Recent Posts
Kevin T. Bauder [This essay was originally published on February 27, 2009.] Conservative Christians recognize [more]
We're looking forward to our conference and retreat in March at the Wilds Camp and [more]
"Why this waste?", said the greediest member of the Twelve. Judas' supposed concern with helping [more]
Last week in our discussion of Psalm 130 for today, we saw that this is [more]
In Galatians 3:6–9, Paul supports the truth that God declares one righteous by faith alone [more]

Rap and Bad Art

An oldie, but a goodie, from Frank Turk, that addresses the very kinds of arguments currently displayed on this site.

There really is nothing new under the sun…

Scott Aniol

About Scott Aniol

Scott Aniol is the founder and Executive Director of Religious Affections Ministries. He is Chair of the Worship Ministry Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he teaches courses in ministry, worship, hymnology, aesthetics, culture, and philosophy. He is the author of Worship in Song: A Biblical Approach to Music and Worship, Sound Worship: A Guide to Making Musical Choices in a Noisy World, and By the Waters of Babylon: Worship in a Post-Christian Cutlure, and speaks around the country in churches and conferences. He is an elder in his church in Fort Worth, TX where he resides with his wife and three children.

READ
Discussion about Christian rap with Shai Linne: Subjectivity

4 Responses to Rap and Bad Art

  1. Scott, I think we have dealt with some of these arguments in our comments already.

    “not one moral credit to be made to porn in any circumstance” – certainly not to its intended use (lustful gazing). Yet, I gave the example of using it to pin down child abusers. Now this is a borderline case since the intended use is so obvious but for many other ‘things’, their moral/immoral use options will not be as obviously tilted to one side.

    “vigilantism, promiscuity, robbery, envy” – ahem, sorry, these are… THINGS? Clearly, they are actions! (envy is a bad thought)

    “what is expressed must in its own right be representative of what is true”
    And then you have it: he believes there is bad music. So do I. Too bad Frank never seems to have written his post on “Is all bad art a moral offense?”

    You could not ask him about that, could you?

  2. Martin, what are you saying here? It seems like more of a distraction from the issue at hand, rather than proving or disproving Frank’s argument. There is not much profit from these types of arguments.

    Blessings,
    \Reuben

  3. These are comments on the full articles (off this site). What I am saying is the arguments Frank uses do not take into account the distinction between thing and act and apply morality indiscriminately to both. I’m not trying to distract – sorry of it looks like that.

Leave a reply