Company Policy

Color me late to the party, but I just noticed that Chris White, a prominent record label executive in sg, has a blog about politics, of all things, and lately, foreign policy in particular, sort of. Okay then. It’s mostly pre-millennialist political boilerplate about Israel, but it also serves as an unfortunate reminder of what happens when people confuse a profile in the entertainment bidness with political acumen. But at least Gerald Wolfe has some company now. 

On a deeper level, though, I wonder: When a leading officer of a sg record company writes a blog of this sort, even though it’s notionally or technically a private act, what are we to think about how those beliefs may be involved in that company’s decision making process? Another way to pose the question: Can there in fact even be private opinions expressed publicly without being seen, at least in part, as company policy? I’m actually asking.

Update: Chris White responds to my question with a lengthy reply after the jump.

Doug,

I wanted to write a response to your questions and then tell you and your readers…why I write.

In addressing your question if public people who influence policy should openly write about their positions on sometimes touchy subjects, my answer is this: I believe our country has become so politically correct that it is now strangling the personalities of individuals, if not America itself.  In speaking to the the direct question of should I be doing this since I am an officer at Crossroads and an industry leader, I suppose that would be up to each person’s opinion.  I guess it is no secret that I am a conservative.  I’m not much into political parties, as I have often stated.  I’m a person voter, not a party voter.  Considering our genre and in thinking about all the people I’m associated with in a normal business day, I am going to be much more in the majority than the minority.  If I were in another music genre or some other industry in general, that might not be the case.  Therefore my conservative beliefs may serve as a strength, rather than a harm.  From the responses I have received, that has certainly been the case.

We are fortunate at Crossroads to have diversity in our thinking from different individuals.  This has proven to be a very positive thing through the years, in that it doesn’t allow us to become unbalanced to only one point of view.  I would go so far as to say it has been one of the reasons for our success.  We try to openly listen to each other and at the end of the day, make good decisions for everyone’s best interest.  I can never remember a time when we have made a “business” decision based on one individual’s “my way or no way” philosophy.  We have used diversity of opinions as a positive, not a negative.

Now as to why I write. I’m not trying to compete in the world of blogging.  This will sound strange to many but, I write as a ministry tool to long-time friends, who are either fringe believers or non-believers.  I’m trying to plant seeds in hopes that it will lead them to search out God.  They are included in a larger list that I alert when a post goes up.  Call it camouflage if you will but, I simply can’t write solely to spiritual subjects.  That would become rather obvious, very quickly.  Therefore I intertwine them into the secular writings that I know these people have interest in.

I try to interject thoughts of connecting the dots to see if world events are tied to Biblical prophecy.  I know for fact, this is an area that is getting people’s attention these days.  I also give the reader the self-willed right, to reject that scripture or what God says is actually valid.  Such was the case in my last post of Should America Stand With Israel.  Though the writing had a political tone, the last segment of it was from a scriptural point of view.  One might conclude that the approach is a little deceiving and I would even agree to that.  However my greatest desire is to give people an opportunity to think about a relationship with Christ, through a series of planting seeds within the writings.  If they reject them, that’s up to each individual.

Though my real purpose is to engage people with God, I’ll admit from time to time, I have gotten to caught up in the secular story lines.  That happens because I do get engaged with what is going on in America today. I love America and I want to see her again shine through, in a world that’s gotten darker.

Thank you, Doug, for letting me share this with you and your readers.

Chris

Email this Post

Comments

  1. David Bruce Murray wrote:

    “Can there in fact even be private opinions expressed publicly without being seen, at least in part, as company policy?”

    Expressing one’s beliefs on a particular political topic can affect how people view a mostly unrelated company decision, yes, but are you suggesting that some fans are going to stop buying Kingdom Heirs and McKameys CDs because they disagree with Chris White on Israel?

    Anything is possible, but that notion seems pretty far-fetched.

    So no, I don’t agree that expressing a personal opinion on a political topic is the same as writing company policy, particularly since the primary purpose of that company isn’t overtly political in nature or even international in nature.

  2. Tom wrote:

    I tend to subscribe to the theory that each person is perfectly entitled to their own opinion and the freedom to voice it. I didn’t read through everything he wrote, mainly because I’ve heard it all too many times and I find it unconvincing. But I didn’t see anywhere that he identified himself with Crossroads or even the broader southern gospel community. His name is on there, but Chris White has to be a fairly common name and, if I stumbled on this accidentally (the only way I’d stumble on it!), I’d have no clue that this was from Chris White, the sg label exec.

    But I did read enough to get the gears turning in my mind. On his “About” page, after the disclaimers about excusing grammatical mistakes, he proceeds to mention that he believes that the Bible is “the inherent word of God.” This is the second time this week that I’ve run into this odd use of “inherent” instead of “inerrant,” which is what I presume he meant. Or did he? It’s not really a misspelling–it’s an entirely different word. And if you use an entirely different word, it makes one wonder if he actually knows what the word means, or if it’s just a buzzword that lots of other people use so he uses it too without really knowing fully what it’s supposed to suggest (a phenomenon I see in my students quite frequently).

    But I suppose that, if nothing else, it just proves that Chris White is not inherent. And neither am I.

  3. Rev. Edward Robinson wrote:

    Are the revived version of “The Prophets” still touring? This is the once that was announced @ 2 - 3 years ago with Ed Hill, Bill Baize, Mike Allen, amd Paul Jackson.

    Also, what is the latest update regarding the Imperials (Jason Amorales and associates)? Their website that I periodically check has no concert dates that I can find, nor does it show any product for sale.

  4. John Lanier wrote:

    Chris, you are not alone. I am happy to have discovered your blog. Keep letting your voice be heard.

  5. Alan wrote:

    “It’s mostly pre-millennialist political boilerplate about Israel, but it also serves as an unfortunate reminder of what happens when people confuse a profile in the entertainment bidness with political acumen.”
    ————————

    Doug, after five trips to Israel, seeing first hand the venues of war and listening to soldiers who actually fought in several wars, I actually agree with every word that Mr. White wrote. Perhaps to you it’s only boilerplate, but I would ask that in your disagreement with his treatise, you’d present to us where you believe he’s wrong…Scripturally, historically, or even wrong when compared with very current events. I’d appreciate hearing your point of view.

    I honestly agree with his summation of the places in Scripture where there are promises of blessing to those who stand for Israel, as well as condemnation promised to those who ally against them. And, I could not agree more with Mr. White’s belief that one of the major reasons why God has blessed the American experience is because we have been their friend since their independence. The Bible is also clear that one day the world will turn against them, culminating in the battle of the ages in the Jezreel Valley. (Anglicized from “Har Megiddo” - or “The Hill of Megiddo” into Armageddon.)

    So honestly, my belief is that if an exec of a Gospel music company is simply expressing what the Bible clearly teaches, he’s not in any real danger of backlash. My two cents, in any event.

  6. youthman10 wrote:

    The problem that most of you are forgetting is that Doug can’t back up his all millennialist viewpoint scripturally!
    If you bring no presuppositions to the text itself and simply interpret it from the original languages, then all millennialism does not fit! If you take the scriptures more alogorically and not literally then according to your viewpoint we are living now in the millenium. I have never in my life saw a lion lay down with a lamb and sin be vanquished!
    If you take a post millennial viewpoint then you must take a post tribulation stance as well. If you take that stance then you believe that the church must go through the tribulation to be refined or to cleanse us from sin. If that is the case then the cross meant nothing and that God will pour out His wrath on the church! From a practical standpoint sin can’t reign supremely like it will in the tribulation unless the restrainer (the church) is taken out.
    Too many times we listen to so much liberal garbage and we don’t go to scripture for answers, then we start to believe anything!

  7. youthman10 wrote:

    Tom- To answer your question.
    The bible is inerrant if it contains no errors pertaining to faith and practice. It is infaliable if it contains no errors to historical, scientific, and theological evidence. I believe that the bible is infaliable and inerrant!

  8. John wrote:

    Doug, I would wager that if Mr. White had come out on the other side of the spectrum, you would have praised his edginess, his courage, and his fresh view piont.

    Much as you did Kenneth Kirksey.

    The main problem you see with Mr. White’s point of view is not so much that a recording company executive is getting political, but rather that you disagree with his view, and therefore, wish to silince him.

    Typical liberal.

  9. Lewis Wells wrote:

    #6…Not saying I agree or disagree with your broader point, but this quote…

    “If you take that stance then you believe that the church must go through the tribulation to be refined or to cleanse us from sin. If that is the case then the cross meant nothing and that God will pour out His wrath on the church!”

    …makes a LOT of assumptions about those who believe post-trib, and puts a significant amount of words in their mouths. It’s a bit of an assumptive close and alters the playing field before you even begin the dialog.

    In my experience, most of those who believe post-trib do so because they simply don’t believe strong evidence of a pre-tribulation rapture exists in the scriptures - not because they believe the church must be purified by the tribulation and certainly not to diminish or alter the sacrifice of Christ.

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.

*

*