[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on Woship: What's the Issue?.
Ben Eilers has left a new comment on your post "Woship: What's the Issue?":
Guys,
I have been living under a rock for the last few days . . . sorry about that. I think I missed the coffee date! My bad. I have only had time to semi digest your discussion but here's my preliminary thoughts.
I would advocate a view that music and lyrics are devoid of morality. They are thus "amoral." I believe that both the notes and the words are merely "signs" (or place holders). I could superimpose a song with perverse lyrics in a native African context and not offend. The key seems to come in MY understanding of what is sung or spoken. I do understand the possible implications of this view for meaning but also believe the opposite is also true of fundamentalism. On the one hand meaning is controlled by the reader (subjective) on the other meaning is so objective that there is no contextualization needed. Meaning becomes propositions that change us somehow without our interaction with them and the truth they contain. This seems to be the error of many in fundamentalism both with their view of inspiration and their view if authority. A sort of "verse a day keeps the devil away." In order to stave off the hard reality of the "neo's" I find some consolation in the doctrine of illumination -- a doctrine much maligned in some of fundamentalism because of their view on the nature of objective propositions (modernism run-a-muck).
Getting back to music. . . in terms of morality. How holy must my motives be to write music that is worthy of being sung in the church? How well intentioned does the artist have to truly be to honor God. These questions seem to illustrate a faulty view of the gospel (justification) and of common grace. Within the realm of depraved humans there is an element of common grace that enables them to produce beauty. Is this beauty scarred by their intention? Perhaps, but how much different is their intention then the believer? In the words of the revered Luther we are at the same time "righteous and sinners."
Sorry about the haphazard way this came out. In the end Jesus seems to source morality in something that flows out from my heart. I would agree that the illocutionary effect of the text (coupled with the perlocutionary effect) does contain morality (both intent and effect) but deny that the words or the music itself contains any inherent morality.
Posted by Ben Eilers to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 7:42 PM
Guys,
I have been living under a rock for the last few days . . . sorry about that. I think I missed the coffee date! My bad. I have only had time to semi digest your discussion but here's my preliminary thoughts.
I would advocate a view that music and lyrics are devoid of morality. They are thus "amoral." I believe that both the notes and the words are merely "signs" (or place holders). I could superimpose a song with perverse lyrics in a native African context and not offend. The key seems to come in MY understanding of what is sung or spoken. I do understand the possible implications of this view for meaning but also believe the opposite is also true of fundamentalism. On the one hand meaning is controlled by the reader (subjective) on the other meaning is so objective that there is no contextualization needed. Meaning becomes propositions that change us somehow without our interaction with them and the truth they contain. This seems to be the error of many in fundamentalism both with their view of inspiration and their view if authority. A sort of "verse a day keeps the devil away." In order to stave off the hard reality of the "neo's" I find some consolation in the doctrine of illumination -- a doctrine much maligned in some of fundamentalism because of their view on the nature of objective propositions (modernism run-a-muck).
Getting back to music. . . in terms of morality. How holy must my motives be to write music that is worthy of being sung in the church? How well intentioned does the artist have to truly be to honor God. These questions seem to illustrate a faulty view of the gospel (justification) and of common grace. Within the realm of depraved humans there is an element of common grace that enables them to produce beauty. Is this beauty scarred by their intention? Perhaps, but how much different is their intention then the believer? In the words of the revered Luther we are at the same time "righteous and sinners."
Sorry about the haphazard way this came out. In the end Jesus seems to source morality in something that flows out from my heart. I would agree that the illocutionary effect of the text (coupled with the perlocutionary effect) does contain morality (both intent and effect) but deny that the words or the music itself contains any inherent morality.
Posted by Ben Eilers to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 7:42 PM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
7:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home