Solos are essential for drummers to practice. Solos incorporate higher creativity into the skills of the drummer. These in turn help for more colorful fills and rhythms in songs. All drummers should be able to do solos in any song, which means that solos ought to be commonly and widely practiced.
Drummers should practice solos of various styles. There are two types of solos—rhythmic and instrumental—and there are many different styles—jazz and rock, for example—and all of which ought to be practiced by any drummer. Drummers should practice all styles and not become one-style wonders. Good drummers are not limited to one particular style of music, but can play well in all kinds of styles, though they might specialize in one or two. Since many praise songs come from various styles, it is therefore imperative for drummers to be familiar with as many styles as they can if they want to be effective in their roles for bands. Rock drummers should learn how to drum to rap. Rap drummers should learn how to drum to country. Country drummers should learn how to drum to jazz. The list goes on and the scenario continues: each drummer should not simply rest in the respective style that one has become familiar with, but should venture out into realms that are uncomfortable if he or she wants to become a great drummer.
Within each style comes a different way to do solos. Once the style has been grasped, the drummer should also learn how to do solos to that style, both in rhythmic or instrumental. By rhythmic solos I mean those solos primarily comprised of complex and free rhythms, although it can incorporate all the instruments available to the drummer, and by instrumental solos I mean those solos primarily consisting of complex fills and accents with little or no systematic rhythm. Jazz is famous for its instrumental solos, for example, while rap is full of rhythmic solos. Drummers should be able to do both and be able to do both in a wide variety of genres.
When a drummer is capable to play many styles and solo within them, then they will be well-equipped for drumming in a band, especially for bands that incorporate several different styles into the songs, because he or she will be versatile and creative, not rigid and stale. Indeed, there is nothing worse than a drummer who cannot play in anything but, for example, a heavy metal and hard rock style, especially when the song being performed is a ballad! Nor is there anything worse than a drummer who does the same beat and fills over and over throughout every song!
Therefore, drummers need to learn essential creativity. Solos are imperative. This feature is something bands ought to look for. When a drummer is auditioning for the band, the leaders performing the audition should take note as to the creativity of the drummer. Is the drummer doing the same crash accents over and over? The same fills? The same rhythms? Affirmative answers to such questions are a good indication of rigid and stale drummers.
Drummers who want to get good or who want to improve need to venture out into unlearned territory, and to not only master that style to a certain degree, but also how to respectively solo within it.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Drumming Philosophy 2: sets and improv
Music sets are great if the time for practicing them is affordable. A drummer should be able, however, to improvise within the set at a moment’s notice.
Drummers should be able to practice with the band and work on a set. Set drumming is all about practicing as a team, getting the set of songs down as a team, and working out the kinks as a team, making sure that all of the parts fit together to a planned end. What would happen, however, if the drummer, after practicing the set and the morning of the service or performance, got extremely ill and could not participate?
Some teams have more than one drummer come to practice for instances like this. However, most teams do not have that luxury, which is where improv drumming comes into effect.
Drummers should not only be able to do set pieces, but they should also be able to do improv as well. Drummers should be able to be called in an emergency to fill in for the team with very little practice if any at all. As one can imagine, this requires a great amount of knowledge of songs and a great deal of talent as well. Drummers should be able to feel the pulse and rhythm of the song so that they do not have to rely on practice to know where the song is going. Although practice is helpful, it should not be necessary for a drummer to provide the necessary rhythm and direction for the song. Drummers should be able to determine where the song is going musically just by hearing the tone of the lead singer’s voice and/or watching the body language of the lead electric guitarist, for example. There are visual as well as tonal cues that drummers should be able to pick up for improv drumming.
Therefore, when a band is finding drummers to participate, they really ought to find drummers who can do both, but honestly they should be weary of drummers who can only do sets, because those who can only do sets are only valuable when they can practice with the team, but those who can do improv can also do sets. If the band cannot find a drummer who can do improv, then they need to have at least two drummers at every practice session, which will make for some long practices if the drummers are going to take turns at each song to learn the material.
Drummers should be able to do both set pieces and improvisations. Sometimes there isn’t enough practice time given, so a drummer should be able to pick up on what’s going on in the songs quickly in such cases. Improv drumming is therefore absolutely essential for all drummers if they want to be effective in their role in the band.
Drummers should be able to practice with the band and work on a set. Set drumming is all about practicing as a team, getting the set of songs down as a team, and working out the kinks as a team, making sure that all of the parts fit together to a planned end. What would happen, however, if the drummer, after practicing the set and the morning of the service or performance, got extremely ill and could not participate?
Some teams have more than one drummer come to practice for instances like this. However, most teams do not have that luxury, which is where improv drumming comes into effect.
Drummers should not only be able to do set pieces, but they should also be able to do improv as well. Drummers should be able to be called in an emergency to fill in for the team with very little practice if any at all. As one can imagine, this requires a great amount of knowledge of songs and a great deal of talent as well. Drummers should be able to feel the pulse and rhythm of the song so that they do not have to rely on practice to know where the song is going. Although practice is helpful, it should not be necessary for a drummer to provide the necessary rhythm and direction for the song. Drummers should be able to determine where the song is going musically just by hearing the tone of the lead singer’s voice and/or watching the body language of the lead electric guitarist, for example. There are visual as well as tonal cues that drummers should be able to pick up for improv drumming.
Therefore, when a band is finding drummers to participate, they really ought to find drummers who can do both, but honestly they should be weary of drummers who can only do sets, because those who can only do sets are only valuable when they can practice with the team, but those who can do improv can also do sets. If the band cannot find a drummer who can do improv, then they need to have at least two drummers at every practice session, which will make for some long practices if the drummers are going to take turns at each song to learn the material.
Drummers should be able to do both set pieces and improvisations. Sometimes there isn’t enough practice time given, so a drummer should be able to pick up on what’s going on in the songs quickly in such cases. Improv drumming is therefore absolutely essential for all drummers if they want to be effective in their role in the band.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Drumming Philosophy 1: less is more
Less is more. What does that mean? It means that when drummers get too fancy and complicated, they crowd themselves out of the songs they are playing in. It means that drummers need to keep it simple, because something simple goes a lot further in the overall sound of the band or team. It means less complicated drumming is more valuable to the sound of the band. Here are several reasons why:
First, complicated rhythms, particularly beats on the bass drum, become indistinguishable, and therefore make the quality of the beat less handsome.
Second, complicated fills, particularly with snares and toms, become indistinguishable, and therefore make the fill out of place in and lack direction for the band.
Third, complicated drumming as a whole, though its intentions are good, seem to focus the attention on the drummer, not on the purpose of the band, and it typically detracts from the sound of the band.
Now, what do I mean when I say, “complicated drumming?” Complicated drumming is a mixture of complex fills primarily consisting of rolls and jazz-style accents on the snare and toms with over-the-top bass drum accents in the beats. The fills kind of blend together and it becomes difficult to the uncritical ear to distinguish what is going on in that extra bit of flare. The bass notes overpower the pulse of the song and seem to phase out the rhythm with too much utilization. Such things are “complicated drumming.”
Drummers, including those involved in musical ministries, ought to always remember to keep it simple (generally speaking, of course) and that less is more, which means that complex fills and bass accents should be used sparingly.
First, complicated rhythms, particularly beats on the bass drum, become indistinguishable, and therefore make the quality of the beat less handsome.
Second, complicated fills, particularly with snares and toms, become indistinguishable, and therefore make the fill out of place in and lack direction for the band.
Third, complicated drumming as a whole, though its intentions are good, seem to focus the attention on the drummer, not on the purpose of the band, and it typically detracts from the sound of the band.
Now, what do I mean when I say, “complicated drumming?” Complicated drumming is a mixture of complex fills primarily consisting of rolls and jazz-style accents on the snare and toms with over-the-top bass drum accents in the beats. The fills kind of blend together and it becomes difficult to the uncritical ear to distinguish what is going on in that extra bit of flare. The bass notes overpower the pulse of the song and seem to phase out the rhythm with too much utilization. Such things are “complicated drumming.”
Drummers, including those involved in musical ministries, ought to always remember to keep it simple (generally speaking, of course) and that less is more, which means that complex fills and bass accents should be used sparingly.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Drumming Philosophy
I am setting out to do a series on the philosophy of drumming. I don’t know how many drummers there are who read this blog, but the information might be useful to all those involved in musical ministries, including those who do not play the drums.
As a drummer of more than a decade, I have had plenty of experience playing for praise teams and youth bands since I was in the 6th grade. It might not seem like I have been playing for a long time, but I started at an early age, and I have played and practiced drums more than any other hobby, including video games and soccer.
Obviously, drumming is my hobby—or at least it was—but now that I am married and living in a house that is not able to hold the space of my drum set, I had to sell my drums and I have not been able to play since this past summer when I filled in as an emergency drummer for my church’s junior high youth band. Yet, even though I do not have my own kit anymore, the passion is still there.
I have noticed several things about drummers in musical ministries throughout my experience as a drummer. I am overly critical when it comes to musical ministries, given that it is extremely important to me and I have had much of my own experience in it, so I have room to talk. This series, then, is going to highlight some of my criticisms of and give some suggestions for the philosophy of drumming within the context of musical ministries.
As a drummer of more than a decade, I have had plenty of experience playing for praise teams and youth bands since I was in the 6th grade. It might not seem like I have been playing for a long time, but I started at an early age, and I have played and practiced drums more than any other hobby, including video games and soccer.
Obviously, drumming is my hobby—or at least it was—but now that I am married and living in a house that is not able to hold the space of my drum set, I had to sell my drums and I have not been able to play since this past summer when I filled in as an emergency drummer for my church’s junior high youth band. Yet, even though I do not have my own kit anymore, the passion is still there.
I have noticed several things about drummers in musical ministries throughout my experience as a drummer. I am overly critical when it comes to musical ministries, given that it is extremely important to me and I have had much of my own experience in it, so I have room to talk. This series, then, is going to highlight some of my criticisms of and give some suggestions for the philosophy of drumming within the context of musical ministries.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Communion and Thanksgiving
I had the opportunity to run detention on Tuesday where I work for a small group of 6-8th grade students after school but before the 5-day weekend. Needless to say, the students were jittery, and for some reason or another, they had a bad case of the giggles. Normally, they are required to sit in their silence, which is absolutely painful for them to do, yet they have proven quite capable to do it. However, since they were out of school and on the cusp of heading home for a short break from school, it is no wonder that they just could not fulfill what was demanded of them. So, I changed plans.
I figured that because we are celebrating Thanksgiving this week, I could teach them something about Christianity and its relationship to this national holiday. I did--and I taught them the relationship between communion and thanksgiving, and how that relationship impacts us as Christians while we celebrate Thanksgiving.
I asked the students a question about communion. When I asked them what communion was, they answered that it is eating bread and grape juice. I probed further, asking, "What do those mean?"
The students responded, saying that the bread symbolizes the body of Christ and the grape juice symbolizes the blood of Christ. Still, I inquired again, questioning, "Together, what do those symbolize?"
The students thought for a moment, and several of them shouted out a very uncertain, "Remembering?"
I affirmed them, but I pushed even further, and I asked, "Remembering what?"
The students answered, saying, "What Christ did for us."
Again, I affirmed them, but I added to that statement. I said, "Yes, communion is all about remembering what Christ did for us on the cross, and that through the cross event we can have eternal life."
I allowed that statement to sink in before I moved back into the remembering idea. I made the connection between communion and the eucharist for the students, because given their background, they would not have heard of the "eucharist," only "communion." Without going into any details, I told them that we get the word communion from eucharistô, which means "to give thanks." (Remember, they are not exegetes or Greek students, so I didn't want to get them lost in the details; I know what I told them was not entirely accurate, but it was sufficient for my point that I was about to make.) I told them that communion used to be a thanksgiving meal, but now we have reduced it to a thanksgiving crumb and sip, and yet it is still all about thanksgiving. It is thanksgiving for the cross event and that God had made eternal life available to us through that cross event. It is thanksgiving for the fact that Jesus Christ died for us on the cross so that we can have eternal life. Communion is a symbolic statement of thanksgiving to Jesus Christ.
How appropriate, then, that we should at this time of Thanksgiving, a national holiday, remember to thank Jesus Christ for what he has done for us through the cross. I challenged the students to do this very thing--to take the time this Thanksgiving to thank God for sending his Son to die for us on the cross, thereby making it possible for us to have eternal life--and now I am making it yours and mine as well.
I figured that because we are celebrating Thanksgiving this week, I could teach them something about Christianity and its relationship to this national holiday. I did--and I taught them the relationship between communion and thanksgiving, and how that relationship impacts us as Christians while we celebrate Thanksgiving.
I asked the students a question about communion. When I asked them what communion was, they answered that it is eating bread and grape juice. I probed further, asking, "What do those mean?"
The students responded, saying that the bread symbolizes the body of Christ and the grape juice symbolizes the blood of Christ. Still, I inquired again, questioning, "Together, what do those symbolize?"
The students thought for a moment, and several of them shouted out a very uncertain, "Remembering?"
I affirmed them, but I pushed even further, and I asked, "Remembering what?"
The students answered, saying, "What Christ did for us."
Again, I affirmed them, but I added to that statement. I said, "Yes, communion is all about remembering what Christ did for us on the cross, and that through the cross event we can have eternal life."
I allowed that statement to sink in before I moved back into the remembering idea. I made the connection between communion and the eucharist for the students, because given their background, they would not have heard of the "eucharist," only "communion." Without going into any details, I told them that we get the word communion from eucharistô, which means "to give thanks." (Remember, they are not exegetes or Greek students, so I didn't want to get them lost in the details; I know what I told them was not entirely accurate, but it was sufficient for my point that I was about to make.) I told them that communion used to be a thanksgiving meal, but now we have reduced it to a thanksgiving crumb and sip, and yet it is still all about thanksgiving. It is thanksgiving for the cross event and that God had made eternal life available to us through that cross event. It is thanksgiving for the fact that Jesus Christ died for us on the cross so that we can have eternal life. Communion is a symbolic statement of thanksgiving to Jesus Christ.
How appropriate, then, that we should at this time of Thanksgiving, a national holiday, remember to thank Jesus Christ for what he has done for us through the cross. I challenged the students to do this very thing--to take the time this Thanksgiving to thank God for sending his Son to die for us on the cross, thereby making it possible for us to have eternal life--and now I am making it yours and mine as well.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
The Impossibility of Outlining 1 John
Many have tried to yield an outline of logical thought to the composition of the first epistle of John in the New Testament. However, there has not been a wide concensus on any of the proposed outlines. Some have proposed that it ought to be outlined in the same fashion as the Fourth Gospel and in tandem with the two keys of 1 John--God is light and God is love. One has posited (not proposed) an outline of 1 John in terms of fellowship.
Charles C. Ryrie gives his fellowship outline in his study Bible. It appears as follows on pages 1990-91:
The problem that I have with this outline is that it takes for granted one of the purposes of the letter: that the readers (or hearers) might know that they have eternal life. As indicated in my other posts, Tell Tale Truths to Being a Christian and Tell Tale Truths Reloaded, the purpose of the letter is all about making John's and the Apostles' joy complete by enabling the believers to know that they have eternal life. John then sets out in this epistle to give them some signs to identify that they are true believers and therefore can rest assured that they do in fact have eternal life. Ryrie's outline, however, fails to note this purpose, stopping only at making John's and the Apostle's joy complete. What exactly in writing "these things" would make their joy complete? And this question is not the only problem with his outline.
To be picky, the subdivision of the Conduct of Fellowship, The Commandment for Our Conduct--Separation, for 2:12-17, does not work with vv. 12-14. It does, however, work with vv. 15ff. Verses 12-14 have nothing to do with separation; rather, John is identifying some more purposes for which he is writing his words. He writes because his readers have been forgiven of their sins, because they know God, because they have overcome the evil one, and because God's word abides in them. The command to be separate from the world seemingly has no ties to these purpose statements. How then can we file or organize vv. 12-14 under the sub-division of Separation in 2:12-17? It just does not work.
All in all, there are some things in Ryrie's outline that can be helpful, but as a whole it just does not work because it fails to consider the true and full purpose of the letter, and it makes blanket headings for large sections that contain various strands that do not belong there.
Yet, I think it is possible to see some sort of flow in 1 John without being able to outline the text as a whole. Perhaps when we take into account the full purpose of the epistle and see how it is worked out within the text we will then be able to understand the logical flow of John, with the exception of, perhaps, the last section of chapter 5, which really is hard to see any logical coherence.
As already noted in my last post on the tell tale truths inherent in 1 John, there are roughly 60 tell tale signs in the epistle, which works out to be one every other verse on average in 1 John. The majority of the tell tale signs are positive, although a healthy amount of them are negative. So, when we examine the epistle in light of this information, we find that as we step back from the text that John is giving them several ways to determine that they are true believers and therefore possessors of eternal life. The following are the relationship topics by which the readers can put their lives to the test:
Looking at these relational tell tale signs, could love be the central marker of a believer and as one who has eternal life? It appears so, and it is obviously of foremost importance to John in this epistle, and it therefore ought to be juxtaposed with any portion of the text of the epistle being studied.
Yes, it really is impossible to outline 1 John. We can make stretches and force blanket outlines on the text, but there is too much disjunct involved to really make it work. Some arguments and propositions are better than others, but the reality is that 1 John does not follow a planned-out logical thought, although the text seems to flow well enough for the most part. However, when we bear in mind the full purpose of the epistle, we are able to see that love is the premier theme, and all of 1 John ought to be read in light of the importance of that theme in John's mind.
Charles C. Ryrie gives his fellowship outline in his study Bible. It appears as follows on pages 1990-91:
- Introduction: The Purpose of the Letter. 1:1-4
- Conditions for Fellowship. 1:5-2:2
- Conformity to a Standard, 1:5-7
- Confession of Sin, 1:8-2:2
- Conformity to a Standard, 1:5-7
- Conduct in Fellowship. 2:3-27
- The Character of Our Conduct--Imitation, 2:3-11
- The commandment for Our Conduct--Separation, 2:12-17
- The Creed for Our Conduct--Affirmation, 2:18-27
- The Character of Our Conduct--Imitation, 2:3-11
- Characteristics of Fellowship. 2:28-3:24
- In Relation to Our Prospect: Purity, 2:28-3:3
- In Relation to Our Position: Righteousness and Brotherly Love, 3:4-18
- In Relation to Our Prayers: Answers, 3:19-24
- In Relation to Our Prospect: Purity, 2:28-3:3
- Cautions of Fellowship. 4:1-21
- Concerning False, Lying Spirits, 4:1-6
- Concerning a True, Loving Spirit, 4:7-21
- The ground of brotherly love, 4:7-10
- The glories of love, 4:11-21
- The ground of brotherly love, 4:7-10
- Concerning False, Lying Spirits, 4:1-6
- Consequences of Fellowship. 5:1-21
- Love for the Brethren, 5:1-3
- Victory over the World, 5:4-5
- Verification of Christ's Credentials, 5:6-12
- Assurance of Eternal Life, 5:13
- Guidance in Prayer, 5:14-17
- Freedom from Habitual Sin, 5:18-21
- Love for the Brethren, 5:1-3
The problem that I have with this outline is that it takes for granted one of the purposes of the letter: that the readers (or hearers) might know that they have eternal life. As indicated in my other posts, Tell Tale Truths to Being a Christian and Tell Tale Truths Reloaded, the purpose of the letter is all about making John's and the Apostles' joy complete by enabling the believers to know that they have eternal life. John then sets out in this epistle to give them some signs to identify that they are true believers and therefore can rest assured that they do in fact have eternal life. Ryrie's outline, however, fails to note this purpose, stopping only at making John's and the Apostle's joy complete. What exactly in writing "these things" would make their joy complete? And this question is not the only problem with his outline.
To be picky, the subdivision of the Conduct of Fellowship, The Commandment for Our Conduct--Separation, for 2:12-17, does not work with vv. 12-14. It does, however, work with vv. 15ff. Verses 12-14 have nothing to do with separation; rather, John is identifying some more purposes for which he is writing his words. He writes because his readers have been forgiven of their sins, because they know God, because they have overcome the evil one, and because God's word abides in them. The command to be separate from the world seemingly has no ties to these purpose statements. How then can we file or organize vv. 12-14 under the sub-division of Separation in 2:12-17? It just does not work.
All in all, there are some things in Ryrie's outline that can be helpful, but as a whole it just does not work because it fails to consider the true and full purpose of the letter, and it makes blanket headings for large sections that contain various strands that do not belong there.
Yet, I think it is possible to see some sort of flow in 1 John without being able to outline the text as a whole. Perhaps when we take into account the full purpose of the epistle and see how it is worked out within the text we will then be able to understand the logical flow of John, with the exception of, perhaps, the last section of chapter 5, which really is hard to see any logical coherence.
As already noted in my last post on the tell tale truths inherent in 1 John, there are roughly 60 tell tale signs in the epistle, which works out to be one every other verse on average in 1 John. The majority of the tell tale signs are positive, although a healthy amount of them are negative. So, when we examine the epistle in light of this information, we find that as we step back from the text that John is giving them several ways to determine that they are true believers and therefore possessors of eternal life. The following are the relationship topics by which the readers can put their lives to the test:
- God, 1:5-7
- Sin, 1:8-2:2; 3:4-10; 5:16-18
- Commandment keeping/abiding, 2:3-8, 28-3:3
- Love
- Love/hate, 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21
- Love/world, 2:15-17; 5:4-5; 5:19
- Love/confidence, 3:19-21; 5:14-15
- Love/belief, 5:1-3
- Love/hate, 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7-21
- Antichrists, 2:18-20, 22-23; 4:1-6
- The Gospel Message, 2:24-25
- Jesus, 5:6-12, 20
- Idols, 5:21
Looking at these relational tell tale signs, could love be the central marker of a believer and as one who has eternal life? It appears so, and it is obviously of foremost importance to John in this epistle, and it therefore ought to be juxtaposed with any portion of the text of the epistle being studied.
Yes, it really is impossible to outline 1 John. We can make stretches and force blanket outlines on the text, but there is too much disjunct involved to really make it work. Some arguments and propositions are better than others, but the reality is that 1 John does not follow a planned-out logical thought, although the text seems to flow well enough for the most part. However, when we bear in mind the full purpose of the epistle, we are able to see that love is the premier theme, and all of 1 John ought to be read in light of the importance of that theme in John's mind.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Language, Christians and Culture
Piggy-backing on my previous post regarding Christian speech, I want to note something that will be very challenging to many American Christians that approaches language and speech from a cultural perspective. Words and their meanings have to be understood in the culture that it is used. In one culture, words mean one thing, but in a different culture, they can mean something else entirely.
As such, if Christians are to refrain from cussing, then should that mean that they should keep from the swear words of that culture and the swear words of others? My question, then, is how will they know they have kept from every single different swear word from all cultures combined? It would be impossible to do this, because the meanings for words are very much cultural, and depending on the culture that you live in will determine how you understand words and their meanings.
Therefore, what right do we have to say that the swear words that we are accustomed to are the only words that are off limits? What right do we have to say that all swear words in all cultures are off limits? What right do we have to say that one particular word is off limits here, but in another cultural context it is perfectly acceptable? This is inconsistant, and it is nonsense.
I believe that the Bible is not concerned with the semantics of words, but only with the use of words. In this way, it is not limited to any one particular culture, but rather it is able to speak to all cultures throughout all time. If it were concerned with semantics, then it would be limited to the cultural context of the First Century. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, it is not concerned with semantics, and since all cultures have ways of using words to tear people down, the Bible is able to speak to all people in that no matter how we view words of any kind they ought not to be used to destroy each other.
As such, if Christians are to refrain from cussing, then should that mean that they should keep from the swear words of that culture and the swear words of others? My question, then, is how will they know they have kept from every single different swear word from all cultures combined? It would be impossible to do this, because the meanings for words are very much cultural, and depending on the culture that you live in will determine how you understand words and their meanings.
Therefore, what right do we have to say that the swear words that we are accustomed to are the only words that are off limits? What right do we have to say that all swear words in all cultures are off limits? What right do we have to say that one particular word is off limits here, but in another cultural context it is perfectly acceptable? This is inconsistant, and it is nonsense.
I believe that the Bible is not concerned with the semantics of words, but only with the use of words. In this way, it is not limited to any one particular culture, but rather it is able to speak to all cultures throughout all time. If it were concerned with semantics, then it would be limited to the cultural context of the First Century. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, it is not concerned with semantics, and since all cultures have ways of using words to tear people down, the Bible is able to speak to all people in that no matter how we view words of any kind they ought not to be used to destroy each other.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Christians and Language: the biblical perspective on Christian speech
When I was a freshman in high school, I had a history teacher who asked this question: is cussing wrong? This query turned out to be a loaded question. The class, which I was in, responded, "Yes."
He responded with another question. He asked, "Can you show me in the Bible where it says that?"
We showed him a couple of passages of Scripture, like Colossians 3:8, where Paul addresses filthy language, Ephesians 4:29, where Paul talks about unwholesome talk, and Ephesians 5:4, where Paul prohibits against obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking.
Again, he responded with yet another question. He probed, "What constitutes filthy language, unwholesome talk, obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking?"
I think I responded inwardly with ideas that we ought to participate in things that are pure and noble (Phil. 4:8), and be associated with the light and not with the darkness (Jn. 1 and 1 Thess. 5). However, I really did not have a good grasp of the biblical perspective on language at that time, nor did I have a good understanding of the contexts of the aforementioned passages given to the teacher.
I do not regard myself as an expert on the field, but I have a better grasp now than I did when I was first asked those questions. I would like to share what I have learned since then, because for me it has been a challenging though freeing journey.
Colossians 3:8 prohibits abusive language; Ephesians 4:29 prohibits destructive language; Ephesians 5:4 prohibits facetious language. Colossians speaks out against language that is used to hurt someone. The Greek word for filthy language, aischrologia, is obscene speech that is used to "flavor derogatory remarks" (BDAG). Filthy language, then, is any language that is specifically used to abuse someone. The first case on speech in Ephesians speaks out against language used to destroy--destruct--rather than construct. In Greek, the word for unwholesome talk, sapros, which is literally rendered as "rotten," carries the idea that it is "bad or unwholesome to the extent of being harmful" (BDAG). Unwholesome talk, then, is any language used to harm someone as opposed to building them up. The second case on speech in Ephesians speaks out against language that does not take sin seriously, particularly fornication, impurity and greed. The context of the passage clearly indicates that Christians should not make light of such sin by casually referencing it in crude jokes or vulgar speech, especially if obscene. The Greek is clearly identified here, so it wouldn't really help to point out the vocabulary. The point is that Christians should not partake in shameful jesting about sin.
So, with this in mind, let's turn back to the original question.
Biblically speaking, we cannot claim that swear words are prohibited. Filthy language and unwholesome talk really are any words, swear words or not, that are used to tear someone else down. Obscene, vulgar and coarse joking are prohibited when it takes sin lightly. This goes against what I was taught growing up, and it still bugs me a little bit. However, I can not go so far as to say that Christians should not use swear words, even though it is against my better judgment. To do so would be to go above and beyond what the Bible prohibits, and that is legalism. If it would be against my conscience to swear or cuss, then it becomes wrong for me to do so; but if a Christian can cuss without going against his conscience and without harming someone with words or making light of sin, then I cannot say that he would be in the wrong.
When all is said and done, I have to resist the desire to prohibit cussing on others. It is not my place to impose my conscience on other believers in areas where the Bible is not in opposition. Such matters are to be kept to myself (Romans 14). Furthermore, if we are to be imitators of God (Ephesians 4), then what do we do with God cursing the serpent in Genesis 3 or Jesus cursing a fig tree in Mark 11 (though this isn't to the same degree as the context of this post, Jesus' words are still a curse towards the fig tree)? If we are right when we say that filthy language means cussing, then what do we do with Philippians 3:8 where Paul uses very crude language (skubula, a very strong and crude word in Greek to the point that we have no word in English suffient enough to portray the word in our translations; at best, without stepping on anybody's toes, we can translate it as crap)? Does he contradict himself?
I think that given some of the language employed in the text of the Bible and in tandem with the contexts of the previously mentioned passages, the Bible does not prohibit cussing. It would prohibit cussing or any use of words for that matter that are used to destroy each other, and that is the bottom line.
He responded with another question. He asked, "Can you show me in the Bible where it says that?"
We showed him a couple of passages of Scripture, like Colossians 3:8, where Paul addresses filthy language, Ephesians 4:29, where Paul talks about unwholesome talk, and Ephesians 5:4, where Paul prohibits against obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking.
Again, he responded with yet another question. He probed, "What constitutes filthy language, unwholesome talk, obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking?"
I think I responded inwardly with ideas that we ought to participate in things that are pure and noble (Phil. 4:8), and be associated with the light and not with the darkness (Jn. 1 and 1 Thess. 5). However, I really did not have a good grasp of the biblical perspective on language at that time, nor did I have a good understanding of the contexts of the aforementioned passages given to the teacher.
I do not regard myself as an expert on the field, but I have a better grasp now than I did when I was first asked those questions. I would like to share what I have learned since then, because for me it has been a challenging though freeing journey.
Colossians 3:8 prohibits abusive language; Ephesians 4:29 prohibits destructive language; Ephesians 5:4 prohibits facetious language. Colossians speaks out against language that is used to hurt someone. The Greek word for filthy language, aischrologia, is obscene speech that is used to "flavor derogatory remarks" (BDAG). Filthy language, then, is any language that is specifically used to abuse someone. The first case on speech in Ephesians speaks out against language used to destroy--destruct--rather than construct. In Greek, the word for unwholesome talk, sapros, which is literally rendered as "rotten," carries the idea that it is "bad or unwholesome to the extent of being harmful" (BDAG). Unwholesome talk, then, is any language used to harm someone as opposed to building them up. The second case on speech in Ephesians speaks out against language that does not take sin seriously, particularly fornication, impurity and greed. The context of the passage clearly indicates that Christians should not make light of such sin by casually referencing it in crude jokes or vulgar speech, especially if obscene. The Greek is clearly identified here, so it wouldn't really help to point out the vocabulary. The point is that Christians should not partake in shameful jesting about sin.
So, with this in mind, let's turn back to the original question.
Biblically speaking, we cannot claim that swear words are prohibited. Filthy language and unwholesome talk really are any words, swear words or not, that are used to tear someone else down. Obscene, vulgar and coarse joking are prohibited when it takes sin lightly. This goes against what I was taught growing up, and it still bugs me a little bit. However, I can not go so far as to say that Christians should not use swear words, even though it is against my better judgment. To do so would be to go above and beyond what the Bible prohibits, and that is legalism. If it would be against my conscience to swear or cuss, then it becomes wrong for me to do so; but if a Christian can cuss without going against his conscience and without harming someone with words or making light of sin, then I cannot say that he would be in the wrong.
When all is said and done, I have to resist the desire to prohibit cussing on others. It is not my place to impose my conscience on other believers in areas where the Bible is not in opposition. Such matters are to be kept to myself (Romans 14). Furthermore, if we are to be imitators of God (Ephesians 4), then what do we do with God cursing the serpent in Genesis 3 or Jesus cursing a fig tree in Mark 11 (though this isn't to the same degree as the context of this post, Jesus' words are still a curse towards the fig tree)? If we are right when we say that filthy language means cussing, then what do we do with Philippians 3:8 where Paul uses very crude language (skubula, a very strong and crude word in Greek to the point that we have no word in English suffient enough to portray the word in our translations; at best, without stepping on anybody's toes, we can translate it as crap)? Does he contradict himself?
I think that given some of the language employed in the text of the Bible and in tandem with the contexts of the previously mentioned passages, the Bible does not prohibit cussing. It would prohibit cussing or any use of words for that matter that are used to destroy each other, and that is the bottom line.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Crap
This post is all about crap. Yup, it is one crappy post. It's not a piece of crap, but it is a piece on crap. Okay, I know, that was cheesy, but I have something I would like to posit: the meaning of crap has changed over the last several years and with its change in meaning so also did it change in use.
I would have to say that the word crap is commonly used today, not as a euphemism, but as an interjection, much in the same way that old folks interject, "Oh shoot!" when astonished: Oh crap!
What do you think? Is crap to you vulgar, crude or profane? Is crap used by you to mean nonsense or garbage and often utilized in the form of speech called interjection?
It seems to me that today's generation does in fact use it in this manner, and it is no longer used in a vulgar or crude--with their negative connotations--manner, rather, they are vulgar and crude in the denotative sense that it is a common and unsophisticated word.
So how about you? Is this word taboo?
I would have to say that the word crap is commonly used today, not as a euphemism, but as an interjection, much in the same way that old folks interject, "Oh shoot!" when astonished: Oh crap!
What do you think? Is crap to you vulgar, crude or profane? Is crap used by you to mean nonsense or garbage and often utilized in the form of speech called interjection?
It seems to me that today's generation does in fact use it in this manner, and it is no longer used in a vulgar or crude--with their negative connotations--manner, rather, they are vulgar and crude in the denotative sense that it is a common and unsophisticated word.
So how about you? Is this word taboo?
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Theology of Alcohol: concluding matters
Alcohol is in fact in the Bible and alcohol itself is not looked down upon in the Bible. What is looked down upon and commanded against in the Bible is getting drunk. We are not to get drunk as Christians. Likewise, church leaders are not to be drunkards. However, drinking a beer or a glass of wine a night is not a sin, because the Bible makes no mention that it is, though it does affirm its use in Jewish cultic worship, and yet it does indicate that the overuse of alcohol is.
The bottom line: biblically speaking, getting drunk is a sin, though drinking alcohol its self is not.
The bottom line: biblically speaking, getting drunk is a sin, though drinking alcohol its self is not.
Theology of Alcohol 10: drunkenness
Drunkenness is really looked down upon in the New Testament. Pastors and deacons are not to be drunkards or addicted to wine or given to drinking too much wine. 1 Thessalonians talks about Christians belonging to the light or day, but the wicked belong to the darkness or night. Interestingly, drunkennes is associated with the night. However, this is not what I want to look at right now; Ephesians 5 will actually serve the purpose of determining whether or not we have the right as Christians to lawfully get drunk.
In Ephesians 5 we see the light and dark language that we see in 1 Thessalonians. Christians are to be characterized by light, not darkness, because "the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true" (v. 9). Part of living in the light is discerning what the will of the Lord is (v. 17). The will of the Lord is identified in part, but not limited to, not getting drunk, which is debauchery (v. 18). Debauchery is reckless abandon (BDAG). The first command present here in the Greek is a present middle imperative negated by the Greek word, mê; this use of the imperative prohibits the continuous action of getting drunk. This prohibition is stating a general precept: don't continually get drunk.
Paul continues to say that we ought to be filled--not with wine--but with the Spirit as we sing and give thanks to God (v. 20). This statement is the second command present in the verse. This use of the imperative commands that the readers continually be filled with the Spirit. God desires that we are consumed by Him in such a way that we become entirely saturated with His Spirit. Ultimately, it is the Spirit who helps us to discern what the will of the Lord is, which contrasts the effects of drunkenness--disorientation and memory loss.
What then shall we make of this information? So I can't live a lifestyle of getting drunk, but what about the original question asked at the beginning of this series? Can I drink alcohol at all? Is drinking wine or beer a sin? Let's find out--together.
In Ephesians 5 we see the light and dark language that we see in 1 Thessalonians. Christians are to be characterized by light, not darkness, because "the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true" (v. 9). Part of living in the light is discerning what the will of the Lord is (v. 17). The will of the Lord is identified in part, but not limited to, not getting drunk, which is debauchery (v. 18). Debauchery is reckless abandon (BDAG). The first command present here in the Greek is a present middle imperative negated by the Greek word, mê; this use of the imperative prohibits the continuous action of getting drunk. This prohibition is stating a general precept: don't continually get drunk.
Paul continues to say that we ought to be filled--not with wine--but with the Spirit as we sing and give thanks to God (v. 20). This statement is the second command present in the verse. This use of the imperative commands that the readers continually be filled with the Spirit. God desires that we are consumed by Him in such a way that we become entirely saturated with His Spirit. Ultimately, it is the Spirit who helps us to discern what the will of the Lord is, which contrasts the effects of drunkenness--disorientation and memory loss.
What then shall we make of this information? So I can't live a lifestyle of getting drunk, but what about the original question asked at the beginning of this series? Can I drink alcohol at all? Is drinking wine or beer a sin? Let's find out--together.
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Paul’s Opinion on Homosexual Preaching
When it all comes down to it, whether or not you believe homosexuals can preach the good news of Jesus Christ, Paul would probably say, “Who cares! At least the gospel is being preached!” I believe this to be true because of what he says in Philippians 1:18. Paul doesn’t care if the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached by someone who has false motives or not; he rejoices in the fact that gospel is preached at all!
Two things: one, it becomes problematic to say that homosexuals can preach the gospel if you believe that homosexuality is a sin; two, even if you consider homosexuality a sin, then at the very least, “Who cares! At least the gospel is being preached!”
Two things: one, it becomes problematic to say that homosexuals can preach the gospel if you believe that homosexuality is a sin; two, even if you consider homosexuality a sin, then at the very least, “Who cares! At least the gospel is being preached!”
Sunday, November 5, 2006
A Life that is Pleasing to the Lord
Ever wondered how to live a life as a Christian that is pleasing to the Lord? Ever thought that maybe we should be trying to fulfill the Torah law-codes so that we might please God with the way we live? Colossians identifies what it is to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord in the verst 14 verses of the letter, and it spells it out for us in view of the Resurrection. We now have a post-resurrection life calling and are not bound by the Torah in order to please God. Paul identifies what will please God in vv. 9-12:
"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light" (NIV).
In vv. 10-11 the Greek text holds four participles of means that declare how we might live a life worthy of the Lord that is pleasing to him in every way. First, by bearing good works. You wanna please God? Do something good! Second, by growing in the knowledge of God. You wanna live right before God? Grow in your knowledge of Him by reading the Bible, commentaries, dictionaries, devotionals, and other helpful texts, or consider taking some classes at your local church or Christian university. Third, by being strengthened with all power. You wanna stand worthy before the Lord? Be subject to His power, for it is by His glorious might that you can have the endurance to continue on in the Lord and the patience to wait for Him. Fourth, by joyfully giving thanks. You wanna live a pleasing life before the Lord? Joyfully thank God for what he has done! God has qualifiedyou or made you adequate (BDAG) for eternal life, so give him the credit that he is due!
A life that is pleasing to the Lord is one that will live by means of doing good works, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power, and joyfully giving thanks. Are you living this life? Do these four participles characterize your life? If you want to please God, then realize and practice these.
"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light" (NIV).
In vv. 10-11 the Greek text holds four participles of means that declare how we might live a life worthy of the Lord that is pleasing to him in every way. First, by bearing good works. You wanna please God? Do something good! Second, by growing in the knowledge of God. You wanna live right before God? Grow in your knowledge of Him by reading the Bible, commentaries, dictionaries, devotionals, and other helpful texts, or consider taking some classes at your local church or Christian university. Third, by being strengthened with all power. You wanna stand worthy before the Lord? Be subject to His power, for it is by His glorious might that you can have the endurance to continue on in the Lord and the patience to wait for Him. Fourth, by joyfully giving thanks. You wanna live a pleasing life before the Lord? Joyfully thank God for what he has done! God has qualifiedyou or made you adequate (BDAG) for eternal life, so give him the credit that he is due!
A life that is pleasing to the Lord is one that will live by means of doing good works, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power, and joyfully giving thanks. Are you living this life? Do these four participles characterize your life? If you want to please God, then realize and practice these.
Friday, November 3, 2006
Calvinism vs. Arminianism: a frustration with systematic theology
I am frustrated with the categories of Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to providence. I find that both can in part be affirmed by Scripture. But given the nature of each categories claims, they cannot both be true due to the exclusivity that each holds to. Not only that, but I find that although there are some problems inherent within both, the one that is the most problematic to me is the one that is most commonly upheld. That really frustrates me, but my major qualm with these categories is this: adhering to a particular category, either Calvinism or Arminianism, for example, places a huge set of presuppositions on ourselves so that when we go to study the Bible we cannot help except to study it through them, which often results in eisogetical remarks. I find this to be highly obtrusive.
A prime example for me, here, is the story of Hezekiah, which was brought up in my theology class recently. The professor, whom I admire and enjoy learning from, told the story of Hezekiah up to the point where Hezekiah prayed and God granted his request, but stopped the story there. The professor then used the story to demonstrate how God had a plan for Hezekiah and wanted Hezekiah to ask a question so that he could grant it. I believe that the professor did this because she takes a Calvinisitic approach to the providence of God. I guess it wouldn't have gotten me so fired up if she would have addressed what I am about to say, but because she didn't, I got frustrated.
Hezekiah's story doesn't end at the grant of the request. Hezekiah lives for another 15 years, but it turned out to be the worst years of his life. So, from an Arminianist perspective, Hezekiah was told that he was going to die, and then he prayed to God wanting to live longer, so God changed his mind and granted his request. In other words, the Arminianist would look at this story and say that God had an end goal for Hezekiah, but he worked with Hezekiah's choices and requests to get to that end goal, so that he might be glorified. Meanwhile, the Calvinist would look at the story of Hezekiah and say that God had a will for Hezekiah and it was carried out in every detail of Hezekiah's life, including that Hezekiah ask for an extra 15 years of life, so that he might be glorified.
This is what happens when we openly take one category over another--we look these categories into the text when they do not belong there, and therefore we are guilty of putting words into the Bible's mouth. The author of this story was neither Calvinistic or Arminian. Such categories came several hundred years later. It is a mistake, therefore, to look such categories into the Bible. This happens all the time, and quite frankly, I don't understand how scholars have not spoken against it already. We simply cannot afford eisogetical insights of this nature, because they force Scripture to say something that it may not necessarily want to say. If we are to be true to the text, then we need to let Scripture speak out to us as a whole and not try to categorize and systematize it. Here is why.
The Bible and Christianity are part of Eastern culture. We Americans, however, are part of a Western culture. In this Western thinking, we have a lust for certainty. We want everything to be lined up, categorized, neat and orderly in a wonderful, non-perplexing or seemingly contradictory system. This is what systematic theology seeks to do for faith. However, the Bible does not share the same lust for certainty. It is very much a part of Eastern thought to accept mystery without working it out, and such thought exists in the Bible. For example, on the one hand the righteous man will prosper. Proverbs writes towards this part of wisdom theology. However, on the other hand, the righteous man will suffer. Job writes towards this part of wisdom theology. This is a paradox, a dichotomy if you will, that the Bible embraces as mystery and does not seek to work it out. It affirms both, but it does not work well in a system because the Bible does not work it out as such. In the same way we have Christology; Jesus is affirmed by the Bible to be 100% human and 100% divine. The Bible accepts this paradox without trying to work it out into a system. Indeed, when people in the history of the Church sought to work it out into categories and then uphold one over the other, they became heretics and were excommunicated! In a similar way today, we are guilty in terms of the providence of God of trying to work out a biblical mystery into two distinct categories. I would like to suggest that we could very well be making a mistake--a grave one at that--in the similar way that the heretics did in setting up these categories and then upholding one over the other. I believe the Bible upholds both in part, and so we should not approach Scripture with these presuppositions. We need to learn at all times to allow the text to speak out to us. We ought to have the Bible inform us; we ought not to inform the Bible.
Grace and Salvation 201: Glorification
Justification comes first for the believer, then a life of sanctification, and then finally comes glorification. Glorification is the point in which the believer is glorified and completely made holy and perfect. There are different views as to how this happens and when this happens. Some say that it can happen now while we live. Some say that it won't happen until we get to heaven. Some say that it happens by becoming perfect through the process of sanctification so that you cannot sin anymore. Others say this won't happen so it must happen after death. Still, some say that it doesn't happen through perfection of not sinning anymore, rather, perfection in love.
I don't know what I think. I don't know if glorification is a possibility for us now while we are still living. Given the amount of sin prevalent in the lives of believers and the fact that it does not seem to ever go away really makes me think that it is not possible to have glorification while we still exist on earth. I don't know if love is the true perfection either, but I think that view does have its merits. What I am sure of, however, is the glorification of the eschaton.
In the end, we will all be glorified--those who believe in Jesus Christ--and we will receive new, perfect and holy heavenly bodies to spend the rest of eternity in. This to me supercedes even the possibility of glorification here on earth because earth is still in a broken state of hurt and sin. I have to say that although I enjoy my present life, in the back of my mind I look forward to the eschaton, even if I don't want to admit that I do. I look forward to pain and suffering fading away. I look forward to having a new body--one that is not marred and flawed as it is now. I look forward to passing out of this life and into eternity with my Maker and my Savior. This life just does not compare, and the glorification that awaits me is something that I definitely look forward to.
Yet, even in this life I should still strive for glorification. I should strive to be like Jesus. I should strive for love. I should strive for obedience. I should strive for perfection. Maybe in pursuing these things I will get closer and closer to the goal of glorification, much like a limit that gets infinitely closer to a linear line but never crosses it. However, when I cross over from death to life, then I will be glorified in the truest sense. Until then I strive for it as I work out my salvation in sanctification, which serves as proof of my justification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
