Remonstrans
The Many Against The Few
03/14/08
The Many Against The Few
In this essay I propose to try an experiment. Literary criticism is traditionally employed in judging books. Any judgment it implies about men's reading of books is a corollary from its judgment on the books themselves. Bad taste is, as it were by definition, a taste for bad books. I want to find out what sort of picture we get by reversing the process. Let us make our distinction between readers or types of reading the basis, and our distinction between books the corollary. Let us try to discover how far it might be plausible to define a good book which is read in one way, and a bad book as a book which is read in another.
Those are the first words out of C.S. Lewis's pen in An Experiment in Criticism.
A lot of religious people claim to have read CSL, but I really don't believe most of them. It's a little like the poor sap who tries to get a date by telling the girl he has a hot car. Nothing in evangelical culture leaves evidence that it has anything but one of those goofy mopeds with pastel streamers on the handlebars. I doubt they have read C.S. Lewis when it comes to making aesthetic evaluations; not Experiment in Criticism, not Preface to Paradise Lost, not Studies in Words...
But I wander. I blame my cold.
I should like to continue the process of disillusioning the many who suppose we share a distaste for "bad Christian music". Sometimes similarities are deceiving, and sometimes it is possible to illustrate how so. Just because we both dislike liver doesn't mean we both like spinach, and when it comes to religious music, we (or at least some) are gradually coming to see that we together will have to like many things, not just hate the same one thing.
When people find out that music is an avocation which, according to their lights I take out of all proportion, they share with me their love of "the classics". It used to be that their eyes lit up and they said "Oh, yes! We have some Boston Pops records at home!"
I was thrilled for them. We would all jump up and down for a bit.
But those happy days are gone; Arthur Fiedler is no longer calling the tunes. Now they speak of Beethoven for Baby or Mozart for Mothers-To-Be or The Mozart Effect. Now there is a label [Decca] containing Music For Sunday Morning (assuming you're staying home from church to relax), Music For A Lazy Day, Music For A Stormy Evening, Music For A Quiet Evening....
Sometimes, when the people are young or when I feel like chatting, we talk about music. Other times, when I wish these people would just go away, I tell them it's not the same thing, we hear completely different things when we listen to the same music. There's really nothing to discuss.
This shocks them. They've been raised to enjoy self-esteem and pretend a love for diversity, and I treat them like they eat boogies. But good readers are doing something bad readers aren't. Good listeners are hearing what bad listeners are not. It's not a question of style or personal preference at all.
They of course don't understand the difference between themselves and literate people. They could know if they wanted to, but they don't want to. Ask a typical evangelical about art and he will babble about the arts in the Bible and the great Western Tradition of Biblical Art, or whatever it is he can remember from college; but look at what he does. Read the "film" reviews in Christianity Today, read the "thought questions" at the end. Watch the fundies giggle at Wilde. Check out the level of art discussed on Arts&Faith.com. Or check your favorite outlet: Ted Baehr or James Dobson.
But I said earlier, it is sometimes possible to illustrate what the many are doing when they should be doing something else. Take a look at this, ummm, "review" and ask yourself if this is a review or an advertisement. Is it about music or is it about a product? What is here other than a mere "collection of tunez".
I select one gem. I am very suspicious of fundamentalists' views of the blood; I've been burned more than once. But here is McCrorie's review of Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness:
Okay, WOW! This one begins rather simply-deceptively so. You hear a beautiful orchestral introduction with a harpsichord playing steady quarter notes underneath the accomplaniment, almost like the beginning of a ballad. That should have tipped me off that this song would be anything but typical. As the song progressed, it PROGRESSED! The use of alternative harmonies, dissonance, and dynamic shifts really kept me listening. I liked it. It may be a bit much for some of the more conservative lot; but for those of us who enjoy a bit more modern sound, this is great!
The song progressed as it progressed, it kept him listening, and he liked it. Surely Matthew Arnold is speaking to us from his grave!
Why would it "be a bit much" for the more conservative lot? Should we or should we not "enjoy a bit more modern sound"? How does this "more modern sound" contribute to our appreciation of the blood and righteousness? What is the point, Brian?
What is the purpose of music, evangelicals?
In a collection like this, I would typically find 3-4 songs that I would use in my church. However, in King of Love, I would probably end up using 10-11 of these with my choir and church family.
Can I say how impressed I am?
Nope, I don't think I can.
There is a reason I listen to Death and the Maiden and a reason I do not listen to Soundfroth. There is a reason I read the Magnificat and a reason I don't give a rip about Majesty Hymns. How is it that the Psalms of David, written centuries ago in a culture I would find crude and barbaric, should have meaning to me and the drivel of yesterday leaves me coughing with laughter?
Once again, folks: it really isn't talking about seriousness that matters. What matters is being serious. How might one become serious? By listening to Soundfroth? By reading McCrorie?
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
1 Comment from: Brian McCrorie [Visitor] 
· http://www.bowingdown.com
· http://www.bowingdown.com
Wait until you hear the music, Diss! It will make my comments even more powerful for your readers.
Not that you desire an exchange with me, but I will answer the questions you posed. I don't necessarily think that everyone should enjoy a bit more modern sound. Some people just like Baroque. Others enjoy the Romantics and even a bit of Debussy. I enjoy all of these along with some Copeland, Stravinsky, Barber, and even some jazz. This one song, in particular, incorporated several of the musical components that I appreciate. Because it was unusual for a SoundForth recording, it kept my interest in the song instead of tuning it out. Because it kept my interest, I thought and meditated more on the text and music of the song.
I was impressed with the new CD and I think with little exception you and your readers will be to.
Thanks for the link, by the way. I'm flattered you spent time reading my review and using it as an illustration. I'm sure it will foster an edifying discussion.
Not that you desire an exchange with me, but I will answer the questions you posed. I don't necessarily think that everyone should enjoy a bit more modern sound. Some people just like Baroque. Others enjoy the Romantics and even a bit of Debussy. I enjoy all of these along with some Copeland, Stravinsky, Barber, and even some jazz. This one song, in particular, incorporated several of the musical components that I appreciate. Because it was unusual for a SoundForth recording, it kept my interest in the song instead of tuning it out. Because it kept my interest, I thought and meditated more on the text and music of the song.
I was impressed with the new CD and I think with little exception you and your readers will be to.
Thanks for the link, by the way. I'm flattered you spent time reading my review and using it as an illustration. I'm sure it will foster an edifying discussion.
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 08:51 2 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Once again I am gobsmacked.
I cling desperately to the hope that my hearing the BJ product you describe will lend more power to your review of it! No doubt these are the priorities as Eduard Hanslick understood them.
So let me make sure I have this right. (Should I assert this in some future discussion of fundamentalists and their art, I’m sure I will be disbelieved.)
This is what I have so far; correct me if I’ve misunderstood:
This performance of Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness commends itself to the church because it a) incorporates several of the musical components Brian McCrorie appreciates, b) it kept Brian’s interest, and c) because it kept Brian’s interest he was able to meditate longer on the text and music of the song.
And this is why I should buy a copy for my music director and myself.
These sound like such bizarre non sequiturs. I want to make sure I haven’t misread them.
Tell me, if you have a moment: Do you think that Dan Forrest was striving to achieve goals A, B, and C? If he was, was he completely ignoring my interests and the interests of other Christians? And if he was doing that, why should I send him any money?
I cling desperately to the hope that my hearing the BJ product you describe will lend more power to your review of it! No doubt these are the priorities as Eduard Hanslick understood them.
So let me make sure I have this right. (Should I assert this in some future discussion of fundamentalists and their art, I’m sure I will be disbelieved.)
This is what I have so far; correct me if I’ve misunderstood:
This performance of Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness commends itself to the church because it a) incorporates several of the musical components Brian McCrorie appreciates, b) it kept Brian’s interest, and c) because it kept Brian’s interest he was able to meditate longer on the text and music of the song.
And this is why I should buy a copy for my music director and myself.
These sound like such bizarre non sequiturs. I want to make sure I haven’t misread them.
Tell me, if you have a moment: Do you think that Dan Forrest was striving to achieve goals A, B, and C? If he was, was he completely ignoring my interests and the interests of other Christians? And if he was doing that, why should I send him any money?
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 10:37 3 Comment from: Brian McCrorie [Visitor] · http://www.bowingdown.com
· http://www.bowingdown.com
I'm certain that there are many others who could articulate the musical worth of the song in question, and the album for that matter, with much greater specificity than I. However, I'm certain that you'll agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fully appreciate the musical worth of, for example, a J.S. Bach work based solely on the review (or advertisement) of someone else.
As to the question of whether the song in question should be commended to the church because McCrorie appreciates it, I would say this:
The song in question should be commended primarily due to its doctrinely-rich lyrical content. The song may be commended to the church because of its musical worth as well. While I am quite aware that there will be some who do not value its worth to the extent that I do, I am still happy to extend Christian fellowship to them and not judgment on what I believe to be matters of opinion, taste, and preference.
For what it's worth, I believe that even you, Diss, will be forced to admit the musical worth of this album, the song in question not withstanding. There is little, how should I say, "froth" this time around.
On a personal note, you'll be delighted to know that I recently joined a gym and am working diligently to lessen my own corpulence. You see, you never know the extent of your own influence!
As to the question of whether the song in question should be commended to the church because McCrorie appreciates it, I would say this:
The song in question should be commended primarily due to its doctrinely-rich lyrical content. The song may be commended to the church because of its musical worth as well. While I am quite aware that there will be some who do not value its worth to the extent that I do, I am still happy to extend Christian fellowship to them and not judgment on what I believe to be matters of opinion, taste, and preference.
For what it's worth, I believe that even you, Diss, will be forced to admit the musical worth of this album, the song in question not withstanding. There is little, how should I say, "froth" this time around.
On a personal note, you'll be delighted to know that I recently joined a gym and am working diligently to lessen my own corpulence. You see, you never know the extent of your own influence!
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 12:59 4 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
It is something the multi-culturalist pretender will not like, but judgment is passed first on the audience and their kind of reading; then is passed on to the work itself. This kind of criticism takes some time.
If most fundamentalists and only fundamentalists enjoy this cd, that would be a mark against it. We'll see.
Brian, I glanced over your review. Dissidens is right that your blurb about that one song is characteristic of Lewis' descriptions of bad reading (using as opposed to receiving). Some of your others are less so.
The primary trait of most modern schools of criticism (literary, at least, which I am familiar with) is that all art is to be used. The goodness of a song (or text) is measured by how much it serves some other purpose: improving self-esteem, advocating women's rights, revolting against White Privilege, or any of the three ends which you mention in your blurb and Dissidens has summarized for us.
Did it change you? What did you receive from it? How are you different now?
This is the last step in the process, I think. Once you have surveyed the reactions to a work (such as your review and Aniol's), then you read or listen to the work yourself. At that point you look to see if the bad reviews are the result of a bad reader/listener using/abusing the work of art, or if it is really just a bad work of art.
If most fundamentalists and only fundamentalists enjoy this cd, that would be a mark against it. We'll see.
Brian, I glanced over your review. Dissidens is right that your blurb about that one song is characteristic of Lewis' descriptions of bad reading (using as opposed to receiving). Some of your others are less so.
The primary trait of most modern schools of criticism (literary, at least, which I am familiar with) is that all art is to be used. The goodness of a song (or text) is measured by how much it serves some other purpose: improving self-esteem, advocating women's rights, revolting against White Privilege, or any of the three ends which you mention in your blurb and Dissidens has summarized for us.
Did it change you? What did you receive from it? How are you different now?
This is the last step in the process, I think. Once you have surveyed the reactions to a work (such as your review and Aniol's), then you read or listen to the work yourself. At that point you look to see if the bad reviews are the result of a bad reader/listener using/abusing the work of art, or if it is really just a bad work of art.
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 13:48 5 Comment from: Neoclassical [Visitor]
or not art at all.
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 13:54 6 Comment from: Brian McCrorie [Visitor] · http://www.bowingdown.com
· http://www.bowingdown.com
I don't know that I would say "it changed me." I think art certainly has a legitimate utilitarian purpose. I use the songs on the album to remind me of different aspects of my relationship with Christ, to think on that, and to respond with more love to my Savior as a result. With regard to aesthetics, I am not in the camp, obviously, that seeks only to use the finest art for reflection and worship. At the same time, I don't look for the worst of it either. Why? Because the way we define the "fineness" of art is not absolute but largely subjective and culturally bound. All art is created by sinners in a sin-tainted world. That does not mean that beauty does not exist or that it is simply found "in the eye of the beholder." It does mean that cultural snobbery with regard to art, either at the "high" or "low" ends of the spectrum is not appropriate for a Christian whose life is to be found in loving his neighbor and pursuing peace with all mean...as much as lies within him.
I think a simple survey of God's general revelation in the earth around us demonstrates that God has given us a huge spectrum of beauty to appreciate and ponder. It is not as narrow as some would insist upon.
I think a simple survey of God's general revelation in the earth around us demonstrates that God has given us a huge spectrum of beauty to appreciate and ponder. It is not as narrow as some would insist upon.
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 14:17 7 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
You raise several issues here, Brian. Let me take them in ascending order of relevance.
Your weight is really of no concern to me; I consider that your business. Originally the topic came up only when you and your cohort at SI were all in a lather about how we did business here at Remonstrans (with respect to anonymity), and you personally accused me of being a coward. That was the context for my comment. Later you apologized, not for your hostility toward me but for the way you chose to express it. The record will show I forgave you and haven’t mentioned it since.
Perhaps it is indicative that you should revisit the issue now in a very different and unrelated matter?
Second, you would not be prudent to speculate about my judgments on this CD. You may notice after reading more carefully, my post has nothing at all to do with the quality of the music on the CD, it has to do with a point I’ve repeatedly made on this blog about the importance, the necessity, of real criticism in the church. No one can get better until he defines better. If you had written the same review of a Gardiner performance of BWV 244, that is, if you said that Bach’s work was commendable because it employed musical components you appreciated, that it kept your interest and that it enabled you to meditate for long periods of time, my criticism of your review would have been identical.
It is not enough to declare that something is good. Majesty Music, Soundforth and Bible colleges have been doing that for years and look at the mess we are in. In a word, this is not a criticism of Forrest, Cook or Soundforth; it is a comment on what passes for judgment in this movement. The judgment you share with your readers appears to rest on a) what components you appreciate, b) what keeps up your interest, and c) what enables you to meditate for a longer period of time.
This strikes me as typical of your movement and an obstacle to reform. Whether you realize it or not, we out here in the world God created must choose between good, better and best. To be told what Brian likes or what preoccupies his mind or what enables him to meditate is so far beyond the point that it is a little embarrassing that it has to be mentioned.
Whether you know it or not, some people are trying to improve matters. How will their efforts benefit us if the movement as a whole looks at their work not for its excellence but for how it satisfied Brian McCrorie’s whimsical critiques?
Do you really not see lilrabbi’s point? You are abusing these things in precisely the way degenerates do. This is what CT does. Lewis tells us we ought to be changed, but you treat these things as novelties that catch your personal fancy.
This is what you are telling your readers to value!
Your weight is really of no concern to me; I consider that your business. Originally the topic came up only when you and your cohort at SI were all in a lather about how we did business here at Remonstrans (with respect to anonymity), and you personally accused me of being a coward. That was the context for my comment. Later you apologized, not for your hostility toward me but for the way you chose to express it. The record will show I forgave you and haven’t mentioned it since.
Perhaps it is indicative that you should revisit the issue now in a very different and unrelated matter?
Second, you would not be prudent to speculate about my judgments on this CD. You may notice after reading more carefully, my post has nothing at all to do with the quality of the music on the CD, it has to do with a point I’ve repeatedly made on this blog about the importance, the necessity, of real criticism in the church. No one can get better until he defines better. If you had written the same review of a Gardiner performance of BWV 244, that is, if you said that Bach’s work was commendable because it employed musical components you appreciated, that it kept your interest and that it enabled you to meditate for long periods of time, my criticism of your review would have been identical.
It is not enough to declare that something is good. Majesty Music, Soundforth and Bible colleges have been doing that for years and look at the mess we are in. In a word, this is not a criticism of Forrest, Cook or Soundforth; it is a comment on what passes for judgment in this movement. The judgment you share with your readers appears to rest on a) what components you appreciate, b) what keeps up your interest, and c) what enables you to meditate for a longer period of time.
This strikes me as typical of your movement and an obstacle to reform. Whether you realize it or not, we out here in the world God created must choose between good, better and best. To be told what Brian likes or what preoccupies his mind or what enables him to meditate is so far beyond the point that it is a little embarrassing that it has to be mentioned.
Whether you know it or not, some people are trying to improve matters. How will their efforts benefit us if the movement as a whole looks at their work not for its excellence but for how it satisfied Brian McCrorie’s whimsical critiques?
Do you really not see lilrabbi’s point? You are abusing these things in precisely the way degenerates do. This is what CT does. Lewis tells us we ought to be changed, but you treat these things as novelties that catch your personal fancy.
This is what you are telling your readers to value!
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 15:56 8 Comment from: Mom1 [Visitor]
Never try to teach a Fundamentalist good judgement. It wastes your time and annoys the Fundamentalist.
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 20:05 9 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
Only someone with an axe to grind who is short on logic and long on ideology takes a "review" on a blog by a non-specialist, then uses that to "prove" a point about a movement as a whole. You want to talk about fallacies?
If you want to make a legitimate point about Fundamentalist criticism, select the best that they have to offer (to prove you understand the idea of hermeneutic charity), and then demonstrate why it is inadequate. From such a demonstration one could legitimately make inferences about the quality of judgment and criticism in the movement.
I find it petty and a turn off from people who are anxious to prove their cultured when they do petty things like grab a blogger and use him as an illustration of the movement as a whole.
A general characteristic of ideologically blinded criticism is that it makes a number of elementary logical mistakes and/or ignores obvious and relevant contextual information. Evangelicals did this with Barth; Fundamentalists do this with everyone they disagree with. It's a legitimate use of a review, depending on one's position and the context of the review, to use it to encourage other people to listen to the work being reviewed and to explain what one enjoyed about the work, particularly if, in said context, one is an authority of sorts (e.g. a music pastor to his people). This is obvious, and we would never critique someone we agreed with for this kind of thing.
That you do what you did here, Dissdens, is one of the most disappointing and incongruous elements of your blog. Tgere us much better, fairer, and more helpful ways to make a point. You chose a cheap one.
If you want to make a legitimate point about Fundamentalist criticism, select the best that they have to offer (to prove you understand the idea of hermeneutic charity), and then demonstrate why it is inadequate. From such a demonstration one could legitimately make inferences about the quality of judgment and criticism in the movement.
I find it petty and a turn off from people who are anxious to prove their cultured when they do petty things like grab a blogger and use him as an illustration of the movement as a whole.
A general characteristic of ideologically blinded criticism is that it makes a number of elementary logical mistakes and/or ignores obvious and relevant contextual information. Evangelicals did this with Barth; Fundamentalists do this with everyone they disagree with. It's a legitimate use of a review, depending on one's position and the context of the review, to use it to encourage other people to listen to the work being reviewed and to explain what one enjoyed about the work, particularly if, in said context, one is an authority of sorts (e.g. a music pastor to his people). This is obvious, and we would never critique someone we agreed with for this kind of thing.
That you do what you did here, Dissdens, is one of the most disappointing and incongruous elements of your blog. Tgere us much better, fairer, and more helpful ways to make a point. You chose a cheap one.
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 22:16 10 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
"It is something the multi-culturalist pretender will not like, but judgment is passed first on the audience and their kind of reading; then is passed on to the work itself."
Says who? How and why is this a sound critical maxim?
I can't judge the audience's reaction to a work unless I have already judged the work itself, and thus have a qualitative criterion by which I can evaluate responses to the work. A good audience's response will be commensurate to the quality of the work; bad audiences will exhibit bad taste.
If an audience is generally characterized by bad taste, which would minimally entail not being able to distinguish good from bad works, the result would be that when the affirm good works, it is accidental: not rooted in an understood and valid criterion, properly applied. From this one cannot legitimately infer that if that audience likes something, then that something must be bad. That's poor logic and misunderstanding of poor taste - plenty of people who love Coldplay also enjoy Beethoven's Fifth if you could get them to the local Orchestra; they recognize some good things, but their problem is they don't recognize the difference between the good things and the lousy things they like cannot explain why the good things are good (a capacity which assumes the former distinction),
Thus, from the fact that Fundamentalists like a song, one can legitimately infer nothing (unless, and there is a much stronger claim than simply "bad taste," they almost always only like bad things and consistently reject good ones, which is simply not the case with most individuals even, much less movements; both are happily inconsistent in this regard).
Says who? How and why is this a sound critical maxim?
I can't judge the audience's reaction to a work unless I have already judged the work itself, and thus have a qualitative criterion by which I can evaluate responses to the work. A good audience's response will be commensurate to the quality of the work; bad audiences will exhibit bad taste.
If an audience is generally characterized by bad taste, which would minimally entail not being able to distinguish good from bad works, the result would be that when the affirm good works, it is accidental: not rooted in an understood and valid criterion, properly applied. From this one cannot legitimately infer that if that audience likes something, then that something must be bad. That's poor logic and misunderstanding of poor taste - plenty of people who love Coldplay also enjoy Beethoven's Fifth if you could get them to the local Orchestra; they recognize some good things, but their problem is they don't recognize the difference between the good things and the lousy things they like cannot explain why the good things are good (a capacity which assumes the former distinction),
Thus, from the fact that Fundamentalists like a song, one can legitimately infer nothing (unless, and there is a much stronger claim than simply "bad taste," they almost always only like bad things and consistently reject good ones, which is simply not the case with most individuals even, much less movements; both are happily inconsistent in this regard).
Permalink
03/14/08 @ 22:33 11 Comment from: Unk [Visitor]
Maybe you ought to switch to something completely different, dissidens, and at last break your silence on the Majesty Hymnal?
Don't you think the fact that someone as inept at coherent expression as McCrorie is a pastor is an indication of something, O victor eremita?
It is a curious thing to call McCrorie a non-specialist in one paragraph, an authority in the fourth and get mad at dissidens for neglecting such paradoxical considerations. He is not characteristic of the movement and yet a leader with authority in one of their churches? Don't you know he's an editor on the blog of intellectual fundamentalism AKA the Internet Roach Motel? Of what is he characteristic if he is being asked to review the lord's anointed music? Did Soundforth get John MacArthur to do the honors too? Do you think they'd sell their stuff with John Piper's endorsement on it? Maybe you think Scott Aniol is more characteristic?
Perhaps nobody would characterize the movement by McCrorie if only there weren't so many of him!
Maybe the movement will oblige us with a resolution against McCrorie instead of one against Iain Murray this time?
Don't you think the fact that someone as inept at coherent expression as McCrorie is a pastor is an indication of something, O victor eremita?
It is a curious thing to call McCrorie a non-specialist in one paragraph, an authority in the fourth and get mad at dissidens for neglecting such paradoxical considerations. He is not characteristic of the movement and yet a leader with authority in one of their churches? Don't you know he's an editor on the blog of intellectual fundamentalism AKA the Internet Roach Motel? Of what is he characteristic if he is being asked to review the lord's anointed music? Did Soundforth get John MacArthur to do the honors too? Do you think they'd sell their stuff with John Piper's endorsement on it? Maybe you think Scott Aniol is more characteristic?
Perhaps nobody would characterize the movement by McCrorie if only there weren't so many of him!
Maybe the movement will oblige us with a resolution against McCrorie instead of one against Iain Murray this time?
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 05:58 12 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
"Don't you think the fact that someone as inept at coherent expression as McCrorie is a pastor is an indication of something, O victor eremita?"
The issue was not his expression, it was his judgment, sot his is irrelevant.
"It is a curious thing to call McCrorie a non-specialist in one paragraph, an authority in the fourth and get mad at dissidens for neglecting such paradoxical considerations." Here's a suggestion: try reading. McCrorie is a non-specialist in the context in which I used that term, and he's a non-specialist by most standard. Aniol would be close to deserving "specialist" status, but most music pastors wouldn. Now, unless you silly enough to not know the difference between being a specialist and an authority, referring to a music pastor as an authority in a circumsribed context (e.g. in their local church) is hardly tantamount to calling them a specialist, and only an incompetent reader would think otherwise.
People like you need to remove your lips from Dissidens hindquaters, pull back, and get a little perspective before you try to valiantly jump in an speak on his behalf.
The issue was not his expression, it was his judgment, sot his is irrelevant.
"It is a curious thing to call McCrorie a non-specialist in one paragraph, an authority in the fourth and get mad at dissidens for neglecting such paradoxical considerations." Here's a suggestion: try reading. McCrorie is a non-specialist in the context in which I used that term, and he's a non-specialist by most standard. Aniol would be close to deserving "specialist" status, but most music pastors wouldn. Now, unless you silly enough to not know the difference between being a specialist and an authority, referring to a music pastor as an authority in a circumsribed context (e.g. in their local church) is hardly tantamount to calling them a specialist, and only an incompetent reader would think otherwise.
People like you need to remove your lips from Dissidens hindquaters, pull back, and get a little perspective before you try to valiantly jump in an speak on his behalf.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 07:55 13 Comment from: Observer [Visitor]
While I don't fully agree with the last expression victor eremita gave, I do agree with the sentiment. Unk, Dissidens is capable of defending himself; no need for you to hop in like an older brother defending a little sibling. Comments like yours are what make this site frustrating at times. Let someone knowledgeable (AKA dissidens) speak on these different subjects. If you have something valuable to add to the conversation, please do. But if all we're going to get from you is like comment 11, please, spare the ones that actually want to learn something and read interesting dialogue.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 08:19 14 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
Victor,
Joel's argument has not been answered. He provided something very logical, as that is what you say you are interested in, and you did not answer him. I'd like to know your answer to that as well.
Also, have you read Lewis' Experiment? Its a good one.
Joel's argument has not been answered. He provided something very logical, as that is what you say you are interested in, and you did not answer him. I'd like to know your answer to that as well.
Also, have you read Lewis' Experiment? Its a good one.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 08:20 15 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, victor, let’s think about this for a moment.
One of the people directly involved with the project, educated and employed by Bob Jones University and perhaps an artist under contract (or whatever equivalent term they might use) with SoundForth [http://www.danforrest.com/?p=264] sent a pre-release copy to several people “to review”. He called his links reviews. Mr. McCrorie called it a review. He laid out his comments in the form of a review.
Mr. McCrorie claims to have taken a B.A. from Northland Baptist Bible College and a M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. He is employed by a fundamentalist church as its music minister and as a teacher. Mr. McCrorie has been delivering himself of various judgments on his blog and on SharperIron (in the capacity of administrator, as I understand it), which regards itself as the blog of record for fundamentalists. I have never seen anyone challenge Mr. McCrorie’s bona fides as a fundamentalist.
If I have written somewhere that Mr. McCrorie has some special authority beyond this to speak for fundamentalism, I have forgotten where I did so. If you will remind me, I will amend my comments. What I can recall suggesting, although not in so many words, is that Mr. McCrorie’s views are typical of fundamentalists. If my making these connections constitutes an axe, this is an axe like no other axe I have ever seen. Maybe it is the Magical Axe of Mordor.
There seems to be an old refrain here. As with Dr. McCune, if there is a bit you don’t like, you just snap it off and pretend it’s not a part of the original equipment. Fundamentalism seems to have an awful lot of detachable parts. For a movement with such discretion and integrity, it certainly seems to have a dubious credentialing process. You say “one is an authority of sorts” but apparently not the sort that can be held accountable for manifesting the movement’s sensibilities.
How come they can get away with murder and I can’t even have an axe?
But just so I don’t turn you off in the future, perhaps you could give me some indication as to whether Dr. David Doran, Dr. John Makujina, Ron Hamilton or the Herbster Evangelistic Ministries qualify as representative of fundamentalism.
I’d like to try to head off any further pettiness, if that’s possible.
One of the people directly involved with the project, educated and employed by Bob Jones University and perhaps an artist under contract (or whatever equivalent term they might use) with SoundForth [http://www.danforrest.com/?p=264] sent a pre-release copy to several people “to review”. He called his links reviews. Mr. McCrorie called it a review. He laid out his comments in the form of a review.
Mr. McCrorie claims to have taken a B.A. from Northland Baptist Bible College and a M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. He is employed by a fundamentalist church as its music minister and as a teacher. Mr. McCrorie has been delivering himself of various judgments on his blog and on SharperIron (in the capacity of administrator, as I understand it), which regards itself as the blog of record for fundamentalists. I have never seen anyone challenge Mr. McCrorie’s bona fides as a fundamentalist.
If I have written somewhere that Mr. McCrorie has some special authority beyond this to speak for fundamentalism, I have forgotten where I did so. If you will remind me, I will amend my comments. What I can recall suggesting, although not in so many words, is that Mr. McCrorie’s views are typical of fundamentalists. If my making these connections constitutes an axe, this is an axe like no other axe I have ever seen. Maybe it is the Magical Axe of Mordor.
There seems to be an old refrain here. As with Dr. McCune, if there is a bit you don’t like, you just snap it off and pretend it’s not a part of the original equipment. Fundamentalism seems to have an awful lot of detachable parts. For a movement with such discretion and integrity, it certainly seems to have a dubious credentialing process. You say “one is an authority of sorts” but apparently not the sort that can be held accountable for manifesting the movement’s sensibilities.
How come they can get away with murder and I can’t even have an axe?
But just so I don’t turn you off in the future, perhaps you could give me some indication as to whether Dr. David Doran, Dr. John Makujina, Ron Hamilton or the Herbster Evangelistic Ministries qualify as representative of fundamentalism.
I’d like to try to head off any further pettiness, if that’s possible.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 08:20 16 Comment from: Brian McCrorie [Visitor] · http://www.bowingdown.com
· http://www.bowingdown.com
Just to clear up a few things. I am not and never have been an administrator or editor at SharperIron. I have served as a moderator and have recently stepped out of that as well.
I do not consider myself a specialist, but neither am I a novice. I am a pastor in a fundamentalist church and have been one for 13 years. I have made the worship of God one of my chief pursuits in my study of Scripture. I have much to learn.
Having said that, Diss, I do not think that your last comments to me were totally incorrect. Should Christians pursue the "best"? I think they should. In fact, I believe I can provide a biblical mandate for its pursuit.
The rub is: how is the "best" defined? Is the "best" the most sophisticated and complex? Is the "best" the most simple and plain to show forth a certain theme or message without dilution or distraction? Is the "best" that which "changes" an individual? Or is the "best" that which most moves the emotions? Is the "best" limited to those of cultural and intellectual maturity?
I believe that the "best" is more vague and difficult to define than you do. This is not to say that beauty does not exist or that it simply exists in "the eye of the beholder." I do, however, believe that defining beauty is not an exact science and is largely informed by culture and creation, both of which are tainted by the curse.
I do not think that the church needs to come to a consensus on an aesthetic ethic. There is freedom to discern what is acceptable in the arts, both at the individual and corporate level. We need not demand unanimity or pronounce judgment in an area that I believe is largely opinion, preference, and taste.
And by the way, don't forget that the new CD comes out in 4 days!!
I do not consider myself a specialist, but neither am I a novice. I am a pastor in a fundamentalist church and have been one for 13 years. I have made the worship of God one of my chief pursuits in my study of Scripture. I have much to learn.
Having said that, Diss, I do not think that your last comments to me were totally incorrect. Should Christians pursue the "best"? I think they should. In fact, I believe I can provide a biblical mandate for its pursuit.
The rub is: how is the "best" defined? Is the "best" the most sophisticated and complex? Is the "best" the most simple and plain to show forth a certain theme or message without dilution or distraction? Is the "best" that which "changes" an individual? Or is the "best" that which most moves the emotions? Is the "best" limited to those of cultural and intellectual maturity?
I believe that the "best" is more vague and difficult to define than you do. This is not to say that beauty does not exist or that it simply exists in "the eye of the beholder." I do, however, believe that defining beauty is not an exact science and is largely informed by culture and creation, both of which are tainted by the curse.
I do not think that the church needs to come to a consensus on an aesthetic ethic. There is freedom to discern what is acceptable in the arts, both at the individual and corporate level. We need not demand unanimity or pronounce judgment in an area that I believe is largely opinion, preference, and taste.
And by the way, don't forget that the new CD comes out in 4 days!!
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 13:54 17 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
Well, victor, let’s think about this for a moment.
One of the people directly involved with the project, educated and employed by Bob Jones University and perhaps an artist under contract (or whatever equivalent term they might use) with SoundForth [http://www.danforrest.com/?p=264] sent a pre-release copy to several people “to review”. He called his links reviews. Mr. McCrorie called it a review. He laid out his comments in the form of a review.[/QUOTE] Please note what I said: “ It's a legitimate use of a review, depending on one's position and the context of the review, to use it to encourage other people to listen to the work being reviewed and to explain what one enjoyed about the work, particularly if, in said context, one is an authority of sorts (e.g. a music pastor to his people). This is obvious, and we would never critique someone we agreed with for this kind of thing.” As you can see, I never said it was not a review; I was making the point that reviews can legitimately be used for different purposes. In fact, quite often, reviewers use their reviews to do all kind of things, including promoting an agenda, attacking something or someone, and/or promoting. Any positive review, not matter how sterling its context, will be a promotion of sorts, especially (and obviously) if it is reviewing a recorded work: such reviews inherently have a marketing component, and I know you are not economically naïve enough to deny this. .
“Mr. McCrorie claims to have taken a B.A. from Northland Baptist Bible College and a M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. He is employed by a fundamentalist church as its music minister and as a teacher. . . I have never seen anyone challenge Mr. McCrorie’s bona fides as a fundamentalist.” Again, I denied none of these things, and in fact made it clear that he is an authority in a certain context (especially and specifically his local church). But the point is that “authority” is broader than “specialist,” and while being a specialist (or expert) eo ipso makes one an authority of sorts, being an authority does not necessarily mean one is a specialist in some area. The whole point of my admittedly caustic original comment is that, in the interest of hermeneutic charity as well as more incisive criticism, it is at least a more valuable (and typically the only legitimately) route to take the best recognized exponents of a group and/or position and critique them, if by that critique one intends (as you clearly did) to make a broader point about the group or position itself, based on an inference from the weaknesses of their best exponents.
“What I can recall suggesting, although not in so many words, is that Mr. McCrorie’s views are typical of fundamentalists.” What you focused on is nor Mr. McCrorie’s views, but his expression, and only secondarily what his expression indicates about his views (regarding the purpose and nature of a artistic review). And, since your focus was on expression, your criticism would have been much more effective and fair-minded had your critiqued someone recognized within Fundamentalism for their expressive ability and/or at least the best available representative. .
“There seems to be an old refrain here. As with Dr. McCune, if there is a bit you don’t like, you just snap it off and pretend it’s not a part of the original equipment.” Again, I would say you misread me. I think McCune’s tactics are failures and fallacies and therefore indefensible. I never advocated (I know you would appeal here to your “seems”) nor did I suggest such a procedure. The whole point, which I again repeat, is the kind of representative we are critiquing and the extent to which we can legitimately and with logical ease move from demonstrable problems with the representative or instance to problems with the group or type, which the person represents and is an instance of. We can quibble all you want, but my general point is I think undeniable: it’s better to choose the best rep. available.
“ You say “one is an authority of sorts” but apparently not the sort that can be held accountable for manifesting the movement’s sensibilities.” See above.
“How come they can get away with murder and I can’t even have an axe?” I suppose your axe isn’t my problem; it’s the extent to which it impairs your choice of objects/persons to critique, and thus the extent to which your point is undermined by your method.
“But just so I don’t turn you off in the future, perhaps you could give me some indication as to whether Dr. David Doran, Dr. John Makujina, Ron Hamilton or the Herbster Evangelistic Ministries qualify as representative of fundamentalism.” Sure; I don’t know if they are all specialists in music though, and last I checked, you were not critiquing something Doran, Makukina, or another one of these folks said. Again, you parry by saying “but McCrorie believes the same thing” my riposte will be that that isn’t my point. Falwell might have believed a lot of the same things about Evangelicalism and the Gospel as D.A. Carson, but only a lazy arse of a journalist would quote Falwell to critique Evangelicalism. A serious critic knows they would need to defeat Evangelicalism’s best exponents and defenders in order to must a convincing attack against it. The critique of Falwell will only convince those who are already convinced, just as your critique of McCrorie will only convince your already convinced coterie; it will have no substantive impact on the (here a real stretch of an analogy) “D.A. Carson” of music in Fundamentalism (no insult to Carson intended). I honestly believe you are too aware of and concerned about good criticism and argumentation, even if you are occasionally tendentious, to deny my point here.
One of the people directly involved with the project, educated and employed by Bob Jones University and perhaps an artist under contract (or whatever equivalent term they might use) with SoundForth [http://www.danforrest.com/?p=264] sent a pre-release copy to several people “to review”. He called his links reviews. Mr. McCrorie called it a review. He laid out his comments in the form of a review.[/QUOTE] Please note what I said: “ It's a legitimate use of a review, depending on one's position and the context of the review, to use it to encourage other people to listen to the work being reviewed and to explain what one enjoyed about the work, particularly if, in said context, one is an authority of sorts (e.g. a music pastor to his people). This is obvious, and we would never critique someone we agreed with for this kind of thing.” As you can see, I never said it was not a review; I was making the point that reviews can legitimately be used for different purposes. In fact, quite often, reviewers use their reviews to do all kind of things, including promoting an agenda, attacking something or someone, and/or promoting. Any positive review, not matter how sterling its context, will be a promotion of sorts, especially (and obviously) if it is reviewing a recorded work: such reviews inherently have a marketing component, and I know you are not economically naïve enough to deny this. .
“Mr. McCrorie claims to have taken a B.A. from Northland Baptist Bible College and a M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. He is employed by a fundamentalist church as its music minister and as a teacher. . . I have never seen anyone challenge Mr. McCrorie’s bona fides as a fundamentalist.” Again, I denied none of these things, and in fact made it clear that he is an authority in a certain context (especially and specifically his local church). But the point is that “authority” is broader than “specialist,” and while being a specialist (or expert) eo ipso makes one an authority of sorts, being an authority does not necessarily mean one is a specialist in some area. The whole point of my admittedly caustic original comment is that, in the interest of hermeneutic charity as well as more incisive criticism, it is at least a more valuable (and typically the only legitimately) route to take the best recognized exponents of a group and/or position and critique them, if by that critique one intends (as you clearly did) to make a broader point about the group or position itself, based on an inference from the weaknesses of their best exponents.
“What I can recall suggesting, although not in so many words, is that Mr. McCrorie’s views are typical of fundamentalists.” What you focused on is nor Mr. McCrorie’s views, but his expression, and only secondarily what his expression indicates about his views (regarding the purpose and nature of a artistic review). And, since your focus was on expression, your criticism would have been much more effective and fair-minded had your critiqued someone recognized within Fundamentalism for their expressive ability and/or at least the best available representative. .
“There seems to be an old refrain here. As with Dr. McCune, if there is a bit you don’t like, you just snap it off and pretend it’s not a part of the original equipment.” Again, I would say you misread me. I think McCune’s tactics are failures and fallacies and therefore indefensible. I never advocated (I know you would appeal here to your “seems”) nor did I suggest such a procedure. The whole point, which I again repeat, is the kind of representative we are critiquing and the extent to which we can legitimately and with logical ease move from demonstrable problems with the representative or instance to problems with the group or type, which the person represents and is an instance of. We can quibble all you want, but my general point is I think undeniable: it’s better to choose the best rep. available.
“ You say “one is an authority of sorts” but apparently not the sort that can be held accountable for manifesting the movement’s sensibilities.” See above.
“How come they can get away with murder and I can’t even have an axe?” I suppose your axe isn’t my problem; it’s the extent to which it impairs your choice of objects/persons to critique, and thus the extent to which your point is undermined by your method.
“But just so I don’t turn you off in the future, perhaps you could give me some indication as to whether Dr. David Doran, Dr. John Makujina, Ron Hamilton or the Herbster Evangelistic Ministries qualify as representative of fundamentalism.” Sure; I don’t know if they are all specialists in music though, and last I checked, you were not critiquing something Doran, Makukina, or another one of these folks said. Again, you parry by saying “but McCrorie believes the same thing” my riposte will be that that isn’t my point. Falwell might have believed a lot of the same things about Evangelicalism and the Gospel as D.A. Carson, but only a lazy arse of a journalist would quote Falwell to critique Evangelicalism. A serious critic knows they would need to defeat Evangelicalism’s best exponents and defenders in order to must a convincing attack against it. The critique of Falwell will only convince those who are already convinced, just as your critique of McCrorie will only convince your already convinced coterie; it will have no substantive impact on the (here a real stretch of an analogy) “D.A. Carson” of music in Fundamentalism (no insult to Carson intended). I honestly believe you are too aware of and concerned about good criticism and argumentation, even if you are occasionally tendentious, to deny my point here.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 14:52 18 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
Correction:
"Again, you parry by saying “but McCrorie believes the same thing” my riposte will be that that isn’t my point."
This sentence should have "if" before "you" and after "Again."
"Again, you parry by saying “but McCrorie believes the same thing” my riposte will be that that isn’t my point."
This sentence should have "if" before "you" and after "Again."
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 14:56 19 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
"Joel's argument has not been answered. He provided something very logical, as that is what you say you are interested in, and you did not answer him. I'd like to know your answer to that as well." I don't know who "Joel" is, but I responde to "Unk" is post 12, so if he is who you're referring to, I am confused as to why you would say that I didn't answer him
"Also, have you read Lewis' Experiment? Its a good one." Yes, I read it for an English class a year and a half ago. It was stimulating and enjoyable, though obviously not definitive, as Lewis himself no doubt would agree.
"Also, have you read Lewis' Experiment? Its a good one." Yes, I read it for an English class a year and a half ago. It was stimulating and enjoyable, though obviously not definitive, as Lewis himself no doubt would agree.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 15:11 20 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Brian:
Ahh; moderator. I stand corrected.
Those certainly are some interesting views you have. You think the best should be pursued but you don’t know how to identify the best. I imagine that could be frustrating.
There are times when I am in a strange city and I want a good hot dog and don’t know where to find one. I imagine the experience is similar.
You say five staggering things:
Ahh; moderator. I stand corrected.
Those certainly are some interesting views you have. You think the best should be pursued but you don’t know how to identify the best. I imagine that could be frustrating.
There are times when I am in a strange city and I want a good hot dog and don’t know where to find one. I imagine the experience is similar.
You say five staggering things:
1. defining beauty is not an exact science,Would you say these views are commonly held among fundamentalists?
2. defining beauty involves creation and culture which are tainted by the curse,
3. we are free to discern what is acceptable in the arts,
4. the church doesn’t have to arrive at an aesthetic ethic, and
5. this is all largely a matter of opinion, preference, and taste.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 16:31 21 Comment from: Unk [Visitor]
I can't agree with you Observer. I love comments like mine on this blog. I know well that dissidens can defend himself, that's why I love to see things get heated up.
Maybe we should leave that to dissidens also? He's put me in my place before.
Maybe we should leave that to dissidens also? He's put me in my place before.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 16:39 22 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
My apologies, Victor. I went back to comment 12. I see where you answer Unk. I then had to go back and look at your other posts because I skipped them as well. The reason is that when I see a large block of text which I have already read that begins with a quotation mark, I assume the block is just a quotation, so i move on to the next paragraph.
Still, I am surprised that you have read Lewis' Experiment, because if you had, then you would find nothing wrong with Dissidens taking a look at Brian's review. That's what the experiment calls for.
The point is, there is no axe. There is only an experiment. You don't choose the select few "best" which a group has to offer. You look at the group as a whole. You read reviews by anyone that will share. And if one who is a leader of a group shares a review, all the better, because you can usually assume that the response is shared. And this is the point. The response is indicative of culture. The response is typical, the culture is typical.
So what is your problem with what Dissidens has done? He is in good company. Although Lewis was speaking outside of his expertise. So perhaps Dissidens is building his house on the sand.
Still, I am surprised that you have read Lewis' Experiment, because if you had, then you would find nothing wrong with Dissidens taking a look at Brian's review. That's what the experiment calls for.
The point is, there is no axe. There is only an experiment. You don't choose the select few "best" which a group has to offer. You look at the group as a whole. You read reviews by anyone that will share. And if one who is a leader of a group shares a review, all the better, because you can usually assume that the response is shared. And this is the point. The response is indicative of culture. The response is typical, the culture is typical.
So what is your problem with what Dissidens has done? He is in good company. Although Lewis was speaking outside of his expertise. So perhaps Dissidens is building his house on the sand.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 17:24 23 Comment from: Brian McCrorie [Visitor] · http://www.bowingdown.com
· http://www.bowingdown.com
I don't claim to speak for fundamentalism. I think it's a failed and dying movement. However, I would say that the majority of fundamentalists that I know would not hold those 5 statements in common with me. Most fundamentalists that I know call something beautiful or ugly, godly or worldly, because someone else has told them that it is so, not because they have come to that conclusion on their own. There are some who would hold to these statements along with me.
And yes, the pursuit of the "best" in the arts can be very frustrating. Those who are honest will admit that discernment takes work. It will not do for Christians to just live by their feelings or opinions or tastes or past experiences. It will also not for a few to discern for the many. You and I may differ on our views of what beauty is and how it can be known and how to determine the moral worth of art; but neither of us has the responsibility to make matters of opinion matters of judgment. It isn't God's way. In these more nebulous aspects of art, like the moral worth of certain musical styles, we teach others how to discern; we dare not discern for them.
You are making the same error, Diss, that the people you often chide such as Garlock, etc. have made: they pass judgment on areas of opinion and despise those who aren't in agreement with their views.
You are not only entitled but responsible to discern what is "best" in your personal life. Where you err, like Garlock, is in passing judgment on those who have legitimately come to a different conclusion. It's difficult to realize that, I know. It's difficult to think that God may accept the offering of SoundForth to the same degree that he accepts the offering of J.S. Bach. The offerings appear to be so different. But God accepts them both.
The problem is: you view the offering of SoundForth as worthless, because in your eyes it is part of the larger problem. Perhaps you consider yourself part of the faithful remnant who is committed to a holy culture that most others have abandoned?
But remember, Diss, the best we have to offer is like filthy rags compared to the beauty and transcendence of God. It is a wonder He accepts anything we offer to him in bodies yet unredeemed.
And yes, the pursuit of the "best" in the arts can be very frustrating. Those who are honest will admit that discernment takes work. It will not do for Christians to just live by their feelings or opinions or tastes or past experiences. It will also not for a few to discern for the many. You and I may differ on our views of what beauty is and how it can be known and how to determine the moral worth of art; but neither of us has the responsibility to make matters of opinion matters of judgment. It isn't God's way. In these more nebulous aspects of art, like the moral worth of certain musical styles, we teach others how to discern; we dare not discern for them.
You are making the same error, Diss, that the people you often chide such as Garlock, etc. have made: they pass judgment on areas of opinion and despise those who aren't in agreement with their views.
You are not only entitled but responsible to discern what is "best" in your personal life. Where you err, like Garlock, is in passing judgment on those who have legitimately come to a different conclusion. It's difficult to realize that, I know. It's difficult to think that God may accept the offering of SoundForth to the same degree that he accepts the offering of J.S. Bach. The offerings appear to be so different. But God accepts them both.
The problem is: you view the offering of SoundForth as worthless, because in your eyes it is part of the larger problem. Perhaps you consider yourself part of the faithful remnant who is committed to a holy culture that most others have abandoned?
But remember, Diss, the best we have to offer is like filthy rags compared to the beauty and transcendence of God. It is a wonder He accepts anything we offer to him in bodies yet unredeemed.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 17:54 24 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Observer:
At first I thought I would say something, and then I thought I needn’t. But after Unk’s last comment perhaps I should.
I’m not so sure when someone inserts himself after a hostile comment that it should be interpreted as a defense. I can’t speak for others, but I know when I jump into an exchange, I rarely have the sense that I’m engaged in a rescue or a police action. Sometimes the speaker just feels he is engaging in clarification.
Sometimes heat does produce light.
Just as general policy I think it is fair to allow all parties to speak their minds. Even in anger or frustration. “Be angry and sin not” makes a useful distinction in my mind.
Having said all that, I don’t really intend that mine be the only hand on the thermostat.
At first I thought I would say something, and then I thought I needn’t. But after Unk’s last comment perhaps I should.
I’m not so sure when someone inserts himself after a hostile comment that it should be interpreted as a defense. I can’t speak for others, but I know when I jump into an exchange, I rarely have the sense that I’m engaged in a rescue or a police action. Sometimes the speaker just feels he is engaging in clarification.
Sometimes heat does produce light.
Just as general policy I think it is fair to allow all parties to speak their minds. Even in anger or frustration. “Be angry and sin not” makes a useful distinction in my mind.
Having said all that, I don’t really intend that mine be the only hand on the thermostat.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 18:08 25 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
lilrabbi,
Please, let's be reasonable: my criticisms of dissidens were not related to Dissidens' take on Lewis, but to his use of McCrorie and his reasoning therefrom.
Besides, Lewis's Experiment to reversing the normal process: "Normally we judge men's literary taste by the things they read. The question was whether there might be some advantage in reversing the process and judging literature by the way men read it." Lewis' point is not audiences, but the work itself; he is simply reversing the normal criteria by which we judge a good work, essentially making the (quite right) argument that "good literature [is] that which permits, invites, or compels good reading; and bad, as that which does the same for bad reading" (Lewis, Experiment in Criticism, Cambridge 1992, 104).
Please, let's be reasonable: my criticisms of dissidens were not related to Dissidens' take on Lewis, but to his use of McCrorie and his reasoning therefrom.
Besides, Lewis's Experiment to reversing the normal process: "Normally we judge men's literary taste by the things they read. The question was whether there might be some advantage in reversing the process and judging literature by the way men read it." Lewis' point is not audiences, but the work itself; he is simply reversing the normal criteria by which we judge a good work, essentially making the (quite right) argument that "good literature [is] that which permits, invites, or compels good reading; and bad, as that which does the same for bad reading" (Lewis, Experiment in Criticism, Cambridge 1992, 104).
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 18:37 26 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
Did you read only the conclusion? Did you notice that Lewis spends 100 pages showing us how to judge readers, so that he could show us in 25 pages how that judgment translates to a specific work? 100 out of 125 pages are devoted to how the unliterary do things badly. Dissidens can't take one post to do the same thing?
Please, let's be reasonable.
Your comment #9 shows that you either do not understand Lewis' book, or that you disagree with it and are lying to us about it.
Do you really find it petty and a turn off when people do what Lewis said to do in that book?
"If you want to make a legitimate point about Fundamentalist criticism, select the best that they have to offer (to prove you understand the idea of hermeneutic charity), and then demonstrate why it is inadequate. From such a demonstration one could legitimately make inferences about the quality of judgment and criticism in the movement."
That is the opposite of the experiment. You are saying that Lewis was wrong. Just say that and we can then agree that "we hear completely different things when we listen to the same music. There's really nothing to discuss."
Please, let's be reasonable.
Your comment #9 shows that you either do not understand Lewis' book, or that you disagree with it and are lying to us about it.
Do you really find it petty and a turn off when people do what Lewis said to do in that book?
"If you want to make a legitimate point about Fundamentalist criticism, select the best that they have to offer (to prove you understand the idea of hermeneutic charity), and then demonstrate why it is inadequate. From such a demonstration one could legitimately make inferences about the quality of judgment and criticism in the movement."
That is the opposite of the experiment. You are saying that Lewis was wrong. Just say that and we can then agree that "we hear completely different things when we listen to the same music. There's really nothing to discuss."
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 20:11 27 Comment from: Observer [Visitor]
Diss,
It's not that I think your hand should be the only one on the thermostat. What is frustrating are the folks that are not as knowledgeable as you that insert comments just to "heat things up." It's more annoying than anything; they very well may have interesting comments, points of clarification, poignant questions, etc. A mindless string of ignorant rhetorical questions adds nothing to the conversation, save frustration and wasted time. That's all.
It's not that I think your hand should be the only one on the thermostat. What is frustrating are the folks that are not as knowledgeable as you that insert comments just to "heat things up." It's more annoying than anything; they very well may have interesting comments, points of clarification, poignant questions, etc. A mindless string of ignorant rhetorical questions adds nothing to the conversation, save frustration and wasted time. That's all.
Permalink
03/15/08 @ 20:51 28 Comment from: David [Visitor] · http://hymnophile.wordpress.com/
· http://hymnophile.wordpress.com/
For those interested, the following lecture contains a useful synopsis of Lewis' work:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5105113218
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5105113218
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 06:24 29 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Observer:
I quite disagree. I don’t think it is possible for me to disagree more.
Let’s remember the long line.
When we talk about culture anymore, we tend to think in terms, as McCrorie has now explicitly told us, of “opinion, taste and preference”. His words; I didn’t put them in his mouth. You will find this sentiment in the Doran sermon I cited previously as well as in many conversations on this blog. To hear these philistines tell it, we are talking about the difference between a cream or an ecru tablecloth, Wedgewood stemware as opposed to Waterford stemware, Grand Renaissance flatware rather than American Federal.
In a word, they think it is about things that don’t really matter. It is as though this whole universe is full of senseless variation for no purpose other than to indulge an infinite number of individual preferences.
These things do matter. They are the most important things about us. What could be more important than what is in our minds when we talk about Calvary’s blood?
Bad liturgy is bad because it fails to speak truly about anything that matters. It entertains, it amuses, it flatters, it tantalizes, it inflames, but it always lies. It encourages a profound misunderstanding of what is to be loved, preserved and shared.
I don’t find it at all annoying that this provokes people to strong, pointed language. I’m annoyed when it doesn’t.
I quite disagree. I don’t think it is possible for me to disagree more.
Let’s remember the long line.
When we talk about culture anymore, we tend to think in terms, as McCrorie has now explicitly told us, of “opinion, taste and preference”. His words; I didn’t put them in his mouth. You will find this sentiment in the Doran sermon I cited previously as well as in many conversations on this blog. To hear these philistines tell it, we are talking about the difference between a cream or an ecru tablecloth, Wedgewood stemware as opposed to Waterford stemware, Grand Renaissance flatware rather than American Federal.
In a word, they think it is about things that don’t really matter. It is as though this whole universe is full of senseless variation for no purpose other than to indulge an infinite number of individual preferences.
These things do matter. They are the most important things about us. What could be more important than what is in our minds when we talk about Calvary’s blood?
Bad liturgy is bad because it fails to speak truly about anything that matters. It entertains, it amuses, it flatters, it tantalizes, it inflames, but it always lies. It encourages a profound misunderstanding of what is to be loved, preserved and shared.
I don’t find it at all annoying that this provokes people to strong, pointed language. I’m annoyed when it doesn’t.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 09:11 30 Comment from: Observer [Visitor]
I fail to see the connection between your response and my comment.
Strong, pointed language is a good thing; I have never said otherwise. Unk's language that I was referring to was not strong and pointed; it was irrelevant and trying to be brash. The thing that I have come to dislike most about this site is the comments portion. I know that no one is holding a gun to my head and making me read this site. I read it because your posts are interesting and address a subject that I am genuinely interested in. To me at least, it is obvious that you are knowledgeable about the things you address. You use strong and pointed language. What I don't appreciate and still fail to see the benefit of is the people that are not as knowledgeable (if they are knowledgeable at all!) that take the same tone you do.
If someone disagrees with you on your site, that is fine. I have read many interactions here. Some good and honest (and needed!) discussion can take place. But when these -- as Bixby called them – “sycophants” join in and try their best to imitate you, it does not help the discussion. I've seen it happen too many times here for me to be convinced otherwise.
I will keep reading this site because as a whole it is beneficial. But I think it's a good thing to point these things out. Every once-in-a-while, at least.
Strong, pointed language is a good thing; I have never said otherwise. Unk's language that I was referring to was not strong and pointed; it was irrelevant and trying to be brash. The thing that I have come to dislike most about this site is the comments portion. I know that no one is holding a gun to my head and making me read this site. I read it because your posts are interesting and address a subject that I am genuinely interested in. To me at least, it is obvious that you are knowledgeable about the things you address. You use strong and pointed language. What I don't appreciate and still fail to see the benefit of is the people that are not as knowledgeable (if they are knowledgeable at all!) that take the same tone you do.
If someone disagrees with you on your site, that is fine. I have read many interactions here. Some good and honest (and needed!) discussion can take place. But when these -- as Bixby called them – “sycophants” join in and try their best to imitate you, it does not help the discussion. I've seen it happen too many times here for me to be convinced otherwise.
I will keep reading this site because as a whole it is beneficial. But I think it's a good thing to point these things out. Every once-in-a-while, at least.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 09:44 31 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
“Your comment #9 shows that you either do not understand Lewis' book, or that you disagree with it and are lying to us about it.:” This is nonsense and doesn’t deserve a response.
"If you want to make a legitimate point about Fundamentalist criticism, select the best that they have to offer (to prove you understand the idea of hermeneutic charity), and then demonstrate why it is inadequate. From such a demonstration one could legitimately make inferences about the quality of judgment and criticism in the movement."
“That is the opposite of the experiment. You are saying that Lewis was wrong. Just say that and we can then agree that "we hear completely different things when we listen to the same music. There's really nothing to discuss."
It’s not the “opposite” of Lewis’ experiment; that you think so is why I won’t interact with you anymore, because you clearly and intentionally are missing my entire point. Go back to my Carson and Falwell illustration, and try to say that that is the “opposite of the experiment.” But that would make you, and by extension, Lewis, look like an fool. My point has to do with argumentation and legitimate ways to make inferences from a part to the whole, from an instance to a type. I’m not interacting with Lewis’ book, I’m interacting with a, at best, weak form of argumentation, at worst a fallacious means of critiquing a group or position. Lewis’ experiment has nothing whatsoever to do with licensing bad logic and non sequitors.
"If you want to make a legitimate point about Fundamentalist criticism, select the best that they have to offer (to prove you understand the idea of hermeneutic charity), and then demonstrate why it is inadequate. From such a demonstration one could legitimately make inferences about the quality of judgment and criticism in the movement."
“That is the opposite of the experiment. You are saying that Lewis was wrong. Just say that and we can then agree that "we hear completely different things when we listen to the same music. There's really nothing to discuss."
It’s not the “opposite” of Lewis’ experiment; that you think so is why I won’t interact with you anymore, because you clearly and intentionally are missing my entire point. Go back to my Carson and Falwell illustration, and try to say that that is the “opposite of the experiment.” But that would make you, and by extension, Lewis, look like an fool. My point has to do with argumentation and legitimate ways to make inferences from a part to the whole, from an instance to a type. I’m not interacting with Lewis’ book, I’m interacting with a, at best, weak form of argumentation, at worst a fallacious means of critiquing a group or position. Lewis’ experiment has nothing whatsoever to do with licensing bad logic and non sequitors.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 10:35 32 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Observer:
I was asked, years ago now, what sort of fix I suggested for this philistinism we call fundagelicalism. My first suggestion was to raise our children to love the good, true and beautiful and to teach them how to worship. That is a necessary condition for the second answer I offer. We’ll need as large a percentage as possible of knowledgeable people who cherish permanent things so that important decisions need not be made by a flaky cabal of bumpkins with debased sensibilities; people who grew up on Elton John songs and Dirty Harry movies. If we can produce that sort of community, we might have some legitimate way of distinguishing better from good and best from better. We will never have what we threw away, but we might have something makeshift that functions better than the current religious atrocity.
This second step requires some knowledge of criticism, and to demonstrate the shambles that now exists I cited the fine work of Brian McCrorie. I cited Brian McCrorie for several reasons, the first of which is that his was the first review suggested by one of the creators of this product.
Victor then objected to my choice for reasons I still find implausible. Unk responded to him with seven questions:
Sorry, I don’t see it. In fact, I tend to think this would be a very, very different discussion if Forrest and Soundfroth were seeking an honest critique from men like MacArthur, Piper, Dever, or even Brian McLaren. Like that will ever happen.
I think they were relevant questions and I don’t object in the slightest to their tone, which brings me to your other point.
Bixby thinks I’m a fool; no wonder he thinks my readers are sycophants. He probably thinks my mom is talibani. Who cares? What Bixby thinks isn’t important. He and other dismissive people who like to call them dissidisciples clearly have no argument. Intimidation is the only club in their bag.
Look, there is a pattern here. When DGus began his FDS [Fundamentalist Discernment Schtick] with respect to my father’s dried Wonder bread and Mystery Tea health regime, no one in the philistine camp complained. They piled on. The pharisees didn’t think he was debasing the conversation. When I responded in a way of my choosing, all sorts of people objected to the “tone” of Remonstrans.
It warmed the heart is what it did. It told us all how discerning and spiritual these cads were to pick up on my attitude. Then they tried to use this to blacklist me and discredit me in the eyes of their followers. (Followers who were by no means sycophants at all. They have all the followers, I got stuck with all the sycophants.)
No one objected to either victor’s tone or his offensive metaphor, but you see great harm in Unk’s brashness?
I’m suspicious, Observer.
I was asked, years ago now, what sort of fix I suggested for this philistinism we call fundagelicalism. My first suggestion was to raise our children to love the good, true and beautiful and to teach them how to worship. That is a necessary condition for the second answer I offer. We’ll need as large a percentage as possible of knowledgeable people who cherish permanent things so that important decisions need not be made by a flaky cabal of bumpkins with debased sensibilities; people who grew up on Elton John songs and Dirty Harry movies. If we can produce that sort of community, we might have some legitimate way of distinguishing better from good and best from better. We will never have what we threw away, but we might have something makeshift that functions better than the current religious atrocity.
This second step requires some knowledge of criticism, and to demonstrate the shambles that now exists I cited the fine work of Brian McCrorie. I cited Brian McCrorie for several reasons, the first of which is that his was the first review suggested by one of the creators of this product.
Victor then objected to my choice for reasons I still find implausible. Unk responded to him with seven questions:
1. Don't you think the fact that someone as inept at coherent expression as McCrorie is a pastor is an indication of something?I fail to see how any one of those questions is irrelevant to that discussion. And again, to call them “brash”? especially in the context of victor’s complaint?
2. He is not characteristic of the movement and yet a leader with authority in one of their churches?
3. Don't you know he's an editor on the blog of intellectual fundamentalism AKA the Internet Roach Motel?
4. Of what is he characteristic if he is being asked to review the lord's anointed music?
5. Did Soundforth get John MacArthur to do the honors too?
6. Do you think they'd sell their stuff with John Piper's endorsement on it?
7. Maybe you think Scott Aniol is more characteristic?
Sorry, I don’t see it. In fact, I tend to think this would be a very, very different discussion if Forrest and Soundfroth were seeking an honest critique from men like MacArthur, Piper, Dever, or even Brian McLaren. Like that will ever happen.
I think they were relevant questions and I don’t object in the slightest to their tone, which brings me to your other point.
Bixby thinks I’m a fool; no wonder he thinks my readers are sycophants. He probably thinks my mom is talibani. Who cares? What Bixby thinks isn’t important. He and other dismissive people who like to call them dissidisciples clearly have no argument. Intimidation is the only club in their bag.
Look, there is a pattern here. When DGus began his FDS [Fundamentalist Discernment Schtick] with respect to my father’s dried Wonder bread and Mystery Tea health regime, no one in the philistine camp complained. They piled on. The pharisees didn’t think he was debasing the conversation. When I responded in a way of my choosing, all sorts of people objected to the “tone” of Remonstrans.
It warmed the heart is what it did. It told us all how discerning and spiritual these cads were to pick up on my attitude. Then they tried to use this to blacklist me and discredit me in the eyes of their followers. (Followers who were by no means sycophants at all. They have all the followers, I got stuck with all the sycophants.)
No one objected to either victor’s tone or his offensive metaphor, but you see great harm in Unk’s brashness?
I’m suspicious, Observer.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 12:03 33 Comment from: Observer [Visitor]
It's not that I "see great harm in Unk's brashness." It's that I don't see the point or usefulness of it. I think you're being a little naive if you think those questions that he laid out were honest, with no little agenda, and weren’t trying to take a jab at victor. I'm not running to victor's defense as much as I am pointing out that he didn't add anything useful to the conversation. You thought those questions were useful and honest; I thought they were more divisive than anything (e.g. the "Cock Roach Motel" comment; valid as it may be, that is a hint as to the real point of his comment. He could have said SharperIron, but he chose Cock Roach Motel. I wonder why).
I understand the point of your original post. McCrorie's review may not have been an ideal critical analysis (to say the least!). I appreciate what you said. I don't appreciate, nor do I find helpful, the little barbs and jabs that Unk, lilrabbi and the like have to offer. That’s my point. And the fact that those of us that are interested in what you have to say have to wade through their sarcasm is the point of frustration. That’s all.
And my reference to Bixby was only to give him credit for the term. Not that he made it up, but I read it first on his site. I know your disagreements are manifold. I just didn't want to take credit for the label.
I understand the point of your original post. McCrorie's review may not have been an ideal critical analysis (to say the least!). I appreciate what you said. I don't appreciate, nor do I find helpful, the little barbs and jabs that Unk, lilrabbi and the like have to offer. That’s my point. And the fact that those of us that are interested in what you have to say have to wade through their sarcasm is the point of frustration. That’s all.
And my reference to Bixby was only to give him credit for the term. Not that he made it up, but I read it first on his site. I know your disagreements are manifold. I just didn't want to take credit for the label.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 12:31 34 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
Dissidens,
Out of curiosity, what offensive metaphor did I use (one of my teachers who I meet every fortnight for a tutorial encourages me to use more metaphors in my writing, and I didn't even realize I did so; it would be a shame if it went to waste, even if I have to retract it)?
By the way, I appreciate your disagreement, but since it does not come in the form of a response to my arguments, I'm forced to dismiss your disagreement as I rejected your original methodology.
I an not pro-Fundamentalist, and I am pro culture. To that extent, I am in agreement with you. My dispute is primarily (if not purely) methodological. I'm surprised (should I be?) that you won't concede my point.
I spend a fair amount of time promoting genuine education and culture (as my activities at my educational institution would indicate) and it is precisely because of my concern for such things that I don't like to alienate or offend people unnecessarily. I wonder how much time and effort you spend in try to convert the Philistines you rail against (the one's you are in personal contact with). It's quite possible that you are very friendly and caring to such people in person, and genuinely and humbly try to cultivate proper sensibilites in them, but if you are like that, it does not show up on your blog, and that is, to me an obvious, weakness.
As I do spend time trying to get products of the barbaric evangelical sub-culture to appreciate true culture, which includes long conversations with unwary or unconvinced freshmen, I think how we present our case if important.
Out of curiosity, what offensive metaphor did I use (one of my teachers who I meet every fortnight for a tutorial encourages me to use more metaphors in my writing, and I didn't even realize I did so; it would be a shame if it went to waste, even if I have to retract it)?
By the way, I appreciate your disagreement, but since it does not come in the form of a response to my arguments, I'm forced to dismiss your disagreement as I rejected your original methodology.
I an not pro-Fundamentalist, and I am pro culture. To that extent, I am in agreement with you. My dispute is primarily (if not purely) methodological. I'm surprised (should I be?) that you won't concede my point.
I spend a fair amount of time promoting genuine education and culture (as my activities at my educational institution would indicate) and it is precisely because of my concern for such things that I don't like to alienate or offend people unnecessarily. I wonder how much time and effort you spend in try to convert the Philistines you rail against (the one's you are in personal contact with). It's quite possible that you are very friendly and caring to such people in person, and genuinely and humbly try to cultivate proper sensibilites in them, but if you are like that, it does not show up on your blog, and that is, to me an obvious, weakness.
As I do spend time trying to get products of the barbaric evangelical sub-culture to appreciate true culture, which includes long conversations with unwary or unconvinced freshmen, I think how we present our case if important.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 13:23 35 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, I’d say the last paragraph of comment #12 isn’t going to endear you to anyone.
I didn’t answer you directly because I’m afraid you’re going to pull a muscle trying to force your point. No, I don’t concede your point at all.
I can put to bed any doubts about how much time I spend converting philistines: none.
Never again.
I’m not trying to humor them, amuse them, cajole them, interest them…. Jesus attached a pretty clear command to a pretty vivid image of pearls and swine.
I didn’t answer you directly because I’m afraid you’re going to pull a muscle trying to force your point. No, I don’t concede your point at all.
I can put to bed any doubts about how much time I spend converting philistines: none.
Never again.
I’m not trying to humor them, amuse them, cajole them, interest them…. Jesus attached a pretty clear command to a pretty vivid image of pearls and swine.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 15:15 36 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
"I can put to bed any doubts about how much time I spend converting philistines: none.
Never again.
I’m not trying to humor them, amuse them, cajole them, interest them…. Jesus attached a pretty clear command to a pretty vivid image of pearls and swine."
How disgusting. Jesus was talking about the Gospel, and only a deeply misled fool would equate culture with the Gospel.
The last comment of #12 was a barb intentionally directed at one of your cronies and hardly inappropriate, as your own lips bear the mark of you rear-end (e.g. you seem unable to go for very long without contrasting yourself and your own taste with your opponents).
I am committed, and committing my life to, education, which means helping others. People are not born cultured, and I am willing to try to help others attain some modicum of culture because I believe that would culture affords and means is very important.
You clearly have no such committment, given your grossly scornful attitude.
Never again.
I’m not trying to humor them, amuse them, cajole them, interest them…. Jesus attached a pretty clear command to a pretty vivid image of pearls and swine."
How disgusting. Jesus was talking about the Gospel, and only a deeply misled fool would equate culture with the Gospel.
The last comment of #12 was a barb intentionally directed at one of your cronies and hardly inappropriate, as your own lips bear the mark of you rear-end (e.g. you seem unable to go for very long without contrasting yourself and your own taste with your opponents).
I am committed, and committing my life to, education, which means helping others. People are not born cultured, and I am willing to try to help others attain some modicum of culture because I believe that would culture affords and means is very important.
You clearly have no such committment, given your grossly scornful attitude.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 18:10 37 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
That’s interesting.
Matthew 7:6 is talking about the Gospel and when not to offer it?
Matthew 7:6 is talking about the Gospel and when not to offer it?
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 18:24 38 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
Primarily, yes, I think "Do not give dogs what is holy," refers to revelation, and, specifically the Gospel. I think passages like Luke 10 illustrate the idea of the command.
Certainlys "pearls before swine" is a now-common proverb, but your usage seem quite obviously to intend the authority of Scripture, in which culture would have to be what is "holy," and uncultured people would have to be "dogs," which is not something I believe one can legitimately get out of the text.
Certainlys "pearls before swine" is a now-common proverb, but your usage seem quite obviously to intend the authority of Scripture, in which culture would have to be what is "holy," and uncultured people would have to be "dogs," which is not something I believe one can legitimately get out of the text.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 18:47 39 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
Jesus had been talking about judging not, and removing your own beam before offering to remove your brother's speck. If verse 6 is still part of that context, then He was still talking about confronting a brother's sin. Otherwise, verse 6 is a new context and would be taken to refer to anything that is holy, and anything of value.
Regardless, the imagery of casting pearls before swine conveys the idea of offering something precious to a creature that not only prefers and expects something altogether different, but is also incapable of appreciating the thing of value. The pig wants slop, the pig gets pearls, the pig gets angry.
The simplest application would be not to try to teach anything to someone incapable of learning. It could include sound doctrine, but also any wise counsel offered to anyone who will only be angered by it.
It's the turning and tearing that reminds of Matthew 7:6, not the replacement of "gospel" with "culture" you suppose.
I'd also like to point out that "railer" comes just before "drunkard" in 1 Cor 5:11.
Regardless, the imagery of casting pearls before swine conveys the idea of offering something precious to a creature that not only prefers and expects something altogether different, but is also incapable of appreciating the thing of value. The pig wants slop, the pig gets pearls, the pig gets angry.
The simplest application would be not to try to teach anything to someone incapable of learning. It could include sound doctrine, but also any wise counsel offered to anyone who will only be angered by it.
It's the turning and tearing that reminds of Matthew 7:6, not the replacement of "gospel" with "culture" you suppose.
I'd also like to point out that "railer" comes just before "drunkard" in 1 Cor 5:11.
Permalink
03/16/08 @ 23:00 40 Comment from: Watchman [Visitor]
I'd love to go back to Brian's post at #23 and ask for the basis on which we assume that God accepts both Bach's and Soundforth's "offerings." Perhaps we could summon the ghost of Cain to judge the presentations of answers.
Permalink
03/17/08 @ 05:39 41 Comment from: victor eremita [Visitor]
Dan,
It isn't clearly part of that context, as you'll notice if you have a Bible that has paragraphs breaks. If it is, I would be interested to see how it's related to judging others. It's seems like a separate thought, just as much of the Sermon on the Mount is very proverbial in its form, and does not rely on developinga an extended argument (much, not all, of it).
The pearls before swine comments comes after the "holy before dogs," command, and so that is its context that we interpret it. Structurally, "do not give dogs what is holy" and " do not throw your pearls before swine" seems to be parallelism, with the second clause affirming and expanding the same though expresses in the first. So, again, one can treat "pearls before swine" as a general proverb or maxim, expressing sound advice, but in its immediate context, we're not left without a pretty clear suggestion as to what "pearls" are, namely, those things that are "holy," which is why Luke 10 seems to me to illustrate the principle very well. Jesus' commands are based on the idea that we ought not present the Gospel to city or people that has demonstrate that they are dogs and swine.
It isn't clearly part of that context, as you'll notice if you have a Bible that has paragraphs breaks. If it is, I would be interested to see how it's related to judging others. It's seems like a separate thought, just as much of the Sermon on the Mount is very proverbial in its form, and does not rely on developinga an extended argument (much, not all, of it).
The pearls before swine comments comes after the "holy before dogs," command, and so that is its context that we interpret it. Structurally, "do not give dogs what is holy" and " do not throw your pearls before swine" seems to be parallelism, with the second clause affirming and expanding the same though expresses in the first. So, again, one can treat "pearls before swine" as a general proverb or maxim, expressing sound advice, but in its immediate context, we're not left without a pretty clear suggestion as to what "pearls" are, namely, those things that are "holy," which is why Luke 10 seems to me to illustrate the principle very well. Jesus' commands are based on the idea that we ought not present the Gospel to city or people that has demonstrate that they are dogs and swine.
Permalink
03/17/08 @ 06:42 42 Comment from: lilrabbi [Visitor]
Don't you have paragraph breaks, Dissidens? Obviously.
So we are commanded not to give the gospel to groups of people? Jesus said something a little different before he left, I think.
So we are commanded not to give the gospel to groups of people? Jesus said something a little different before he left, I think.