An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (1)

Please, note the original thread (now read only) was started on SI by P&D’s editor Don Johnson. I assume he wanted to get the article out to a wider audience. [Groucho Marx on] Also, I believe Brother Don assumed there were some here that would die before they had P&D in the browser’s history[Groucho Marx end]

[Shaynus]

The comment is about comments, Rob.

[Shaynus]

I understand the technicality that you’re talking about only what you have observed. My point is that you can’t have possibly observed what happens mostly in private, and make any kind of point that has “oughtness” behind it. Again, a direct approach to the “oughtness” of a matter is better than telling the kids that they haven’t really done the research. I simply think your essay would have a better thrust and direction, if the premise was something like “you shouldn’t do this” than “you haven’t thought hard enough about this.” Get it? I await the next installments.

Also, why are comments happening here publicly and not your website?

Thanks for the further thoughts. I appreciate your opinion on the directness of approach. My hope is that even if folks walk away from the article not in complete agreement (rather likely), they will at least appreciate the way in which issues were handled and be encouraged to give careful examination, not merely accepting or rejecting the next new product promoted to evangelical Christianity. Hope you enjoy the rest of the article.

Garlock teaches plainly that music is not a-moral. Its character is moral.

What’s the difference? A knife is a-moral. It’s neither good, nor bad. Depending on who’s holding that knife, it can do things that are either good or evil. It can accomplish good things by freeing the bonds of a captive, or slicing a tomato for a sandwich. But - in the hands of a fiend - a knife can also murder the innocent. It’s a tool.

In Frank Garlock’s world, however, music is NOT just a tool. Music is a powerful entity that - in itself - is either holy or evil. He teaches that music is moral or immoral by its very nature, and cannot be neutral. The sound itself is here to either help you or to hurt you. There’s no middle ground.

He attempts to support this truth by associating it with the character of God Himself. Garlock reasons that since (a) God is musical, and (b) God is moral, therefore (c) music is moral by nature. That’s Frank’s Theorem.

(Note: for fun, try Frank’s Theorem with any other two random attributes of God, and see how it works. Here’s one to get you started: (a) God is kind, and (b) God is unchangeable. Therefore (c) kindness is unchangeable. Kids, you can try Frank’s Theorum at home: (a) Rudolph is a reindeer, and (b) Rudolph has a red nose. Therefore, (c) all reindeers have red noses! Donner and Prancer might disagree, but I digress.)

Frank’s Theorem gives birth to Frank’s Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and “acceptable to the Lord” and (b) the style which is immoral and “unacceptable to the Lord.” It’s a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” For those who don’t agree with what he’s proven, he’s obviously adopted the next verse in context: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

So the battle’s on; we’ll either accept what Garlock’s “proven” or be “reproved.” With no middle ground, his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of “worldliness.”

[Shaynus]

Also, why are comments happening here publicly and not your website?

Shane, P&D is not a forum for debate. There is provision to make comments that may or may not be published at a future date (letters to the editor style). The purpose of posting here was to let people know about the article, not really to stimulate debate. I appreciate the Filings link by Jim because it gets even more notice than a privately initiated thread in the forum.

Yeah. I think the pattern of hymn history is that in any era there are those hymns that catch on for a while, but are then dropped in 20 or 100 or 300 years, and then there are those that stand the test of time. I want timeless hymns for sure, but I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think we know which ones will last. So I like all good hymns, even old ones put to new tunes (I’d appreciate any thoughts you have on Indelible Grace and the modern hymn movement as well)

St. Francis of Assisi had association issues.

[Jim] A Response to Dr. Frank Garlock’s Teaching About Praise

Garlock teaches plainly that music is not a-moral. Its character is moral.

What’s the difference? A knife is a-moral. It’s neither good, nor bad. Depending on who’s holding that knife, it can do things that are either good or evil. It can accomplish good things by freeing the bonds of a captive, or slicing a tomato for a sandwich. But - in the hands of a fiend - a knife can also murder the innocent. It’s a tool.

In Frank Garlock’s world, however, music is NOT just a tool. Music is a powerful entity that - in itself - is either holy or evil. He teaches that music is moral or immoral by its very nature, and cannot be neutral. The sound itself is here to either help you or to hurt you. There’s no middle ground.

He attempts to support this truth by associating it with the character of God Himself. Garlock reasons that since (a) God is musical, and (b) God is moral, therefore (c) music is moral by nature. That’s Frank’s Theorem.

(Note: for fun, try Frank’s Theorem with any other two random attributes of God, and see how it works. Here’s one to get you started: (a) God is kind, and (b) God is unchangeable. Therefore (c) kindness is unchangeable. Kids, you can try Frank’s Theorum at home: (a) Rudolph is a reindeer, and (b) Rudolph has a red nose. Therefore, (c) all reindeers have red noses! Donner and Prancer might disagree, but I digress.)

Frank’s Theorem gives birth to Frank’s Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and “acceptable to the Lord” and (b) the style which is immoral and “unacceptable to the Lord.” It’s a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” For those who don’t agree with what he’s proven, he’s obviously adopted the next verse in context: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

So the battle’s on; we’ll either accept what Garlock’s “proven” or be “reproved.” With no middle ground, his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of “worldliness.”

THIS………

[Jim] A Response to Dr. Frank Garlock’s Teaching About Praise

Frank’s Theorem gives birth to Frank’s Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and “acceptable to the Lord” and (b) the style which is immoral and “unacceptable to the Lord.” It’s a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” For those who don’t agree with what he’s proven, he’s obviously adopted the next verse in context: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

So the battle’s on; we’ll either accept what Garlock’s “proven” or be “reproved.” With no middle ground, his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of “worldliness.”

Actually, I do agree with Garlock that music is either pleasing to the Lord or it is not. There’s not a lot of degrees between things that are holy and righteous and things that are evil and sinful.

Where I do think Garlock goes wrong (and I’ve read a few of his books) is in his criteria for determining what is and isn’t acceptable. Rather than basing the ‘acceptableness’ of music on musical styles or arrangements, why don’t we just go to what the song teaches (So How Deep The Father’s Love for Us by SGM is OK, and some of the stuff in Majesty Hymns is…not as acceptable)?

[Jay] Where I do think Garlock goes wrong (and I’ve read a few of his books) is in his criteria for determining what is and isn’t acceptable. Rather than basing the ‘acceptableness’ of music on musical styles or arrangements, why don’t we just go to what the song teaches … ?

Because music is music and words are words. Both teach.

(Not that I would purposefully defend Garlock in general.)

While I agree with your assessment of the words of “How Deep the Father’s Love” vs. certain “approved” but lame fundamentalist songs, it’s not really a fair comparison - one cherry-picked good example vs all the bad ones in a given hymnal. It’s the rare hymnal that has all good ones.

True…it’s not really a fair comparison. I used the first example that came to mind, because I don’t happen to have a Majesty at hand right now. Maybe I can come up with a better one later.

It just strikes me as so incredibly disconcerting that some drivel is acceptable because it comes from the ‘right’ places, and some deep and doctrinal stuff is argued against because they used drums or cymbals or whatever. I think that point still stands, Psalm 150:5 notwithstanding, that is :)

I realize this is anecdotal, but indulge me for a moment because it gets to the heart of Jim’s comments regarding Frank Garlock.

Several years ago I was privileged to lead a Single Adult Ministry called “Cornerstone” at a very fine fundamental Baptist Church. This church has a great pastor, with great people, and all the usual BJU-type connections. One Christmas several BJU college students came home on Christmas break and attended one of our SAM Wednesday night gatherings. To my surprise, a couple of these college students were upset one evening because we had sung “There Is A Redeemer” which, of course, was written by Melody Green, wife of famous CCM singer/songwriter, Keith Green.

So, they scheduled an appointment with me that week so they could “discuss” with me this great compromise I had made. The conversation was going very well for them up until the point I pulled out the Majesty Hymnal and showed them that the song was right there in black and white. It was funny to watch the looks on their faces at that moment, especially since they had attempted to argue with great vigor how I had compromised the “Association Principle.” Suddenly, in that one compelling moment, these dear college students now saw that it was “OK” to sing this song. Why? Because Frank said so…LOL.

Anyway, I won’t bore you with any more details, but I will say this - I, and many others like me over the years, came to the point where we were no longer going to allow what I call “The Music Popes Of Greenville” to decide for us what songs were acceptable, and especially, WHEN they were now acceptable. I am so thankful for the younger men of conviction who I see choosing not to be lemmings in this issue.

Friends,

Could I suggest that readers of the “Examination…” installments on Proclaim and Defend read the following article: http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/12/06/music-and-missions/

The article is also posted on SharperIron. Although it is not directly connected to the article being discussed in this particular forum, I think it is actually a more important article, dealing with some of the presuppositions used in the “Examination…”

Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and comments!

DB