Re: The Holiness of Rap Debate

"Mike, Doulos Iesous Christos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snipped the whole thing because of a pounding sinus headache]

Alright, fine, I wasn't going to but here goes...

> As we've discussed this subject, from every possible perspective,
> personally, socially, theologically, anthropologically, linguistically,
> etc., I've wondered what it is that causes us to have such differing
> views. My pastor brought something to mind that, quite frankly, hadn't
> even occured to me. It has to do with the way we have been taught to
think.
>
> I'm a didactic thinker, as most everyone in my age group, and older are.
> We were raised in an atomsphere of absolutes; to understand and respect
> absolutes; to reference and test everything by absolute truth, facts and
> verifiable knowledge.
>
> Most people younger than I are dialectical thinkers.
>
> Raised in a world that rejects absolutes as intolerant, and bigotted,
> dialectical thinkers crave personal philosophical investigation to find
> their answers. All things become relative, and are subject to
> interpretation for the purposes of personal application.

There is another group, though I don't have a term for them. They are the
ones who believe in and respect absolute truth on issues dealt with in the
Bible, but question anyone who says regarding grey issues (not directly
addressed in the Bible) "this is the truth, though I can't give you proof of
it." We (I am in this group) will take the grey issue and attempt to
determine God's will through careful study, prayer, and critical thinking.
We attempt to learn more by entering conversations with people who have come
to different conclusions and having discussions with them, thus
strengthening our resolve, or changing our minds.

> That's how must modern Bible study groups are facilitated:
>
> "John, tell us, what does that Scripture mean to you?"
>
> Everyone gets a different meaning and the facilatator's job is to force
> the consensus that all meanings so derived are valid.

I hope you don't really believe that most "modern Bible study groups" are
run in this way. Do you really think that "everyone" can find a different
meaning in a given piece of Scripture?

> Conversly, the didatic thinker is concerned only with what the scripture
> says, right or wrong, black or white, yea or nay, not with what it means
> to them in some subjective "spiritual" way. Perhaps, that's why I loath
> paraphrased Bibles like I do.
>
> When I study the Bible, I ask myself "Am I living as this Scripture
> instructs, submitting to it's absolute authority, or am I rebelling
> against it; catering to my flesh?"

What do didactic thinkers do when confronted with an issue that is not
directly dealt with in the Bible? They determine truth based on personal
bias, then attempt to support their ideas with vague scriptural references.

The passage in Ezekiel 28 that supposedly talks about Lucifer's fall, for
example. Verses 11 and 12 say "The word of the Lord came to me: 'son of man,
take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what
the Sovereign Lord says''" The way I read it, that passage is directed at
the king of Tyre, who obviously had a great kingdom that was destroyed by
his sin. Lucifer is not mentioned, and thus all the talk about his fall
being described in this passage is pure speculation.

> As far as the music is concerned, although the basic components of music
> are not "evil", in and of themselves, for they have no inherent ability
> (or will) to effect change on their own; What is constructed from those
> components however, does; being constructed by an entity that does have
> the ability and will to effect change.

Are you saying you believe a song (defining 'song' as the product of the
components of music when arranged in a particular manner) has the "inherent
ability to effect change on [it's] own"? If that were so, all we would have
to do is create the right music and our mission on the earth (to seek and
save that which is lost) would be easy. If inherently evil music were
capable of corrupting and destroying souls all on its own, then inherently
good music would be capable of redeeming those same souls. Since it is God
who does the work of redemption, we can safely say that the music on it's
own has no ultimate power, and is therefore neither good nor evil. Do you
grasp what I'm getting at here? I don't know if I'm explaining it very well.

> Yes, I do believe in living a seperated life, as a Christian. I believe
> the Scripture is clear on that. Paul teaches in I Corinthians 10:21, "Ye
> cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be
> partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." All of
> Creation became corrupt as a result of Mankind's sin. Nothing is untouched
> by Sin's stain.

Of course. But you are still claiming that a particular style of music is
inherently of the devil, though you have given no real support for your
claim.

> Yes, I do see a difference between the things of the world, including it's
> music, and the things of God. Can worldly knowledge tell the difference
> between the two? Not really, for the things of God are spiritually
> discerned, although, as I mentioned earlier, an unregenerate spirit can
> respond to the things of God, such as Godly music, if God initiates the
> response.

Again, you are determining what is and isn't Godly music based on the
cultural history that lead to the creation of that particular music style.
If God initiated a response in a person to what you believe is ungodly music
(godliness being determined by style), does that particular song become
Godly? Does it become an exception in that instance? Or is God incapable of
initiating a response using that music?

> I can tell the difference between God's music and the world's music, even
> if I'm unable to draw a schematic of precisely how I tell the difference.
> Being a didatic thinker makes me wish very much that I could. It is,
> however, something that is spiritually discerned. David said that he had
> hid God's word in his heart, so that he might not sin against God. If one
> neglects that, there's nothing for the Holy Spirit to bring to the
> forefront of one's mind, when testing of a "spiritual insight", a
> teaching, preaching, doctrine, or a piece of music, becomes necessary.

In essence, you believe God is telling you that certain styles of music are
evil, although there is no absolute reference for that belief in the Bible.
This spiritual insight of yours has been supported by scripture about being
separated from the world, and by linking Satan to music (based on passages
someone told you addressed that). You have not told us HOW you know that
certain styles are more "of the world" than others, just that you know it,
and therefore it's true. Obviously, I can't argue against personal
experience, but just saying "I know it's true" doesn't work for those of us
who fall into that third undefined category of thinking.

> Texe Marrs relates an incident of spiritual discernment that is
> heartbreaking, although, I already know that many readers will just blow
> it off:

<snipped, not because I blew it off, but because many of us have already
heard that story>

I saw "Hell's Bells" too. At least, I think that's where that story came
from. Our old youth pastor had us watch it because I had the audacity to
kick in the distortion pedal during "This is the Day." What a rebel I was in
my youth. :-)

I really hope you're not basing your entire belief on that video.

> I included this because I feel just like Wilkerson did that night. What
> sort of music drives "Christian" kids to act this way? What would
> motivate them to flash the "Horns of the Moon", to hang their tongues
> out and scream, wild-eyed, at the top of their lungs, as though they were
> posessed? Is that worship? Is that witnessing?
>
> No; It's blasphemy.

I don't know, I wasn't there. And I very rarely take stock in second-hand
accounts of situations when they are related by someone with an obvious
agenda to discredit something.

> I plan to discuss this whole thing with my pastor this evening,
> concerning the wisdom of this whole thread of discussion. He's almost
> 20-years my elder, and, well, if the Holy Spirit, after study and prayer,
> convicts us that I'm wasting my time here, and/or casting my pearls before
> swine, I doubt I'll return.

One of the greatest gifts God has given us is the ability to think for
ourselves. You believe that certain music styles are evil, and you are
holding fast to that belief. Fine, that is your perogative. I suggest you
get to know some of the youth in your church (if there are any) and try to
see if their core beliefs are in line with yours. I think you would be
surprised to find out that God is working in the hearts of people who listen
to "evil" music. Taking counsel in someone you trust is very important, but
just because they're older doesn't make them wiser. Ultimately it's you who
has to decide.

> You all seem like a nice bunch of folks, too; even Bob Weigel.

If you decide to leave because you disagree with us, fine. But it will be a
loss for both of us. It is important to be challenged in your long-held
beliefs once in a while. I relish the opportunity to learn more about the
Christian life however I can. You won't find it easy to stay if you refuse
to think, though. We tend to like people who think, even if they disagree
with us.

> Peace,
>
> Mike

Andrew
ps: I hope I didn't come across too harsh. I just read the whole thread this
evening and felt I had to respond.