[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on Woship: What's the Issue?.
Tim Little has left a new comment on your post "Woship: What's the Issue?":
Great discussion. I think you hit on a important yet neglected point within conservative circles, that being the heart attitude of worship. Nevertheless, I believe the means of worship is important as well and we should be careful to not only worship with a correct heart attitude, but in a correct manner as well.
First, Ben, your comment, "The center of the music debate within certain 'conservative' circles tends to source morality in something other than God." I would disagree with this. Maybe some would say that, but I know some would approach it from a different perspective. What does the music mean? Another illustration would be a work of art. Even in the case of abstract art, does the work of art mean something. To different people, the work of art may mean different things, especially abstract art, but I believe we would all agree that the work of art's true meaning is based upon the artist's intention. It may have different significance to different individuals, yet the meaning of the work lies in the author. Likewise, in the realm of music, the writer/composer's intention in writing the music determines the meaning of the music, it may have different significance to different listeners, but the meaning of the music has been determined by the writer/composer and if the meaning contradicts the message, it would be considered inappropriate music.
Now to complicate things, can another author/writer/composer change the meaning of someone else's music? After all, we have a new author now communicating a different meaning? Can the new writer jettison the meaning of the original writer, creating a new meaning to the "new" music? :)
Concerning the primary purpose of the post, I believe your point can be substantiated from Deuteronomy 6. It is very clear here that God is after the immaterial (the heart) not the material (frontlets between the eyes, etc). I believe this can easily be applied to the realm of music. I don't think I would go to Matthew 22 to prove the point, nor Romans 10. Your entire argument is based upon Jesus' response to the Pharisees from which you make two deductions, both of which seem tenuous, as illustrated by your qualification "I think..." which has been appended to both. Have you been studying through the passage? I don't think anyone would disagree with either or your main points, but I don't see how that makes your case?
Ben, Cafe Diem 7:30 AM we translate Hebrew, you should come! :) We could talk then!
Posted by Tim Little to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 9:39 PM
Great discussion. I think you hit on a important yet neglected point within conservative circles, that being the heart attitude of worship. Nevertheless, I believe the means of worship is important as well and we should be careful to not only worship with a correct heart attitude, but in a correct manner as well.
First, Ben, your comment, "The center of the music debate within certain 'conservative' circles tends to source morality in something other than God." I would disagree with this. Maybe some would say that, but I know some would approach it from a different perspective. What does the music mean? Another illustration would be a work of art. Even in the case of abstract art, does the work of art mean something. To different people, the work of art may mean different things, especially abstract art, but I believe we would all agree that the work of art's true meaning is based upon the artist's intention. It may have different significance to different individuals, yet the meaning of the work lies in the author. Likewise, in the realm of music, the writer/composer's intention in writing the music determines the meaning of the music, it may have different significance to different listeners, but the meaning of the music has been determined by the writer/composer and if the meaning contradicts the message, it would be considered inappropriate music.
Now to complicate things, can another author/writer/composer change the meaning of someone else's music? After all, we have a new author now communicating a different meaning? Can the new writer jettison the meaning of the original writer, creating a new meaning to the "new" music? :)
Concerning the primary purpose of the post, I believe your point can be substantiated from Deuteronomy 6. It is very clear here that God is after the immaterial (the heart) not the material (frontlets between the eyes, etc). I believe this can easily be applied to the realm of music. I don't think I would go to Matthew 22 to prove the point, nor Romans 10. Your entire argument is based upon Jesus' response to the Pharisees from which you make two deductions, both of which seem tenuous, as illustrated by your qualification "I think..." which has been appended to both. Have you been studying through the passage? I don't think anyone would disagree with either or your main points, but I don't see how that makes your case?
Ben, Cafe Diem 7:30 AM we translate Hebrew, you should come! :) We could talk then!
Posted by Tim Little to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 9:39 PM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
9:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home