Steve Pettit and the Skillman family

[Kevin Miller]

Are you saying that some styles or some tunes may make you think of sinful things? In that case, it is the association with sinfulness that you personally see in the tune, and someone else may not have the same experience that you have had and thus do not see the same sinfulness. It may be wrong for YOU to dwell on that music, but that is because of your own thoughts and not on some inherent moral quality to the music itself.

So Rajesh, do you now refuse to sing “Happy Birthday” because of that? Because that is, in a nutshell, exactly what the “traditional music only” crowd desires for us to do with percussive instruments (outside of BJU-approved orchestral performances, of course), electronically amplified instruments (apart from “approved” electronic organs and synthesizers, and anything with the 12 bar blues.

Again, that’s the basic logical fallacy of “guilt by association”, and it should have no place in our discourse. None. The reality is that if we’re going to approach Ms. Monroe’s rendition of Happy Birthday, we have any number of hints about what she was about; being literally sewn into her dress, the vocal intonations, her body language, and more. It no more impugns the song than Gene Simmons of the electric guitar and blues rhythms impugns those tools.

Regarding the notion that we need to prove it’s just a tool, again, wrong; put the foot on the right shoe and remember that the null hypothesis can never be proven, and that null hypothesis is that music is just a tool. You need to prove it has moral import; Jay and Tyler and I do not need to prove it is neutral.

And to that point, good luck, since neither Scripture nor science gives us any coherent claim that this could be true. Music is emotionally linked; tools entirely inappropriate for Ms. Monroe to use for President Kennedy would be entirely appropriate for my wife to use for me on my birthday. Shouldn’t we be quiet where Scripture is silent instead of accusing brothers in Christ of ill will and sin for simply using musical tools?

Finally, you most certainly did say something about hammers. What strikes the strings on a piano or harpsichord, and what strikes percussive instruments? It is the tool we call a hammer, just somewhat different from that which a carpenter or other craftsman uses.

[Bert Perry]

So Rajesh, do you now refuse to sing “Happy Birthday” because of that? Because that is, in a nutshell, exactly what the “traditional music only” crowd desires for us to do with percussive instruments (outside of BJU-approved orchestral performances, of course), electronically amplified instruments (apart from “approved” electronic organs and synthesizers, and anything with the 12 bar blues.

Again, that’s the basic logical fallacy of “guilt by association”, and it should have no place in our discourse. None. The reality is that if we’re going to approach Ms. Monroe’s rendition of Happy Birthday, we have any number of hints about what she was about; being literally sewn into her dress, the vocal intonations, her body language, and more. It no more impugns the song than Gene Simmons of the electric guitar and blues rhythms impugns those tools.

So… why then post lyrics and say “evaluate this”? That was what I was responding to, and led to this latest go round.

To isolate where exactly the objection was and make sure I understood what you were saying, which it seems like I did. You said it the issue was the music, so I gave you a song that I didn’t think you’d heard. Then you objected to it on the basis of the musical tune, so I took away the lyrics and offered just the tune. Then you said that you weren’t going to do that either, so I asked you to pick and analyze literally any other song in the artist’s collection. And you refused to do that as well.

The singer is someone who has agreed to the SI doctrinal statement, so that can’t be the problem. The genre is Christian and song is explicitly so, so it can’t be that. Which leaves us with you objecting to a musical tune that you’ve never heard with no clear proof of why it’s a bad tune other than you say so. You didn’t even listen to the song to try that analysis. Finally, you flatly refused any attempts to get further information on how you apply this teaching.

I’m all for iron sharpening iron, but there has to be a point of contact between the two pieces of metal. There’s no point of agreement here, and I think it’s pretty obvious that any further discussion between us is going to be fruitless.

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

Are you saying that some styles or some tunes may make you think of sinful things? In that case, it is the association with sinfulness that you personally see in the tune, and someone else may not have the same experience that you have had and thus do not see the same sinfulness. It may be wrong for YOU to dwell on that music, but that is because of your own thoughts and not on some inherent moral quality to the music itself.

Have you ever listened to a recording of Marilyn Monroe’s singing “Happy Birthday” to President Kennedy? The meaning communicated by how she sang those words is very different from the words that she sang. If a Christian were to sing sensually in worship to God the way that she sang that song, that music would be sinful music no matter how biblical the lyrics might be.

You cannot deny that the overall mood of various “traditional music only” movements is to use behavior like that of Ms. Monroe to impugn the very instruments, songs, and musical methods used in entire genre. For example, see Don’s refusal to explain what is wrong with a rap song by an SI member.

I would be glad if you did indeed separate your evaluation of Monroe’s song to JFK as totally separate from our debate over music, but the fact remains that you made the argument specifically in this context. Nobody here would deny that sewing yourself into a dress and singing seductively for someone else’s husband is sinful; the important part of what you wrote is precisely your proposed application to modern music.

Hence, I pointed it out. You have illustrated brilliantly the major thrust of anti-modern-music rhetoric that I’ve seen; that the sinfulness of certain well-known performers impugns the entire genre/instrument/method for all performers. You yourself have phrased exactly that on this thread multiple times.

And, for that matter, if we are going to accuse music of being sensual, maybe….let’s talk about the entire Romantic movement of classical movement that finds voice in our hymnals as “Be Still my Soul” (adapted from Finnlandia, Sibelius) and “Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee”, adapted from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and Schiller’s frankly pantheistic “An Die Freude.” Let’s talk about the medieval Minnelieder, set in modern operatic/classical form by Carl Orff in Carmina Burana, or quite frankly great portions of opera.

To single out modern genre as especially sensual suggests little more than that those trying to do so are unfamiliar with the history of music, really.

Even more bluntly, if we see “sensuality” as a sin in music, maybe we need to rebuke Solomon for his song, no? As I noted above, Monroe’s sensuality with someone else’s husband was sinful; my wife’s sensuality with me is God’s will for her life. To write any sensuality out of music as intrinsically wrong simply denies Scripture.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Are you saying that some styles or some tunes may make you think of sinful things? In that case, it is the association with sinfulness that you personally see in the tune, and someone else may not have the same experience that you have had and thus do not see the same sinfulness. It may be wrong for YOU to dwell on that music, but that is because of your own thoughts and not on some inherent moral quality to the music itself.

Have you ever listened to a recording of Marilyn Monroe’s singing “Happy Birthday” to President Kennedy? The meaning communicated by how she sang those words is very different from the words that she sang. If a Christian were to sing sensually in worship to God the way that she sang that song, that music would be sinful music no matter how biblical the lyrics might be.

“How she sang” is the operative wording here. The sensuousness is her personal sin. It is not inherent in the song itself. I’m not sure how one would even express “sensual” into a note pattern in order to make a definite sensual tune. I suppose one could note “sing breathily” in the margins, but if I tried singing breathily to my wife, she would just ask me if I needed oxygen. She wouldn’t interpret it as “sensual” without some other contextual clues, or some associations with prior breathy singing that had those contextual clues.

[Bert Perry]

Even more bluntly, if we see “sensuality” as a sin in music, maybe we need to rebuke Solomon for his song, no? As I noted above, Monroe’s sensuality with someone else’s husband was sinful; my wife’s sensuality with me is God’s will for her life. To write any sensuality out of music as intrinsically wrong simply denies Scripture.

[RajeshG]

I made no claims about anything being inherent in the song itself.

Just because you are not sure how people can express sensuality through the instrumental music that they play and the way that they play it does not mean it cannot be done or is not being done.

It’s very important that you read carefully what I said: “If a Christian were to sing sensually in worship to God the way that she sang that song, that music would be sinful music no matter how biblical the lyrics might be.” I have highlighted the key words here so that there will be no doubt.

I have made no claims about how or what you might sing to your wife or your wife might sing to you. Talking about that is irrelevant to what I am talking about.

I hope that you are clear about what I am affirming.

Rajesh, I am glad to see that you agree that how Ms. Monroe sang has absolutely no bearing on whether we can use modern music forms in the church. In the same way, we can find examples from every time in history where young men (and women) have learned to play an instrument or sing in such a way as to impress the opposite sex. Sometimes they did so honorably, sometimes not, but either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the instruments and techniques they used are applicable elsewhere. It goes for Monroe, for Ozzy Osbourne, for Rev. Run, for David Lee Roth, and even for 2 Live Crew.

That’s the core of the argument I’m making. Guilt by association is always fallacious, always. And those who want to prove that music differs from other tools we use are going to need to make that case Biblically and Scientifically. So far, I see zero evidence.

I am fine with asking questions of whether specific arrangements and performances of specific songs succeed in communicating the Word of God to the People of God. That’s fine. There are certain techniques that are going to work, or not, in certain settings.

That said, what the “traditional music only” faction desires is not this kind of thing, but rather the wholesale rejection of instruments, genre, techniques, and such based mostly on guilt by association. It splits churches, it damages faith, it needs to end.

[Jay]

So… why then post lyrics and say “evaluate this”? That was what I was responding to, and led to this latest go round.

To isolate where exactly the objection was and make sure I understood what you were saying, which it seems like I did. You said it the issue was the music, so I gave you a song that I didn’t think you’d heard. Then you objected to it on the basis of the musical tune, so I took away the lyrics and offered just the tune. Then you said that you weren’t going to do that either, so I asked you to pick and analyze literally any other song in the artist’s collection. And you refused to do that as well.

jay, sometimes I wonder about you. I only responded to your posting of the lyrics as if that proved the song was acceptable. I don’t think I was involved in the thread before that (in recent days, I mean). I don’t particularly care to analyze any song you propose, you know we already disagree so what’s the point? I have repeatedly said that the issue is the music, not the words. How you could not get that is beyond me.

[Jim] Just when we thought he was out

seriously Jim?

you have reading comprehension issues too? I said, I don’t have any more time for this subject TODAY.

Cmon man, learn to read.

[Bert Perry]

I am fine with asking questions of whether specific arrangements and performances of specific songs succeed in communicating the Word of God to the People of God. That’s fine. There are certain techniques that are going to work, or not, in certain settings.

This is NOT to say that Amazing Grace should only be sung in it’s original style. When I would attend Singspirations at Fourth Baptist Church, we would sometimes sing Amazing Grace to the tune of the secular song “The Happy Wanderer.”

Now that you’re aware of it, how many here will place Amazing Grace on your forever “banned” list since Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) has screeched sung it?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-s7aC0X85s

Show of hands?

Waiting………….

I assume you’re referring to this, the classic march used by circuses written by Fucik? I can actually envision a pastor using that to illustrate the plight of the early church—Fucik did not intend his march (really a snippet thereof played way too fast) for the modern circus, but the Roman circus. He masterfully gives a “musical picture” of men destined to be maimed and killed entering the arena, an arena that at times would contain Christians destined to be devoured by wild beasts. And those Christians were indeed observing that “Amazing Grace” conferred upon them.

Now would I use that piece for “Amazing Grace”? No, but not because of any guilt by association argument. Rather, it’s because the mood of the song is wrong. If you listen to the whole piece—it’s linked from the wiki article—you’ll also hear “tone poems” corresponding to multiple gladiators. So another reason you don’t use that piece is because it would appear to be “changing the subject” every so often, while the lyrics do not.

And that noted, it’s also worth noting that one of what one notes about Fucik has any applicability to modern genre that arose after Lucik died. it’s simply an acknowledgement of what any serious observer of music can point out; certain tools lend themselves to certain moods, and especially since Beethoven, composers have used those tools to draw fascinating pictures, some virtuous, some abhorrent.