Steve Pettit and the Skillman family

[Ron Bean]

Now I’m asking the questions again and hoping for that someone can give me Biblical answers. What’s wrong with a strong beat/percussion? What’s wrong with a back beat? What’s wrong with certain styles of music…?

Aren’t the answers to your questions obvious?

(Hey, that’s essentially the answer I recall hearing in my youth…..)

[TylerR]

You’re only asking the question because you have a desire to rebel! Repent, sinner, and embrace that towering pinnacle of Baptist music theory … Soul Stirring Songs and Hymns.

You are most assuredly incorrect. To be right with God, the hymnbook you need is the red Sankey words only. (the layout)

It was the hymnbook of my childhood in Jamaica. The phrase “sang a Sankey” entered colloquial language there, referring to something coming to an end. The last time I saw it in writing was in reference to a Prime Minister’s retiring.

Thanks - I look forward to reading it.

is misnamed. There is no proper guilt occurred by associating with someone, even if they are guilty. What we call “guilt by association” is really “acts the often follow from associating with guilty people.” Avoiding those is certainly a biblical command. So, avoiding things that can be pegged with “guilt by association” is really “prudence.” For example, I have argued that if you sing songs written, marketed, and sold by charismatic groups, you are exposing your people to charismatic theology because some will likely make a larger connection than you intend.

The counter-argument that Bert offered, and many others have, is that the19th-century songs we sing today in hymnals had bad association with them when they were written. Perhaps that is true! BUT… how many people sing British pub songs anymore? My point is there is no connection between those old associations and us today! So, there is no longer any bad influence.

You can say something similar about Christmas. People argue that Christmas was chosen by the people back in 4th century Rome to counter pagan Saturnalia worship. So, they argue, we need to avoid practicing Christmas. OK… even if true then, no one (or at least very few) people today practices old pagan rituals. There is no longer a negative effect. No one is literally worshipping trees like the Germanic barbarians, so we can sing “O, Tannenbaum” without concern. We are singing about Christmas, not the tree itself.

One big problem, at least in my opinion, the connections made between the practices and actions of CCM and the wider music industry. Christians who call themselves CCM musicians often act, talk, dress, etc. exactly like the roadcrew and musicians at any music event out in town. Avoiding that collapse into worldliness is what is meant by the “guilt by association” of CCM music.

[Mark_Smith]

Christians who call themselves CCM musicians often act, talk, dress, etc. exactly like the roadcrew and musicians at any music event out in town.

Would you give some specific examples? (Please.)

And regarding the notion that CCM musicians act, talk, dress exactly like secular….OK, are we talking about Iron Maiden, Culture Club, Madonna, or Huey Lewis and the News?

For reference, that final group could pass for a BJU faculty ensemble. So do we need to separate from all the groups in fundamentalism because they resemble the guys who gave us “I want a new drug”? The guys in Cantus look totally respectable as well, as do most orchestras….and anyone who hung with the music majors in college knows that looks can be deceiving that way.

Using guilt by association arguments proves precisely one thing; the speaker is unable or unwilling to make a real argument.

There are great reasons to dislike a lot of CCM. Too many musicians would be flummoxed if Hillsong did indeed add a controversial fifth chord. Others confuse mumbling and breathing with singing, and too many song-writers think they’re e.e. cummings when they need to start with standard meters, rhyme schemes, and the like. Many confuse adding more musical parts and adding more volume with musicality—sins which are common among those who use music from the more conservative publishing houses, too. Many jump from topic to topic and ignore the need to do real poetry to communicate a message.

But no, it’s not because they wear spiky faux leather get-ups with a 9 inch tongue extensions, pancake makeup, and platform shoes. And by the way, the guy who did that is a teetotaler who never got stoned in his life, knows a fair amount of Talmud, and who has been with his wife for 35 years now. But where would guilt by association get you?

Not sure how this thread veered from bluegrass (a blight on the ears) at Bob Jones to where it is now, but an observation from many years back may be in order.

Practically every article or documentary I have studied credits the meteoric rise of the “sexual revolution” to the advent of 2 things: the introduction of the pill, and the rise of rock music (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB997048656767145595 is a review of a 2001 documentary of music’s role in the sexual revolution). From its earliest days the rock genre was described by its innovators in phrases such as “rock music is sex….” (generally attributed to Frank Zappa, but there are plenty of others whose phrases communicate the same sentiment). Of most interest is that these documentaries, interviews, and quotes focus on the music itself and the pervading worldview/philosophy expressed through it.

The NT command is unambiguous: “Flee immorality (I Cor. 6:18)”. If you like the Amplified Bible’s take, then ” Run away from sexual immorality [in any form, whether thought or behavior, whether visual or written] ” really hits home.

The OT provides the precedent/principle for worship immediately on the heels of the 10 commandments—“Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon (Ex. 20:26)”. IOW, lewdness at any level (pictured by “accidental” nakedness) was absolutely forbidden in worship and was to be avoided with every effort.

Just on the recognition of the expression of sexual immorality evidently inherent in the rock genre and its subsequent permutations I have absolutely no qualm with stating that it has no place in the worship practice of the obedient redeemed based on scripture command, principle, and precedent.

I agree. (Don’t faint, Don.) I have long believed that music, without the words, communicates moods and ideas. I think everybody believes this, even if they try to deny it. It is too self evident to successfully deny.

But the rub for me is where do I find the infallible standards for evaluating music? I don’t find them in the Bible, and I haven’t found them in the writings of men, at least standards that go beyond subjective opinion. Its one thing to agree, in principle, that different styles of music can communicate different messages. (To say that they always do, or clearly communicate the same message to everyone is probably going too far.) The difficulty has always been, and continues to be, “Who decides, and upon what basis do they decide which music is acceptable, and which is not.” That’s the article for which I have been looking for years. I haven’t found it yet.

Is that you can trace the early stages of the sexual revolution back to the 1920s, long before anyone had ever heard of Elvis. For that matter, it’s worth noting that there had been something of a sexual revolution back in the mid 1800s, to which the response was to finally pass laws banning prostitution and abortion—those were largely the laws that were overturned by Roe v. Wade. Going yet further back, one major reason the Pilgrims left Holland to come to America was because of the increasing worldiness of their children there, yes, including fornication. And as an avid reader of old National Geographics, it’s worth noting that bodice lines on women’s clothing dropped long before Chuck Berry, and the advent of pin-up photography and frankly lewd nose art on bombers also precedes him significantly. The Hays Code for movies was enacted in the thirties.

Can we really blame Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, and Buddy Holly for all that? Seriously? Again, let’s skip the guilt by association arguments, because they are not only logically, but also historically, unsound.

We still haven’t hit upon the idea of intent. Don wrote a good article explaining that, in an objective way, some music communicates bad morals by the lyrics and the style, and the intent of the performer. But, we’re still only nibbling around the edges for a Christian context.

• What about intent? If an artist writes and performs a song like “Who You Say I Am,” and he does not intend to communicate immorality through the style or lyrics, can we say the music is objectively unholy?

That is the question, and it is the only question. As Greg Barkham wrote, this question has not been answered. In order to declare some Christian music unholy, you must produce an objective standard for judging style which incorporates the intent of the performer. I suspect this cannot be done.

Tyler has mentioned this song a couple of times in this thread. For those not familiar with it (probably most people reading this):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcC1Bp13n_4

Having sung this song with hundreds of other believers at my church in joyous and enthusiastic worship of our Savior, I honestly find it absurd that anyone would claim it to be objectively unholy.

Was God being honored and glorified as we sang? Absolutely!

Regarding Don’s article, the fact that the Bible does not give us objective standards for music is appreciated. That noted, what he claims is “objective” is really quite subjective—his primary evidence of the worldliness of some forms of music is really the statements of a single rock & roll artist.

And that, brothers, is still guilt by association.

There’s a way forward here; remember that if Scripture tells us to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and if Scripture is contained significantly in lyric form, then maybe, just maybe, God has a purpose for all that poetry and song. Maybe it’s there because poetry works its way into our hearts and minds that prose does not, and maybe we can figure out some ways we can use all genre of music more effectively for this purpose.

And let’s give credit where credit is due; a lot of people can sing along to a lot of music from the 1950s onward despite not having heard it for decades. Modern music styles can be incredibly effective at imparting messages to hearts and minds because a certain portion of it is good poetry wed with good music. We ought to be taking notes, not casting rocks.

[TylerR]

We still haven’t hit upon the idea of intent. Don wrote a good article explaining that, in an objective way, some music communicates bad morals by the lyrics and the style, and the intent of the performer.

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.

When Marilyn Monroe sang “Happy Birthday” to JFK, the sound was sensual. Granted, she intended it to be sensual. On the other hand, I’ve heard “Amazing Grace” set to sensual or angry sounds. I’ve heard Christians singing it that way. Their intent didn’t change the meaning of the sound.

[TylerR]

But, we’re still only nibbling around the edges for a Christian context.

• What about intent? If an artist writes and performs a song like “Who You Say I Am,” and he does not intend to communicate immorality through the style or lyrics, can we say the music is objectively unholy?

I don’t know the piece you are referencing. If the sound is unholy, merely imitating the sound of the world, then yes, we can say it is objectively unholy. It has nothing to do with intent.

Anyway, I don’t think I’ll keep repeating myself. I’ve made my point.

I don’t think you want to accept it - you are reading into it what you want to see and hear.

[Don Johnson]

I don’t know the piece you are referencing. If the sound is unholy, merely imitating the sound of the world, then yes, we can say it is objectively unholy. It has nothing to do with intent.

^^^^^^You will find a link to a lyrics video of the song in question if you go up three posts.^^^^^^