Steve Pettit and the Skillman family

Don, you’re begging the question by assuming the very thing you set out to prove; that there are some inherently worldly forms of music. If we are to do this, we need some Biblical authority, not just the guilt by association arguments that say that since song A bears superficial resemblance to secular song B, it is somehow tainted.

Again, if you want to play the guilt by association game, game on, and we’re going to take everything by Beethoven, Mozart, and Sibelius out of the hymnal because of their personal lives, not to mention anything coming out of the Salvation Army, and then anything that sounds like something that could have come out of the Salvation Army—which is basically everything since 1950 written in common time.

And then we can disassociate from those songs associated with a church on the wrong side of the Council of Trent (far bigger deal than Elvis’ personal life IMO), from those songs associated with a church founded so the king could get a divorce, those from churches associated with some rather hardline Arminianism…..and finally from those Baptists who fell on the wrong side of the dispensational/covenant theology divide.

It’s gonna be awfully quiet when we get done, brother. Hint; if your arguments read like a listing of fallacies of informal logic, you’re doing it wrong.

Here’s an excerpt from BJU’s Student Handbook:

”The following music conflicts with our mission and is therefore excluded from
performance, personal listening on and off campus, or use in student organiza- tions, societies,
student productions, outreach ministries or social media:
• Any music which, in whole or in part, derives from the following broadly defined genres or their
subgenres: Rock, Pop, Country, Jazz, Electronic/Techno, Rap/Hip Hop or the fusion of any of these
genres.
• Any music in which Christian lyrics or biblical texts are set to music which is, in
whole or in part, derived from any of these genres or their subgenres.”

- http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf

––––––—

No mention of Bluegrass, specifically, so where (if at all) does it fit into the above? Well, let’s see. Is Bluegrass a subgenre of any of the listed “broadly defined genres”? Actually, yes, it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_genres (Note: Bluegrass is listed as a subgenre of Country music, a genre of music specifically banned in the excerpt of the BJU Student Handbook quoted above.)

But is Wikipedia the only source that identifies Bluegrass music as a subgenre of Country music? Not by a long shot. Here are just a few more, out of countless sources:

https://www.musicgenreslist.com/music-country/

http://musicfly.co/page/country-music-subgenres

https://www.thoughtco.com/country-music-genres-932018

And countless more………

I don’t believe anyone could seriously question the origins of Bluegrass.

––––––—

So here’s what baffles me: How is it that the President of BJU can himself perform (on video, yet!) a style of music that is officially banned by BJU’s Student Handbook?

It’s incongruities such as this that lead me to believe that BJU’s ban on certain styles of music will sooner than later go the way of its bans on interracial dating, movie attendance, and slacks on women. It’s not a question of “if” at this point, but “when.”

You wrote:

No, Tyler, you don’t get it. It has nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with style. It has nothing to do with lyrics, it has everything to do with what the sound means.

The secular world knows what its sound means, but you either don’t or don’t want to know.

You say style is the defining factor, not intent. What is your basis for passing value judgments on style, then, if you throw the intent of the performer out the window? This is a serious question. What is the objective standard you use?

[Don Johnson]

It has nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with style. It has nothing to do with lyrics, it has everything to do with what the sound means.

I would agree that intent does not affect the style and what that style may communicate inherently, but it’s also not irrelevant for meaning. Because music is in many ways nebulous in its communication, intent can make all the difference. In a piece of e.g. classical music, it can be difficult to distinguish between music that indicates chaos vs. something like anger. Knowing the intent of the music can actually affect what communication the listener actually “gets.”

I would say that’s also true of music from e.g. the 50’s, around the beginning of what we call “rock and roll.” A composer could have written a piece to depict something, but heard out of context and time, without knowing the original intent, the listener may get an entirely different meaning from what was intended. That doesn’t mean the music isn’t communicating in its style exactly what it has always inherently communicated, but again, because we don’t entirely understand what music actually communicates apart from all the contexts, including intent, the eventual result could communicate something entirely different from what it was written to mean.

The fact a composer wrote something and intended to portray something, doesn’t mean it actually does so unambiguously. This is true with even art forms that use words that are much clearer in their meaning. I think all of us have suffered through classes where we read a poem or other piece of literature, and the teacher asks us what the writer intended to portray. You get many different meanings when asking the students. And oftentimes, even when the intent of the piece is known, and can thus be explained to the readers, the reader may still get something else than what was intended. Music communicates much less clearly than words, and thus is even more easy for a listener to interpret meaning differently from what it was written to communicate. Knowing the intent can actually change the the understanding of the listener.

Of course, as Don points out, it doesn’t affect the inherent meaning of the music. But just what that meaning is, is what we are arguing over. There just doesn’t exist any standard (we know of) to analyze a piece (or style) of music objectively with 100% accuracy, or maybe even anything close to that. We all end up to some extent using our gut, hence we are left with “subjective objectivity,” and I would argue the subjective part is a lot larger than the objective part, and much more than we are willing to admit.

Lyrics:

Who am I that the highest King
Would welcome me?
I was lost but He brought me in
Oh His love for me
Oh His love for me

Who the Son sets free
Oh is free indeed
I’m a child of God
Yes I am

Free at last, He has ransomed me
His grace runs deep
While I was a slave to sin
Jesus died for me
Yes He died for me

Who the Son sets free
Oh is free indeed
I’m a child of God
Yes I am
In my Father’s house
There’s a place for me
I’m a child of God
Yes I am

I am chosen
Not forsaken
I am who You say I am
You are for me
Not against me
I am who You say I am

Consider this logic:

• CCM is “worldly” and, no matter how holy and good some of it is, it is inexorably tied to bad associations and questionable characters
• Therefore CCM ought to be avoided
• If we don’t avoid it, we may unwittingly lead other Christian astray by association with these bad actors

Now, given that logic, please explain why this same logic shouldn’t lead to the following conclusion:

• The internet is “worldly” and, no matter how holy and good some of it is, it is inexorably tied to bad associations and questionable characters
• Therefore the internet ought to be avoided
• If we don’t avoid it, we may unwittingly lead other Christian astray by association with these bad actors

You can’t, can you? You’ll argue for discernment and prudence, won’t you … ?

You can do better than that. Really bad logic there. Why are you trying so hard?

I’m just bored, because I’m waiting to hear an objective standard for judging style that doesn’t factor in the intent of the performer!

Our music in our churches is probably precisely the same. I have no ulterior motive to introduce “worldly” music to my church. I’m just willing to admit my preference for style is subjective. I can’t find a biblical basis for preferring one style over the other. If an objective basis exists, I’d like to know what it is! So would many other people …

Don, Tyler’s comparison is impeccable there. If the associations of modern music impugn its use in the church, then at the same way the associations of the internet—huge portions of it were paid for basically by porn and continue to be funded that way—impugn its use by believers.

Now if we were to be logical about the matter, we’d simply remember, ahem, that guilt by association is a fallacy, and ought have no place in our discourse. Zero.Zip.Nada.

[TylerR]

I’m just bored, because I’m waiting to hear an objective standard for judging style that doesn’t factor in the intent of the performer! …

But intent of the producer/artist/performer does matter. It might even be what matters most. I Cor. 6-10 (meat offered to idols) has practically no meaning at all without taking into account the intent of the source (producer if you want to make a parallel) to begin with.

“…whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake…(10:27-28)”. The meat changed from acceptable to forbidden in a moment although nothing changed at all except knowledge of the intent behind it.

If we assume the intent of the performer, we are begging the question—another basic logical fallacy. Are we really to assume that, say, the intent of CCM artists is to lead people into sin? Petra touring with Josh McDowell and teaching apologetics and purity was all about sex, drugs, and the like? Seriously? Is Greg Volz of Petra really indistinguishable from Brian Johnson of AC/DC or David Lee Roth of Van Halen?

Or, more directly, assuming bad motives on the part of CCM artists or listeners is slander or libel, depending on whether the statement is made in verbal or written form. Neither slander, libel, or begging the question ought to have any place in our discourse.

Side note; if we wonder why the “worship wars” get so heated, the participants rhetorically asking the other side to effectively “step outside”, see above. If we assume that CCM artists and listeners act with bad intent, it’s no surprise that we get into fights.

[TylerR]

Consider this logic:

• CCM is “worldly” and, no matter how holy and good some of it is, it is inexorably tied to bad associations and questionable characters
• The internet is “worldly” and, no matter how holy and good some of it is, it is inexorably tied to bad associations and questionable characters

Exactly how are your major premises equivalent? There is only one internet. It is a technological tool, not an art form. There are multiple genres of music. They are produced by the heart, not by technical know-how. Your argument fails at step one.

If you want to say “evangelical blogs are “worldly”” then you have a parallel, although I am not sure you would get agreement.

[Bert Perry]

Is Greg Volz of Petra really indistinguishable from Brian Johnson of AC/DC or David Lee Roth of Van Halen?

Personally, I’ve often gotten Steven Curtis Chapman confused with Steven Tyler, and Michael W. Smith with Mick Jagger.

Or not! =)

I agree that intent matters; Don thinks it does not.