap itself may have been even worse in the beginnings than how he presents, but we get his perspective, which was of interest. He does make his defense from scripture. He goes to passages, several of them. He is actually far more gracious than one would expect from anyone on such an issue --- I have read some very bad attack type volumes on music, but he does come across like someone attempting to persuade. You can read it and not feel offended personally by what he wrote. At some point in the future, seeing that this is the definitive apologetic for "Christian rap," I'll do a full review. I wasn't convinced by his arguments.
Allen's book is not a presentation of the purpose of music. I believe he would have been helped greatly if he had started with the point of music. With his starting with what read to be a defense of his rap music, I believe it sent him in the wrong direction, like what will often happen if someone starts a study with a point of view to defend. It's better to be a blank page and then let the Bible send you where you need to go. When he starts to justify rap music, he begins by saying that all music began in the world in the line of Cain with Jubal. His fundamental argument is that all music started pagan and then godly men took it and used it for God's purposes. That would be to say that there wasn't already music in heaven, before man began music. We can see that angels do sing. You can read that in Revelation, as they are some of who are doing the singing to God in Revelation 4 and 5. The Words of God were settled in heaven before the foundation of the world, and those include the Psalms. Man could ruin music, but he didn't create it. That undermines Allen's entire book. We are not to look for our music in the line of Cain. We even know that the world's music, it's songs, not just the words, will cease in the end (see Revelation 17-18).
Another major aspect that he missed, that I don't remember his referring to one time -- he may of brushed across it, but I really don't recall his having done so -- is what music is in the Bible for God's people. In these types' vindication of their music, they get it wrong because they don't start with the most fundamental biblical point. Almost all, and I believe 90% plus of the music difficulty, can be traced to missing this one thing. And this is my sixth point, that I wrote at the end of last post.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
As Allen pointed out, unbelievers use music. Jubal got the music going for the line of Cain. This should not be the assumption that music started there. How that section of Genesis 4 reads is that man, under the harmful effects of the curse, did things to alleviate his suffering. His music was one of them. Others have written about this. I wrote about it in my book on music (1996). Man wanted to survive without God and music was one way he did this. His music was for himself. Does anyone think that this wouldn't change the kind of music Jubal wrote? One of the ways that Allen buttressed this point was by speculating that Moses and the children of Israel would have played Egyptian music, so that must have been the accompanying music of the Song of Moses. Allen doesn't prove that at all. There is a much stronger argument that a lot of the lifestyle of Israel was kept separate in Goshen, and that Moses himself by faith identified himself with the Israelite culture and not the Egyptian one (cf. Heb 11). Allen doesn't mention anything about that. Israel didn't take on the culture of the Egyptians. They stayed separate. That's obvious in the reading of Exodus. For one, Israel remained monotheistic, while Egypt was polytheistic.
When you do read what the Bible says about the music of God and of His people, you find that all of it was directed to God -- all of it. All. Every time you have singing, song, sing, praise, and every kind of musical mention, it is directed to God. That occurs dozens and dozens of times without exception. There isn't anything more clear. The purpose of Christian music is for worship of God. It is all to be directed to Him. That is the audience of God's music. Allen didn't write anything about that. Nothing. Even in the two New Testament passages, Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, the songs are directed to God. To God.
This is where the whole idea of "gospel music" then arrives. Music was confiscated by revivalists to use for evangelism. Finney in his Lectures on Revivals, wrote one chapter on measures to promote revivals -- this is revivalism -- and he spends a good amount of space encouraging the use of music as a new measure for revival. The idea was to use popular and emotional music to attract and allure the unbeliever toward a gospel decision. Singing or songs are not a biblical gospel method. Surely there are many ways to be a good testimony and a good example to lost people, to let your light shine before men. A woman can through her chaste lifestyle have an impact toward the salvation of a lost husband (1 Peter 3:1-2). However, the only method, planned means of someone being saved, the one chosen by God throughout scripture, is preaching (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5). The gospel is the means of salvation and preaching is the method for proclaiming it.
The argument for rap is built around the false premise of using some kind of music, if someone argues that rap is music, in order to accomplish a task that God designated for preaching. God is glorified by a result through preaching. Man is glorified through some other method. That is an argument Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 1-2. Allen makes his argument in a common evangelical manner, that is, Paul quoted a pagan poem in Acts 17 when he preached in Athens. Yes. When he preached. He was still preaching, and we should consider how he used the poem. The people in Athens were seeking for a God, whom they didn't know, like the woman at the well. That is well illustrated in a pagan poem. Paul wasn't attracting the unbelievers. He wasn't contradicting himself (read 2 Corinthians 10-11) by using clever rhetoric to impress his hearers. He was preaching. The rhetoric, the world's methods, man's methods, detract. They take away. They don't help. Someone may see more short-term results, but God isn't glorified through that. He has chosen weakness to confound the wise. Rap makes sense to a certain crowd to impact its own crowd. This is not how God wants it to be done. If someone doesn't like the sermon in preaching, do we accessorize it with rap? No. We diminish it. And this is before we ever judge whether rap is appropriate, permissible, or right.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that theologians and pastors wouldn't be more critical of Allen's particular dealing with or use of scripture. I guess I shouldn't wonder why they wouldn't put it through an exegetical or theological grid a little more. Evangelicalism isn't so prone to do this anymore. They are more likely to defend a method. They are more likely to stay silent as a means of reaching "unity," and unity is the theology (I believe this is Mohler's theology of music, as mentioned in his rap defense -- concession to varied methods for the sake of "unity").
In a foundational away, in the most basic fashion, men go wrong, professing Christian go astray, with this basic point. The music is offered to God. It is worship. It isn't evangelism. Preaching the gospel is evangelism. When the music is directed toward men in evangelism, there are two wrongs. The music is going the wrong direction and the gospel is not being preached. What men have done, as has been said so many times before here, is to fashion their own oxcarts of their own choosing. They think they can improve upon God and it manifests a fundamental, underlying doctrinal problem. It is a problem not just in the "Christian rap" world, but in almost all of evangelicalism and most of fundamentalism today.
More to Come
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I've covered several steps for arguing for the proper music for your edification, including your use in spiritual warfare. God wants to be worshiped and He won't be worshiped with offerings He won't receive. The point of the gospel is the glory of God. God is seeking for true worshipers. Those who say they're concerned for the gospel aren't truthful, or are at least badly deceived, if they disconnect the two. And singing praises to God is vital to the worship.About a week ago, I bought the kindle edition of rapper Curtis Allen's Does God Listen to Rap? I appreciate that he would dispose himself to defend his practice with some theological explanation for what he does. I mean that. His book is being pushed by many well-known evangelicals. Ligon Duncan, the president of a theological seminary, recommended it. Prominent Southern Baptist pastor, Mark Dever, pushed it. Perhaps the biggest evangelical blogger, Tim Challies, recommended it, as well as nearly as popular, Justin Taylor, at Between Two Worlds. The book is interesting to read and there is much that can be learned by reading it. Allen has far more background than most and presents a lot of information about rap that I'm sure you didn't know. I am not certain that he represents the issue accurately, because the rap itself may have been even worse in the beginnings than how he presents, but we get his perspective, which was of interest. He does make his defense from scripture. He goes to passages, several of them. He is actually far more gracious than one would expect from anyone on such an issue --- I have read some very bad attack type volumes on music, but he does come across like someone attempting to persuade. You can read it and not feel offended personally by what he wrote. At some point in the future, seeing that this is the definitive apologetic for "Christian rap," I'll do a full review. I wasn't convinced by his arguments.
Allen's book is not a presentation of the purpose of music. I believe he would have been helped greatly if he had started with the point of music. With his starting with what read to be a defense of his rap music, I believe it sent him in the wrong direction, like what will often happen if someone starts a study with a point of view to defend. It's better to be a blank page and then let the Bible send you where you need to go. When he starts to justify rap music, he begins by saying that all music began in the world in the line of Cain with Jubal. His fundamental argument is that all music started pagan and then godly men took it and used it for God's purposes. That would be to say that there wasn't already music in heaven, before man began music. We can see that angels do sing. You can read that in Revelation, as they are some of who are doing the singing to God in Revelation 4 and 5. The Words of God were settled in heaven before the foundation of the world, and those include the Psalms. Man could ruin music, but he didn't create it. That undermines Allen's entire book. We are not to look for our music in the line of Cain. We even know that the world's music, it's songs, not just the words, will cease in the end (see Revelation 17-18).
Another major aspect that he missed, that I don't remember his referring to one time -- he may of brushed across it, but I really don't recall his having done so -- is what music is in the Bible for God's people. In these types' vindication of their music, they get it wrong because they don't start with the most fundamental biblical point. Almost all, and I believe 90% plus of the music difficulty, can be traced to missing this one thing. And this is my sixth point, that I wrote at the end of last post.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
As Allen pointed out, unbelievers use music. Jubal got the music going for the line of Cain. This should not be the assumption that music started there. How that section of Genesis 4 reads is that man, under the harmful effects of the curse, did things to alleviate his suffering. His music was one of them. Others have written about this. I wrote about it in my book on music (1996). Man wanted to survive without God and music was one way he did this. His music was for himself. Does anyone think that this wouldn't change the kind of music Jubal wrote? One of the ways that Allen buttressed this point was by speculating that Moses and the children of Israel would have played Egyptian music, so that must have been the accompanying music of the Song of Moses. Allen doesn't prove that at all. There is a much stronger argument that a lot of the lifestyle of Israel was kept separate in Goshen, and that Moses himself by faith identified himself with the Israelite culture and not the Egyptian one (cf. Heb 11). Allen doesn't mention anything about that. Israel didn't take on the culture of the Egyptians. They stayed separate. That's obvious in the reading of Exodus. For one, Israel remained monotheistic, while Egypt was polytheistic.
When you do read what the Bible says about the music of God and of His people, you find that all of it was directed to God -- all of it. All. Every time you have singing, song, sing, praise, and every kind of musical mention, it is directed to God. That occurs dozens and dozens of times without exception. There isn't anything more clear. The purpose of Christian music is for worship of God. It is all to be directed to Him. That is the audience of God's music. Allen didn't write anything about that. Nothing. Even in the two New Testament passages, Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, the songs are directed to God. To God.
This is where the whole idea of "gospel music" then arrives. Music was confiscated by revivalists to use for evangelism. Finney in his Lectures on Revivals, wrote one chapter on measures to promote revivals -- this is revivalism -- and he spends a good amount of space encouraging the use of music as a new measure for revival. The idea was to use popular and emotional music to attract and allure the unbeliever toward a gospel decision. Singing or songs are not a biblical gospel method. Surely there are many ways to be a good testimony and a good example to lost people, to let your light shine before men. A woman can through her chaste lifestyle have an impact toward the salvation of a lost husband (1 Peter 3:1-2). However, the only method, planned means of someone being saved, the one chosen by God throughout scripture, is preaching (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5). The gospel is the means of salvation and preaching is the method for proclaiming it.
The argument for rap is built around the false premise of using some kind of music, if someone argues that rap is music, in order to accomplish a task that God designated for preaching. God is glorified by a result through preaching. Man is glorified through some other method. That is an argument Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 1-2. Allen makes his argument in a common evangelical manner, that is, Paul quoted a pagan poem in Acts 17 when he preached in Athens. Yes. When he preached. He was still preaching, and we should consider how he used the poem. The people in Athens were seeking for a God, whom they didn't know, like the woman at the well. That is well illustrated in a pagan poem. Paul wasn't attracting the unbelievers. He wasn't contradicting himself (read 2 Corinthians 10-11) by using clever rhetoric to impress his hearers. He was preaching. The rhetoric, the world's methods, man's methods, detract. They take away. They don't help. Someone may see more short-term results, but God isn't glorified through that. He has chosen weakness to confound the wise. Rap makes sense to a certain crowd to impact its own crowd. This is not how God wants it to be done. If someone doesn't like the sermon in preaching, do we accessorize it with rap? No. We diminish it. And this is before we ever judge whether rap is appropriate, permissible, or right.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that theologians and pastors wouldn't be more critical of Allen's particular dealing with or use of scripture. I guess I shouldn't wonder why they wouldn't put it through an exegetical or theological grid a little more. Evangelicalism isn't so prone to do this anymore. They are more likely to defend a method. They are more likely to stay silent as a means of reaching "unity," and unity is the theology (I believe this is Mohler's theology of music, as mentioned in his rap defense -- concession to varied methods for the sake of "unity").
In a foundational away, in the most basic fashion, men go wrong, professing Christian go astray, with this basic point. The music is offered to God. It is worship. It isn't evangelism. Preaching the gospel is evangelism. When the music is directed toward men in evangelism, there are two wrongs. The music is going the wrong direction and the gospel is not being preached. What men have done, as has been said so many times before here, is to fashion their own oxcarts of their own choosing. They think they can improve upon God and it manifests a fundamental, underlying doctrinal problem. It is a problem not just in the "Christian rap" world, but in almost all of evangelicalism and most of fundamentalism today.
More to Come
Monday, December 09, 2013
Proving the Music Issue in the Worship War: Is there Holy Hip Hop? pt. 5
Parts One, Two, Three, Four
I started some instruction on how to argue the music issue. Here are my first points.
One, we are to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Two, music has meaning.
Three, as an addendum to two -- since music is a means of communication, it can communicate moral or immoral.
Four, we determine what is moral, sacred music by applying biblical principle.
I want to continue with number four, but before I do, a few observations. Most arguments are not matters of knowledge. Scripture says people know, but they suppress the truth (see Romans 1:18-25). If it is a knowledge situation, they'll respond well to it, and keep believing. They won't behave like a scorner.
When you attempt to take away someone's music, his music, he'll behave like his dog when you take its food away. People are different with music, because it is emotional, and, therefore, physical. They are drawn away of their own lusts, and they'll behave far more angry then if you talk about a doctrinal difference. I've seen men come to fisticuffs more than once arguing over music. People will also say the most nasty things over this issue.
Continuing with number four, I want to get a little more specific with biblical application, especially when it comes to aesthetics. Consider 1 Timothy 5:1, "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father." Rebuking an elder is stylistic. Entreating is stylistic. The verse doesn't tell you exactly what it is. You are to intreat an elder "as" a father. Some might call this practical teaching. You can disrespect an older man when you approach him like a younger man. The verse assumes application and assumes that you can know and should know what it is. We do know what it is. What is ironic is that the style or aesthetic of intreating an elder is often more respectful than what is offered to God in an approach to Him. If you've got to intreat an elder, what should you be doing with God?
Consider, "Honour thy father and mother" (Eph 6:2). A son can disrespect his father. Honour is not the same thing as obedience. Consider Proverbs 30:17, "The eye that mocketh at his father. . . . the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." A certain look can mock his father. The Bible doesn't tell what it is. I want to make this number five, even though it is more of a corollary to number four.
Five, applying scripture requires an understanding of truth in the real world.
There must be certain truths in the world, that are not in the Bible, that are correlative to the truth of scripture. I've already mentioned one, "the attire of a harlot." There is the attire of a harlot, and we are not told what it is, because we are assumed to know what it is. We are also assumed to know what that look is that disrespects the father, using the eyes. There are other ways a parent might not be honored by a look or an attitude.
As we move this to music, there is music that doesn't respect God. It is not worthy of God. God won't be respected by it. It is not fitting of his nature.
When I direct my conversation toward one of my students in class, I expect him to look at me. There isn't a command in scripture to look at a teacher, but it's probably universal that it is disrespectful of a student not to look at a teacher when the teacher is addressing him. Since I have taught young people for 25 years, I know that they still do it all the time, and they like doing it. It makes them feel good and it is more comfortable for them. There are all sorts of ways that a person can show disrespect toward another person, and yet the one showing the disrespect enjoys the behavior. Many of these ways are spelled out in scripture, but they are under the general category of disrespect or dishonor.
Five here is a corollary to four. To use that second term, that minor premise, we are assumed in many instances, if not most, to understand truth in the real world. God made us in His image, we have a conscience, there is prevenient grace in the world of a loving and merciful God, and we have the law written in our hearts. We are required to judge in these matters.
If someone does not intreat an elder as a father, has he sinned? If he disrespects God, has he sinned? Is the only way to dishonor God, to disobey scripture, or is there an aesthetic aspect in look and attitude or mood, that can disrespect God?
There are so many ways we can disrespect human beings, and we can name many of them, and none of them are in the Bible, and yet they are all wrong. Are there not these ways that will also disrespect God? Of course there are. And people know this.
I want to go just a little further than this. Another man might talk to my wife, but he can't talk to my wife with the same style I do. I can talk to a coworker in a way I can't talk to my boss. Philippians 2:12 commands us to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling." Perhaps that might seem subjective, but we are assumed to be able to judge what it is to be trembling. Servants (employees) are to also obey their masters (employers) with that same attitude (Eph 6:5). I know what that's like and I've been that way. I've also seen it where it's not fear and trembling, and knew it when I saw it.
All of this can be tough to argue today, because our culture is attempting to remove these behaviors. Leadership is being instructed to put themselves on the same level as those under them. There is even theological justification. I've heard the term "incarnational," where Jesus is said to be the example of this type of egalitarianism. A lot of disrespect of God stems from this wrong philosophy or even wrong theology.
Nelson Mandela died last week. I noticed Tiger Woods shot a 62 in a tournament in Southern California today. I saw a picture of Tiger Woods when he met Mandela. Mandela was wearing an open collared shirt. Tiger knew to wear a tie and a sport coat. Someone might ask, "What's up with that?" Is there a point when someone's actions are sinful in their lack of respect? It must be, because the Bible says it is. Are aesthetics one of the ways this occurs? Of course. Is it a sin not to change the sheets for someone who is staying at your house, to leave for them whatever stuff from your body that has gathered over a period of time? Yes. And yet the Bible says nothing about changing the sheets for guests.
A lesser to greater argument exists here. Since God is greater, He deserves a greater estimation and value than everything else. Whatever we understand about respect of man should be greater for God. God does expect us to know based upon truth in the real world what that respect, what valuing Him more highly is. And this isn't reduced to words, but also an approach, an attitude, a style. People know this. You don't talk about the latest deaths in the war on terror with Ronald McDonald hopping behind the screen. You don't have Barney leading "Holy, Holy, Holy." You don't preach behind a pulpit that looks like a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. These may seem obvious. More seems obvious than just these.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
More to Come
A lesser to greater argument exists here. Since God is greater, He deserves a greater estimation and value than everything else. Whatever we understand about respect of man should be greater for God. God does expect us to know based upon truth in the real world what that respect, what valuing Him more highly is. And this isn't reduced to words, but also an approach, an attitude, a style. People know this. You don't talk about the latest deaths in the war on terror with Ronald McDonald hopping behind the screen. You don't have Barney leading "Holy, Holy, Holy." You don't preach behind a pulpit that looks like a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. These may seem obvious. More seems obvious than just these.
Six, Music as Praise or Worship is Directed to God and the Gospel Is Preached.
More to Come
Friday, December 06, 2013
How Long Were the Original Manuscripts Around? Considerations on the NT Autographa and Early NT Apographa from Scripture and Patristic Writers, part 2
III.
New Testament Witness to the Transmission of the Autographa
In accord with Christ’s prayer
(John 17:8), the saints and the churches immediately received the books of the
New Testament as they were given by inspiration. The seven churches recognized the Revelation
of John as Scripture immediately upon receipt of the book (Revelation 1:11),
the Thessalonians immediately received the Word of God, for they were believers
(1 Thessalonians 2:13), and, led by the Spirit, churches in general received
the scripture, which they knew was being penned in their day (Romans 16:25-26;
1 Corinthians 14:37; Ephesians
3:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:12, 25; 2 Peter 3:2; Luke 1:3) as
the ascended Christ gave it (John 16:13).
When Paul wrote 1 Timothy in the early 60s, he recognized Luke’s gospel,
which had been composed only a few years earlier, as “scripture” equal in
authority to the books of Moses (1 Timothy 5:18; Luke 10:7; Deuteronomy
25:4). Paul’s declaration concerning the
inspiration of “all Scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16 consequently refers to both
the Old Testament (OT) canon and the NT, which, by the time of the inspiration
of 2 Timothy, God had, other than the Johannine writings, almost entirely
revealed to man. Peter (2 Peter 3:2)
refers to the OT books (v. 2a) and the NT books (v. 2b), and calls the
collection of “all epistles” by the apostle Paul[i]
scripture, equal to “the other scriptures,” (2 Peter 3:15-16), the OT (1 Peter
2:6); all of this OT and NT scripture is
affirmed to be as sure as the audible voice of God speaking from heaven (2
Peter 1:16-21).[ii] John closes the NT canon with the solemn
warning of Revelation 22:18-19 (cf. Proverbs 30:5-6), evidencing his
recognition, one with which his audience would have concurred, of the
inspiration of his work (cf. John 21:24) and the completion of the New
Testament. The saints recognized the NT
as an inspired treasure immediately upon its composition.[iii]
The assembly
of the NT into a cohesive unit also began very early;[iv] as 2 Peter 3:15-16 indicates, the process was
far advanced before Peter’s death c. A. D. 68, and so even before the
revelation of the final NT books. The NT
writings were copied and distributed from church to church (Revelation 1:3). Paul wrote Galatians to “the churches of
Galatia” (Galatians 1:2), which would involve the copying of his epistle. Colossians 4:16 provides a striking example
of this practice. Paul commanded that
his newly inspired epistle to the church at Colossae be read in that church (v.
16a),[v]
then copied and read in the church of the Laodiceans (v. 16b). At the same time, the Colossian congregation
was to “read the epistle from Laodicea” (v. 16c). That church, which had not received an
inspired autograph,[vi] had
copied another assembly’s canonical epistle, which was being read in their
church; the Colossians were to take this
epistle, copy it, and read it in their own assembly. At least three generations of transmission
are documented here: the original church
which received the inspired letter, the copy made for the Laodiceans, and the
copy of that copy now brought to the Colossian church; if the Laodiceans had not transcribed their
epistle directly from an autograph, even further epistolary generations are
required. Furthermore, the apostolic
precept for such multiplication of canonical copies of epistles in Colossians
4:16 would certainly have spurred other assemblies to follow a similar
practice—nor did Paul begin to encourage such copying only upon penning
Colossians 4:16 (note 1 Thessalonians 5:27—not that church alone, but “all the
holy brethren,” are to get this epistle; cf. John’s blessing on those who read
and hear his book, Revelation 1:3, which required the distribution and
multiplication of copies); he would have already exhorted the churches to such
an end. 1 Timothy 6:3 indicates the
early circulation of the gospel records—canonical and authoritative (cf. 5:18)
“words of our Lord Jesus Christ,” were available, and opposition to them
brought one under church discipline (6:5).[vii] Paul’s “yet not I, but the Lord” (1 Corinthians
7:10) suggests that both the apostle and the Corinthians had at least one
gospel in their possession. When
churches exchanged members, traveling evangelists passed through, Paul or
others visited assemblies on missionary journeys, and on vast numbers of other
occasions, the distribution of NT Scripture would certainly have been in
progress. Even apart from the
excercitation of Colossians 4:16, the church’s recognition of the new
inestimable treasure given her from God by inspiration, and its vast importance
in the Christian life (cf. Romans 10:17; Matthew 4:4) would of itself have been
a powerful motivation to multiply apographs.
Great care was taken to preserve the
inspired documents, as the church recognized her role as the guardian of Divine
truth (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15; 4:6; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14; 2:2). Accuracy in copying was considered extremely
important (Revelation 22:18-19). As a
result, accurate replicas of the inspired documents were distributed as rapidly
as Christianity itself.[viii] New Testament evidence buttresses the
believer’s confidence in God’s promises to preserve the autographa for all generations;
the widespread distribution of accurate apographs of the recognized,
canonical NT books validates the promised impossibility of their successful
universal corruption.
[i] Lewis Foster (“The Earliest Collection of Paul’s Epistles,”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society (JETS), 10:1 (Winter 1967) p. 44-54) argues very plausibly that
Luke first collected Paul’s epistles into a canonical whole. He also mentions that “in antiquity to retain
copies of letters dispatched to far places was customary. Because of the
uncertainty of the postal system and because of the desirability to have a
dependable record of what was originally written in case question should later
be raised about the correspondence—both of these reasons fully justified the
common practice of making copies of correspondence.” (Foster, “Earliest
Collection,” pg. 50). Since the church at Philippi sought to collect the
epistles of Ignatius during Polycarp’s lifetime (pg. 280, The Apostolic Fathers, Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1. Loeb Classical Library ed. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1952), certainly churches were collecting the
inspired corpus as well.
[ii] Consider further that the epistle Paul wrote to the
audience of 2 Peter (which was the same as the audience of 1 Peter, 2 Peter
3:1), the Jewish diaspora (1 Peter 1:1), must be the epistle to the Hebrews,
since no other Pauline letter is addressed to them. Paul is therefore the author of Hebrews, and
this epistle was recognized, along with the other 13 in his corpus, as
canonical immediately.
[iii] Wilbur Pickering, in his Identity of the New Testament Text, chapter 5 (electronically
accessed), has a good discussion of early recognition of the inspiration and
canonicity of the NT in his section, “Were the N. T. Writings Recognized?”
[iv] Physical evidence for such early compilation
exists. The “identification of papyrus
fragment 5 from Qumran cave 7 with Mark 6:52-53 . . . [makes] the probability
that 7Q4 is to be identified with 1 Tim. 3:16, 4:1,3 and 7Q8 with James 1:23-24
. . . very strong. . . . That someone should have such a collection of New
Testament writings at such an early date may suggest their early recognition as
Scripture and even imply an early notion of a New Testament canon” (Appendix B,
The Identity of the New Testament Text,
Pickering). A theologically liberal
critique of the identification of these papyri with the NT is found in “That’s
no Gospel, It’s Enoch! Identification of Dead Sea Scrolls Challenged,” Peter W.
Flint (Bible Review, Peter W. Flint,
April 2003, pgs. 37ff.).
[v] This public reading of the epistles placed them on
an equal level to the Old Testament, which was also read in the assemblies of
the saints (Deuteronomy 31:11; Acts
13:15; 1 Timothy 4:13). Furthermore, we must conclude that individual
believers were not satisfied with public reading of the Scriptures in the
weekly assembly, but aspired to own their own personal copies, that, as the
noble Bereans, they might all search the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11).
[vi] It has been supposed by some, based on the subscription to 1
Timothy, “the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest
city of Phrygia Pacatiana,” that this epistle from Laodicea was 1 Timothy. While, if this is the case, two generations,
instead of three or more, are specified in Colossians 4:16, it would still demonstrate
the proliferation of NT copies—and would show that an inspired epistle
specifically directed to the man Timothy was immediately received by God’s
people as something with universal and binding validity.
A pseudepigraphical “epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans”
is extant, but it is universally recognized as a forgery. The text is reproduced in the introduction to
Colossians in Notes on the New Testament
by Albert Barnes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998 (reprint of 1884-5 ed.)).
[vii] The CT attacks church discipline by removing “from
such withdraw thyself,” aÓfi÷staso aÓpo\ tw◊n toiou/twn, from
1 Timothy 6:5.
[viii]
An interesting archeological confirmation of this
rapid spread is the Rylands Fragment of John P52, which is dated to the first third of the
second century. The existence of a codex
of John in an obscure Egyptian village c. A. D. 125 illustrates the speed with
which the NT books were distributed.
(see JETS, 10:1 (Winter 1967),
pg. 42). “Pantaenus [went] to convert
the Hindoos, and, whatever his success or failure there, he brought back
reports that Christians were there before him, the offspring of St.
Bartholomew’s preaching; and, in proof thereof, he brought with him a copy of
St. Matthew’s Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which became one of the treasures of
the church on the Nile” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Elucidations II: “Pantaenus and his school,”
AN:II:12480). This testifies to the
presence of Scripture in India in the first century through the witness of the
apostle Bartholomew (Matthew 10:3). Further information about the collection of
the NT canon is found in “Factors Promoting the Formation of the New Testament
Canon,” Wilber T. Dayton, and “The Canon of the Gospels,” Merrill C. Tenney, JETS 10:1 (Winter 1967) pgs. 28-35,
36-44 respectively. All citations of Ante-Nicene patristic writings, unless
otherwise specified, come from Church
Fathers—The Ante-Nicene Fathers (AN), ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, American reprint of the Edinburgh ed.;
electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org), as hypertexted, corrected, and
prepared by Oak Tree Software, Inc. for Accordance
Bible Software (http://www.accordancebible.com), version 1.1.
Citations of Nicene or Post-Nicene writers come from either Church Fathers—The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series
(NPN-1) or Church Fathers—The Nicene and
Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series (NPN-2), ed. Philip Schaff, T & T
Edinburgh. These texts have also been
accessed electronically from an Accordance
software module based on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library text (also
version 1.1). Citations will state the
module (AN/NPN-1/NPN-2), the chapter division, and the paragraph # from
Accordance for that module. In the
passage above concerning Pantaenus, AN:II:12480 means the Ante-Nicene Accordance module, chapter 2 in the
“Elucidations” section connected with Clement’s Stromata, paragraph #12480 in the Ante-Nicene module. In footnote #18, AN:XXXVI:20373 means the
Ante-Nicene Accordance module is
cited, chapter 36 in The Prescription
Against Heretics, paragraph #20373 in the Ante-Nicene module.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)