It seems that a lot of the themes the ODMs and us have been dealing with is our definition of “the flesh”. Ingrid displayed a video of some church teens dancing to “All I Want for Christmas”. While there was no context given for the video (it could have been for a talent show), I can understand why someone could become annoyed with that. Ingrid also doesn’t know if the church was evangelical to begin with. To claim that this is the future of evangelical churches is a stretch, at best.

In addition, the creator of the video later changed the title of the video (it was originally called something like “body worship”) and said “…too many people were having negativity that this isnt a “body worship” and it defiles the name of Jesus. When it was just a dance so i made a mistake on putting the title body worship on there so i changed it.” Ingrid has yet to express her gratitude that the title was changed. I also looked for the “tight jeans” that Ingrid referred to and didn’t see them. The girls were just wearing normal jeans.

So, ok, like I said, I can understand why someone might be annoyed by “All I Want for Christmas” being played in church. I get it. I really do.

But what about movement in worship? is any movement we make in worship “in the flesh” and wrong? This is a video from the same author who did the “All I want for Christmas”. The teens seem to be worshipping God. Like I said in a previous post, I don’t have a Motivation Detector. But it appears to be genuine worship.

The second question I have is this: is any movement we make in enjoyment “of the flesh?” I know this seems like a silly question. But I’m being serious. Let me give you an example.

I watched “Along Came Polly” this past weekend. It was a mediocre film at best so I don’t recommend it. Anyway, one of the scenes featured Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston salsa dancing. It was, in my opinion, a little more like dirty dancing. If that had been my only exposure to salsa dancing, then my first reaction would have been in shock and I would have thought how evil salsa dancing was. How very ODMey of me.

However, I have actually been exposed to real salsa dancing. I’ve been to the “hottest” salsa club in Boston. I’ve taken a month worth of lessons with my fiancée. I can tell you that what happened in “Along Came Polly” doesn’t happen in real life. Sure, you could turn somehow turn salsa into some sort of latino bump and grind. However, I just haven’t seen it in person. Sure, some people dress inappropriately in the club, however, the same percentage of people dress inappropriately in my office workplace.

Furthermore, I am thoroughly “white”. I don’t have an once of rhythm in me. If anyone should be shocked by latino dance, it should be me. But I’m not. And I kind of enjoy salsa dancing. I can also tell you that I’ve never “grinded” or touched inappropriately. So, is salsa dancing ontologically evil? Am I “in the flesh” when I’ve danced salsa?

I honestly think that a lot of it might be what we’ve been exposed to. I imagine Ingrid doesn’t have many people in her church that wear jeans every Sunday. I imagine that many of the ODMs, as they are locked in their basement with their tin foil hats, get their ideas about culture by what they see on television, movies or Youtube. However, that doesn’t necessarily equal reality. The ODMs sometimes point out the worst examples of culture and add in new (unbiblical) rules to basic Christian faith so we avoid not just being of the world, but being in the world.

What do you think? Is anything we enjoy with our bodies wrong? Is it wrong to dance for fun? Is it wrong to enjoy a good meal with friends? Is it wrong to do mixed bathing at the local swimming hole with your bible study group (thanks Joe Martino)? Is it wrong to go to a baseball game with your family? Where do we draw the line?

*Update

Ingrid added this:

**Update**The YouTube member who posted this video has since changed the title to “All I Want is You DANCE” instead of “All I Want is You Body Worship” which was the original title. Churches are using the term Body Worship to describe any group of nubile young women who stand up on stage and wriggle to pop music. Body Worship is actually a very accurate term when you think about it. It has nothing remotely to do with the worship of our thrice holy God. We know this because Scripture tell us that those who are in the flesh cannot please God.**

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am and is filed under Commentary, Ingrid, Legalism, Music and Art, Worship. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

153 Comments(+Add)

1   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I actually thought Along Came Polly was kind of funny…

Anyways, I was also expecting to see something much worse from Ingrid’s definition of “skin tight”. I guess if you don’t get out much, any jeans would be considered “skin tight”. Especially after the holidays…

I think it comes down to an issue of “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial” like Julie brought up in one of the previous posts. The thing with that is, that in many ways it’s much harder to deal with than a fixed rule that says something like “absolutely no dancing”. It means we have to hear from God on our own. It means we can’t just coast through life avoiding potentially tricky decisions. We have to take responsibility. Living up to a list is easier in the long run.

It’s interesting to me that many times the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him to validate their lists. His answers were always to turn the question around on them to show the wickedness of their hearts. They weren’t concerned about following and knowing God; they were concerned about proving themselves right.

2   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

The thing with “everything is permissible but not beneficial” is that you have to allow that other people will come to different conclusions than you sometimes. Which means something you would do they may not and something you wouldn’t do they might. And here’s the kicker, they can both be OK, in God’s sight.

3   Kevin I    
January 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

My rule on all this is always knowing yourself. We all know what will cause us to sin, we know the things we are involved in that just take us to the wrong places.

So of course dancing, eating, swimming baseball and all other sorts of fun activities are not only in bounds, but we should never feel bad for enjoying God’s creation and the great things people have been gifted to do with it through creativity and innovation.

But anything can lead to sin if we want it to, so from the list above, do you go to baseball games to get drunk and belligerent, hollering outright curses at officials and players? Is that nice meal with friends a way to be gluttonous is it a way to pay for the meal as a way to show your friends how rich you are? Is the dancing an oppurtunity for you to get sexual energy going that you have no God-sanctioned method of following through with? Is your trip to the pool for the purpose of oggling those in less then sufficent bathing attire is it something you do to show off your body?

But again, this can happen with anything. Heck, this site has numerous examples of people (in the articles linked to, in the comment sections, and I’d even add in the name of humility that some of the posts on this site might contain this as well) even using Godly things to sin, like all the scripture twisting used to lash out at people, all the scripture cited to just make yourself feel superior or the scripture used to exclude people from the Body of Christ who God put into the Body Himself.

You can use church as oppurtunities to sin, the epistles are a testiment to that, like people dressing up to show off their status or draw attention to them, using the pulpit to attack people instead of point to Christ and so on and so on.

Just because something can lead to sin, doesn’t mean it’s sin itself, and since everything can lead to sin, it’s all a matter of understanding the genral , essential calls and prohibitions to all believers and beyond that knowing who you are and what you can do.

Maybey there’s something in the ODM’s pasts we don’t understand here, maybey for them dancing and jeans always lead to sin, who knows, so the correction is reminding them that those things only lead to sinful behaviors in some.

I remember a local church wanted to hold a dance (kind of an alternative prom to the madri gras themed prom the highschool was holding) and this woman in the church threw a fit, she yelled and attacked and went nuts over it, claiming that Christians can’t dance let alone even think of holding a dance in a church fellowship hall.

Turns out she was a Dance hall girl in the 20’s and for her all dancing was tied to promiscuity, drug use, alchohol abuse and violence, because in her world in her time in her place it did. So of course for her, dancing probably needed to be cut, but she made the same mistake the ODM’s make in projecting themsevles onto all believers.

4   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

I cannot see that this was as bad as Ingrid states it is, in fact it seems that this may be even cultural thing as the girls seem to be Asian or polynesian… which dance is a major part of the polynesian culture. Maybe, instead of attacking the new evangelical churches and sit back and realize this time she might be treading on being racist!

As far as “tight” jeans, these girls are by far conservative to what is out there… in fact I did not see these girls as provocative as Ingrid promised! LOL!… maybe becuase they were not provocative…

The bottom line is that I saw nothing that this was a “church” let alone “evangelical” and again I see that it reveals what is in Ingrid’s heart more than what is going on in the presentation…

I agree with you Matt…

iggy

5   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

When Ingrid referred to gospel music as “fanny shaking music”, I think that qualified her as a racist.

6   Neil    
January 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

YIKES – where to start: OK Ingrid, I agree with you – IF this was done in a worship service I would agree it is/was inappropriate – “IF.”

Issues/errors with the post by Ingrid:
1. No evidence shown to prove/show that it was worship – lack of research.
2. No update to reflect the fact that the title was changed – lack of research and fairness/openness.
3. “Jiggling…tight jeans…to worship God” – hyperbole
4. “This is what happens…when there’s no regulative principle from the Scriptures…” – false cause fallacy (lack of proof)
5. “…pole dancing…” – see 3 above
6. Romans 8 – misuse of Scripture

The latter is the most egregious of the lot.

Neil

7   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

“This is what happens…when there’s no regulative principle from the Scriptures…”

The regulative principle is just a modern pharasaical hedge on the church, adding to the words of God.

8   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 8th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Am I “in the flesh” when I’ve danced salsa?

Did you shake your fanny?

9   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Brendt-

I did but by fiancee hates it when I do that. :) She thinks I look like a dork, which I do. Some people should not shake their hips. I am one of them. :)

10   merry    
January 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

It used to be, back in the 1950’s and 60’s (and probably 70’s) that church-going Christians just didn’t go to dances. I don’t know why. Times have changed since then. There’s a whole lot of older people in my church who think dancing is evil. I don’t know why. I love dancing. But that’s just probably the viewpoint that Ingrid is coming from.

Also, many styles of jeans are close to skintight, if not completely skintight. I wear them. They look normal to me. But again, the older generation of conservative Christians may view this as immodest. Times have changed. And yes, trust me, when you go to a church where probably all the women wear skirts or dresses and that’s the only thing you see for a long time, jeans can look a bit strange, lol.

11   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Yeah, but you look like a dork all the time… smile

12   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm

There are Christians who think playing cards are ontologically evil. Some circles taught that even touching them could result in Satan having a foothold in your life.

13   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

I remember how Satan used that card game Uno in my life at the Youth Group I attended while I was young… oh that Satan was so mean… and I stayed at that group and met people and talked and learned about the bible… oh that Satan… using that card game.

iggy

14   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
January 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

I always pictured Satan as a “Black Jack” player.

“Hit Me, devil boy…”

“BUST! HAH!”

“Man…I always bust when I play with you…Where’s Johnny and his Fiddle when you need em?”

Yup…that’s how it goes in my mind.

Joe

15   mandyreed    
January 8th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

at our church, at a fellowship dinner, i realized that they don’t let us play bingo or cards. they made up a whole anti-bingo game because people back in the day thought bingo was evil. (though it is still bingo.) :)

16   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Paul Washer actually “cast lots” to make a decision about whether he was going to go into a dangerous part of the country he was serving.

I guess it’s ok to gamble as long as it’s for a Christian purpose.

17   Kyle in WI    
January 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Quick question since someone brought up bingo.

Why is gambling wrong?

18   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 8th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Kyle,
A few quick “standard” reasons spring to my mind. First, it’s generally not the best use of our resources – i.e., unwise stewardship. Secondly, it implies a lack of trust for God to be faithful to provide for our needs. Also, generally gambling is done out of the motivation of greed.

That being said, it seems like God does expect us to take some risks in life, even with our money. It’s interesting in the parable of the talents, the master scolds the one who took the no-risk option. The other two invested their money, and in doing so risked getting a bad return.

19   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I have a story about faith and gambling… though I hesitate to tell it.

I had very little money, my wife was pregnant, and our vehicle (U Haul) was broken down in Jackpot Nev.

I prayed and put the quarter in the slot and pulled the handle and we won enough money to eat dinner that night and a little left over. God did supply that meal for us.

I am not advocating this as a lifestyle at all, but I see God can use any resource to help us.

iggy

20   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Along with unwise stewardship and greed, additional criticisms include:

1) Gambling exploits the poor:

“He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth, and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.” – Proverbs 22:16

2) It forces one to put their providence in luck rather than God.

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,
“Never will I leave you;
never will I forsake you.” – Heb 13:5

3) It is an attempt to provide for yourself without work:

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10

This is not to mention the addictive qualities of gambling, as well.

As with other recent items discussed (language, dancing, alcohol, etc.), the simple act of betting is not ontologically evil, but you have to seriously ask youself – “even if I have freedom in Christ to engage in this, is it beneficial that I should do so?” So – for me, I choose not to, in general, “gamble” for money (which is where much of the problem seems to lie). Rather, I will play cards and other games of “chance” for fun with friends.

At the same time, I have to be careful not to proclaim that others much come to the same conclusion I have on this matter of non-essentials…

21   Kyle in WI    
January 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Those are great answers. Thanks guys. That is exactly the way I feel and the church through history has seen it. Note on bingo. When did gambling become increasingly legal? It followed closely with the church as a whole in America accept bingo(which is gambling) thus given its permission to the culture saying basically “yes its okay go for it.”

Chril L.

One your second point I have one question. Why did the apsoltes cast lots in Acts to determine the replacement? Where they showing a confindence in God or lack thereof?

22   inquisitor    
January 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

I think in this particular discussion we are specifically talking about gambling for $ not necessarily casting lots which has nothing to do with gain or loss.

The problem with gambling is this. If you lose, you were not a good steward with what God gave you. If you win, you cause another to be a bad steward with what God gave them. Either way it’s a lose lose!

23   Neil    
January 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

The thoughts on gambling are good and I agree with the general tone – one additional thought/scenario… gambling as entertainment.

If a social club hosts a bingo night, and charges per card, they splits the take among the winners – that is gambling, technically. But if the stakes are kept low, and the motivation is entertainment… how many of the biblical passages still apply?

24   merry    
January 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Another problem with gambling that no one has really mentioned yet is that it’s possible to become addicted to it, and much like drug addictions, alcoholism, etc, it’s a dangerous addiction. People addicted to gambling are many times broke and in debt. There’s a GA (Gambler’s Anonymous) just like there’s an AA.

I think gambling’s all right if you stick with a budget and don’t go over . . . I have Christian friends who view gambling as a form of entertainment, like going to a movie. But because of the risk of addiction, etc, many Christians would just as soon stay away from it. I’m not sure that it’s evil, necessarily. I agree with the good steward idea.

25   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
January 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

What do you think? Is anything we enjoy with our bodies wrong? Is it wrong to dance for fun? Is it wrong to enjoy a good meal with friends? Is it wrong to do mixed bathing at the local swimming hole with your bible study group (thanks Joe Martino)? Is it wrong to go to a baseball game with your family? Where do we draw the line?

1. We will all draw the line in a different place based on personal and cultural convictions.

2. Some of this ground was covered in the Church and Pleasure post/comments.

3. There is no point inn comparing the ideologies and personal convictions of two very different camps and wondering where the line is. There is a huge no-man’s land in between the two lines that each group sees as the edge of acceptable.

4. To some, “normal” jeans are tight jeans. Definitions vary. We will all have to choose to disagree on some of these kinds of issues.

This seems to be a week for the “everything permissable, not everything is beneficial” line of thinking. At least, that’s what’s getting pounded into my head as the lesson to take for myself.

It’s a good lesson — Promotes humility, self-control, and self-denial. Sometimes, take pleasure. Other times, deny yourself. Not out of a strict legal defintion or delineation of what’s right and wrong, but because you can and both serve a positive purpose in life.

26   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Personally, I don’t find anything wrong or sinful about gambling. It’s entertainment, no different than you online gaming. When I was younger and had the resources I did it all the time. I haven’t in a long time now because I can’t afford it, just like I don’t do a lot of other things that I would like to do. I have no problem with people who think that it is wrong, I just don’t. I love poker, Texas hold-em, betting on a game. The whole 9 yards. I don’t have an addictive personality and I don’t do it to get rich so, I’m not sure how that may skew my view.

27   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 8th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

For the person who wrote and thought I was saying that Gambling can’t be wrong for anyone. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying it isn’t for me. I think it’s like eating out or going to the movies, it’s entertainment. I realize that isn’t true for everyone. This is an area that proves most people don’t believe the Holy Spirit really exists.

28   kenn    
January 9th, 2008 at 2:01 am

How was I to know that Satan was working through my grandmother when she taught us how to play Old Maid, Fish! and Crazy Eights when we were little. Oh that devil, he’s certainly a cunning fella.

One day on Ingrid’s radio show, she and her guest spent an entire segment on the various degrees of acceptable body motion in a church service. This was all taken very seriously. He was ok with tapping your feet. But this, as he warned the listeners, is where it starts getting pretty tricky. A little bending at your knee can start your hip to moving, and before you know it you’re into “fanny shaking”. And as he continued to warn the listeners, if your not careful, your upper body (shoulders, etc) might start going from side to side.

I don’t even want to think about what could possibly happen next…But I know that in the decadence laden, over-the-top hyperbole-charged world of Ingrid…it must be “fleshly” with a capital F.

…Or simply a service with a good toe-tapping praise band.

29   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 9:06 am

A little bending at your knee can start your hip to moving, and before you know it you’re into “fanny shaking”. And as he continued to warn the listeners, if your not careful, your upper body (shoulders, etc) might start going from side to side.

This reminds me of the scene in the movie In and Out where Kevin Kline is trying to hold himself back from dancing while listening to the tape that is instructing how to be a real man.

I can’t tell how many times I’ve been tapping my toe and then before I knew it broke out into the Lambada. Man I hate when that happens…

30   kenn    
January 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am

Phil, as Ingrid would probably caution you, the devil can take ahold of your toe, and once he seizes that toe…well, see what happens? Before you know it, you’re doing the Lambada all over the place, and then its just hop, skip and jump (so to speak) and you suddenly find yourself on stage as a Chippendale male stripper.

So just to be on the safe side, keep those toes modestly covered. It might make the devil’s job a little harder, and always wear steel-toed shoes.

31   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am

Kenn,

There will always be a Michal when a child of God dances… trouble is that these daughters of Saul will most often be barren. ( Samuel 6)

iggy

32   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am

The term Body Worship was a stretch, but using this sites own standards, it was a Group of ‘christians’ together, which is the body of Christ, who, being assembled, did this mess.

There was fanny shaking, and there was simulated humping with several pelvic thrusts. It was done in a worship service. This was done in a local church building (sheesh) It was completely inappropriate in that context. If you can’t see that, you are further beyond orthodox Christianity than you know.

By the way, the author of the original post made a racist statement concerning rhythm. Though I share that disease, you are saying certain racial groups have rhythm, and you don’t belong to that group. While it is not a negative statement, it is a racist statement none the less. And I am offended, being caucasian, that you cast dispersions on my race.

33   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am

Where can I get some of that minuteman salsa? Supporting our Borders, Language and culture while enjoying some salsa sounds very attractive to me….

34   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am

John, you gotta make your own. It’s best that way. I love Salsa and chips. Now, that I am progressing in years it doesn’t necessarily love me all the time

35   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am

pastorboy,

I did not see any indication it was in a church builing… let alone a “church”… again it looked more like it was at a party in a small room with the low ceiling. Also, if you follow the links it seems to be Asians… so I wonder if this is not more a fun thing done at a Christmas party… which could have been a body of believers.

So, has anyone asked the person who posted the video? poor guy.

iggy

36   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am

pastorboy,

I did not see any indication it was in a church builing… let alone a “church”… again it looked more like it was at a party in a small room with the low ceiling. Also, if you follow the links it seems to be Asians… so I wonder if this is not more a fun thing done at a Christmas party… which could have been a body of believers.

So, has anyone asked the person who posted the video? poor guy.

Oh, and the best salsa I ever had was from a small sho in Gilroy Ca. It was a garlic salsa… hot and spicy…

iggy

37   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am

Sorry about the double post… the server at work went a bit wonky…

iggy

38   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am

There was fanny shaking, and there was simulated humping with several pelvic thrusts.

“simulated humping” and “pelvic thrusts” suggest moves which simulate sexual activity. There was NONE of that in this particular video. As for “fanny shaking”, once again this is a pretty flimsily-defined term that pretty much can include anything in which the hips don’t remain completely stationary.

I have had one child (my oldest son) involved in show choir in High School, and have been to numerous competitions where there have been highly appropriate and highly inappropriate routines (the latter of which often get scored worse in the competition, yet still make it in from some schools). What the kids in this video were participating in had no sexual overtones I could see in the coreography (and, from a technical standpoint, there were no “pelvic thrusts” – which is a specific dance move – suggestive or not…)

It was done in a worship service.

There is no context given for this video, so we have no idea if it was done in a “worship service”. Rather, from all appearances, it seems like it was done in a classroom, not a sanctuary/worship center/whateveryouwanttocallit.

This was done in a local church building (sheesh)

Actually, we don’t even know this for sure, but does it really matter? Is a building used by a church ontologically holier than the local school building?

39   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am

By the way, the author of the original post made a racist statement concerning rhythm. Though I share that disease, you are saying certain racial groups have rhythm, and you don’t belong to that group. While it is not a negative statement, it is a racist statement none the less. And I am offended, being caucasian, that you cast dispersions on my race.

I’m not sure I should even dignify this with a response. I’m pretty sure you are joking here about being offended.

I used the term “white” in quotes, with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. I was clearly making fun of myself.

I have a Christian African American friend who would absolutely describe me as “white”. I’m making a comment more about culture rather then race. If a caucassion grew up in an African American church, I believe that they would probably learn to worship as they were raised in that culture. I don’t believe that person would be like Steve Martin in “The Jerk” (which is one of the funniest opening scenes I’ve ever seen.)

40   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am

Does anyone else think the use of the word “nubile” by Ingrid is a bit over the top? The definition of nubile is:

1. Ready for marriage; of a marriageable age or condition. Used of young women

2. Sexually mature and attractive. Used of young women.

I just found that a bit of a stretch. If I were to see that video with no prior context, that would be the last thing to come to my mind.

41   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

One day on Ingrid’s radio show, she and her guest spent an entire segment on the various degrees of acceptable body motion in a church service. This was all taken very seriously. He was ok with tapping your feet. But this, as he warned the listeners, is where it starts getting pretty tricky. A little bending at your knee can start your hip to moving, and before you know it you’re into “fanny shaking”. And as he continued to warn the listeners, if your not careful, your upper body (shoulders, etc) might start going from side to side.
makes me wish she was on drive-time here… except that some may take things like this seriously and not for comedic value.

I’d like to see such a discussion translated into any culture from the Southern Hemosphere where dancing in the isles is about as common as the offering collection in North America…

can anyone say “parochialism?”

42   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

…simulated humping with several pelvic thrusts…

I suppose this means The Time Warp is right out?”

43   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I’ll quote myself (with emphasis added) for the benefit of pastorboy who appears to have missed it the first time:

Issues/errors with the post by Ingrid:
1.
No evidence shown to prove/show that it was worship – lack of research.
2. No update to reflect the fact that the title was changed – lack of research and fairness/openness.
3. “Jiggling…tight jeans…to worship God” – hyperbole
4. “This is what happens…when there’s no regulative principle from the Scriptures…” – false cause fallacy (lack of proof)
5. “…pole dancing…” – see 3 above
6. Romans 8 – misuse of Scripture

The latter is the most egregious of the lot.

Neil

44   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

1. No evidence shown to prove/show that it was worship – lack of research. This was done at Bethel Baptist in Jacksonville Florida in their sanctuary.
2. No update to reflect the fact that the title was changed – lack of research and fairness/openness. It was changed from Body Worship- but that does not change where it happened, that these were ‘christians’, though it did take me back to what must have happened with Salome in front of Herod
3. “Jiggling…tight jeans…to worship God” – hyperbole Though the camera angle and focus was not the best, Jiggling is a appropriate descriptor. I cannot tell how tight the jeans are, really. There were several choreographed pelvic thrusts at two separate points in this video.
4. “This is what happens…when there’s no regulative principle from the Scriptures…” – false cause fallacy (lack of proof) No, this is a very correct statement. There is no regulation from the scripture here, man is doing what he pleases in a christian context. This is not to say dancing is all wrong, but when it is not even used for worship, glorifying God and lifting up his name, it can be hardly compared to David’s dance before the Lord.
5. “…pole dancing…” – see 3 above it is hyperbole, but, it you have been in an exotic dance club (which I have, to my shame) the only difference in this dancing and that is that it is one girl, it is not choreographed, and there is a lot less clothing.
6. Romans 8 – misuse of Scripture How is it misused? Romans 8 clearly talks about Sanctification, being set apart from the world, from sin, and set apart to God! This type of dancing, to this type of music, is not sanctified, rather, it looks more like the world than it does Godly.

And to whoever wrote their were no pelvic thrusts, the pelvis is the location below the stomach, includes the buttocks in the rear and the groin area in the front, and when it is thrust forward, it is called a pelvic thrust. If you didn’t see that in the video, you are watching a different video. Even without this, not appropriate as part of a church service, church sponsored talent show, for my daughter, or for grown men to be watching other mens daughters do. I am sad I had to watch it, though I did so with my wife.

45   Kevin I    
January 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

“makes me wish she was on drive-time here… except that some may take things like this seriously and not for comedic value.”

that’s always been my thing about the odm’s, my reading of them for comedic value just doesn’t outweigh the danger of people actually taking them seriously.

46   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

I just can’t believe we’re arguing over the definition of a pelvic thrust…

47   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I know, Phil. The thing is, there is a specific set of moves in modern dance that define “pelvic thrust”, and those didn’t happen in the video. Otherwise, you can count pretty much any forward movement as a “pelvic thrust”, even if it is not…

Once again, this is basically legalism rearing its ugly head, where the proper response is in line with the theme of the week – all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. And, in this case, since none of us are members of the church it was in, we’re not in a position to determine whether it was ‘beneficial’ or not. Rather, it is a chance to display one’s pride by legalistically castigating brothers (or, in this case, sisters) in Christ.

The tip off to this, PB, was when you put the word Christian in quotes…

48   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

though it did take me back to what must have happened with Salome in front of Herod

Then Herod’s standards for titillation must have been pretty low…  kind of like the girls who didn’t dry their hair…

49   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

pastorboy,

1. OK – it was done in a “church” – but her implication was that it was part of worship – was it? If it was I agree (to a point) with Ingrid. If they just used the room, no big deal.

2. Where it happened is irrelevant.

3. “…choreographed pelvic thrusts at two separate points in this video…” (insert eye rolling).

4. To say “this is what happens when…” a correlation must be proven. She simple stated an opinion as if it were proven cause and effect. BTW the regulative principle was man-made as well.

5. “the only difference in this dancing and that is that it is one girl, it is not choreographed, and there is a lot less clothing.” Your say “the only difference” then you list three… nuff said to disprove your point.

6. It is a misuse since the contrast in Romans 8 is between the believer and the unbeliever – those according to the flesh are unbelievers – not some category of believer that Ingrid gets to label.

RE: “the pelvis is the location below the stomach, includes the buttocks in the rear and the groin area in the front, and when it is thrust forward, it is called a pelvic thrust. ”

At what point does this come closer to resembling a sketch from SNL?

50   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

“…I am sad I had to watch it, though I did so with my wife….”

We gotta be watching a different video.

51   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

“the pelvis is the location below the stomach, includes the buttocks in the rear and the groin area in the front, and when it is thrust forward, it is called a pelvic thrust. ”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, isn’t that special

52   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Chris,
The forward movement in the ‘hokey pokey’ is NOT a pelvic thrust. These girls put their buttocks back and rhythmicly moved them forward, knees bent, feet in place, imitating a vertical sex act. (insert joke about why Baptists don’t dance here)

Phil:
Sorry, I mean the difference between pole dancing and this is ::sheesh:: You know what I mean. Nuff said. I would argue that these girls, during this moment recorded ARE living according to the flesh, that the people present are also living according to the flesh, and therefore, though they call themselves christians, their fruit in this video brings that title, at least in my mind, into question. And by the way, when they call themselves christians, this means that you and I as Christians are CALLED to judge their actions according to their fruit.

53   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Pastorboy,
These girls are wearing standard jeans and long sleeve shirts. I don’t know, I went to public high school, so I’m probably too jaded already.

54   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Forget about the dancing, they were acting fleshly the second they put on those hats…

55   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Not speaking for pastorboy, but there are those who would say “standard jeans” on females is fleshly as well…

56   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Wait, the hokey pokey is ok? What about the Chicken Dance, especially when you shake your butte? I declare the Macarena ontologically evil just because it was overused and people did it at baseball games.

Matt “the new Emerging Pope” Brown has spoken. You are dismissed.

57   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Shake your butte? Don’t bring Montana into this…

58   amy    
January 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

I bet that if I could do get the honest opinions of 100 non-believing guys/men about this video, that most of their comments would show that Pastorboy is on the right track.

I watched an excerpt of pole dancing (with some parts blocked) on the news once. I regretted watching it. But since I did watch it I must say that I wonder why Christians think that pole dancing is such a stretch of the imagination for dancing that will one day happen in church or in “worship” videos, or in videos by those who are supposed to be Christian performers.

What about he last Jackie Velasques video Ingrid put up? Was that acceptable, somehow?

59   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Oh yes, Amy – let us become the dance police! Everyone must submit their dances to queen Ingrid (or Princess Amy, if she’s not available) and king PastorBoy, who will determine whether or not it is acceptable!

Perhaps the muslims have it right and we should just force all women to wear burkhas and hide from the public.

That’s the ticket!

60   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

These girls put their buttocks back and rhythmicly moved them forward, knees bent, feet in place, imitating a vertical sex act.

Please – now you’re completely exaggerating and becoming a mind reader!

What idiocy

61   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Amy,
You can’t bet. Ingrid wouldn’t approve.

62   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

“…I must say that I wonder why Christians think that pole dancing is such a stretch of the imagination for dancing that will one day happen in church or in “worship” videos, or in videos by those who are supposed to be Christian performers.”

naked vs. fully clothed
titillate/arouse vs. entertain
“bump and grind” vs. dance

That’s why…

BTW – “love” the “those who are supposed to be Christian: jab.

63   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Amy,
Are you serious? You really think that 100 random heathens would find this video suggestive? I just can’t see that.

Have you been to a football or basketball game recently? Compare this dance to what cheerleaders do at these events.

I mean, I feel ridiculous even arguing about this stuff. It would be one thing if these girls were scantily clad. They weren’t. They were just about as fully clothed as a person can be and still dance. If someone finds it suggestive, they have other issues that need to be dealt with.

64   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

What about he last Jackie Velasques video Ingrid put up? Was that acceptable, somehow?

I’m not finding a Jackie Velasquez on Slice. I suppose if she hasn’t donned a burkha, cemented her feet to the floor and duct-taped herself to a pillar it must not have been acceptable…

65   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Perhaps the muslims have it right and we should just force all women to wear burkhas and hide from the public.

You stole my thunder Chris L.

I guess I will stop doing Father Abraham with my kids now… and tap my foot.

iggy

66   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

though they call themselves christians, their fruit in this video brings that title, at least in my mind, into question.

Wow PB, that’s unbelievably self-righteous of you to say. Are you ready to find out why?

The next time you lie, I hope one of your Christian friends comes up to you and tells you “though you call yourself a christian, your fruit in this in this conversation brings that title, at least in my mind, into question.” That should put things in perspective for you.

Next time you lust, lie, make a snide comment, or any other kind of SIN, I want you to know, by your own standard, you might not be Christian.

With all our constant lying and slandering we do as Christians, I think debatable dancing technique is the LEAST, and I do mean LEAST of our problems!

Alright, there, that’s my 2 cents. God bless you.

Joe

67   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

RE: Ingrid’s Update…

From Romans 8 “those who are in the flesh” are unbelievers. So how does this fit with dance as a form of worship?

Again – this is so ethnocentric it’s mind-boggling…

68   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Anyone else find the whole juxtaposition between “minute man” and “salsa” to be very ironic?

69   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

“…I must say that I wonder why Christians think that pole dancing is such a stretch of the imagination for dancing that will one day happen in church or in “worship” videos, or in videos by those who are supposed to be Christian performers.”

Maybe you’re thinking of this type of “Pole” dancing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

“…duct-taped herself to a pillar…”

Chris L.,

careful or you’ll be accused of promoting S & M…

71   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

There’s all sorts of Jaci Velásquez videos on Youtube… too many to watch looking for some “code” infraction.

I watched two; neither looked problematic related to our current discussion… not too crazy on a couple of the lyrics – but that’s a different issue..

Neil

72   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Big problem with Jaci V. She is divorced.

But isn’t Ingrid as well?

73   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Matt, are you serious, that you have that problem? or where you making a point?

74   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Hmmm… Matt, that’s a bit ad hominem I think…

75   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Making a point… :P

76   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.rethinkingchurchlife.org
January 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

I grew up in a movement where “tapping your foot” was considered sinful (I am dead serious)

What may be appropriate on Monday may not be appropriate on Sunday in our corporate worship. I may listen to some Rock music with suggestive lyrics on Monday but I am not going to suggest it si used in worship on Sunday. It is all about propriety and discernment.

That said……….

I know when something is erotic when I see it. Some dancing is and some dancing is not.

We live in an over-sexed society (except for some legalists who I fear are extremely undersexed) and it easy to become desensitized to sexuality. We need to be aware of this.

Bruce

77   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Bruce – was this particular video erotic?

78   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

The College I went to had a Jars of Clay concert. This was long before they were popular. Sponsored by one of the students in the school. He had to get special permission to put the fliers in our boxes without paying postage (if he had paid postage the school could not have stopped him). 90% of the school went. It was announced during the weekly communication time. Lot’s of CD’s bought. Guess what! We couldn’t play the CD in our dorm rooms! The music was illegal.
You just cannot make this stuff up.

79   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

A few other random observations:

1) I notice that the poster upset at the video owner for changing the title carries the moniker “preachkjv” – which says volumes to me before even reading the first word. When you go to his favorites page, you also find out that one of his favorite videos is “Why Billy Graham is Going to Hell”.

2) Maybe I’m finding the wrong Jaci V videos, but I’ve yet to find one that has even close to the level of movement in the video linked in the OP.

3) Bruce said

We live in an over-sexed society (except for some legalists who I fear are extremely undersexed) and it easy to become desensitized to sexuality. We need to be aware of this.

I heartily agree. I have seen some (in my opinion) inappropriate skits/dance numbers in churches I have visited, and a good number which were not. Had the former happened in my own church, I would have quietly discussed it with the person in charge and worked it out that way. Casting stones at people you don’t know and misusing scripture to exclude them from the kingdom is FAR MORE deplorable than whatever infractions (legitimate or legalistic) they may have been guilty of…

80   merry    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Pole dancing is silly. I prefer Fred Astaire-style tap dancing. Now that’s fun to watch. (Someday I hope to be able to do it myself . . .)

Let’s not drag the subject of who’s divorced into this. It’s irrelevant.

I think God gave meant for us to use our talents (and many times we have to use our bodies to do that). We should always remember that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and because of that, we should always treat ourselves and others with respect. I do not know where the lines for dancing are drawn, if there are any, but like everything, we should let the Holy Spirit guide our actions.

Another thought– wouldn’t Christian athletes, gymnists, etc. who use their bodies to use their talents fall under the catagory of “body worship” as well? Dancing isn’t the only thing people do to move around . . . :)

81   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I went to Messiah College and when I first got there, no one was allowed to dance, not even off campus. That rule changed before I left the school.

Now I’m an apostate bad dancer.

82   merry    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Um, I’m not sure, but I think the Jaci video being referred to is on A Little Leaven.com . . . there’s a video of Jaci with some very scantily clad back-up dancers (although Jaci herself is dressed very modestly).

83   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

merry-

Great points. Is it ok to be a Christian gymnast in a tight outfit or is that in the flesh as well?

84   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

The school I went to back in 1986 had a ‘no dancing on campus’ rule, except for chapparoned square dancing. This was not so much based on school policy as it was a stipulation of a wealthy donor to the campus (which was also why it had no contact sports).

We held dances in a grade school gym a mile down the road, although one guy held a “square dance” with an outgoing faculty member as a sponsor. A square was duct-taped to the floor, and we were just required to dance within it :)

85   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Chris L.,
I agree with your assessment. The problem with dealing with legalists is that all their arguments are based on “slippery slope” type reasoning. Based on that reasoning, almost any action can lead one into sin.

Jesus specifically spoke against this type of reasoning when He said “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell”. He’s of course not advocating dismemberment, but he’s making a point by taking a slippery slope based logic to an absurd extreme. It’s not people eyes or hands that cause them to sin – it’s their hearts!

Even a bloody stump of a person has the ability to sin because he has a wicked heart. Legalism tries to change the heart by changing the outside first. Jesus changes the inside and the outside follows.

86   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

You oughta check out http://www.alittleleaven.com. I didn’t read the first post about some apostate church in MO – but some of the other stuff is pretty good. Although I have to admit – the Moose Nativity set made me laugh – eh!

87   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

If the girls were figure skaters who wore typical figure skating (another words, tight) outfits and did their routine on the ice, would anyone except the ODMs/fundamentalists have a problem with their routine?

88   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Not only that, Matt, but there are several required combinations and forms in competition figure skating which would fall afoul of PB’s broad definition of “pelvic thrusts”.

89   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

OK, truth in advertising. I knew people when I grew up (went to our church) that did not allow their kids to watch any figure skating, football, or gymnastics. They were not allowed to “mix bath” or wear pants. When they came over to our house they could watch baseball (the dad loved baseball) but we had to black out the commercials. The whole family imploded. I mean BOOM!!!

90   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Joe,
Hopefully it was only the women who were not allowed to wear pants. (It always cracks me up when someone says about not being allowed to wear pants – I just think of a bunch of people sitting in their underwear…)

I’ve actually met my fair share of fundamentalists, too. It’s funny, my grandpa was a Pentecostal pastor from the era, but he largely avoided much of that silliness. My mom always tells us how he let them get their ears pierced, but they had to hide it from other people in the church. He also let my mom and her brother and sister do things like Trick or Treating, which always surprises me.

91   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

The next time you lie, I hope one of your Christian friends comes up to you and tells you “though you call yourself a christian, your fruit in this in this conversation brings that title, at least in my mind, into question.” That should put things in perspective for you.

Next time you lust, lie, make a snide comment, or any other kind of SIN, I want you to know, by your own standard, you might not be Christian

You are exactly right. I might not be. If my lifestyle suggests that I am not, I would hope that someone in my church or another brother or sister in Christ would point out my error. That is exactly why we are called to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.

That is exactly the problem, here. There is at least 200 people in the crowd. All six of these girls have parents. None of them had the discernment to even question this going on in the church. None of the parents had the discernment to have this video taken off of the internet. The pastors only had the discernment to change the title, but it is still on the church website. THAT SCARES ME!

There is also a difference of a lifestyle that is marked with diving into sin; habitual sin that is continuous, unrepentant, and denied and falling into sin. We will NEVER be perfect on this earth, but we are dead to sin, we should not live in it any longer, and when we do fall, we are called to confess (agree) with God that it is sin, and repent and turn back to God when we fall into error. Sometimes we need gracious brothers and sisters to point that out. I hope that I have such in my fellowship.

92   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Quick research question; how do I find an approximation of how many webpages attach the name ministry to their blog? Anybody?

93   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Joe,
I would think that would be nigh an impossibility to be truly accurate. You could possibly do do a survey of some of the different blog host sites like blogger by searching for blogs with different names, but I still think it would be hard to catch all of them.

94   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Chris L,

Not only that, Matt, but there are several required combinations and forms in competition figure skating which would fall afoul of PB’s broad definition of “pelvic thrusts”.

I have never seen a figure skating routine that has had pelvic thrusts that I saw in that video, nor have I seen any described.

I wish I could draw a picture or a diagram so you could understand. If you are married, just make love with your spouse standing up, and imagine yourself without her present. That is a pelvic thrust that I am describing. I hate to be that graphic, but you are apparently that dense.

95   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

That is exactly the problem, here. There is at least 200 people in the crowd. All six of these girls have parents. None of them had the discernment to even question this going on in the church. None of the parents had the discernment to have this video taken off of the internet. The pastors only had the discernment to change the title, but it is still on the church website. THAT SCARES ME!

Can you point out where this is on the church’s web site? The person who posted it is called TeddyBear0520. Are you saying TeddyBear0520 is on staff at the church? Do you know what the parents thought? Do you know what church staff or elders or congregation thought?

96   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

PastorBoy,

I have never seen a figure skating routine that has had pelvic thrusts that I saw in that video, nor have I seen any described.

You’re kidding, right? I mean you cannot be honestly saying that. Have you ever watched competitive figure skating? Especially, competitive?

97   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

“… but you are apparently that dense…”

What kind of pastor are you?

98   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

I’m with pastorboy on this one… I have never seen a pelvic thrust in figure skating… but I have seen men put there hands in places where they ought not be if that’s not his wife…

aside from that, being “scared” by that video is… hmmm… too many choices.

Neil

99   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

This thread has officially gone from ridiculous to surreal…

100   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

I’ll second that…

101   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

I am stunned myself…

102   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Matt B

Thats where I found it originally. I now see they have taken it down. I retract that statement now. At least the church has taken it down.

103   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.rethinkingchurchlife.org
January 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Chris,

No I did not think it was erotic. Cheesy? Yes. Erotic? No

Bruce

104   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Do you know what the parents thought? Do you know what church staff or elders or congregation thought?

I can only assume that either a) they were not present at the dance, did not see it, or were unaware the video would be posted. In this case, they are not very involved in their daughter’s lives, and are unfortunately like many parents today that are lending little guidance in their children’s lives
b) They trust the church to do what they should be doing (see a above), and in that case, I say, what WERE the congregational leaders and elders THINKING ( or, were THEY there and supervising)
c) If the parents were there and the elders and congregation leaders were there, I think that makes Ingrid’s point, that this is just another example of the American Church going downhill FAST
d) I never claimed to know what the parents thought, just commented WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

105   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

How can you possibly criticize these people dancing, which isn’t even a sin, and judge them to hell, when we ourselves lie, slander, and lust all the time? If we used the standard being used on these Christians who danced, on ourselves, we’re far worse off. That’s what I’m getting at. Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

It’s like shrieking about a homosexual who says they’re a Christian, while at the same time you lie multiple times in a day. Far more sinning than a homosexual would ‘do the deed’ in a day. So is the liar saved?

Come on, make a right judgement you naysayers!

Joe

106   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.rethinkingchurchlife.org
January 9th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Chris,

I will say tho, as a father of 2 teen girls………..I would be uncomfortable with them doing th dance.

The whole dance in Church craze is quite surreal IMO.

I have seen erotic dance in Church. We visited a Evangelical Free Church in Arizona where the worship leader was a nice looking, blond dressed in skin tight clothes. She gyrated as well as anything I have ever seen in a strip club (yeah been there)

I confessed to my wife, after Church, that all I could think of during Church was the worship leader (and they weren’t good thoughts)

Bruce

107   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Since this seems to have passed absurd, I’m really sorry but I have to say it, while Pastorboy’s description of pelvic thrusts makes sense:

“If you are married, just make love with your spouse standing up, and imagine yourself without her present.”

if that video contains actual visual on how to do it, my husband and I must be getting something wrong.

*slinks back to corner*

108   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

if that video contains actual visual on how to do it, my husband and I must be getting something wrong.

I am now just beginning to see why it took my wife and I so long to have our kids…

no more said…

iggy

109   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Speaking of gambling (which we did way up there ^ ), does anyone want to start a poll (not, pole) about how long Ingrid or the like pulls out some quotes from this thread to point to the “carnalness” of the church today? Really, how could she pass it up?

110   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Pastorboy, you have issues with honesty and kindness. Weren’t you the one on my wife’s blog who said something about having to disagree in a nice manner?

111   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Joe,

I will say it again, if a Christian sins, he must repent. If he fails to see that sin, he is a fortunate man (or woman) that would have brothers or sisters who would help him see his error.

This is why we are ALL called to examine ourselves and to restore the weaker brother.

112   Bruce Gerencser    http://www.rethinkingchurchlife.org
January 9th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Pastorboy,

Nice theory………

Unfortunately, we spend all our time examining each other, thus proving WE are the weaker brother.

Further, I would challenge your exegesis on weaker brother. The weaker brother is actually the one with “the rules”

Bruce

113   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

if that video contains actual visual on how to do it, my husband and I must be getting something wrong.

Exactly, Deborah.

It’s not a property of density on my own part – rather a lack of Pharisaical judgmentalism. There is no “thrusting” in the video, and the attitude of the girls does not suggest anything sexual.

I have two daughters, myself, and Bruce – per your assessment – misgivings I would have about their involvement in this particular skit would be because of the cheesy-ness, not the imagined sexual overtones from undersexed Pharisees prowling the internet…

Surreal – yup – that’s what happens when the fascists start trying to define Christianity…

114   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

I will say it again, if a Christian sins, he must repent.

That’s the problem, PB.

There is no sin in this particular discussion, apart from the lack of basic Christian charity toward the kids (and leaders) being castigated for imagined offenses against personal preferences/convictions of people who don’t even attend their church.

115   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

This is why we are ALL called to examine ourselves and to restore the weaker brother.

Which is why we’re trying to restore you…

Edit: My “sarcasm” tags got swallowed up by the editor…

116   kenn    
January 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Matt and Chris L, I think I’ve stumbled on the solution. Regarding the figure skaters, if they all just wore giant flowing Burkhas, you wouldn’t be able to see any motion, pelvic thrusting, etc. That would make the choreography rather dull, and the judging next to impossible, but at least there wouldn’t be any visible “pelvic thrusts”.

Might not work so well for the gymnasts. Can you imagine what a tangled mess that would be during an uneven parallel bar routine.

And don’t even think about the highdive. some of those girls are so small, they’d just take off like a kite. But that might create a new category. Distance Diving. But when you eventually hit the water, you’d sink like a rock.

Let’s run it by Ingrid… but then again, a wet, clingy burkha just might be too fleshly and revealing. Oh well, never mind.

117   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Your poor exegesis of the passage aside, you calling Chris L dense was just you examining your heart, is that what you are saying?
Nice try.
I know I’ve had sex correctly with my wife at least 6 times. We’ve had the pregnancies to prove it, and I don’t see anything at all close to that in this video. Does that make me dense?

118   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

kenn – too much thought put into that…
Joe M – too much information… :)

119   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

I hope I didn’t offend. I almost changed it. But you can see the kids and they look too much like us to be adopted…Not that there is anything wrong with adoption

120   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

No, no offense… you’re right about doing the math… it’s more a comment on how we got from that video to comments on sex.

121   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Joe, you have had six times? I hope it was all for procreation.

I asked if he was dense, I didn’t say he was. I explained my definition of a pelvic thrust. Are you also dense? or do you not agree a thrusting forward of the hips as though you are having intercourse is a pelvic thrust. Or, you might be blind, because despite all the time you have watched that video, you didnt see the two times they did that.

122   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Or, you might be blind, because despite all the time you have watched that video, you didnt see the two times they did that.

Perhaps you just imagined it – there is no “pelvic thrust” in which they were ‘thrusting forward the hips as though they were having intercourse’.

I bet that if I could do get the honest opinions of 100 non-believing guys/men about this video, that most of their comments would show that Pastorboy is on the right track.

I’m guessing my earlier comment got stuck in the spam filter and deleted, so I’ll repeat it.

I interviewed 2 of amy’s “100 non-believing men” in my office this afternoon. I showed the Youtube video and asked “don’t you think this is pretty suggestive? Would you let your daughters do that?”

The answer was (verbatim) “you’re kidding, right? That’s about as sexual as kissing your sister good night.” with an accompanying nod from the other guy. Two unbelievers down, 98 to go…

123   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 9th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Chris, do you live in Kentucky?

124   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Chris, do you live in Kentucky?

No, I’m in Indiana. The guy who made the comment doesn’t have a sister (I asked him the same question to keep the facade of which side of the debate I’m on).

There’s nothing “sinful” in the video except in the minds of the legalists looking to skewer other Christians.

125   kenn    
January 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Neil–Can one ever put too much thought into “pelvic thrusting?”

My daughter is a dancer, and in most ballet numbers, the partner in the pas de deux has his hands all over the dancer. It’s pretty hard to lift someone over your head and spin them around without actually grabbing them in various locations. So, in reference to Neil’s comment above, most of these guys don’t have wives, if you catch my drift, so in a weird way, that sort of cancels out the initial “hey get your hands away from my daughter’s…..” instinctive paternal reaction. When you’re watching backstage, you’re holding your breath, waiting for that final toss, and praying for a happy landing.

126   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

PB – here’s some research into “pelvic thrusts”

127   Neil    
January 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

very good Kenn, very good…

128   amy    
January 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I’ve only just now read through some of this.

If anyone’s still interested, the Jaci Velasquez video I referred to is here:

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2007/12/jaci-velasquez.html

Someone in this discussion asked me if I’ve never been to a football game, saying what the cheerleaders do is far worse than the previous video being discussed.

I just never thought that I was to judge what was right and wrong, to derive dress or dance standards for myself or my girls, by what cheerleaders do.

I would ask, why is this dancing in the jv video not considered pornographic?

129   R. Bell (the other one)    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bell_baseball
January 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Are you kidding? That is not even close to porn. That is a Latin performer, doing a Latin Dance. Amy, I have to ask this based on your statement. Are you a racist? The outfits were decent, you can see more on C?Ns little video about RW and RM. Is hunting down dirt and making what amounts to racist statements (IMO) really redeeming the time?

130   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Are you a racist?

Hey, Mr. Other – let’s back off the accusations, please?

131   R. Bell (the other one)    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bell_baseball
January 15th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Accusation is not my goal. It seems to me that much of the western church is racist. No accusation aimed at anyone but that video was a truly latin performance. I do not understand why the western church believes it is the one that gets to sit in judgement of all other cultures. Is that a natural extension of imminent domain? Please Chris L, help me understand what is so offensive over that video. Amy, help me understand what makes that video pornographic.

132   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

R.

I didn’t say there was anything offensive or inoffensive about the video – I just was referring to the charge of racism, which seemed a bit out of line.

133   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

R. Bell,

As a part-time missiologist and student of church history, I could not agree more that the Western Church has a history of imperialism and paternalism. It has sat in judgment upon things it should not have.

I’ll comment on the particular video when it finally loads, it seems unusually slow.

Neil

134   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

After watching 65% of the video (it was just playing way too slow) I’ll answer Amy’s question: we (or at least “I”) do not consider that video pornographic because it’s not pornographic… at least not the first 65%… 

135   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

A Little Leaven does prove the point on how easy it is to abuse the term “Christian” when employing it as an adjective.

Neil

136   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
January 16th, 2008 at 7:41 am

I agree with Neil that the video isn’t pornographic but I found the outfits to be a little too skimpy for my tastes. Concerned that I was being too sensitive, I played the video for my husband. Afterwards I asked him what color the lead singer’s dress was. He asked me if there was a lead singer.

The dance moves were fine but the back-up dancers would have to have a little bit more material on them before I’d let my boys watch it.

137   amy    
January 16th, 2008 at 11:22 am

My question about if this was pornographic – and I wasn’t trying to be tricky, mostly I was tired and in too much of a hurry to explain – is that it should be considered pornographic in the sense of being off limits to the Christian. Christians are not told to “heap burning coals in their lap” (somewhere in Proverbs I think), not to try to “resist” sexual temptation, but rather to flee it.

When “pornography” – which will be a label that will always change – can be considered as totally off-limits to the Christians, but Christians who question other things as being sexually enticing, possible stumbling blocks, are mocked, then the real standard has become “wordly wisdom” not the Word of God or the Spirit of God.

I’m not saying that Christians can’t have different opinions – but the general attitude of some is that people that see particular dance moves and/or lack of clothing as suggestive somehow “have a problem.”

Maybe it’s just that most of their lives they have practiced fleeing temptation and never gotten used to the world’s standard of purity. Or maybe it’s that they came from background of sexual impurity and are completely honest in realizing how some of this kind of dancing affects some men.

Personally I would feel that if I “okayed” my son watching a video like the Jaci Velasquez one, I would have nothing to say about his watching pornography. Why draw a line across the threshold when I’ve already enticed him to come in?

138   Neil    
January 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Deborah – I agree, too skimpy, but it’s not pornographic.

Neil

139   Neil    
January 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Amy,

I understand your pov, and to a point I agree now that I have read your intended use of pornographic. Deborah’s comment about her husband asking “There was a lead singer?” may be funny – but true nonetheless.

BUT, and this a big but (pun intended)… I find the condescending, ethnocentric, and unbiblical judgmental attitude portrayed by those who posted and most of those who commented to be as egregious an affront as the original video.

Neil

140   amy    
January 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am

Bottom line to what I was saying above, if we continue to let the world define purity what we will deem acceptable will simply keep changing more and more.

R. Bell,
If sacrificing my friends in high school because of taking a stand against racism, if spending most of my weekends in college relating to kids of a different race, and spending most of my adult life working and living among other races makes me a racist, I guess I qualify.

I know very little about dancing so other than the fact that Jaci V was in and that it was in Spanish I wouldn’t have had a clue that it was somehow Latin American in flavor.

By what you’ve said I could look at a number of kinds of dancing (pole dancing) for example, and say, “hey, that’s just American (or European?), how dare anyone criticize it?”

I’ve heard about Latin dancing – something about how it’s practically a requirement for the ladies to look sexy. That seems to be the requirement/expectation in this culture for a lot of things as well – many cheerleading groups – reflected both in their moves, and outfits’ increasingly skimpier and skimpier ice-skating outfits, etc. Just because its part of our culture does that mean it’s acceptable for Christians to enjoy?

Paul spoke to a group of people that he loved, from a culture that was consumed with sex – and he said to them “flee sexual immorality.” Not “go back to the temple where you previously joined with prostitutes and watch them dance.”

What is so very different about the dancing I saw on this video and dancing that is done in bars, for men’s entertainment? Are those men just there celebrating the culture? If one of them, a Christian, becomes convicted and decides to walk out, if the girls who are dancing are a different race than him, does that make him a racist?

141   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Amy,

Where does the Holy Spirit come into your walk… and how will your son learn self control if you shelter him such?

What I have seen is the ones so sheltered are the ones that chase the worldly things… but the ones exposed to it in some ways tend to not to…

As far as dancing, David danced “naked” (wearing a linen ephod) before God… he stripped himself of his Kingly attire and danced with the people in celebration of the return of the Ark. Michal, daughter of Saul, judged him for being lewd when God did not… and she was left barren for her act of judgement.

In that we must be careful to not judge others as pure or impure… I wonder if you are judging Jackie V for her beauty instead of that she is dancing too sexy… I doubt she is doing anything “lewd”…

I guess I just do not see any healthy balance from you… I see a worldly strictness that many confuse as being godly, but does really nothing… at least that is what the bible teaches….

Colossians 2: 20. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
21. “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?
22. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.
23. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

iggy

142   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
January 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Just a note: in my husband’s defense, he did actually correctly identify the color of JV’s dress.

Amy, I see your point of view to some extent. For myself, this is an area of discernment. There are things that some people would call pornographic and cause some people to stumble.

However, I can’t say that this is a black and white issue. While I found the back-up singers to be a problem for me, based on how much skin they were showing, I don’t have a problem with the statue of Venus (from a nudity perspective). It is difficult to draw lines between acceptable and not, and those lines are in different places for different people.

There are issues of personality, culture and context. If this sort of thing bothers you, don’t watch it and don’t let your kids watch it. I know how hard it is to be raising Godly children. At the same time, your standards on what is acceptable are different than mine. You are more conservative than I am in many issues. If we spent some time together you would probably find that I am too conservative for you in others.

Saying that you wouldn’t watch that video or let your children watch it is very different from telling me that I shouldn’t. You are correct that we shouldn’t let the world define purity for Christians, but at the same time, please don’t hold it against me when I define it differently than you.

deborah

143   amy    
January 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Saying that you wouldn’t watch that video or let your children watch it is very different from telling me that I shouldn’t.

Deborah,
I appreciate your kind attitude. I’m not trying to tell you or anyone else what to do and I am sorry if it seems like that. It’s that I see the attitude (not by you) of some as “A Christian who has a more conservative attitude IS to be mocked.”

It makes public dialogue difficult. And these are matters, in my opinion, for public dialogue. The media affects everyone. Kids “worship” singers, etc.

Iggy,
My kids have incredible freedom in some areas that most kids don’t – outdoor adventure, for example.

I would never view encouraging my sons to watch something like this, or being silent if I saw him watching this, as the love of a Christian mom.

Quite frankly, if you actually knew my sons you would not question their walk with the Lord, their love for others, or their love for God.

144   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Deborah,

I agree – it is a matter of personal preference and personal conviction, not one of cross-cultural absolutes.

Once we force the former into the guise of the latter, we take on the legalistic character of the pharisees. However, when we completely neglect the principal of “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial, we become indistinguishable from the pagans.

It is a line that must be walked in each church community and as individuals, with an application of charity (”the charitable observer”) outside of that community.

145   amy    
January 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

And, Iggy, the ones who are own their own now appreciate the way they were brought up. One of my sons said to me once that he appreciated that we never just gave them a bunch of rules but tried to explain why we had guidelines that we did. It may seem to you that I sound like a rulemaster because the things I discuss on here are things that I feel strongly about and I’m discussing them with people who have a markedly different worldview. In family life these kinds of issues don’t even come up that often.

146   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

OK…

I think that Jacquie is getting an unfair treatment here…

This is not HER in concert, but a televised Mexican special where she appeared. Notice that SHE is modestly dressed and does not even come close to the other dancers clothes.

She is very popular… and I bet that it was one of those times where she was asked to come and sing and the producer added the dancers… not her.

I wondered at all the judging that a little leaven added to the video… that sickened me more! Especially the “golden calf” line. It seems that some care little for other brothers and sisters and would rather judge and condemn than really try to find out what went on.

I truly doubt that Jacquie brought those dancers and had them dress like that.

On the other hand, I think it great that she a Christian, was able to be light in that darkness for a time. But, then I seem to see God doing silly things like that… I mean He sent His Son into this dark world to be the Light and He wants us to be the Light for Him…

But, then I tend to give the beniit of the doubt to others and as the bible teaches as far as loving others… ” Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” Knowing what I do know of Jacquie, I think that this is a rare occassion and that she is getting unfair treatment.

iggy

147   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
January 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Iggy, I was only addressing the video, as it was presented in the link in the comment section. Please notice that while I had problems with the clothing on the back-up singers and would not let my kids watch THAT video, I have no opinion on JV.

Amy, it is very difficult to have conversations with people who don’t share the same beliefs as you. If I am more liberal in some areas it is way too easy to look down on someone who doesn’t share the same freedoms. At the same time if I am more conservative in some areas then it is very easy to look down on someone who isn’t.

I really hope that the new guidelines on tone work here as it happens on both sides, and I’ve been on both.

I guess the hardest thing is to remember that things that are stumbling blocks to me are not blocks for everyone. Rather than mock them or condemn them, I should be grateful that that person isn’t burdened by them.

148   Robbo    
January 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

speaking of dancing, I think many of you will appreciate the Ladies Praise Line here and the Men’s Praise Line here .

;) Certainly, the visiting missionaries in the ladies praise line had no hesitation in joining in the “dancing before the Lord”. And the gender separation should keep all of us happy, ODMs included.

149   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 16th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Deborah,

Iggy, I was only addressing the video, as it was presented in the link in the comment section. Please notice that while I had problems with the clothing on the back-up singers and would not let my kids watch THAT video, I have no opinion on JV.

I am just addressing that some are judging JV as if they know all that was behind that video… I see it as revealing their own heart and not necessarily JV’s

In that I personally do not see that as appropriate in many ways, but in the world of dance, the moves were not bad to me, the dress of the back up singers was a bit too much.

But, do I judge JV by how a producer set things up on the stage and that the back up dancers dressed? That seems to push the limits to me as far as how we should treat another sister or brother in the Lord.

iggy

150   amy    
January 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Iggy,
Is it “judging” someone to think that they’re probably okay with something because
1)They’re actually performing at the performance. I assume Jackie could have walked out if she wanted to.
2) They have of their own, planned free will previously made a decision to be in the kind of movie she was in before.

I would say it might be a more unfair evaluation of her values to think that she would actually have chosen not to do this.

Was this song a Christian song? I don’t know, but if so, then in my mind Christians have the right to speak up about it even more.

151   amy    
January 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Robbo,
I wonder how much fun the nationals in such situations have trying to imitate the expats attempts at dancing, after they go home.

152   Robbo    
January 17th, 2008 at 10:30 am

Amy,

I can assure you it is all done in good faith and also in good fun. On this particular video, I think the expats acquitted themselves very well in the dancing and as far as I can see, their presence did not distract any of the locals. I do agree that sometimes when visitors try to “over-adapt” to the locals, they can become the center of attention and that is not helpful to anyone.

We had a visiting graduate music student from the USA in my Church in Ghana many years ago who was extremely helpful to Choir, taught us a lot of music and helped to improve the skills of everyone. She encouraged the use of the local musical instruments in the Church, even adapting them into “Western” music. She stayed for about three months, and was a blessing to the congregation. When she left she also remarked how greatly she had been blessed by her experience.

153   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am

Amy,

It is wrong to judge anyone if you do not know all the facts… in fact the bible states that as foolish…

iggy