the ‘ph’ factor

Comments

1. Andy Efting says

   3.16.11 at 6:18 am

   Lots of things that I disagreed with regarding this lecture. I guess the most basic, though, was why style and truth could not both be used to evaluate the songs that we use?
   To me they are both necessary and having one should not make the other unimportant.
2. d4v34x says

   3.17.11 at 7:54 am

   I don’t get what the ph instead of the f means.

   • ox says

     3.17.11 at 8:14 am

     Thank you, thank you, thank you.

     I have been waiting for days for someone to ask that question.

     So, ok… there are lots of words that start with ‘ph’. In the context, I think you can probably come up with the one I mean. Please note that it is somewhat snarky and smart alecky.

     Maranatha!
     Don Johnson
     Jer 33.3
3. d4v34x says

   3.17.11 at 8:21 am

   Ok, thought that might be it. Two things then.

   1. I share many of your concerns with that presentation–
   he failed to support some of his foundational premises and made some statements that sounded ridiculously pragmatic (judging the appropriateness of using the Casting Crowns song by the number of dry eyes in the sanctuary stands out among them).

   2. I seem to recall you recently making a statement that music, while probably necessarily resulting in cooperational limitations, was not a test of whether ones fundamentalism was phony or not.

   • ox says

     3.17.11 at 1:48 pm

     Hi Dave

     On 1, I think this is a huge problem. Relativism is very serious business.

     On 2, I don’t recall exactly what statement you might be referring to, but it is true that music is somewhat subjective, so there is a range of latitude we need to give each other in this area. However, it is also true that music falls into the area of orthopraxy as Bauder defines it, so it can become an element that would mark someone outside of fundamentalism almost by itself.

     In this case, however, it is the relativism that is the biggest problem, not the music per se. From what was said, the style generally used there would probably fit within my acceptable range. But relativism is huge. Huge.

     Maranatha!
     Don Johnson
     Jer 33.3
4. d4v34x says

   3.17.11 at 3:12 pm

   Well, I’d have to have heard some of that music to decide if it fits within my acceptable range but, turns out, that’s beside the point here.

   I’d have to talk to him more to determine his meanings on some things before I’d call him a relativist myself.

   • ox says

     3.17.11 at 3:14 pm

     Fair enough, but it is a serious issue, don’t you think?

     Maranatha!
     Don Johnson
     Jer 33.3
5. d4v34x says

   3.17.11 at 4:27 pm

   Yes. I was shocked he didn’t think there was anything sufficient in traditional hymnody to express the need for purity. How about Holy, Holy, Holy???
6. d4v34x says

   3.17.11 at 4:30 pm

   And that is just for starters. It’s troubling.
7. Rob says

   3.22.11 at 4:32 am

   Don, I listened to his whole message and agree that he did not have strong scriptural support for his underlying premises. Then I just *made* myself listen to the Casting Crowns original version of the song he used in sanitized form at his church. For as much as these people say they want to be gospel-centered, the lyrics of that song are extremely man-centered. It struck me that instead of I Peter’s “You shall be holy, for I am holy,” it’s basically be holy or you’ll suffer the consequences. I prefer d4v34x’s suggestion for an appropriate hymn to go with the message.

   • ox says

     3.22.11 at 8:20 am

     Thanks for the comment, Rob. And for the … um … ‘research’!

     It is really quite astonishing, all in all.

     Maranatha!
     Don Johnson
     Jer 33.3
8. Rob says

   3.22.11 at 8:31 am

   (You don’t have to approve this comment – I just didn’t know how else to send this to you.) I thought I’d do a web search to see if I could find the words to the song that Tim Jordan and Peter Radford felt so strongly just *had* to be part of the service where the message. Just wanted to see if you agree with the findings of my “research.” :-)

   Slow Fade

   Be careful little eyes what you see
   It’s the second glance that ties your hands as darkness pulls the strings
   Be careful little feet where you go
   For it’s the little feet behind you that are sure to follow

   It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
   It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
   Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
   When you give yourself away
   People never crumble in a day
   It’s a slow fade, it’s a slow fade

   Be careful little ears what you hear
   When flattery leads to compromise, the end is always near
   Be careful little lips what you say
   For empty words and promises lead broken hearts astray

   It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
   It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
   Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
   When you give yourself away
   People never crumble in a day

   The journey from your mind to your hands
   Is shorter than you’re thinking
   Be careful if you think you stand
   You just might be sinking

   It’s a slow fade when you give yourself away
   It’s a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
   Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
   When you give yourself away
   People never crumble in a day
   Daddies never crumble in a day
   Families never crumble in a day

   Oh be careful little eyes what see
   Oh be careful little eyes what you see
   For the Father up above is looking down in love
   Oh be careful little eyes what you see

   me again…
   Not necessarily a bad message in those words, but as I said, it seems decidedly man-centered.

   • ox says

     3.22.11 at 11:08 am

     Rob, thanks for sending that along…

     Somehow doesn’t quite match ‘Holy, Holy, Holy’, does it?

     Words fail me!

     I wonder what Dissidens would say?

     Maranatha!
     Don Johnson
     Jer 33.3
9. Andy Efting says

   3.22.11 at 1:30 pm

   You know, my heart really breaks over this. When I type “Slow Fade” into Google and pick the first YouTube video of this song, I get the video framed by Britney Spears, promoting one of her songs. Why? What we have is a Christian group using music that is sourced in the same style that secular artists use to get people in the mood to do exactly what this Casting Crowns song is trying to prevent. What are people thinking? Why introduce people to this? I agree, people need to see the holiness of God. Fundamentalists should not be promoting this type of thing.
10. Sam Hendrickson says

    3.26.11 at 9:00 am

    So, how many fundy churches do we know that have a steady diet of Holy (cubed) type of conservative hymns versus “O I Tell You Brother There’s Honey in the Rock?” The ditches people are driving into on either (the same?) side are frustrating and sad. Would we be as hard on that pastor for using Honey in the Rock kind of blather as the CC type of song? Seriously…[My vote as to what the typical response would be–no–“cuz he’s a fundamentalist, and clearly this other brother is fading from fundamentalism”]

    • ox says

      3.26.11 at 5:08 pm

      Hi Sam, thanks for the comment.

      Ok, so let me see if I am getting what you are saying. Is it this:

      Since some fundy churches use Honey in the Rock, it’s OK for other fundy churches to be relativists.

      Is that what you are saying? If so, would you say that’s a strong argument or a weak argument for relativism?

      Instead of side-tracking us, why don’t you deal with the issue at hand? Isn’t this a serious problem? Don’t you think we should point it out with some alarm? or what should be done about it? Should it be tolerated? Ignored? What?

      Maranatha!
      Don Johnson
      Jeremiah 33.3
11. d4v34x says

    3.28.11 at 8:49 am

    Sam,

    If you can find an mp3 of a Fundamentalist Seminary Prof referring to “Sweet Honey” as a robust vehicle of God’s truth, post it up and we’ll have at it!