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

There are 50 Comments

dgszweda's picture

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.

JD Miller's picture

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.)

GregH's picture

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."

Brenda T's picture

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?

GregH's picture

Brenda T wrote:

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.

 

Brenda T's picture

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.

GregH's picture

Brenda T wrote:

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.  

Mike Harding's picture

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.

Pastor Mike Harding

Seth Johnson's picture

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. 

 

DavidO's picture

Seth Johnson wrote:
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.  Biggrin

 

 

 

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

Which is not given in jest. 

 

Brenda T's picture

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

Seth Johnson's picture

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. 

GregH's picture

Seth Johnson wrote:

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. 

Great post Seth. Great great response to Brenda. We need a lot more of that.

DBachorik's picture

dgszweda wrote:

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.

Hello, Dgszweda,

I am not sure what you mean by your statement above. If by 'primary issues' you mean musical sound and meaning, that is really much of what the article is dealing with. We have also tried to address the thorny issue of associations and the 'weaker brother' injunctions from I Corinthians, and then attempted to make appropriate applications from both areas of inquiry. It seems to us that we ought to do the one and not leave the other undone.

We certainly have not 'forgot that we sing songs that were written..." The issue of association is important, but ephemeral. Associations change over time, therefore our responses may change. For example, if I am not mistaken, many fundamental churches avoided the use of the songs of André Crouch when his life- and performance styles were believed to be at odds with the calling to a separated life. I am writing here about things a bit before my time. Even if some of his songs were deemed appropriate textually and musically (apart from his personal performing style), many churches felt the potential harm of using his songs was greater than the potential benefit. Today, there seems to be little to no negative impact, on an association level, with the use of Crouch's songs. (Please don't read this as an endorsement of Crouch - I only know one of his songs and don't find the words or the music particularly edifying).

I live and minister in a predominantly Roman Catholic country, amidst Baptist churches. The association of Catholicism is an ongoing question. I am currently working on a setting of the Ave Verum Corpus text, by William Byrd, with my college choir, but am doing so with much discussion with my students.

The issue you are addressing has little to do with the age of the creation of the song ("...but I guess because they are old..."). When dealing with associational issues, the question, it seems to me, is one of edification. If I am looking at a song for use in Christian worship that I find to be particularly appropriate and even excellent, in terms of text and musical communication, I must then assess whether or not there are 'environmental' issues that might hinder the effective use of the song. If there are, then I should be ready to set the song, or oeuvre, aside until such a time or situation that the edification emphasized in I Cor. 12-14 can be achieved with the use of said song or oeuvre. Such determinations can really only be made by individual local churches, and the moment when an association problem ends for a local body of Christ is a challenging one. Nevertheless, each church must forge ahead and deal with such things, in the spirit of love and unity that should mark a true body of Christ.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

Andrew Comings wrote:

...except the target is no longer Steve Green.

 

The fundamental issues never change. Isn't it wonderful to know that we have a sure guide through the challenging and sometimes murky waters of musical discernment in the Word of God, with the aid of the Holy Spirit? The real question is whether or not we are willing to continue to wrestle with appropriate applications in our own times.

The only target in these authors' site is biblically grounded decisions about music. Whether or not they achieve it is another matter, but that is their goal.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

JD Miller wrote:

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.)

Mr. Miller, I am afraid you may have missed one of the important presuppositions stated at the beginning of the entire article - that we believe that believers of every generation should be creating musical tools to express and reinforce their faith. Although I in no way suggest that we throw away the great music of the past, I am firmly committed to the ongoing creation of new music (and texts) for worship and edification. It is a major part of the training in the music program of Bob Jones Memorial Bible College (Philippines). Since Col. 3.16 makes clear that the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a part of the teaching ministry in a local church, people in each local church should be taking up the gauntlet, as it were, just as pastors and Sunday school teachers do.

Regarding associations, please see my posting regarding that issue. I do not suggest a 'witch hunt' through our hymnals, but I do believe that we need to be sensitive to the culture and climate in which we live and serve. The fact that dealing with association issues is often sticky and imprecise in no way releases us from having to wrestle with the issue.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

GregH wrote:

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."

Mr. GregH,

I look forward to addressing a number of the issues you raised in your comments to part two of the article. I am sorry you doubt the seriousness which Pastor Weberg and I sought to bring to our critique. That doubt has, I think, allowed you to miss a few of the points and distinctions we tried to make. I hope to deal with with those in my response article next week. I trust that your perception of my seriousness, or lack thereof, will not continue to be a hindrance to you or any other reader.

As to the particular sentence you quote as an example, I am afraid I don't quite understand why you see it as non-serious. Perhaps you disagree with the idea that some Christians carnally look for an excuse to feed the flesh. I personally find it an ongoing challenge to not find ways to open the door to the flesh (That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.). Perhaps it is just that you don't believe the old man can be 'fed' by music (that it is impossible for fallen man to create music that actually encourages his fallen-ness); yet, I Peter's command to be holy in every area of life certainly implies that it is possible to be unholy in every area of life, including music creation and consumption. Or, perhaps you merely do not agree with the idea that rock music is one type of music that might fit under that category of the previous sentence. It is hard to know, in this instance, what to address, if, by 'non-serious', you mean 'conclusions with which I disagree.'

As to the intended audience, might I reiterate that the article was originally written to answer questions both Weberg and I were frequently receiving, from people spanning the whole spectrum of sensibility with regard to music and worship. Our intention was to give a more thorough answer than five minutes after a morning service or music seminar would allow. The article then began to take on a life of its own, via email. Eventually, the good folks at Frontline Magazine asked if they might post it on Proclaim and Defend, in addition to my article on Music and Missions. I posted a link to the Music and Missions article on SharperIron, with information about the book from which it was excerpted (an obvious, shameless plug for my book, I admit!). Then, Don Johnson (editor of Proclaim and Defend) linked the Examination article in a forum here at SharperIron. I hope this will help you understand who the intended audience is - it was written for inquirers, with musicians in particular, in mind.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

GregH wrote:

Is anyone really surprised that by their conclusion (they won't use SGM or Getty hymns)? 

I am afraid you may have missed a couple important statements:

"For our respective ministries at this point in time, the authors have chosen to not include songs produced by SGM, although we recognize and appreciate some of the material produced."

"It is likely that when we believe the inclusion of GTM songs in our ministries will be a source of edification, without bringing danger to weaker brethren, we will use selected songs. This is the pattern the authors follow with all music choices from all music-publishing ministries."

DB

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

Brenda T wrote:

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.

Thanks, Brenda T, for making this statement. I hope to deal with these ideas further in my formal response to the comments on part 2.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

Pastor Harding,

As should be obvious from my own posting regarding association, you and I find much agreement on the issue. And, for the sake of full disclosure, I have many personal friends and close acquaintances in the ministries you listed.

Regarding your second paragraph, I hope that Pastor Weberg and I have made clear that we appreciate much of the textual output of both SGM and GTM. Although we do address the New Calvinist movement in the article, and I personally am not a "full-blown" Calvinist, I can say in all sincerity that I am not an anti-Calvinist. We have no hidden agenda on that front, or any other, for that matter.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

DBachorik's picture

I hope, Mr. Johnson, that you will undertake to present a musical and associational examination of Ron Hamilton's music. There is no doubt that it would be helpful and a welcome addition to the conversation.

Director of music studies, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College

PhD candidate, Durham University

GregH's picture

DBachorik wrote:

GregH wrote:

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."

Mr. GregH,

I look forward to addressing a number of the issues you raised in your comments to part two of the article. I am sorry you doubt the seriousness which Pastor Weberg and I sought to bring to our critique. That doubt has, I think, allowed you to miss a few of the points and distinctions we tried to make. I hope to deal with with those in my response article next week. I trust that your perception of my seriousness, or lack thereof, will not continue to be a hindrance to you or any other reader.

As to the particular sentence you quote as an example, I am afraid I don't quite understand why you see it as non-serious. Perhaps you disagree with the idea that some Christians carnally look for an excuse to feed the flesh. I personally find it an ongoing challenge to not find ways to open the door to the flesh (That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.). Perhaps it is just that you don't believe the old man can be 'fed' by music (that it is impossible for fallen man to create music that actually encourages his fallen-ness); yet, I Peter's command to be holy in every area of life certainly implies that it is possible to be unholy in every area of life, including music creation and consumption. Or, perhaps you merely do not agree with the idea that rock music is one type of music that might fit under that category of the previous sentence. It is hard to know, in this instance, what to address, if, by 'non-serious', you mean 'conclusions with which I disagree.'

Here are two reasons why I used the descriptor non-serious about this phrase "are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music."

1) First, it sounds good and but is (pardon me because I know you hate this) something I have heard since the 70's but never proven. The reality is this Doug: you have not managed to make any connection between rock music and feeding the flesh. You say that as if we should just take it at face value that rock music feeds the flesh. We are past that; people are not going to accept such an unproven statement.

2) Secondly, I find it very dubious that people anywhere come to church to get their fix on rock music. It makes no sense to me. You may have data to support that idea but I strongly doubt it. In an age where they can listen to professional music 24x7, why would they decide they are going to influence their church towards rock music so they can feed their flesh, especially when said music is likely to be performed very unprofessionally? I don't take that very seriously unless you have some data I am missing.

Andrew Comings's picture

DBachorik wrote:

The only target in these authors' site is biblically grounded decisions about music. Whether or not they achieve it is another matter, but that is their goal.

 

Not true.  The stated targets at the beginning of the article are SGM and GTM.  Your purpose is to decided whether or not they should be used in church ministry or not.  Your (rather predictable) conclusions are that they should not (or, in the case of GTM, not now...if ever).   

 

A few thoughts about associations: I live and work in an overwhelmingly Catholic culture.  This Christmas we sang "Silent Night".  I told our folks it was written by a priest.  I quote G.K. Chesterton...and tell them who he was.  We sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", and I make a point of telling folks it was written by Martin Luther (not Catholic, I know, but also not Baptist).  I also teach about common grace, and the fact that sometimes people who are wrong on some things can get other things very right.  And we should study our Bibles...alot...to be able to figure out what is wrong and what is right.

 

And you know what?  Our folks get it.  Even the new converts.  It's not that hard a concept.  

Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com

Steve Davis's picture

JD Miller wrote:

... It's kind of sad how ridiculous the music wars can sometimes become...   (

 

I don't intend to engage the article or the comments although I have tried to follow them. I am not a musician (although I had Ron Hamilton for voice lessons many years ago believe it or not Smile and much of the discussion was over my head. I know one of the authors personally and have great respect for Ryan. I do think this was a serious attempt on their part to articulate their convictions although it sounds so remote from local church ministry as I know it not the least in the area of associations. And in the end it will be local churches that decide for themselves as it should be.

As I was on my way to work today I was listening to Third Day's Agnus Dei, King of Glory, Show Me Your Glory, etc. I experienced such delight in what God has done in Christ and the so great salvation which made me God's child through no merit of my own. I have no reason to doubt that God was both honored and delighted as well. Some might think the drums, electric guitars, etc. were feeding my carnal flesh.  I understand that way of thinking, have been there, and hope to be gracious toward those who believe and practice otherwise. I do not think they are wrong to hold to those standards for themselves. Neither do I think the arguments will convince many people not in certain orbits. These are not unassailable biblical arguments and have changed little since I heard them in the 70's.   

Over 3 years ago I posted an article on SI "Weary of the Worship Wars." I am no longer weary because I am no longer at war, not for this.

"King of Glory"

Who is this King of Glory that pursues me with his love
And haunts me with each hearing of His softly spoken words
My conscience, a reminder of forgiveness that I need
Who is this King of Glory who offers it to me.
 

Who is this King of angels, O blessed Prince of Peace
Revealing things of Heaven and all its mysteries
My spirit's ever longing for His grace in which to stand
Who's this King of glory, Son of God and son of man.

His name is Jesus, precious Jesus
The Lord Almighty, the King of my heart
The King of glory
 

Who is this King of Glory with strength and majesty
And wisdom beyond measure, the gracious King of kings
the Lord of Earth and Heaven, the Creator of all things
Who is this King of Glory, He's everything to me
The Lord of Earth and Heaven, the Creator of all things
He is the King of glory, He's everything to me
 

 

Brenda T's picture

Sorry it has taken a while to respond -- having some internet connectivity issues.

Using the term "also" implies "in addition to" not "going ahead of" so please, yes, by all means let the pirate precede the rapper. I truly did appreciate your questions and thought they were apt, but we wouldn't want to target only the pirate with our musical association examinations, would we?

Sorry it looked like I might have been trying to gloss over the pirate. I can see how you could haven taken it that way.

DavidO's picture

DBachorik wrote:
I hope, Mr. Johnson, that you will undertake to present a musical and associational examination of Ron Hamilton's music. There is no doubt that it would be helpful and a welcome addition to the conversation.

But this does not accomplish what he suggests, does it?  The easy implication of the fact that questionable sources outside the movement (for lack of better) are always the targets of these sorts of papers/presentations and that questionable sources within the movement are always exempt is that those within the movement are not really questionable.  If we are willing to swallow the camels within and for the sake of our movement, those without will surely seem like gnats to those who do not already agree with us, and, more importantly our children. 

And by we/us/our, I only marginally mean me. 

GregH's picture

DavidO wrote:

DBachorik wrote:
I hope, Mr. Johnson, that you will undertake to present a musical and associational examination of Ron Hamilton's music. There is no doubt that it would be helpful and a welcome addition to the conversation.

But this does not accomplish what he suggests, does it?  The easy implication of the fact that questionable sources outside the movement (for lack of better) are always the targets of these sorts of papers/presentations and that questionable sources within the movement are always exempt is that those within the movement are not really questionable.  If we are willing to swallow the camels within and for the sake of our movement, those without will surely seem like gnats to those who do not already agree with us, and, more importantly our children. 

And by we/us/our, I only marginally mean me. 

I feel for Patch. He probably picked the name "pirate" when people thought a bit differently about pirates. Today, when we know that pirates are still stealing dozens of ships around the world every year, it seems like he made a very bad choice. But sadly, all his branding has been done and changing the name is a big deal.

Doug, I hope you will listen to Seth and DavidO. You seem like a likeable guy. You will be even more likeable and more credible if you will be as consistent in your association principles with Patch that you apply to SG. And please don't try to cloud up the issue with asking for a musical examination of Hamilton's music. That looks bad--like you are trying to deflect the argument for one you can defend easier. The only thing Seth is asking for that you apply your association logic to Hamilton in the same way you would apply it to SG or Getty.

Seth Johnson's picture

Brenda,

No need for sorrow, I didn't expect an instantaneous reply!  No need either to explain the grammar, Mrs. Malecki drilled that into my mind many moons ago. 

My question does not dismiss the evaluation of other ministries.  My question is to a specific ministry association as it pertains to Part 3 of the series.  Explanations to such are welcome. 

Pages