Criticism and commentary on southern gospel music
This is “slightly surprising” to Daniel Mount, who evidently was unaware denominational affiliation doesn’t usually require a blood oath to never affiliate with other denominations.
I would assume that Guy Penrod is Baptist since he attended Liberty University.
Yeah, even us Methodists go to the Baptist church sometimes. Of course, being raised Baptist, I know how good the covered dish dinners are…
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 12:14 am ¶
So does Daniel draw the conclusion that there will be denominations or “his denomination” in Heaven?
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 8:54 am ¶
Mike McIlwain wrote:
The GVB sang at the SBC Annual Meeting in 2004 as well. I think that they also sang at the annual meeting in the 1990s.
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 9:08 am ¶
Oh give me a break. Daniel Mount is not denominationally exclusive. This was a cheap shot thread not even worth the time to write up.
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 9:28 am ¶
1 old fan wrote:
One of the hallmarks of the Gaither organization (and most of s/g in general) has be the crossing of denominational barriers. We have groups whose members are all or predominately Baptists, singing in Assembly of God churches. We have artist with Nazarene backgrounds singing in Baptist churches. We have singers who don’t go to any church, unless they’re singing there.
A previous thread relayed the fact that Bill Gaither was raised Nazarene, and Gloria was raised Anderson Church of God. They have heavily supported both denominations financially over the years (and apparently continue to do so), although they primarily attend a Church of God in Anderson, now. Over the years, they’ve sung for church services, revivals, campmeetings, and international gatherings for both denominations, as well as others. They are probably one of the few artists who can pull this off as well as they do.
I’m not sure why this comes as a surprise to anyone, unless we’ve not been paying attention.
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
I feel another “Holier than thou” thread comming on.
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:19 am ¶
Those darn Baptists!!!
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 5:36 pm ¶
Grave Digger wrote:
Must have been a slow news day in Mount’NLand.
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 9:14 pm ¶
David Bruce Murray wrote:
I chuckled when I read Daniel’s post. Baptists and Bill Gaither in the same room? Can the Rapture be far behind?
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 12:24 am ¶
Harry Peters wrote:
David Bruce Murray #9
I’m going to blow your closed, little fundamentalist (Bible is literally true) mind!
The word that you used, “rapture,” is nowhere to be found in the Bible!
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 10:46 am ¶
The words “quartet” or “trio” don’t appear in the Bible either.
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 12:22 pm ¶
Nor is the word “Bible,” Mr. Peters, so put it back in your trousers, sir.
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 3:38 pm ¶
#10 Talk about literal.
The words “caught up,” used in the context of people leaving the earth, are in the Bible.
Feel free to consult the dictionary of your choice to confirm whether or not the theological definition of the “Rapture” coincides with being “caught up” in this fashion.
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶
To Grigs #11 Nobody is trying to using “quartet,” or in SSQ’s case, “Queertet” or trio as a point of terribly bad theology.
To Bryce #12, pretty much the same thing, except I’m really offended when the “Holy People” make fun of my name. Actually, I’m Harry, Sr. Does that make my son a little Peters or a little Harry? I certainly wouldn’t take it out of my trousers around you.
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:51 pm ¶
Harry, unless you have some proof that any members of Ernie Haase and Signature Sound are “queer”(and you don’t), I’d suggest that you keep your moronic little comments to yourself.
The point was that the fact that a word does not appear in the Bible does not mean that the concept a word sets forth does not exist. Of course, you knew that.
Doug, I don’t know where you got the twit filter for your blog, but they owe you a refund.
Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 1:06 am ¶
While we on the subject of Baptists, a Baptist listening to The Happy Goodmans and thining alot more…
Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 8:58 am ¶
#14 — Why in the world would you saddle your son (whom I assume you love dearly) with the same name you’ve been teased about all your life?
And if I were as offended as you seem to be, I’d probably use a pseudonem. Or my middle name. Or change my name, so as not to put my kid through the same torture.
But then, I’m wacky. What do I know?
Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 5:51 pm ¶
I have come to the conclusion that some of the most mean-spirited people in the world regularly comment on this site. In fact, they use this site to tear down others. And they do all of this while hiding behind their computer screens. I’m pretty sure that most of these people wouldn’t be quite so bold in person.
Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 7:23 pm ¶
SSQ fan wrote:
To #14 Harry Peters!!!
Do you have proff that any of the fine young Men in the SSQ are what you are calling them?
Have met all of them and their families and I am very Angst to read such garbage.
How in the word did Bill Gaither visiting Baptist Churches lead to a comment about something as spiteful as your comment?
I agree there is some mean spitited spiteful people allowed to post here.
Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:54 am ¶
I’m proud to be Harry Peters and I’m not ashamed of it in the least. Anyone who has a problem with it, has a reprobate mind and has just decided to take matters into their own hands to be the “holy people” judge and jury. Hear Harry on this, though. God will not be mocked by SG performers or anybody else. You can do hip hop gospel and call it a quartet in ministry if you like, but if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s probably a duck. By the way, #14 (Whacker Thinker) Harry Peters is my Chrisitian name. I was baptized with that name as a baby and I’m PROUD to have a son named Harry. And For the filth you all have suggested, my name is NOT “Hairy,” it’s “Harry.” I guess they didn’t learn you too good in school.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶
“Nobody is trying to using “quartet,” or in SSQ’s case, “Queertet” or trio as a point of terribly bad theology.”
I used the term “rapture” as a joke in comment #9. You ignored the joke, and posed random sweeping generalizations about my beliefs, most of which you got wrong.
Why should it matter that Grigs made an equally random observation? The point he made is as legitimate as your own, and he managed to make his point without drawing erroneous assumptions about your personal beliefs.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 5:30 pm ¶
I’ve been called a twit and my name has been disparaged. You “holy rollers” are too much. I made a valid theological point in #10. I apologize to David Bruce Murray. Harry Peters did rush to judgment and missed the joking reference. As a matter of fact, I apologize to everyone except “whacker thinker.” But if you wish bad for Harry Peters, it’s on YOUR hands!
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 7:02 pm ¶
Harry, me thinks thou doest protest too much.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 12:12 pm ¶
And I’ve not asked for an apology. I don’t see that you’ve said anything harmful to me. I just think you’ve gotten a little carried away.
But then, who among us haven’t, at one time or another?
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 12:14 pm ¶
“Queertet”. Thats classic.
Posted 23 Jun 2008 at 11:11 am ¶
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.
blog.txt theme by Scott and sponsored by Flower Delivery