| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 |
I thought the major argument of Makujina's book was that CCM is based in pelagian theology - i.e. that CCM is based in a belief that man's musical creations are incorruptitble. Makujina argues we should expect to find evidences of man's sinful corruptions in all areas of his communication, even music (and we do find evidences of these corruptions and man's self-glorification).
BTW - I found Robert Pattison's 1986 book "The Triumph of Vulgarity" to be the single most helpful book on Rock music. It is very articulate, well-researched, well-reasoned and well-written. While Pattison is a not a Christian, and promotes Rock, he has some of a brilliant analysis of Rock as a style and philosophy and shows the religious convictions in the history and nature of Rock.
Pattison's arguments as to why Rock's vulgarity is BETTER than "elitist" refinement sum up the CCM promoters arguments, only Pattison says them better than the CCM promoters do and shows how vulgarity is a natural aspect of pantheistic religion.
This is an exercise in willful blindness to the obvious. Music casts and a shadow and that shadow is dance. My daughter studied dance for ten years and was a member of a highly regarded pre-professional dance company for five years. To a dancer, there is no question but that rock and jazz music are sexual. If the dancer denies it, his/her body betrays it. I liken this argument to the question of whether wearing a bikini in public is immodest. You can philosophize about it all day but in the end, you have to be blind not to see it.
Wendy,
Just a quick note to say that I followed your comment over from one of the sites you are referring to. I, too, agree with you that the comment made was slander...I really can't believe what is going on over there. Every time someone speaks sense they are nearly beheaded and then scolded as if they are an ignorant child on professor's playground.
Thanks for your input on this site...it is appreciated.
1) Yes, slander involves falsehoods. "A false and malicious statement or report about someone." The specific issue in question started with some falsehoods, but those were corrected as time went on. I don't think there was maliciousness intended, so perhaps it wasn't slander. But in any case, there were aspects of it that were false.
2) Gossip is defined as "a report (often malicious) about the behavior of other people." Though malicious intent is often involved, it is not a prerequisite for something to be classified as gossip. We gossip anytime we involve ourselves in salacious matters that are not our business or anytime we involve others in salacious matters that were our business but were not the business of those informed.
I have gossiped. Alot. I'm very convicted about it and am trying to examine myself on this issue. So I don't claim superiority on this issue. Our pastor has been a good example on this to his church body. He has this great way of pointing out issues without gossiping about individuals. He equips us well to recognize errors of doctrine and practice this way. Of course, when the issue reaches the level of heresy, he is willing to speak the clear, hard word even if it involves names. But short of heresy, there is a process, and it starts first with private conversation that involves only the parties necessary to Biblical reconciliation.
P. S. What's the GR?
sorry for the delay, wendy. i'm mega-stretched here.
quick thoughts, and then i hope to revisit:
1. doesn't slander and calumny involve deception and telling falsehoods?
2. doesn't gossip connote ulterior motives?
you know we're agreed on james 3 and other passages. i think the GR is applicable and is in the Bible, but is a more subjective passage. i would rather go with ephesians, colossians, james 3 (tongue control, heavenly wisdom, etc.) than GR or matthew 18/matthew 5. i think the latter are hard to apply in this issue.
I've been thinking through this all day. What is gossip? What is slander? Both involve the repeating of salacious matters to people who have no reason or authority to be involved in the conflict. If I accept that gossip is anything less, then the term becomes meaningless (in my opinion).
Do you think it is not gossip to bring such information to the attention of people who have no reason to be involved in the issue? You know I respect your insight and will weigh your thoughts very carefully.
hey, wendy.
you know we're agreed on most counts, so i won't belabor previously established (i hope) points. one thing i noticed at paleo's site is an apparent confusion of a question of wisdom/methodology (breach of Golden Rule) with a question of clear-cut, timeless mandates for communication and confrontation (violation of Scripture). what are your thoughts about that?
well, fwiw, i vote yea!
Sure. I'd enjoy your perspective. I come at it from a math/science foundation. I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of a well-studied classical musician like yourself.
"CCM doesn't descend from an aesthetic . . . "
That makes no sense to me. All forms of art, whether we like them or not, come from some sort of an aesthetic philosophy. The problem, especially within tonal music, is not whether or not there's order or chaos (tonality assumes a pretty strict set of order simply by its nature). The problem is generally whether or not we like the sound.
Maybe I can borrow the book from you sometime to try to figure out what he's meaning?