More on JC and JW

Writing about Jesus and John Wayne, Daniel Mount says:

The problem with “Jesus and John Wayne” has nothing to do with the topic addressed or the Hollywood reference. The problem is that the song isn’t that clear whether we are fighting or accepting the fact that most days we’re not as close to conquering our sin nature as we should be.


I only post this as a reminder to Southern Gospel songwriter: Be clear. It’s what the genre requires.

This has it exactly backwards, it seems to me. The song is getting orthodox evangelical hackles up not because it’s theologically unclear, but because – hokey though it may be – it makes perfectly clear the unreality of all the pious fictions that have built up around evangelical depictions of religious living.

So many southern gospel songs are happy to talk about spiritual striving in the past tense (what Jesus brought me through) or conjure up the straw man of future struggle to preemptively defeat it in Christ’s name. But assert flat out that much of the time, the spiritual striver (and that’s most people) live in a middle-zone of ambiguity, ambivalence, and half-sighted searching after the mark of the soul’s high calling, and boy, howdy. It’s on.

I’m reminded in all this of the Puritan historian Edmund Morgan’s line about how there were, generally speaking, two kinds of Puritans in Early America: those who “enjoyed holy certainty and went their indomitable ways with never a look back,” and those who “lived in an agony of uncertainty wondering each day whether God had singled them out for eternal glory or eternal torment.”

That’s a pretty fair description of a lot of evangelicals. Most people tend to assume that it’s the self-assured types who come out railing against professions of uncertainty (like “Jesus and John”) and say oversimple, sanctimonious things like, “when you get saved, you get out of the sinning business,” as if it’s as simple as flipping a switch, nevermind  that legalistic policing of behavior may not even be the point of salvation and grace, rightly understood.

But actually I suspect the people who make the most noise are probably just a subspecies of your garden variety strugglers and doubters who have to keep talking about how completely they’ve been redeemed to distract themselves from the nagging questions and insecurities and fallibilities and the general markers of honest to goodness humanity that threaten to shatter the delicate ideal of an exalted, beatific life in Christ.

Indeed, of all the people I’ve ever met who call to mind the phrase “holy certainty” (and the group is quite small), the emphasis in their personalities has been on the holy part (think humility and selflessness and the social implications of the gospel), not the certainty. Thus my own sense that the salvation-shouters and hell-fire hecklers and loud bible talkers are protesting rather too much.

It’s just too bad that a throwaway song like “Jesus and John Wayne” had to be the lightning rod for this discussion, which is one that isn’t had nearly enough in southern gospel. I guess we should take it where and how it comes, but you’d really rather have a more lyrically coherent and musically satisfying tune to rally round.

Email this Post


  1. Hello? wrote:

    With all due respect, Mr. Moderator, you didn’t read this clip with understanding.

    “The problem is that the song isn’t that clear whether we are fighting or accepting the fact that most days we’re not as close to conquering our sin nature as we should be.”

    That’s a theological issue.
    1. We FIGHT the fact that we’re not conquering our sin nature, OR
    2. We ACCEPT our sin nature.

    And that is the problem with many of the moral issues argued on this blog over time. Yes, we are humans who fail. But do we give up permanently? Do we stop fighting? Do we just say, “That’s the way I am”?

    That’s theological.
    That’s doctrine.
    That’s a substantive discussion.

  2. annonymous wrote:

    The only blasphemous thing about the “Jesus and John Wayne” song is that the singer (or writer) claims he is better than John Wayne. Talk about lightening rods, what a brash statement to make! The persona of the Duke is untouchable by any gospel singer, even if he does wear an oversized belt buckle and a cowboy wannabe duster!

  3. Joshua Cottrell wrote:

    There was a Gospel singer that once said “If you have to explain a Gospel song, you might as well not sing it at all.” Maybe this was one case where that statement should have been adhered to.

  4. Angie M wrote:

    Wow Doug, I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph. Your post really makes me wish I could like that song.

  5. K.D. wrote:

    Life’s Railway To Heaven
    Any one ever found that train in the Bible?

  6. RF wrote:

    What a tremedous post, Doug.

    I abhor censorship, and this is a form of that very thing. Why? I think Doug put it pretty well. I get amused at those “I’m saved and I know that I am.” I know they fail as frequently as I do, but they just can’t admit that because theyare not supposed to fail. And that’s what this song is all about. The singer is saying, “I fail.” That’s inconceivable to many Christians, but it happens every day to good people.

    So we ban a song because it points out human failings, which exist whether we like it or not.

    Oh yeah. One more thing. It’s just a song. Get over it.

  7. Glenn wrote:

    A little off subject, but I feel sorry for anyone who wants to “puke” when they hear “Hold Me When I Cry”. That kind of makes me want to puke.

  8. anthony wrote:

    #1 flat out got it right and that’s it. you people that have a problem with the bible are the problem. your opinion doesn’t mean a pile of beans. are you living in accordance with the word of God. Jesus came to save us from our sin and not in our sin. If were still sinning what did we get saved from? what’s the difference between a sinner christian and a saved christian. answer no such thing. either your a christian or your not. case closed this song is a lupe whole to live in sin.

  9. Kyle wrote:

    Here’s a question….what about the Cathedrals song from 1990 that says exactly the same thing, only more explicitly??

    “I know I’m not that man that I oughta be
    Many times I fall short of what You want in me
    And I’m surely not the man I really want to be
    But thank God I’m not the man I used to be”

    How can it be any simpler? We strive, we struggle, we fall short. We’re human. “Jesus and John Wayne” is just Guy Penrod’s way of singing the same thing George Younce sang about.

  10. jbb wrote:

    #7. It’s “Hold me WHILE I cry” and what’s wrong with it?

  11. Hello? wrote:

    Just for the record, songs that make us think and wrestle with theology can be valuable. I can’t say that this song rises to the level of heresy; it has a place at the table of discussion, and I appreciate the attempt to be creative.

    With that said, “Jesus and John Wayne” is just not a great song. Not even close. At best, it’s a novelty song.

  12. Dave wrote:

    So how is “J & JW” a license to sin? Is it because it is open in dealing with the fact that people who are saved still struggle? We are saved from our sin, but that doesnt mean we still struggle with it. I am saved, and happy to be, but I know that I am not… like the line in the song “I try to be more like You Lord, but most days I know I aint…”

    Here is my question to those who feel that we shouldnt talk about things like this in songs? Do you sin? Do you have struggles? If you say no, then I have found a sin….. We arent perfect, but we are striving to be like Christ. There will be struggles along the way… and whether we like it or not, we are all somewhere between Jesus and John Wayne… which if you think about it is an amazing picture of moving away from the old outlaws to living in Him.

    Great post Doug… I am finding myself starting to agree with you.

  13. One More Thing wrote:

    This passage seems to sum up what Daniel Mount was addressing — and it’s certainly not the holy arrogance demonstrated by the Puritans, Doug. It’s the difference between giving in and humbly pressing on:

    Philippians 3:12-14 (NIV)

    12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

  14. Dave wrote:

    ….just noticed a typo in my post… I meant to say “I am saved and happy to be, but I know that I am not perfect and always a pure reflection of Jesus”

  15. Wade wrote:

    oh No the Bertha Better than YOU’s have shown up here again!!!

  16. CVH wrote:

    It is ironic that it’s a song like this that brings about all these comments. I’m sure there are others that would better illustrate the point our host makes. But I agree with his assessment.

    However you want to describe the process and whatever label you want to give it, a journey of faith is a lifelong endeavor, but it is only worthwhile, and indeed worthy of being labeled a ‘Christian’ journey, if we are moving in a Godly direction and motivated by sound reasoning.

    Those who post on this blog certainly seem to represent a wide variety of points of view when it comes to understanding and interpreting the faith, and that makes for interesting and healthy debate at times. But one of the recurring themes that troubles me - one of the biggest fallacies that often produces a lifetime of negative results - is the idea of performance, something that is reflected in several of the posts here. The notion of God’s love and favor being dependent on our behavior is backwards. Are we righteous within our selves? Of course not; we need the righteousness of Christ. But even understanding and responding to that is not an act of our own, as much as preachers who inflict 17 verses of “Just As I Am” at the conclusion of a guilt-inducing sermon would insist is the case. It is an act of the Holy Spirit drawing us to Christ; our act is simply one of obedience in saying ‘yes’.

    The fact that God’s nature is love is too simple for some to accept. Theirs is a mentality (not a spiritual formation but a legalistic mindset) of not being good enough; of having to try harder; to always do better. It often gets turned into a faith that is more about themselves than God. They depend on their performance and behavior, not God’s grace and love.

    In my experience, the sooner we realize we cannot earn God’s love and that he does not love us any more or any less on any given day - that he just loves us - is a freeing reality of grace. It allows me, imperfections and all, some of which I may take with me to the end of my days - to live in loving union with him, knowing that it will be him in his time and his way who does the work within me.

    Acceptance always precedes gratitude. We cannot be truly grateful to God until we understand that he truly accepts us as we are.

  17. rngfreckles wrote:

    I love the fact that we can all get on here and disagree on something. Isn’t it amazing that after all the complaints we put on AVFL about Doug, he hasn’t denied our freedom to post our thoughts? (There’s a hint in there somewhere…) *hiding for fear of flying tomatoes*

  18. annonymous wrote:

    If you want to beat up on a song the real GVB stinker is “When I Cry” - The self absorbtion of SG is second only to P&W wall music. Me, Me, Me! When I get MY robe, He would have done it all even if it was just for ME, Hold ME While I Cry, wow! He ran to ME. Do we need to get over ourselves or what?

  19. Robert wrote:

    I think people who have any sort of problem with this song need to get a life. There is a word for this type of song where everything cannot be taken literally. I can’t think of the word (Avery can). The best I can come up with is “artistic symbolism”. It’s kind of like when you read a good book but it does not end with a concise ending. It just leaves an idea in your head to make you think along certain lines.
    I agree with freckles. I can get on here and post things like what I did above that probably don’t make sense to most.

  20. BiBlEtHuMpA wrote:

    1st John 1:8-10

    8-If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

    9-If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    10-If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

    So, how u durrin?

  21. DMP wrote:

    Actually, I really like the song!

  22. Glenn wrote:

    #10, Sorry about the error but what I am saying is that I love the song and there is nothing wrong with it. I think it is a shame that there are those of us who think because there is a song about the fact that God comforts us when we hurt is not biblical.

  23. Wade wrote:

    BiBlEtHuMpA…thank you for a very good example of how you CAN quote bible verses with out using them as bullets to kill some ones spirit!!!

  24. Irishlad wrote:

    Ok,this may be short but not simplistic. You give me a N.T. with the words of Jesus alone printed in red and that would be all i need to live a Christian life and with all honesty call myself a Christian. Nothing else. However to deny that every life including those who would call themselves saved or born-again or whatever title you chose has not a dark side is pure denial. It’s a part of what’s called the Human Condition. Yea and i know some ‘thumpa’ will come on and say the Bible calls that sin. Stalemate again.

  25. BiBlEtHuMpA wrote:

    #23, Wade, thank you. I just want to be a blessing. :-)

    And #24, Irishlad, with all due respect, sin IS the human condition, according to the Bible. Even David, in Psalm 51:5..
    “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

    And again…
    1st John 1:8-If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

    But IF you live only by the “red” words of Jesus, this will not apply to you and therefore, perhaps, you could say the “human condition” is not sin.

  26. gaithergirl wrote:

    I love that song because it talks about where we really are on most days. It is starkly honest about the human condition, and that without the Lord we can not hope to live in a Godly, righteous way. One of the most honest songs I have ever heard. I also realize this song was written FOR Guy and about ALL of us!

  27. Harry Peters wrote:

    Irish Lad, old Harry Peters agrees with you 100 percent. Everything else but Jesus in the bible is purely opinion. I say po-tat-0, you say po-tah-to. Jesus came to seek an to save ALL of us–PERIOD! Even old Harry Peters in a rocker on the porch of his chicken ranch.

  28. JL wrote:

    anonymous (#18) has written an amazing post, and he/she has nailed it. There are far too many songs and even “self-help” books, that are all about ME. Even the casual reader of the NT will see that it is all about HIM.

    The greatest Christian who ever lived, the apostle Paul, at the end of a most fruitful life, still had it as his greatest goal, to “win Christ”. It was all about HIM. John the Baptist said “HE must increase; and I must decrease…”

    2 comments I heard recently illustrate this. A preacher said “enough of me finding Christ. Christ was never lost. I was. And the truth of the matter is, He found me!”

    And another preacher said “don’t give me any more of this ‘I gave my heart to Jesus’, or ‘I went forward’, or ‘I committed my life to Christ’- that’s all nonsense. If you are truly saved, get down on your knees, and thank the God of Heaven that He ever came TO YOU in the Person of His Son, and through the cross, lifted YOU out of the horrible pit of sin and destruction.”

    It’s all a matter of the right perspective.

    CVH (# 20) also wrote a fabulous post…
    what he says is spot on: “The notion of God’s love and favor being dependent on our behavior is backwards. Are we righteous within our selves? Of course not; we need the righteousness of Christ. But even understanding and responding to that is not an act of our own…”

    As Gold City sang…”God Handled It All”.

    And yes, JC/JW is a pretty pathetic song.

  29. dmp wrote:

    I don’t think the song was ever meant to be an alter call piece or anthem, but I think it does a really good job of describing the place most of us find ourselves in…well, at least I do. Perhaps I’m a heathen, but the more I listened to that song the more it really hit home for me.
    I guess I’m a little confused. What is it you want a song to do for you? Songs are meant to be an expression of the singers/writers heart, and this song does that very well, though it might not spill over with theology. Can’t a song express an imperfect individuals struggle in life without being over analyzed for its imperfect point of view?

  30. Irishlad wrote:

    CVH’s post has prompted me to think along these lines. Take 100 born-again believers out of any church you like and ask them this: when you were drawn to God and realised your need of Salvation,was it the love of Jesus for you displayed on the Cross,or was it the fear of eternity spent in unbearable Hell that did it for you? I have a notion the fervent you’re going to hell in your face type probably come from the latter.Usually but not always favoured by the ill-educated.

  31. CVH wrote:


    Exactly the point. Any piece of art is an expression of one part of its creator’s being at that point in time. Oftentimes the best art is ‘open ended’ in that it presents the person experiencing it an opportunity to think and wrestle with its meaning. That intellectual, emotional and, occasionally, spiritual struggle is, to me at least, what makes art good and worthwhile. And honest.

    Leaving a listener with a question - not resolving every verse or chorus with a mundane spiritual platitude - may not satisfy Aunt Blabby’s penchant for predigested piety. But if the listener will allow it and risk it, it may cause them to inquire deeper in their understanding of themselves and their faith. At that point, the art is not just affirming; it becomes transformational.

    As several have expressed in this thread, all art does not have to have a lofty purpose. Enjoying a song just for the song is fine. But one of the redundant arguments we have here about why southern gospel music as a genre or business doesn’t grow is because too often artists, writers, companies and ultimately audiences are willing to settle for much less.

  32. annonymous wrote:

    So, DMP, are you saying you are better than John Wayne?

  33. Irishlad wrote:

    JW at the end of his life converted to the RC faith and in that simple act of piety managed to alienate a fair proportion of the population,bearing in mind we’re roughly 50/50 Protestant to NI,and the evangelicals making up a good bit of ‘prods’ one can quickly see that the Duke would be as welcome as a Black in an all white café in 60’s Alabama. Just a little snippit of our nasty little world over here.

  34. Alan wrote:

    Irishlad, #30 post - It’s the Holy Spirit Who, when dealing with an individual, does whatever He needs to to meet them where they are, wouldn’t you agree? And yes, in some lives, it’s the love of God that draws them, while in others it’s the warning side of the Gospel. How that’s a representation of their education or lack thereof is beyond me. Many bright and educated people came to Christ after being shown the horrors of a lost eternity, and I’m sure that many who were primarily attracted by the love of the Lord aren’t brilliant, in the conventional sense. I’ve met a lot of both groups. May I ask what you based your premise on?

  35. justathought wrote:

    I have to say I agree with you on everything said. I am thankful someone would have the nerve to write a song and actually admit they don’t have it all together! Those they say they do….WOW, I believe that Jesus called them Pharisees!

    As far as the song….I think it grows on you!

  36. SLMR wrote:

    I support the song and the singer! I dont believe GP would sing a song that he felt didnt send out a positive message. I dont think the song is so difficult to understand that one would find a negative message in it.. So.. I dont understand why people are complaining or find it so offensive that they feel it should be taken off the air. DB said that the listeners have a voice..well what about the voice of those who like the song.
    I dont listen to JOYFM.. I have the CD’s of the artists I enjoy..including Lovin; Life but I think the people who do like the song should speak up and get it back on the air. It never ceases to amaze me that “Christians” seem to spend so much of their time tearing down others around them whether they be fellow Christians or otherwise..Arent we supposed to be a GOOD example to others??? NOT PERFECT…Just good!

  37. Irishlad wrote:

    Ok Alan.St Anne’s Cathedral Belfast City centre an Anglican church,the minister an university educated theologian.The congregation,middle and upper middle class business and professional people. The message? God’s love for his people,Christ’s love for the sinner…love love love. Cross town to a back-street independent Gospel hall packed to the gills with working class folk(nothing wrong with that)only too eager to drink in whatever pours forth from the man on the pulpit. This being the Pastor,someone most likely with little or no formal training. The message:plain and simple,you’re not saved,straight to hell to toast forever along with your hellbent cronies…fear fear fear. A very clear distinction i would say. Now i’m not discussing the merits or veracity of the two very different theologies,that’s a separate issue.

  38. Alan wrote:

    Thanks, Irishlad, for your response. I hope our current thoughts aren’t so far away from the song mentioned that some will be irritated. I think it’s at least partially on point, and the two themes of the Gospel are in focus here. I’ve wrestled with this issue a lot, personally, wondering how to find the proper balance in it.

    Anecdotally, I once heard about Vance Havner, a plain-spoken Southern Baptist preacher, who had been verbally tackled by a woman upset with a message he’d given on hell. The lady asked him why he’d chosen that as his topic, rather than “the love of the meek and lowly Jesus”. To which he replied that no one had spoken more about hell than the same meek and lowly Jesus. In studying that in the NT, Dr. Havner was correct. Reading Luke 16 would seem to prove his point, as that’s probably the most graphic detailing of hell in the NT.
    If all we ever heard was that Heaven is possible, but not that a lost eternity needs to be - and can be - avoided, isn’t that only half of the message? I’ve been to your island many times, and so I do understand your examples given.

    But, I think there has to be a balance of the twin themes of the Gospel, if our Examplar is Christ Himself. And, I’ve come to believe that just as every person is their own unique being, so are the ways that God deals individually with us.

    Where we would possibly part in agreement is the education factor…in the west, at least. Many well-trained and educated preachers that I know or know of still present a balanced Gospel. And, sure - likely many will tailor (i.e., water down) the Gospel for their audiences. The Apostle Paul referred to those audiences as having “itching ears”. Conversely, I’ve heard some of the most heartwarming messages on the love of God from men who had little or no formal training - save from God Himself. I’ll add that the same thing could be said concerning some of the writers of some of the greatest hymns of God’s love ever written.

    So, since this is a subject very much of interest to me, I thank you for your thoughts. We might agree on most of this, save the education factor. I can’t go as far as to acknowledge the correlation that you make. We e-mailed privately once about Prof. David Gooding, from your Queens days, if you’ll remember? One of the most profound minds I’ve ever met, and a man who I’ve heard speaking on Hell…. with tears on his cheeks. I remember sitting there listening to him as we shared a service, thinking that if I hadn’t been saved before then, there was no way that I’d leave without knowing for certain that I was ready to meet God!

    Thanks again….

  39. apathetic wrote:

    What is a “lupe whole” ???

    Sounds like a lot of posers, uh, I mean posters, on this site are better Christians than I. Seeing as how they have no sin in them. There are sins of ommission and sins of commission. The first is equal to the latter. Sin is sin. We all do it. (yes, even the Holier than thou posers, I mean posters).

    That being said, God’s grace is not a license to sin. We all should strive daily to be perfect. We should strive not to sin. Are we always going to be successful, no.

    “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
    18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
    19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.”

  40. Videoguy wrote:

    Paul more or less wrote the Jesus/JW song in Romans 7.

  41. Irishlad wrote:

    Thanks Alan,at least we can have a civilized debate without resorting to abusive comments,and,yes i know and acknowledge i pushed the envelope on the education part. Regards.

  42. RF wrote:

    Let’s see…we all agree that the song is not really a great song (and written by the Gaithers no less) and that we theologically disagree on a lot, well, theological. What else is new. Since we’ve exhaused the music part, it’s time to move on.

    Next post, Avery!

  43. dmp wrote:

    No, we do not all agree it is a bad song.

    I have to admit…I have never thought the song was comparing the holiness of Jesus and John Wayne. I think it is comparing personalities of the two, John being the cowboy, and Jesus the gentle one. I think it was just a song about family, and how we end up a mix of our parents, probably leaving both of them somewhat unsatisfied. You wonder why the world hates Christians? Right now, after reading all of these posts, I’m longing to hang out with a crowd that can sing along to “I like my women just a little on the trashy side” at the top of their lungs without wondering what its theological implications are.

  44. AF wrote:

    I’ll admit that it is a wierd song and that I’ve never been particularly fond of it, but, I mean, hey. It’s not like the whole album “Lovin Life” was any good. Or at least, I didn’t like it. What I don’t understand is, why in the world are they still talking about it. I don’t think anyone thought that it was THAT great of a song.

  45. Wade wrote:

    Irish Laddy et al… Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!!

  46. Harry Peters wrote:

    Me Irish Laddie, me hopes ye are consuming some green ale. Old Harry Peters is having communion with fruit of the vine tonight, or as the fundie Baptists would say, “grape juice.” hic. ;-)

  47. Steve Pipkin-Savage wrote:

    Gospel music pros have always used gimmicks and name-dropping to sell products. That’s what is going on here, IMHO. :-)

    It’s not necessarily a bad thing; it just is that and nothing more: marketing.

    Yeshua (Jesus) would be miffed and John Wayne’s people would be amused.

    Yeshua is The Eternal Presence; John Wayne is a manufacture of men.

    Again, just my opinion. Sacred Medicine is never “for sale” and marketing was what Yeshua chastized in the Temple that day!

    Oops! sorry. Christian professionalism is anathema to me. I got out of it many, many moons ago. It is about sales, dear folks; not about theology or spirituality.

  48. J wrote:

    Whats the big deal? When John left this earth he had given his heart and life to Jesus. Some where between Jesus and John Wanye sounds like a pretty good place to be.

  49. Extra Ink wrote:

    To those of you who say songs should never be about “me”….

    I submit that all gospel songs are about “me” on some level. If the song talks about the cross and never mentions a person, it’s still about “me” because I was directly affected by what Jesus did on the cross.

    A great songwriter will always focus on the message AND try to help the listener see where he fits into that message.

  50. Irishlad wrote:

    Harry Peters,Wade, CVH and Qman,i love you all.And a very happy St Paddy’s day to you all. It’s strange you celebrate it more over there. Lool at the ‘Gangs of New York’ last nite poor liam Nesson lost his wife. Sad.

  51. gaithergirl wrote:

    I never understoood why Gaither didn’t release “Prisoner of Hope” to the radio stations. It is a GREAT song, and more up to Guy’s vocal standards. This would have made many more people happy!

  52. dmp wrote:

    Went fishing tonight and listened to Jesus and John Wyane the whole way home. I still think it is a song that hits home, if only for me…

  53. Kyle wrote:

    I agree with “Prisoner of Hope.” I LOVE that song!!

  54. Jake wrote:

    I guess we won’t have to worry too much about “Jesus and John Wayne” because since Guy has left the group, it isn’t like it is going to be sung at concerts. For those who don’t like it, the song will probably just go away on its own.

  55. SLMR wrote:

    Well some must like it…Its up for a Dove Award for best country gospel song…I hope it wins…Would be a great way for Guy to exit the VB…

  56. SLMR wrote:

    I realize he has already left…It would just be the icing on his cake! He deserves it! Plus the album is up for a Dove too!

Post a Comment

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.