An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 3)

In before the fracas.

One comment, the author focuses on associations and secondary issues more than the primary issues. Not sure if they forgot that we sing songs that were written by Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and others from all walks of life. But I guess because they are old, they are okay.

…except the target is no longer Steve Green.

I am beginning to consider the implications of the applications of Doug and Ryan’s article. I thought we had very conservative music in our church. I thought, “we have an an old fashioned hymnal so we were okay.” Our hymnal is titled “Great Hymns of the Faith” published in 1968 by Brentwood Benson music publishing. John W Peterson is the editor. I just read this about him on Wikipedia, “He also had direct contact with popular Christian musicians of the day such as Bill Pearce and Dick Anthony.” Further, he was inducted into the gospel music hall of fame in 1986. That is the same hall of fame that Elvis Presley and Amy Grant were inducted into. How concerned should I be about the associations that our hymnal has? I ask this partly because we have another solid Bible believing church about 12 miles away and one of the first things that I heard about them when I came here to pastor is that they were a lot like us except they did not have as high of music standards. We have visited there for special events like the missions conference and they actually have very similar music standards. After asking people what they meant about the difference in music standards I finally found out that they use a different hymnal than we do so their music standards must not be as high. I guess for some the standard is the hymnal we have in the pew. It’s kind of sad how ridiculous the music wars can sometimes become. (Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that we have no standards- I prefer the traditional hymns. I just have not seen clearly defined and consistently applied standards in so much that I have read and heard from those waging the music wars.)

Not much to say really. Is anyone really surprised that by their conclusion (they won’t use SGM or Getty hymns)?

I think this is just an article written to the dwindling group that still subscribes to this kind of thinking. I doubt it was written to actually convince anyone outside of their camp. It provides a list of talking points to music pastors so they can explain to their congregations why they won’t use “In Christ Alone” and “Power of the Cross.” That is why they can get away with non-serious sentences about Christians who “are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music.”

We don’t need to guess at the author’s motivation. He clearly stated that the articles were an explanation as to why he would not use Getty/Townend music. Whether we agree with the author or not, worship (and the use of music in worship) is a serious issue. Just because we might disagree with someone does not mean his arguments or talking points were not serious. GregH, some people have disagreed with you — did they simply dismiss you and your comments as “non-serious”? If they had, they probably wouldn’t have engaged in further discussions with you.

In part 2 several comments were made to dismiss the author’s claims about music and emotions by casting them as rehashed 1970s Christian arguments. However, claims that music (tune, not text) affects emotions negatively are much older than the 1970s and have been asserted by both religious and secular people. Consider the writings of Augustine or Plato, for example.

In part 3 comments have been made to dismiss the author’s claims about associations. Whether we admit it or not, we all make decisions based on association. Some decide they don’t want to be associated with “Baptists” or “fundamentalists” so they change the name of their church. Some don’t want to be associated with certain education institutions or groups of churches, so they may distance themselves from them. If it’s o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don’t want to be associated with Doug Bachorik and his music philosophy, isn’t it also o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don’t want to be associated with Sovereign Grace and their philosophy of music?

[Brenda T]

We don’t need to guess at the author’s motivation. He clearly stated that the articles were an explanation as to why he would not use Getty/Townend music. Whether we agree with the author or not, worship (and the use of music in worship) is a serious issue. Just because we might disagree with someone does not mean his arguments or talking points were not serious. GregH, some people have disagreed with you — did they simply dismiss you and your comments as “non-serious”? If they had, they probably wouldn’t have engaged in further discussions with you.

In part 2 several comments were made to dismiss the author’s claims about music and emotions by casting them as rehashed 1970s Christian arguments. However, claims that music (tune, not text) affects emotions negatively are much older than the 1970s and have been asserted by both religious and secular people. Consider the writings of Augustine or Plato, for example.

In part 3 comments have been made to dismiss the author’s claims about associations. Whether we admit it or not, we all make decisions based on association. Some decide they don’t want to be associated with “Baptists” or “fundamentalists” so they change the name of their church. Some don’t want to be associated with certain education institutions or groups of churches, so they may distance themselves from them. If it’s o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don’t want to be associated with Doug Bachorik and his music philosophy, isn’t it also o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don’t want to be associated with Sovereign Grace and their philosophy of music?

I did not say that everyone I disagree with is non-serious. Nor did I say that everything in these articles is non-serious. I said some particular statements in these articles are non-serious.

Regarding your part 2 statement: When people refer to the rehashed 70’s stuff, they are referring to particular arguments of the 70’s related to 20th century music such as the discussion of dissonance, drums and 7th chords. Everyone knows that Plato talked about a lot of things related to music. (Some of it was wise and some of it was utter nonsense.)

I agree with your part 3 statement entirely. Let Doug Bachorik and anyone else separate from anyone they want. But if they post a public article on a blog, it is expected their ideas will be examined.

Separation implies a previous joining. Choosing not to associate with someone or something is not necessarily a separation especially if you were not ever joined with or to it.

[Brenda T]

Separation implies a previous joining. Choosing not to associate with someone or something is not necessarily a separation especially if you were not ever joined with or to it.

I don’t quite understand why we need to nit pick at this level especially since I agreed with you. Separate or not associate, Doug should do whatever he thinks best.

The association argument can be valid, but it is the least compelling argument. In time associations diminish. As has been said, even our very conservative hymnbooks have negative associations. I have suggested that text, tune, arrangement, performance style are the primary criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of a hymn, spiritual song, or psalm. If the association of a song has been adjusted on account of the fact that some of these songs have been re-arranged, recorded, and re-identified with sound ministries such as the Pettit Evangelistic Team, Sound Forth, or Majesty Music, then the association is no longer simply SG or ST. Hopefully, now the song can be more objectively evaluated based on text, tune, arrangement, and performance style. Frankly, even very conservative and traditional hymns can be re-arranged and performed in an inappropriate style. Think of the various versions of Christmas carols we have heard in recent weeks. The same song can be arranged and performed in radically different ways. The words in Christ Alone are very strong. The arrangement and performance style done by the Pettit team is conservative and traditional. There is no element of the rock genre in their recording, arrangement, or performance style. One would have to have a prejudice in order to interpret it otherwise. Could that song be presented or arranged improperly? Yes! Should we avoid those inappropriate recordings? Yes! However, the same could be said of Amazing Grace. As much as possible there ought to be an effort to have objective criteria that is consistent.

One of the objections to SG or ST music is the fact that Fundamentalism has had in recent decades an anti-Calvinistic and anti-Lordship gospel. I am not advocating full-blown Calvinism or Hyper-Calvinism nor an excessive emphasis on Lordship that diminishes forensic justification. Nevertheless, the easy-believism and Arminianism and Keswick theology so prevalent in Fundamental circles leads some to dismiss the good texts in some of these songs and then look for other reasons to dismiss them. I know this first hand on account of the fact that I have spoken face-to-face with some well known men who have unfairly dismissed all of these songs simply because these men are terrible theologians, insanely anti-Calvinistic, and have bought into a dumbed-down gospel. I strongly disagree with SG Ministries on many theological issues; nevertheless, some of the texts in SG music have truly honored the gospel in ways that other traditional hymns have fallen short. As a pastor for 34 years I have learned that people don’t always scratch where they are itching.

Now that the discussion has turned to the issue of associations I submit the following conundrum, which is not given in jest.

How is it proper or honorable for a ministry would utilize an image so closely associated with theft, murder, immorality, drunkenness and even the likes of Jonny Depp?

Is it fitting for something such as piracy to be utilized for a conservative ministry without critique simply because the founder wears an eye patch? Just calling him a ‘good’ pirate does not negate the definition and use both historically and in contemporary culture. There is not a dictionary around that includes any such definition.

I am unable to reconcile to ideas and proposals of association from the article writers with the application of Patch the Pirate in their circle of ministry.

[Seth Johnson] Just calling him a ‘good’ pirate does not negate the definition and use both historically and in contemporary culture. There is not a dictionary around that includes any such definition.

Someone’s forgetting about Ragnar Danneskjöld.

Which is given in jest. :D

But at some point someone might start considering that dissidens is/was not entirely wrong.

Which is not given in jest.

Seth, might your apt questions also apply to ministries using rap/hip hop?

The receptivity of a critique is that it first runs through a grid of self reflection. A sermon on the biblical view of anger is lost if the pastor has a well known ‘short fuse’. In argumentation credibility is diminished when the “logs” are not removed before the specks. Though truly first is the acknowledgment they exist.

So if you please, and if the question is apt…let the pirate precede the rapper.

[Seth Johnson]

The receptivity of a critique is that it first runs through a grid of self reflection. A sermon on the biblical view of anger is lost if the pastor has a well known ‘short fuse’. In argumentation credibility is diminished when the “logs” are not removed before the specks. Though truly first is the acknowledgment they exist.

So if you please, and if the question is apt…let the pirate precede the rapper.