Comments on: Absolutism vs Pluralism

By: Remi

Remi — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:18:18 +0000

Thanks JM,
Interesting comments and i really appreciate them.

By: cynical one

cynical one — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:35:25 +0000

Sissey, yes, the Bible says that, but it also says to “speak the truth in love.” There’s not always much love included in our truth-telling.

By: Sissey

Sissey — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:49:00 +0000

The Truth will set you Free this is something my daddy always told me.

By: cynical one

cynical one — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:54:41 +0000

Truth is not the primary criteria when considering whether or not an item is gossip. There is both true gossip and false gossip. I heard a preacher once say “if it’s negative, if it tears down another person’s reputation, it’s gossip — even if it’s true.” I believe this to be valid teaching.

We see this on a regular basis: “We just need to know what’s going on in his/her life, so we’ll know how to pray.” BALONEY!!! If we want people to know specifics, we’ll tell them. If you don’t tell me specifics, you probably feel it’s of my business. And that should be that.

Although I’m not a fan of either of the 2 groups alluded to above, I get weary of all the bashing that goes on here. But I continue to read (and occaisionally contribute).

I suspect there are somepeople, who have no great love for sg, who read and comment on this blog, just because they love to argue. And some of those arguers claim Christian love.

To quote an old pop song (”One Tin Soldier”):

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.

Yes, I know that’s out of context, but it could be appropriate for today’s church.

By: Sandra Gentry

Sandra Gentry — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:30:22 +0000

Jeff #14 & Dawn # 17, You both mentioned Young Harmony in your post. Do you mind if I ask why? #18, I agree, let’s not turn this in to a nasty, damaging post. Why would people trash someone (or a group of someones) that they don’t know? I don’t know you Jeff or Dawn, however based on your post, I can tell that you are somehow involved in the industry. How come no one knows you? Stop trying to cause problems for others. Just for the record, I don’t know Young Harmony personally, however they have been to my church and I was very impressed. So unless you have some “REAL TRUTH” on them (or anyone else, for that matter), than let them do what God has called them to do.
Thank you for taking time to consider what I am saying.
Sandra Gentry

By: James Bilkes

James Bilkes — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:14:59 +0000

Lets please not turn this into another YH or PV thread. I’ve heard enough about them to last me! With that being said comments like these dovetail with shows like Rush Limbaugh and are beginning to hold some of these group accountable for their actions and practices.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:14:53 +0000

Pluralistic in our walk, Absolute in our Faith. Keep up the great work with the comments Avery. Maybe it will keep YH on their toes from now on. Maybe a “Certain Group” (_oet vo_ces) will define what genre they will be able to keep personnel for more than a couple years.

By: Jim2

Jim2 — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:38:32 +0000

Jeff,
Very funny! If it quacks like a duck …

Doug,
Thanks for the opportunity you provide for us to read not just your thoughts, but also those of others in the “community” - I for one appreciate the diversity - at least in one sense of the word. You always provide interesting, well written springboards for thought and discussion

By: CVH

CVH — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:19:13 +0000

In necessariis, unitas. In dubiis, libertas. In omnibus, caritas.

In essentials, unity; in uncertain things, freedom; in everything, love.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:58 +0000

#4 Young Harmony. I agree. I’d like to see more thorough research before attacks are made on your ministry. But hey, I guess here’s as good a place as any to clear the record - if it is indeed flawed.

By: BUICK

BUICK — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:46:18 +0000

Alan (#11), I was trying to find a way of saying what you said. I couldn’t have expressed it nearly as well as you did. I agree that Avery and Wayne are using “pluralism” in two different ways.

I don’t want to be unkind but I honestly think Wayne may have based his post on the headline of this thread without regard to the content of Doug’s comments. It would be as if Doug had posted “Evolution and the GVB”. Some would have a knee-jerk reaction to the word “evolution” and never realize that, in this context, it could refer to the development of a sound that, at different times, included people like Jim Murray, Gary McSpadden and Larnelle Harris - all of whom would seem out of place in today’s “evolved” GVB.

Back to the point of the original post, JM is spot-on with his observations. We all come from different backgrounds, different regions of the country (perhaps even different countries) and we were all exposed to different influences during important times in our lives.

As an example, I was reared on the Jordanaires, Blackwoods and Statesmen. In college, I got very excited about the Imperials and thought SGM could do not better. But when the Imps went West-Coast-Praise, I abandoned SGM altogether. Many years later, I rediscovered SGM through the Homecoming videos and fell in love with the genre all over again. I also caught back up with some of my childhood idols (don’t take that wrong!). As a result, I squirm when I read posts from people trashing B&GG. I am grateful to them for having reintroduced me to a wonderful genre of sacred music.

But that’s just me and my story. other people have other experiences and other perspectives and other tastes. In that sense, this is a pluralistic audience. And there is a certain conceit in believing that everyone should like what I like, dislike what I dislike and disdain what I disdain.

Really, a very thoughtful thread here and I (with my peculiar set of prisms) appreciate it being started.

By: J-mo

J-mo — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:12:09 +0000

Wayne,
YOU used the term “pluralistic faith” but I don’t see the original writer doing so. Besides, even if you do apply that term it doesn’t necessarily mean I believe there are multiple ways to get to heaven as there are different levels of plurality. I’d suggest there to be a very small percentage of people here who would argue with “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” However, I’m sure there are plenty of us who would disagree on plenty of other less black and white biblical topics. I could very easily spark a major argument simply by asking a few questions on what people believe about eternal security, communion, feet-washing, worship styles, alcohol consumption, the rapture, and on and on. I would consider myself pluralistic because I have no problem with the fact that other Christians here have a different interpretation of many aspects of Christian life than I do, and I’m even open to the possibility that some of them may be correct. And yes, also because I have no problems accepting, discussing music, or even befriending groups of people who I firmly believe are on the complete wrong side of things (i.e. atheists, homosexuals, Muslims, or Inspirations fans).

I believe you’re sadly mistaken if you can’t see room for vast diversity in thought even among those of us who share the Christian faith. The great thing is that I’m enjoying having this discussion with you anyway…and that’s the difference between pluralism and absolutism as I see it.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:37:07 +0000

Thanks to both you, Doug, and JM. Both were extremely thoughtful posts. I read them all again today, and I wonder if the pluralism you both mentioned pertains to two different forms. As JM said, theological pluralism states (simplistically, for purposes of this, albeit) that there are numerous ways to approach the same God; and I think I’m fairly certain that you didn’t mean that, Doug. The Bible itself can’t be a lot more absolute than it is, nor can the words of Christ be more so, when He stated in John 14:6 that He is “the way”, “the truth”, and “the life”; and that “no one can come to the Father except by Me”. I think we all recognize that, as it’s a fundamental tenet of Christianity. As I read your expressed thoughts, I think you refer more to the many right and/or wrong ways to make music better; be it the lyrics, arrangements, recording of it, and performance thereof. And yes, there are as many ways to express ourselves musically as there are individuals. Every group is no more or less than the sum of their individual parts, of course. And then, there’s the reality of taste and preference, and it’s nearly impossible to be objective in this. We all watch and listen with every visual and note filtered through our own prisms. So, may I introduce a subject that it has taken me a while to realize? Regardless the singer or group, those who can sustain a career for a long time, and those who separate themselves from the pack, are generally those who honestly find their strengths and realize their weaknesses, and then play to their strengths, and avoid trying to be what they aren’t, nor can ever be. Obviously, there are those select few, super-talented ones, who seem to be able to transcend any genre, and can’t be easily described by style. Janet Paschal, Guy Penrod, David Phelps, and Larry Ford come immediately to mind. I’m thrilled that these - and others of similar talent - have been saved, and have dedicated their talents to the Lord. This kind of talent would most likely have been major successes in secular music, as would Sandi Patty have been. But the majority of us are who we are, and sing as we can sing. Some of it is physiological, but it all comes down to the way that God has made us. He’s a God of infinite variety, and delights in all expressions of praise to Himself. And so, shouldn’t we try to stretch and do the same? When I listen to a CD, and a song comes on that I personally may not care for, I immediately realize that the same cut will undoubtedly be the very favorite of many others. And in this, don’t we have the best plurality of all? Many ways to praise and honor our Lord, not some monolithic and repetitive sound….So, as I read (too?) many of the posts here at times, I cringe. One person’s cup of tea may not be mine, and vice-versa. But, as we listen through a broadened prism, we can still find the good that the writer and singer(s) attempted to portray. And the majority of it touches the heart of the God of the universe. As the Hinsons used to sing - admittedly out of the context of their song - “Ain’t that what it’s all about?”

By: sockpuppet

sockpuppet — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:40:20 +0000

if you need further confirmation that there are all kinds of people in the SG world, check out one of Doug’s posts and connected article from late 2006. I found it interesting then and kind of connected to this thread:
http://averyfineline.com/2006/12/22/ot-sandi-patty-the-ccm-judy-garland/

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:13:24 +0000

J-MO:

I said “pluralistic faith,” which is to say, “there are multiple paths to justification before God.” This is definitely opposed to the Christian view which maintains the exclusive nature of man’s justification before God through Christ alone. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” This is not pluralistic; it is decidedly exclusive.

God created the universe governed by absolutes as exacting and exclusive as mathematics itself. Isaac Newton’s watershed work, Principia, is based upon the laws of the universe being best expressed through the language of mathematics. 2+2=4, to the exclusion of all other answers. If God established the universe to be governed by absolutes, does it not logically follow that the path He would establish for justification before Him would be absolute and singular? Galatians 1:8-9 gives no quarter for the idea of “plural” paths to God.

By: J-mo

J-mo — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:44:10 +0000

Wayne,

What makes you think that all pluralists must be opposed to all biblical principles and not have a Christian worldview?

By: Derek

Derek — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:24:56 +0000

Re #4: Somebody’s corn flakes didn’t digest too well this morning! The thing I like about this blog is that often the truth is brought to light and, you know the saying, the truth hurts! If you don’t want the SG paparazzi to post things you’d rather not have the fans know, then behave yourself and live right! I agree that gossip is bad…but if the so-called gossip is true then is it really gossip? Now there’s a question to ponder.

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:24:50 +0000

To Wayne (#5)

Amen! Amen! Amen!

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:34:46 +0000

I have been curious about something, and I thought this post might be an opportune time to explore this question. Why do people who are so militantly opposed to Biblical principles and a Christian worldview (those referred to as “pluaralists” in this post) drawn enough to the Christian Music genre most noted for its Biblical, doctrinal and overtly absolutist theological lyrical content to take the time to listen to it, become knowledgeable about it, and discuss it at such length.

If music that professes pluaralistic faith is what you desire, I would not recommend Southern Gospel Music to you, unless you have an uncontrollable desire for frustration. There is an almost limitless musical library of brain-dead, substance lacking, doctrine bereft, praise and worship music that will more suit your sensibilities. If you like making up your truth and doctrine as you go along, Rodney Griffin and Phil Cross songs may just stimulate gastrointestinal ulcers for you.

By: YH

YH — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:10:12 +0000

The only issue that I have had with this blog, isn’t that the truth is brought to light, but that rumors or uneducated guesses are posted and believed to be accurate. I would like to see more research in what is posted as a way to find the truth. Other than that, the blog is good. A great place to spread gossip! Thanks Doug.