John Vaughn (FBFI President/CEO): "one thing is clear: this video ends the fiction that 'Northland has not changed.'”

30987 reads

There are 236 Comments

Don Johnson's picture

Jay wrote:

How in the world did a movement predicated on doctrinal truths and the gospel ever become this?

You are working with a faulty definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn't simply holding orthodox doctrine. The Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine. The New Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine.

Fundamentalism as a movement is predicated on the notion of militancy for orthodox doctrine as seen in the famous Curtis Lee Laws quote: "We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’"

You really need to memorize that statement and understand it if you want to understand Fundamentalism. When you enter these debates, you should use that as your working definition. You would do better in understanding how fundamentalists think and act if you did so.

For more background, here is a good article by Dr. Moritz summarizing fundamentalism (and identifying Maranatha with fundamentalist philosophy.)

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

TylerR wrote:

Understood. For myself, however, I don't need or want the laboratory experience for Christian education. I didn't come into ministry in a "normal" way. I left the military after a decade and then went into ministry. I wasn't a kid anymore. I absolutely understand what you're saying. You may be right when it comes to 18 yr old kids who are leaving home for the first time, but perhaps not for everybody.

Tyler, I didn't come into ministry in a "normal" way either, but I still feel we are losing something important to abandon the classroom experience (both in horizontal and vertical human relationship and interaction) to make education cheaper and easier. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

jcoleman wrote:

dcbii wrote:

Does new music mean that Northland has changed on fundamentals?  No.  But clearly, their musical standards have.

I think the debate is precisely around that though: a very large number of fundamentalists seem to believe that changing musical standards necessarily means that you have changed your fundamental philosophy.

I think you are redefining the terms here.  The fundamentals of the faith (what I was referring to) are distinctly different from a university's fundamental philosophy(ies), though the latter could mention/require belief in or adherence to the former.

So to restate, I don't believe that Northland's change on music means that they must have changed on the fundamentals of the faith (though some take any shift in music standards as meaning exactly that), though it's clear they now define the lines of separation differently than they did before.  However, they could indeed have changed in the fundamental philosophies of how NIU does business/ministry.

Dave Barnhart

JD Miller's picture

Don wrote:

You are working with a faulty definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn't simply holding orthodox doctrine. The Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine. The New Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine.

Fundamentalism as a movement is predicated on the notion of militancy for orthodox doctrine as seen in the famous Curtis Lee Laws quote: "We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’"

According to this definition it looks like the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the willingness to take a stand on important issues of orthodox doctrine.  In think Don is right on concerning that point.  That is why in 1996 I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism.  The problem I have with some parts of fundamentalism is that that they want to do battle royal over areas that are not issues of orthodox doctrine.  (even Don admits that the New Evangelicals hold orthodox doctrine). 

Once we decide that it is important to do battle royal over issues that are not orthodox doctrine we will end up fighting with almost everyone.  I think Titus 3:10 has something to say about that.  There is a reason to be concerned about the lack of militancy over orthodox doctrine among the Evangelicals, but we also need to be concerned about a heretical militancy on issues that are not orthodox doctrine among Fundamentalists.

 

Greg Long's picture

TylerR wrote:

Joel:

What I am speaking of here:

Evangelicals had different views on methods. Briefly, they preferred infiltration and reformation from within, not separation. Surely you must grant this historical reality . . .

are historical realities about the genesis of evangelicalism as a movement. I believe this is often misunderstood by those who haven't studied the history of these issues. The challenge is - how do you apply the historic fundamentalist paradigm of "separation, not infiltration" to the challenges of today?

I contend that those who utilize CCM are broadly representative of a philosophy that says, "infiltrate or imitate the world to some extent and reform from within." This model is an evangelical model. This is why I say NIU must choose. 

Anybody's perspective of "mainstream" fundamentalism is necessarily narrow. Your characterization of what is "mainstream" does trouble me a bit! I hope it isn't quite as pervasive as you suggest . . .


Tyler, the primary reason our church uses contemporary music is not to "infiltrate" or "imitate" the world, but because we believe worship should be joyful and because we see a variety of instrumentation used in the Bible to worship God.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

TylerR's picture

Editor

GregL:

The issue under discussion is the method, not the motivation. And yes, you are imitating secular music standards when you employ CCM. Do so if you wish. I applaud your motives. However, this strategy is a historically evangelical strategy, not a fundamentalist one.

The original schism between evangelicals and fundamentalists was over methods. The theology was the same. This is well documented by Pickering, MacLachen, McCune, Moritz, Beale and others. If you disagree, I beg you to provide documentation to that effect - otherwise we both may type a lot and achieve nothing of substance.

I do not impugn your motivations, Greg. I simply question the method.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Jeff Straub's picture

[/quote] Tyler, the primary reason our church uses contemporary music is not to "infiltrate" or "imitate" the world, but because we believe worship should be joyful and because we see a variety of instrumentation used in the Bible to worship God.[/quote]

Greg L

i find the above statement a bit disingenuous or somewhat naive. Assuming your sincerity, then . . .

Why CCM over piano and organ? Are you really arguing that drums and guitars are inherently more joyful? Whatever else can be said of Scott Joplin, no one would call his music dour. Same for J S Bach's organ music

Variety of instrumentation? I'll buy that . . . but why is it that the variety in many churches is limited to guitars and drums but not violins and trumpets? Fourth Baptist has an orchestra. Now there is variety. But perhaps you use guitars and drums one week, violins and trumpets another, mandolins (Romania)  and tablas (India) on a third.

Greg, I really think there is more to your use of CCM than you have suggested here. Is imitation your primary reason? Only you can say, but . . . .

I have been in a number of foreign countries who have "joyful" music but resist the CCM. I date to the early days of Andre Crouch. Bill Gaither etc. Churches rarely (if ever) changed styles simply to add variety. Perhaps your church is an exception. Just read books on contemporary worship for a litany of reasons cited. I am not sure variety is a common justification . . . but even if it is, it is merely one among many.

If you really believe what you have written here . . .  

JPS

Jeff Straub

Greg Long's picture

Dr. Straub, we have an orchestra, too. And I stand by my comments.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Don Johnson's picture

JD Miller wrote:

According to this definition it looks like the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the willingness to take a stand on important issues of orthodox doctrine.  In think Don is right on concerning that point.  That is why in 1996 I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism.  The problem I have with some parts of fundamentalism is that that they want to do battle royal over areas that are not issues of orthodox doctrine.  (even Don admits that the New Evangelicals hold orthodox doctrine). 

first, let me grant that some men are militant because they like to fight.

But if the New Evangelicals held orthodox doctrine (and they did), why did they oppose the fundamentalists and why did the fundamentalists oppose them?

The answer lies in what the New Evangelicals opposed. They opposed militancy towards liberals (deniers of orthodox doctrine) in favor of accommodation, reconciliation, dialogue. In other words, they laid down the arms and refused to do battle royal for the fundamentals.

When doctrine or practice moves towards accommodation of unorthodoxy, the battle still must be enjoined, although there are differences. Now we battle with brothers, unfortunately.

Many of us have observed the music battle as a front in the war against this kind of accommodation, and it is part and parcel of the battle with worldliness. That's why it is still a big issue and is constantly discussed here on SI and other places.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

JD Miller's picture

Don, I do not disagree with this statement that you made;

The answer lies in what the New Evangelicals opposed. They opposed militancy towards liberals (deniers of orthodox doctrine) in favor of accommodation, reconciliation, dialogue. In other words, they laid down the arms and refused to do battle royal for the fundamentals.

That statement is why many of us are not willing to leave fundamentalism for evangelicalism.  The issue that some of us have is whether or not music choice is an issue of orthodox doctrine.  Even by your own statement it does not appear to be since you admitted that they held to orthodox doctrine.  Though I have a conservative preference on music, I do not view it as an orthodox doctrine.  Therefore, I am not willing to do battle royal over it.

Greg Linscott's picture

And yes, you are imitating secular music standards when you employ CCM.

So, was Frank Garlock and Majesty Music employing an evangelical strategy when they included songs like "Lamb of Glory" and "There is a Redeemer" in Majesty Hymns? Was Scott Aniol imitating secular music standards when he included a Getty song on his album? What about BJU recording "Before the Throne of God Above" (a SGM song)? I understand Central Seminary, where Jeff Straub is teaching, now uses Hymns: Modern and Ancient in chapel services, which includes several entries from the CCM genre. And let's not forget Maranatha's "I'm Gunna Apply..."
 

Just wondering how much imitation is acceptable imitation, or if these people and institutions are considered squarely in the Evangelical camp now...

 

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

TylerR's picture

Editor

I have provided a historically accurate definition of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, and a factually based distinction between their respective methods. I have seen no refutation of that.

Your appeal to isolated incidents at various schools does nothing to address these matters. If you have evidence to suggest BJU, Central or Maranatha is going the direction NIU is, please provide it. If you cannot, then it has no bearing on the matter at hand.  

Each Pastor may steer his church in whichever direction he personally and Scripturally feels is best. Good luck and God bless - sincerely.

This does not change the reality of the difference between the two movement's ministry philosophies. I am simply pointing out a historic reality and attempting to measure whether NIU is following this standard or deviating from it.

Men will draw appropriate conclusions for themselves; some will agree, other will not.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Greg Linscott's picture

Tyler,

All I am observing is that your criteria may be somewhat accurate, but are not by themselves completely descriptive of what constitutes Fundamentalism vs. Evangelicalism, from the estimations of many who are in even what you would call the "Fundamentalist mainstream." Fundamentalists have tended to retain use of the KJV, for example, more than evangelicals. Some have even gone so far as to attempt to make that a doctrinal fundamental, using similar reasoning as you are with music. Other methods such as walking the aisle invitations, Sunday evening services, pants on women, mixed "bathing..." are also similarly reasoned as areas of potential deviation from Fundamentalism by some... and there have been times, if we are honest, where many of these things I list were indicative of Fundamentalist culture, but to some degree or another are now points of deviation and departures from previously established methodology.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg Linscott's picture

As much as Northland has gone farther than others, still, as I have established, many examples exist of Fundamentalists who have embraced in a lesser fashion what NIU has rushed headlong into. If you are right about NIU and music, where was that line crossed? I'm asking sincerely- where do you think that happens? 

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg Long's picture

Tyler, but that's just it...you have made an assertion, but you have not proved the necessary connection between music and fundamentalism. I know you are new to SI, but this has been discussed many times previously. Music styles are NOT a fundamental of the faith. There are evangelical churches with conservative music (there are liberal churches with conservative music, for that matter), and there are (some) fundamentalist churches that use more or less contemporary music, as the other Greg L has pointed out.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

I've noticed a tendency in this conversation to identify fundamentals in terms of doctrines. And some doctrines are indeed fundamental. Nevertheless, not all fundamentals are doctrinal in the sense of being theological.

Doctrinal fundamentals include matters like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the vicarious atonement, the bodily resurrection and second coming of Jesus, and so forth. No one has ever drafted a complete list of fundamental doctrines, and the most responsible theologians have been reticent even to try.

But the fundamentals are not limited to such explicitly theological matters. Paul states that a man who does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith (1 Tim. 5:8). This denial is not a matter of theology--the man's doctrinal statement may be impeccable. It is a matter of practice.

Virtually every serious ecclesiologist who has discussed the fundamentals has recognized that some fundamentals are theological, but other fundamentals are practical (see Calvin's discussion, for example, or Turretin's). In other words, Christianity is not simply a matter of orthodoxy, but also of orthopraxy.

But something else is just as fundamental as either doctrine or practice. When the lawyer asked Jesus which was the most important commandment, Jesus responded by reciting the Shema and the Great Commandment: "Hear O Israel: Yahweh your God is one Yahweh. And you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength" (Mk. 12:29-30). In other words, right affection is the absolute center of all truly biblical religion. Orthopathy is fundamental to the Christian faith.

That being so, then whatever shapes the affections is of primary importance. The affections are shaped profoundly by the arts, two of which (poetry and music) the church is commanded to employ (Eph. 5:19). These two arts taken together constitute hymnody, and because nothing shapes the affections more powerfully than hymnody (though it is not the only shaping influence), then hymnody is of primary importance for the Christian faith.

What you sing, and how you sing it, matters just as much as what you say in your doctrinal formulations. If we can split hairs over adding a single "i" to the middle of homoousios, then we can hardly be out of line if we concern ourselves with the question of how church music develops ordinate affection. From a strict point of view, you have to take music as a fundamental issue.

Having said that, fundamentalists themselves have rarely take the strict point of view. From before the beginning of the movement they have chosen to permit the sloppy sentimentalism and individualism of Bliss, Sankey, Rodeheaver, et al. They were willing to follow the "Christianized" jazz of Jack Wyrtzen and Singspiration. They were willing to accept the religious show tunes of John W. Peterson.  From the strict point of view, fundamentalists hardly seem to be in a position to object to following popular culture. They just don't like the latest version of popular culture.

Well, neither do I, though I am not blind to the double standard. Still, no position seems as arrogant or ahistorical to me as the one that simply dismisses the question and insists that music must never be treated as a fundamental matter. You've not only got Jesus and Paul to argue with, but the entire history of Christian worship. Until the evangelicalism of the late 20th century, very few voices ever tried to argue that music was merely a secondary matter. That we can say such things now is, I suspect, not really an indication of our own superior insight.

Greg Linscott's picture

KTB,

I am quite certain you have very strong feelings on these matters, yet it would seem you have found ways to maintain working relationships with those with whom you would have strong disagreements. Has this, for all practical purposes, then become merely a "secondary" matter for you, personally? If not, what would you describe it as?

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg Long's picture

Dr. Bauder, I am not convinced of this biblically. 1 Cor 15. tells us the Gospel is of first importance. Obviously not everything can be of first importance, because if everything is of first importance, then nothing is. Forgive me for my poor memory, but haven't you argued that there are levels of theological importance?

Also, I'm really having trouble following your logic from Jesus' Great Commandment to hymnody as a fundamental of the faith. That seems like not just a stretch, but a giant leap.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Greg Long's picture

Just to be clear, I have never argued that musical styles are unimportant. However, I firmly believe they are not on the same level of importance as the fundamentals of the faith.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

JD Miller's picture

I know I have a lot to learn and I do not want to argue with Jesus or Paul, so please tell me exactly what it was that they said that would completely clarify this issue. 

BTW, I am not at all suggesting that there should not be a line somewhere when it comes to music- I strongly prefer the traditional and am not a promoter of CCM- it is just that I cannot find what Jesus or Paul said that would show precisely where that line is at.   If I cannot find scripture to show where that line is and if I only have the "leaders" to tell me or if I have to take a majority vote among fundamentalists to know, then I have a huge problem judging my brother on this matter.

If on the other hand, I have just been too proud to be taught what is taught in scripture, then I want to learn so I know where that line is at- not because of the status quo among fundamentalists- but because of what Jesus and Paul or any other writer of Holy Scripture taught. 

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Greg,

You are asking a very relevant question. The answer has several parts.

First, not every error is equally serious, either theologically, practically or doctrinally.

Second, there are rather sharp limits to what I am willing to do. There are plenty of instances when I simply will not sing the music that the rest of the group is singing (and I'm not specifying which group here).

Third, there are limits to my willingness to cooperate, and those limits have to do with orthopathy as well as orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For example, a while back I was contacted by the pulpit committee of a very prestigious church that wanted to know if I would allow their pulpit committee to consider me. My response was that before they even asked, they needed to know that from the very first Sunday I was their pastor, I would take responsibility for the music ministry and that their music would change radically. That was the end of the conversation.

Fourth, different levels of commitment entail different levels of culpability. There is a difference between being in authority and being under authority. One must never do evil, but one may live alongside some evils. Some evils are tolerable while others are intolerable. I know a convicted Baptist who attends or is a member of a Presbyterian church because of the intolerability of the worship in the area Baptist churches. Both alternatives are evils, but this person considers the evil of Presbyterian polity to be more tolerable than the evil of impious worship.

For what it's worth, I do not consider everything coming from Getty/Townend or Sovereign Grace to be evil. Some of it is relatively good (though never really great). Sometimes some of it contains evil elements that can be removed. Given this treatment, I think it is theologically preferable to and esthetically no worse than what fundamentalists have done for a hundred years. Remember, CCM isn't about when it was written. It's about how it is done.

What I'm giving you is, of course, only a sketch of an answer.

But there are fundamentalist ministries for which I could not work, for these very reasons.

Greg Linscott's picture

That was a very succinct answer, and though consistent with what I know of you and your principles, still good to see in "print."

But there are fundamentalist ministries for which I could not work, for these very reasons.

This statement, though, would seem to reveal a concession for the point I have argued for in these threads- music, though important, is not a definitive component of what it means to be a Fundamentalist. Although, you also do say,

Remember, CCM isn't about when it was written. It's about how it is done.

Perhaps you are saying that these is a line, and that line, for the sake of these discussions, is performance style (vocal "scooping," trapset-style drums, and general rock-style instrumentation/ presentation- though there may be other styles equally as objectionable).

Am I reading too much into your words?

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jay's picture

Thanks for weighing in on this.  I appreciate your willingness to get on and talk about this subject.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Greg (Long),

It surprises me that you would have trouble following the logic, even as condensed as it is. I would have presumed that an educated pastor would have encountered the full argument during his preparation. (I'm not saying this to be snide--I'm genuinely surprised that you want me to reproduce the whole argument.)

Let's say I want to argue cessationism with followers of Wayne Grudem. Before I begin asserting my views in his back yard, I had better know what his arguments are, how I'm going to respond, what he's going to say in reply, and how I'm going to answer. Before I begin issuing statements about how important the issue is, I have a responsibility to do at least this much study.

You are confessing that you don't know the argument, or at least that you can't recognize it from the brief summary I've given. And I don't think that my summary is that far off the beam.

I'm not opposed to rehearsing the argument, but I am surprised that I would have to do so for an elder, and for one who has not been shy about pressing his opinions in this area.

So let's start with lesson number one. Paul says that the gospel is of first importance. Yet Jesus says that the most important commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We cannot use Jesus to trump Paul, because Paul tells the Galatians that he got is gospel directly from Jesus. Yet we cannot use Paul to trump Jesus, because Paul tells the Galatians that he got his gospel directly from Jesus. So the gospel and the Greatest Commandment have to be brought into juxtaposition in such a way that each explains the other. Exactly how do you suppose that works?

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

JD,

Your gentle and indirect rebuke got a chuckle from me.

Perhaps that best answer I can give you is to encourage you to start with the last paragraph in my post to Greg. I don't know how far we'll be able to go with this discussion in this forum--after all, the moderator has already pulled down one post for being off target.

But the core of the argument lies in the importance of the Greatest Commandment. We begin by asking why it is so important to love God with all our being, and then we ask what it means for us to love Him like that. Everything else flows from this consideration.

Remember also how Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for their failure to draw out the implications of biblical texts, and how the writer to the Hebrews does the same to his readers.

Kevin

Greg Linscott's picture

I started to reply to KTB's last post, before realizing that he was addressing Mr. Long, and not me...

Maybe one of us should start identifying as "the Greg L. that went to Faith." Nope, can't do that, either...  :3

I guess I could be the older one... Biggrin

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Greg (Linscott),

You're going to get two equal and opposite answers from me on this question.

The first is that institutional fundamentalism has never been particularly selective about its music, and that even at the present moment the majority of self-identified fundamentalists probably use some form of CCM. So no, as a matter of historical record and accuracy, I don't think that you can deny some institution the label of fundamentalist on the basis of its music.

Having said that, to suggest that music is not a fundamental issue is on a par with saying that doctrine is not a fundamental issue. Some doctrinal errors are fundamental and others are not. Some affective errors (including musical errors) are fundamental and others are not. And for that reason, I think that some non-fundamentalist institutions and churches are actually closer to the truth (for truth is affective as well as propositional) than some fundamentalist institutions and churches.

With respect to the present debate, the germane question would be whether NIU even intends to be a fundamentalist institution in the future. Given the dramatic nature of some of these transitions, the willingness of NIU to poke its past constituency in the eye, the sudden departures of key figures very recently, the appearance and disappearance of documents from their web site (most recently, the doctrinal statement has disappeared--though who knows when it may reappear), and the fact that the transitions are not limited to one area, my guess is that there's a major repositioning going on. If so, then the way in which it is being done is not merely a theological or affective issue, but an ethical one.

Don Sailer's picture

TylerR wrote:

I should have been clearer. It is not CCM per se, but the methodological shift I believe CCM represents, that is troubling. This goes back to the traditional roots of evangelicalism, which grew out of fundamentalism. Evangelicals had different views on methods. Briefly, they preferred infiltration and reformation from within, not separation. Surely you must grant this historical reality . . .

 

Then why do "fundamentalists" today separate from the EFCA which never had a theological liberal problem and was untouched by the fundamentalist/modernist controversy?

The same goes for the BGC. These were Swedish/Norwegian groups that didn't have the same problems Northern Baptists had!

Why separate from the Conservative Baptists? They aren't liberal, don't fellowship with apostates, etc.

Why separate from the Grace Brethren movement? Free Methodists? Etc, etc.

Historic fundamentalism of the 1920s to 1940s was a cross denominational coalition of Bible-believing denominations. That's who BJC served?

So what changed? Why are we separating from others over secondary issues?

Today's historic fundamentalists are the conservative evangelicals. There is no mistaking this.

 

 

 

 

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

This thread is supposed to be about John Vaughn's observation RE Northland. So here's my observation.

In no sense was Vaughn piling on. His comment was actually quite restrained. He was simply pointing people to the facts that answered the questions that many of them had been answering.

Remember, NIU built itself largely upon an FBFI constituency. If anybody has a right to comment, John does.

Greg Linscott's picture

Given the dramatic nature of some of these transitions, the willingness of NIU to poke its past constituency in the eye, the sudden departures of key figures very recently, the appearance and disappearance of documents from their web site (most recently, the doctrinal statement has disappeared--though who knows when it may reappear), and the fact that the transitions are not limited to one area, my guess is that there's a major repositioning going on.

I don't know the details of all of the specifics you mentioned, but I would be in general agreement that the trajectory indicated by all of those things totaled together does not appear promising. My contention has been that concluding that the music alone is the indicator was overly reductionist.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Pages