Steve Pettit and the Skillman family

[RajeshG] She could have been dressed in perfectly modest attire and communicated the same sensual message through sensual vocal techniques alone. Music that is ministered in a worship service in a local church that employs such sensual vocal techniques is music that has no place in divine worship.

Marilyn Monroe’s song performance was “sensual” because of a variety of factors that need no detailed explanation. To simply extract “breathy vocals” and isolate that in and of itself as “sensual” and then apply that to “modern worship styles” does not follow. Can a performance in church be “sensual”? Well of course, just like a performance of “Happy Birthday” can be sensual. But do “breathy vocals” (however that is defined) automatically make a performance “sensual”? That is unproven, and certainly not based on any clear Scriptural teaching.

Rajesh, you’re trying to have it both ways. If you would desire to apply (the logical fallacy of) guilt by association to the case of Ms. Monroe’s song to President Kennedy regarding modern music, you get to apply it consistently or not at all. If it means anything with regards to the kind of argument you and Don are trying to make, it means that we have to abandon the song “Happy Birthday” because of one person’s misuse of it. You don’t get to take a song not really in modern genre, see it abused, and then impugn modern genre on that basis. It simply does not follow.

There are great reasons to decide to use, or not use, any number of musical pieces, but none of them involve guilt by association. All of them involve actually learning something about music, which (per Greg H’s comment a few days back) seems regrettably to be beyond the ken of most combatants in this battle.

[RajeshG]

She could have been dressed in perfectly modest attire and communicated the same sensual message through sensual vocal techniques alone. Music that is ministered in a worship service in a local church that employs such sensual vocal techniques is music that has no place in divine worship.

Rajesh, do you think that what you describe above honestly depicts contemporary worship services?

We had around 3,000 people in our four contemporary worship services this past weekend. (We also had over 800 people in our two traditional worship services.)

We sang five songs in the contemporary services, two of which had a 2008 graduate of FBBC (Ankeny) as the lead vocalist. She’s a terrific singer. If she chose to, I don’t doubt she could have a highly successful professional career as a singer. Instead, she’s a wife & mom to three young boys who chooses to use her talent in her local church. Nobody–I repeat, NOBODY–would accuse her of employing “sensual vocal techniques” in her singing. Instead, anyone who even remotely knows her would correctly say that she sings to bring glory and honor to God, and to praise her Savior.

My classically trained musician wife listened to Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday” and declared that it wasn’t music. Considering her credentials, I’m going with this musical expert and declaring that Marilyn has nothing to do with this discussion.

Let me start by saying that I cannot make a Biblical argument for or against any particular genre of music (although associations do come into play for me personally). The difficulty with music in general is that by its very nature it is difficult to define. Define exactly what Rock is? Jazz? Pop? As I said earlier in this thread, those who say that certain musical forms do not communicate anything in particular are disagreeing with those who were the forerunners of their respective genre’s. Jazz is a good example since its earliest examples had no words to muddy the discussion (I’m actually in a music class right now and the same can be said of various periods of classical music). I’m willing to bet that even those making those claims would have been hard pressed to write out in paragraph form what they meant. Any discussion of music has to take into account the fact that it is discussed in generalities.

For those of you who want a strict definition of sensual or sinful can I ask a question? If a woman (or man for that matter) at your church sang “Jesus Lover of My Soul” in exactly the same way (but dressed modestly) MM sang happy birthday to JFK what would you think about that? Would that be sinful? Stupid? Inappropriate? I’m guessing that most people would say that was at least inappropriate. How would you then define that if asked to?

For those of you who want a strict definition of sensual or sinful can I ask a question? If a woman (or man for that matter) at your church sang “Jesus Lover of My Soul” in exactly the same way (but dressed modestly) MM sang happy birthday to JFK what would you think about that? Would that be sinful? Stupid? Inappropriate? I’m guessing that most people would say that was at least inappropriate. How would you then define that if asked to?

First off, I agree that Marilyn’s song was sensual. I also agree that it would be objectionable if sung that way in a worship service. I’ve even objected to songs sung in worship services that were over the line, although I don’t remember the exact specifics now. So I agree with some of this.

What there is not agreement on is that it is appropriate to label a song as ‘sensual’ without a clear understanding of the problem or to write off songs and genres without a clear Scriptural violation. We can’t even get a clear understanding of the objection to Shai Linne’s catalog. That’s why I made the point about calling Macs ‘evil’ a few posts ago - it’s “sensual” because “someone says so”, and that is not a good explanation or principle to follow. It’s also why I mentioned, as several others have, that what is sensual to one person may not be sensual at all to another person. We all have different thresholds for what is ‘sensual’ and what is not, and if you don’t believe me, ask your wife. Her response will likely be a lot different from yours.

Don, Rajesh, and a few others seem to argue that certain forms of music are evil because they see it as evil, with no explanation or clarification. As I said before, that’s exactly why I pushed Don so hard on the Shai Linne song. So we’re basically at the point where our options are to agree with them because they say so or blow them off.

[Jay]

For those of you who want a strict definition of sensual or sinful can I ask a question? If a woman (or man for that matter) at your church sang “Jesus Lover of My Soul” in exactly the same way (but dressed modestly) MM sang happy birthday to JFK what would you think about that? Would that be sinful? Stupid? Inappropriate? I’m guessing that most people would say that was at least inappropriate. How would you then define that if asked to?

First off, I agree that Marilyn’s song was sensual. I also agree that it would be objectionable if sung that way in a worship service. I’ve even objected to songs sung in worship services that were over the line, although I don’t remember the exact specifics now. So I agree with some of this.

What there is not agreement on is that it is appropriate to label a song as ‘sensual’ without a clear understanding of the problem or to write off songs and genres without a clear Scriptural violation. We can’t even get a clear understanding of the objection to Shai Linne’s catalog. That’s why I made the point about calling Macs ‘evil’ a few posts ago - it’s “sensual” because “someone says so”, and that is not a good explanation or principle to follow. It’s also why I mentioned, as several others have, that what is sensual to one person may not be sensual at all to another person. We all have different thresholds for what is ‘sensual’ and what is not, and if you don’t believe me, ask your wife. Her response will likely be a lot different from yours.

Don, Rajesh, and a few others seem to argue that certain forms of music are evil because they see it as evil, with no explanation or clarification. As I said before, that’s exactly why I pushed Don so hard on the Shai Linne song. So we’re basically at the point where our options are to agree with them because they say so or blow them off.

Thanks for the response. I think your response gets to the issue and for me at least demonstrates that we are arguing degrees. You seem to be saying that you think some things are sensual while objecting to the idea that something is sensual “because someone says so.” If a church sang every song in a way that you personally define as sensual it would be a problem for you. In other words if you object to anything music wise then you need to be able define where you draw the line and when a song crosses the line. So the definition argument cuts both ways. Again, I can’t really say where that line is at times but for me personally there are genres that I would not want to have be a part of corporate worship.

Also, when it comes to corporate worship, I do think its worth being sensitive to the fact that due to associations or convictions certain music may be a barrier to some people’s ability to worship.

If you actually watch Monroe’s performance, at least with your eyes shut, you’ll get a different perspective on this “singing” of a song written in 1893. Ron’s wife is right; it’s horrible vocally for a few reasons. First, she’s always breathy, here more so than elsewhere, but in that “performance”, her dress is so tight she can’t get a decent breath, so she breathes about every measure. Moreover, her mannerisms suggest to me she’s intoxicated. The overall impression is a superannuated lounge singer who’s been huffing on the cancer sticks for decades. The only thing “seductive” is really the dress.

Lessons for church: if your dress makes you look nude or constricts your breathing, wear something else. Come to church sober. Learn to sing properly. In my experience, almost all churches have everything in that list down except for “learn to sing properly.”

Anything about modern music? Not that I can fathom, really. There are no drums, no electronic instruments, no 12 bar blues, no rap. It’s a song from 1893.

[AndyE]

RajeshG wrote:

She could have been dressed in perfectly modest attire and communicated the same sensual message through sensual vocal techniques alone. Music that is ministered in a worship service in a local church that employs such sensual vocal techniques is music that has no place in divine worship.

Agreed. I’m completely dumbfounded that anyone would think otherwise, but alas they do. Thanks for bringing your viewpoint into this discussion.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

A sensuous performance of “Happy Birthday” does not make that song sinful; you obviously know the answer to that question. I have never asserted anything to the contrary.

Ah, so lets get something foundational cleared up. Would you agree that the particular song “Happy Birthday” is neutral (neither moral nor immoral), but the total audio package was sinful?

I’m a bit confused because you then went on to say that God doesn’t parse things in the total audio package.

[Bert Perry]

Rajesh, you’re trying to have it both ways. If you would desire to apply (the logical fallacy of) guilt by association to the case of Ms. Monroe’s song to President Kennedy regarding modern music, you get to apply it consistently or not at all. If it means anything with regards to the kind of argument you and Don are trying to make, it means that we have to abandon the song “Happy Birthday” because of one person’s misuse of it. You don’t get to take a song not really in modern genre, see it abused, and then impugn modern genre on that basis. It simply does not follow.

There are great reasons to decide to use, or not use, any number of musical pieces, but none of them involve guilt by association. All of them involve actually learning something about music, which (per Greg H’s comment a few days back) seems regrettably to be beyond the ken of most combatants in this battle.

[Jay]

Please define “sensual” and “sensual vocal techniques” for those of us who aren’t musicians.

How do you decide if one of your church members feels that xyz song is too sensual and should not be used but another person is fine with it?

I am not going down the “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ means” road, but I would love to see what Scriptures have bearing on vocal techniques for musicians outside of “make a joyful noise to the Lord” or “singing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs”.

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

A sensuous performance of “Happy Birthday” does not make that song sinful; you obviously know the answer to that question. I have never asserted anything to the contrary.

Ah, so lets get something foundational cleared up. Would you agree that the particular song “Happy Birthday” is neutral (neither moral nor immoral), but the total audio package was sinful?

I’m a bit confused because you then went on to say that God doesn’t parse things in the total audio package.

No, I would not agree that particular song is neutral. Either it pleases God or it does not.

I’m not sure why you are confused because I did not say anything about God not parsing things in the total audio package. This is what I said:

“God rejected both Cain and what he offered to God. God does not parse carefully that he accepted certain aspects of what Cain did but accepted others.”

In what is recorded in Gen. 4:5, we are not told that God informed Cain that certain parts of his worship were acceptable to God and others were not. That is what I was talking about when I spoke about God not parsing things …

I’m also trying to pin down what you mean by bringing up the example of Cain. Right after mentioning that God didn’t parse things with Cain. You said “In the scenario that you are interested about, following biblical precedent, I would say God would reject the person who offers that sinful worship music and the music in its totality as a composite audio package.” Cain was the Biblical precedent, right? I took your mention of Cain to mean that, just as God didn’t parse things with Cain but rejected the whole offering, God doesn’t parse things with Marilyn Monroe, but rejects the total audio package, both song itself and the sensuous performance. Yet just now, you have said, “I’m not sure why you are confused because I did not say anything about God not parsing things in the total audio package.” Are you just nitpicking because I used the word “total’ when you used the word “composite”? I figure they mean basically the same thing, especially since you referred to the “totality” of the composite audio package.

Does God actually parse things in the totality of the composite audio package? If He doesn’t, then would that make the song itself sinful when it is sung sensuously? You already told me that I obviously know it doesn’t, but your statements about parsing make me think your answer would be “yes” based on the precedent of Cain’s sinful offering.

”

[RajeshG]

I appreciate your taking care not to offend me or misjudge my motives or views, as at least one other person has done more than once. The subject is a very vast, complex, and difficult subject that cannot be treated with any thoroughness in a setting such as this. When I minister to people on this subject, there is a vast amount of biblical truth that I share with them to help them understand what God wants them to know.

There are many resources available for you to understand such teaching.

Trust me…I’ve probably read the resources or something similar. The main issue is that you think we have to go to resources other than Scripture to figure this out. Are we able to figure out what is right and wrong without outside resources?