Home » Posts tagged 'Christian liberty'
Tag Archives: Christian liberty
Music Style Isn’t a Christian Liberty (part four)
This series, now in part four, mixes two true aspects of the perpetual worship of a believer that reinforces the proposition that musical style is not a Christian liberty. The first is the individual worship that takes up the entire life of a believer. He does all to the glory of God, and since musical style can be sinful, it is not a Christian liberty. The second surely is even more plain, that is, God regulates musical style used in corporate worship. God rejected how Nadab and Abihu worshiped and killed them for it (Leviticus 10:1-2).
People who want to keep musical style neutral and amoral, so they can listen to and use whatever they want, I would surmise, wriggle with discomfort over the example of Nadab and Abihu. They also might not like thinking about Uzzah, whom God killed for touching the ark of the covenant when men did not carry the ark in the proper manner. This also goes all the way back to the way of Cain (Genesis 4), who offered God something different than what God wanted. God rejected it.
Liberty, Lust, and Idolatry
Christian liberty itself is not about someone getting what he wants. In the entire section of 1 Corinthians 6-10 on Christian liberty, Paul says someone might have permission, but that alone doesn’t make it right. He shows this in many different ways. One of them out of the many, which are all very clear, is that even getting close to something can result in a fall (1 Corinthians 10:1-14). “Flee idolatry” and “flee fornication” are both commands. Even if someone is not committing either of those, they require fleeing by God.
Jesus’ half-brother James talks about this same type of thought, action, or attitude in chapters 3-4. In 3:15, James says that the wisdom that is not from above is “earthly, sensual, devilish.” This characterizes a lot of musical style, one or more of those three. A believer will not embrace a wisdom that is not from above.
James 4 keeps this going when he addresses prayers (vv. 1-3) to consume someone’s own lust. Someone doesn’t even have liberty to pray lustful prayers, which relates to how someone prays. Later in the chapter, someone may do something completely permissible — buy or sell (do commerce) — and even in that, he must consider and do first what God wants, not his self. That’s whether it’s right or not. Life isn’t about getting what you want, including musical style.
Paul, Peter, and Lust
Lust is prominent in the battle against what God wants. Who is in charge? Him or us? According to the Apostle Paul, this is a regular allegiance challenge even according to a principle of life, such as a natural law, like gravity (Romans 7:14-25). With whatever a believer may do that is good, which is entirely only within the character or attributes of God, Paul says a law operates in his body parts, his flesh. This is part of the curse or human fallenness. The flesh repulses what is characteristic of God. It wants what it wants and will rebel.
The musical styles of the world favor flesh and lust. Believers don’t have liberty there. They are required to flee where this tendency to idolatry occurs. It is why scripture commands according to Peter (1 Peter 2:12): “Abstain from fleshly lust.” Fleshly lust is not good. It is not fleeing idolatry. Believers aren’t supposed to be coming close. They are to be staying away from that.
Musical Style and Separation
Since musical style is not a Christian liberty and can be sinful, it also requires separation. Not getting close is staying away from. This is also part of honoring God, not bringing what displeases God into closer proximity, which is being holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:16-18).
People, churches, and their leaders want you to accept their musical style. They want you to ignore it, just take it in stride. At least, their music is neutral, if not someone else’s. Church leaders will label their musical style acceptable and even superior because some history of acceptance exists.
I’ve noticed, like almost anything else for men, the more acceptance there is, the more of the thing accepted. This shows the importance of rejecting and separating. It helps rid the worldly or fleshly style.
Bad Effects of Not Separating Over Musical Style
As musical style has become less and less of an issue, to almost nothing, more worldly and fleshly styles grow and spread. For all of my adult life, I’ve had to weigh how to deal with the worldly and fleshly musical styles of those with whom I participate or associate. I’ve looked at it as a matter of trajectory. If they seemed to improve, get better, or more holy, then I followed the trajectory. They were doing better. Now that I see some going the opposite, fleshly and worldly, or more Charismatic, revivalistic, or ecstatic, this isn’t acceptable, but what should someone, what should I, do? Put up with it? Go with the flow? What do you think?
Part of going the opposite direction is putting pressure on the one with the stand to capitulate. Sadly, most people like the reversal or poor direction. They like it because it gives greater latitude. Fleshly, worldly musical style is also pragmatic, so it rewards in that way the person who uses it. The leader can claim a superiority with the so-called success. He’s liked by more people, can manipulate more people, and this rewards his fleshliness and worldliness. The leader points to this popularity like it is a vote. He’s got more votes for his new direction.
More to Come
Music Style Isn’t a Christian Liberty (part two)
People would like the music issue for churches to go away. They can take various avenues to accomplish this, one of which is by making musical style a Christian liberty. A progression (or regression) occurred to get here. It started a long time ago.
Regression of Musical Style
One, many musical styles are sinful, wrong, and rejected, so distinguishing between the sacred music and profane music, accompanied by belief in objective meaning of music and objective beauty.
Two, revivalists pragmatically use popular music forms to attract a bigger audience for apparent numerical success and this blurs the distinctions between sacred music and profane music.
Three, even though professing Christians keep a breadth of difference between what is godly and ungodly in musical style, they shrink the margin of difference and make musical style an instrument for numerical growth.
Four, people question the objective meaning of music or objective beauty, advocating relativist aesthetic value.
Five, successors of revivalism, Charismatics, originate Charismatic worship music that confuses feelings caused by musical style with a spiritual, ecstatic religious experience.
Six, lovers of popular or rock musical styles conceive of rock music and begin a contemporary Christian music (CCM) movement, imitating Charismatic worship.
Seven, Christianity divides on the issue of musical style with those rejecting the CCM movement marginalized as religious fundamentalists.
Eight, larger, more popular evangelicalism accepts CCM and rejects objective meaning of music or objective beauty, categorizing musical style as a Christian liberty.
Nine, most fundamentalists stop preaching and warning about CCM, leaving very few to no churches standing against sinful musical styles.
What Influences Liberty for Musical Style
If musical style is a Christian liberty, then musical style cannot have objective meaning. Musical style must be meaningless, even if musical style is extremely important to church leaders and attendance. Both good scriptural and natural arguments exist that say that music can be moral or immoral. Musical style isn’t neutral.
The progression toward the acceptance of all musical styles happened in increments, but that did not debunk or undo the original arguments for objective meaning of musical styles or objective beauty. In many ways, like a lot of other issues of application of scripture, professing believers capitulated for various reasons. The less a church is against, the bigger it can become, what many would call a big-tent approach.
Churches that still rejected popular or rock musical styles were smaller and became even smaller as more churches accepted any and every musical style. The numbers translate to perceived success, including monetary. Success begets even greater success because success attracts even more people. Older church members see churches losing young people over musical style. Like has occurred many times in church history, the older generation concedes to the younger. The question is not, does it please God?
Sinfulness of Musical Styles
According to scripture, no one has liberty to sin (Romans 6:1)? From reading 1 Corinthians 6-10, the section on Christian liberty, more guides liberty than just whether something is sinful. The Apostle Paul takes the Corinthians through a gauntlet of considerations to determine what is right to do. Most evangelicals have just ignored this particular aspect of Christian liberty. They focus on whether something is permissible and not whether it could cause someone to stumble or fall (1 Corinthians 8:9-13, 10:12).
If a musical style violates a biblical command, then it is a sin. What could someone consider from scripture as to the sinfulness of many musical styles?
- Think on that which is lovely (Philippians 4:8).
- Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11).
- Be not conformed to this world (Romans 12:2)
- Deny worldly lust (Titus 2:11).
- Worship God in the beauty of holiness (Psalm 96:9).
Disobeying any of these is sin. Since music is itself its own language, another factor is “corrupt communication,” which Ephesians 4:29 forbids. That verse doesn’t give any specifics as to what corrupt communication is. Like these other verses, people must apply the verse. Most of the Bible requires application in order to live what God said. This includes music. When someone applies the Bible in a rightful and even historical manner, he should conclude the sinfulness of most musical styles.
Music Style Isn’t a Christian Liberty
Music Has Meaning and It Is Moral or Immoral
One could argue that musicians are the most popular people in the world. Three of the most followed people on instagram are musicians, four of the top ten on twitter (X). Rick Warren in his Purpose Driven Church book says that choice of music style for a church is the biggest, most important determiner of the numerical growth of the church. If musical style matters so much to people in the world, how is it that it really means nothing as many in the church address it with importance? Of course, music, not just the words, mean something. Through various passages, scripture indicates this.
Music itself communicates and almost anyone and everyone in their heart of hearts know this. They know it like “self-evident” truth. In this post, I’m not going to try to prove that, because I’ve done it so many times before. Several very good arguments from scripture and then ones based upon natural law say that music has objective meaning, like words or a language. It can in itself communicate something moral or immoral. It is not amoral. This is why even rock musicians call just their music itself “sexy.” Can music be sexy? Yes. Everyone knows that, and if they do not, its just because they’re not thinking about it at all.
If musical style can be immoral, it can be sinful.
Christians Have Liberty
I believe in Christian liberty. Paul argues for it in 1 Corinthians 6-10. That section of 1 Corinthians helps someone understand what is a liberty.
The Apostle Paul uses several words to communicate liberty, the word “liberty” one of them (7:39, 8:9, 10:29). He also says, “lawful” (6:12–twice, 10:23–twice) and “power” (9:4, 5, 6, 12–twice). Actually, “liberty” and “power” translate the same Greek word (exousia, 8:9, 9:4). If you look at BDAG, the premier lexicon, the usage of exousia is a “freedom of choice” or “right.” The word “right” isn’t in the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 6-10, but Paul uses exousia like that, even though it has several other types of uses.
So let’s ask a question using the term, “right.” Does a Christian have the right to listen to any type of musical style? Or perhaps a couple other different kind of questions. Does a Christian have the right to use whatever musical style he wants for worship? And, does a Christian have the right to allow for another Christian to listen to whatever musical style he wants or another church to use whatever musical style it wants for worship?
Musical Style Is Not a Christian Liberty
I’m saying that music style isn’t a Christian liberty. To prove that, I have to understand what is a Christian liberty, or put the way I’ve discussed, I have to understand the rights of a Christian. “Rights” are a popular subject, especially whether human rights or civil rights.
Thomas Jefferson maybe more than anyone made “rights” a popular subject. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson mentions the Creator endowing all men with certain inalienable rights. The way he uses the term in the Declaration is close to how Paul uses exousia in some of the cases in 1 Corinthians, especially chapter 9, when he says he and others have the right to marry or the right to forbear working. The King James Version says “power” and not “right,” but that’s what Paul meant.
No One Has Liberty To Sin
Liberty in 1 Corinthians 6-10 relates to the grace of God. With how Paul writes and talks, he might ask if grace gives someone liberty to sin. He does ask that very question in Romans 6:1. Is grace about the freedom to do what we want to do, essentially to do what we desire, what someone might describe as what we lust after? Believers don’t have the right to sin. It might be a legal right based on secular laws, but God didn’t and does not give anyone the right to sin.
Jefferson said that God gives men rights. Sin isn’t one of them though.
Based on the application of many different verses of scripture, playing or involvement with a certain style of music is sin. Even choosing to listen to those styles is sin. Furthermore, the playing or involvement with a certain style of music can violate guidelines for Christian liberty.
More to Come
Separation and the Five Levels Jesus Reveals in Revelation 2:14-16
When Jesus confronts the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2-3, He either commends or condemns them. He gives each church its appropriate measure of both actions. Jesus condemns the church at Pergamos more than He commends it. His condemnation centers on the biblical doctrine of separation. He says concerning the church at Pergamos in Revelation 2:14-16:
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
First Level of Separation
Jesus
This is Jesus talking, so “I” in “I have” refers to Him. That’s the first level in the text, Jesus Himself. And what about Jesus? He has a few things against thee, He says. With the singular objective pronoun, “thee,” it refers to a singular noun, which is either the messenger, the pastor of the church, in verse 14. Or, it is the church of Pergamos as a whole, which is singular in verse 12. It could be either, but I would argue for the pastor of the church at Pergamos, having this directed toward him. He’s responsible for the church, even as seen in verse 16.
If it was the whole church, that would put everyone in the church in the same category of accepting this wrong behavior. Maybe every person in the church won’t separate from its sinning brothers. Perhaps every member of the church at Pergamos did not purge themselves from these vessels unto dishonor (2 Timothy 2:2). That occurs sometimes. However, that would not explain an Antipas in the church, who is faithful to the end in Revelation 2:13. Nevertheless, when a pastor won’t lead in separation, that does not excuse the membership from appropriate judgment.
Against Thee
Jesus is “against thee.” In this example, He is not against what someone is doing, but against who is doing it. It doesn’t say, “against it” or “against that,” but against “thee.” One could subtitle this section: “How not to have Jesus against you.” There is a higher goal for life than not having Jesus against you, but that at least should be a goal.
So, the first level here is Jesus Himself. Jesus is the Head of the Church. Revelation 1:19-2:1 show that Jesus walks in the midst of His true churches. Romans 8:31 asks, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The flip side of this could ask, “If God (Jesus) be against us, who can be for us?” In Revelation 2:16, Jesus commands: “Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”
Second Level of Separation
Thee and Thou
“Repent” is a singular imperative, commanding a single person to repent. “Thee” is also singular. However, Jesus on the first level will fight against “them.” Jesus will deal with the ones (plural) who compromise with the world, if the one responsible won’t deal with it. The Lord Jesus Christ will purify a church if its leadership won’t lead in it. In essence, Jesus says, “Purge my church of these ungodly, immoral influences, or I will do it for you.”
The second level is the one He is against, who, I’m saying, is a pastor. Whoever it is, the thing that he or the church as a whole is doing is the same. What is that? It is communicated by the simple two words, “thou hast.” “Thee” and “thou” refer to the same noun.
Not Practicing Ecclesiastical Separation
Jesus is against a pastor because he accommodates, allows, and, therefore, continues in affiliation or association with people. He does not lead the church in obedience to the doctrine and practice of separation. Jesus is against the pastor, who does not lead in ecclesiastical separation from sinning brothers in the church. This could apply to church discipline or also separation from some other church or organization or institution.
Scripture is replete with commands to separate from professing brothers for their disobedience to God’s will. The pastoral epistles teach pastors to lead in this.
Delivered unto Satan and WithdrawThyself
1 Timothy 1:19-20, “19 Holding faith, and a good conscience;; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”
1 Timothy 6:3-5, “3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
Purge and Reject
2 Timothy 2:19-21, “19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”
Titus 3:9-11, “9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
Jesus requires the leadership of the church, who is under His leadership, to lead in separation. Pastors should teach separation and then lead in it. When the leader won’t, then Jesus will intervene himself as seen in verse 16.
Third Level of Separation
Balaam
The third level in Revelation 2:14-16 are both those who teach the doctrine of Balaam (verse 14) and those who hold to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (verse 15). The word “so” (houte) beginning verse 15 means “in like manner.” Jesus views these the same. They are two different influencers in the church toward the same destructive end. Jesus bunches these together — those purveying either the doctrine of Balaam or the doctrine of the Nicolaitans — with the same responsibility, even as verse 15 also says, “hast thou.”
The story of Balaam in the Old Testament (Numbers 22-24) is one where he as a prophet attempts to curse Israel and fails. Not succeeding through a direct route, he persuades Balac the Moabite to cause Israel to stumble. That works. Israel does stumble into idolatry and sexual sin through this indirect route.
Turning Grace into Lasciviousness
Within the church at Pergamos were those impacting other brothers to cause still other brothers to stumble. The doctrine of Balaam was this strategy, causing someone else to be a bad influence on someone else. Jude 1:11 calls this the “error of Balaam.” Within the context of Jude, cheap or false grace becomes the justification for the bad influence. Jude mentions ‘turning the grace of God into lasciviousness’ as the mode of operation (Jude 1:4). Grace provides the excuse for becoming cozy with the world. It lures its targets into a false sense of security. This is rampant in churches today.
In the parallel with Balaam, this third level doesn’t itself participate with the actual activity that leads to the sinning. One could say the same of the pastor who doesn’t do anything about level two. Each in this equation, however, are responsible for the ultimate demise of the one on the next level. A chain exists here with everyone in the chain accountable for what occurs in the proceeding link.
Evangelicals who won’t practice separation mock and ridicule what I’m saying here. They almost entirely will not teach or practice biblical separation. They laugh at those who do. The mockery will often point to second and third degree separation. Ridicule is the strongest part of the evangelical argument against separation. It doesn’t come from scripture.
Fourth Level of Separation
Balac is on the fourth level. The real character is not named Balac, but he is “a Balac,” someone taking on that role in the church. He does this by eating meat offered unto idols.
According to the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:8, the one eating the meat offered unto idols is not the better or the worse for eating it (cf. 1 Cor 10:25). It’s not the eating itself that’s the problem. The problem is in the causing another brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:7-13, Romans 14:21-23). Here Jesus pointblank says that it was causing others to stumble and He would not stand for that.
This fourth level some might themselves call a Christian liberty. They justify an activity because no scripture verse prohibits it. That’s not how the Bible or Jesus work.
All the way down to the fourth level, God does not prohibit the action in itself. God permits eating meat. He prohibits doing it if it causes someone to stumble. With no uncertain terms, Jesus forbids activities that cause others to stumble. This is how Balac got the job done in Israel, and how one or more people got it done in Pergamos. Evangelicals in general will call to permit an activity like eating meat offered unto idols. They don’t care. Their ministries are full of sin-engendering actions. They either don’t see, don’t comprehend, or just excuse them.
Fifth Level of Separation
The last level are those reverting to idolatry and fornication. They are the ones who stumble. These brothers in the church stumble because of the three previous levels between them and Jesus. Irresponsibility trickles down to them. They’re still responsible for their own sinning, but Jesus still connects to those above them.
Jesus in Revelation 2:14-15 traces the causes of sin in the church at Pergamos. The main culprit in the chain is level two. “Thou hast.” Someone wasn’t taking charge of the situation. This is the one Jesus calls to repent. If he doesn’t repent, Jesus will also “fight against them.” He will fight against the Balaam level, the Balac level, and the sinning brother level. Everyone will receive their comeuppance and it starts with an unwillingness to separate.
The instruction of Jesus is not, “Write an article against the strategies of Balaam.” He requires more than talking about it. Jesus expects separation. Writing an article or giving a speech does not constitute the teaching of Jesus here. “Thou hast” must turn to “thou hast not.” The great motivation in the text is the desire not to have Jesus against you, either the leader of a church or against the church as a whole.
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Evangelism itself is a form of mediation, what the Apostle Paul calls “the ministry of reconciliation.” An evangelist mediates between God and a lost soul toward salvation. The sin of a soul offends God, one estranged from Him, and the evangelist mediates with the gospel. When I write that, I do not mean that an evangelist is a mediator, like 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is. No man comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
Ambassadorship Mediation
2 Corinthians 5:18 gives the sense of mediation in evangelism, when it says God “reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” Then it follows, “and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” Jesus Christ reconciles to God as the Mediator. Still, however, God also gives believers the ministry of reconciliation. In the next verse, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” but he has “committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” The mediation believers do is by “word.” We talk to people.
Verse 20 says that we are “ambassadors for Christ,” so this is like diplomacy. Ambassadors represent one nation to another nation. “We are ambassadors” is the Greek presbeuo, used only here and in Ephesians 6:20. Presbeuo is “to be a representative for someone” (BDAG). The way we participate in this mediation is through word, and the message of words that we speak as ambassadors Paul writes in verse 21:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
That one sentence encapsulates the gospel. It’s something believers can speak as diplomats for God with total authority from Him. The goal is to bring someone in the kingdom of this world or the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God.
God then wants unity between those in His kingdom. The New Testament shows that to be in a true church. It also reveals that churches should want unity with each other too. These realities I wrote about earlier in this series.
Mediating Harry and William as an Example
The Situation
True reconciliation necessitates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each of the members of the Trinity. No true peace will come without the Lord. He provides the basis of peace, first getting right with God through Jesus Christ. Harry and William won’t have that without humble submission to God’s Word.
Much of the world knows about the rift now between the two brothers, sons of King Charles of England, William, the heir to throne, and Harry. Harry came out this weekend in anticipation of his published autobiography and said he wants his father and brother back. Is this to say, he wants reconciliation and mediation?
In accordance with true reconciliation, Harry cannot have it on his terms alone. He announced to the world that the relationship between him and his dad and brother did not have to be this way. On the other hand, Charles and William view the relationship a different way. If they were talking, I think they might say the same: “It didn’t have to be this way.” What would it take to restore a relationship, so it is no longer ‘this way’?
Mediating The Conflict
I use Harry and William as an example because they are a prominent conflicting relationship with an obvious barrier between them. Anyone can see both what the discord or dispute between them is and how reconciliation and mediation could occur.
Harry might not take take reconciliation or mediation. He receives his greatest income by telling family secrets. In mediation, if that could occur, I would confront both sides about keeping internal family disputes secret. They settle them in private only. If Harry chooses to leave his royal duties, he must give up his titles. Any money he makes must exclude public ties to the monarchy.
I would take Charles, William, and Harry through their grievances. Each would confess what I knew, what is proven, to be true. Both must repent, and then forgive. Each party must keep all listed ground rules for the future. As a result, both sides have their brother, their sons, and their father again.
Realities of Mediation
When I write about mediation, I am not writing about compromise, the wrong idea that two sides get together and come to some middle ground. It may seem like that, because the mediator listens to both sides. They both may have different versions of the same event. Both parties also might have their own set of grievances against the other party. When the mediator listens to one side and agrees with that side, the other side might view that as compromise, when it isn’t.
Sometimes what one side sees as a violation the mediator says is Christian liberty. He may identify it as a doubtful disputation. One side may think something is what it thinks it is, but a mediator says, “No, it isn’t.” Coming to some of those types of decisions is why two sides get a mediator. In general, a party does not want to see it a different way than what he or it sees it. He very often won’t. If he agrees to a mediator, he might have to do that. This is mediation.
A mediator very often sees what two conflicting parties do not or cannot see. He can point out inconsistencies on either side. If he does his job, he wants true, legitimate reconciliation between the parties, that is, biblical peace.
If a party only wants to hear its side, what some may portray as its echo chamber, it can choose to do that. It is choosing then not to reconcile. Mediation reveals or tests the desire for reconciliation. It provides that last plank or marker toward reconciliation. It follows the model of the Lord Jesus Christ and the example of the apostles.
Recent Comments