149 thoughts on “Sanctifying Contemporary Music Redux”

  1. Isn’t that already a hymn?

    That is exactly how my Fundy U (Tennessee Temple: Pre-Lovett) allowed students to get away with singing Casting Crowns. I remember “Voice of Truth” being sung with an acoustic guitar and piano. No drums.

    1. “Isn’t that already a hymn?”

      Even worse: those liberal agents of HELL are PERVERTING OUR GOD-GIVEN HYMNS!! How DARE they profane those hallowed words?? Don’t they know that we’ll only cast our crowns at Jesus’ feet??

      1. This hymn “Living He Loved Me etc” used to be a fasvorite hymn of mine BUT we never sang it the way iot is sung here, either version. It sounds so terrible! This must be very old because I remember singing it when I was quite young. I believe it was in the old Fundulmentalis Pentecostal Church I attended as a youth up to my eatly teen years.

    2. Even when I was there (before you, I think), TTU was slightly more lenient about music than some of the other fundy schools.

        1. If you get a BA from TTU, an MA from BJU, and a doctorate from FU, I guess that makes you … an expert?

    3. Yes, this is a hymn and I did not realize it. I loved the Casting Crown’s version, then one “snow” Sunday we decided to go to a church closer to our house. They sang it from the hymn book. I looked at my wife, who at the time did not like CCM, and said hey this is the song we hear on the radio. She said she liked the radio version better than the hymn arrangement. Then I found out later that the Inspirations of Southern Gospel fame cover the song also. They kind of make it sound like a barber shop quartet song. I had heard them sing it for years and never put the two together until I was talking to my brother. Small world.

  2. Rule #1 – make sure the acoustic is in tune with the freikin’ piano! I couldnt stomach it longer than a few seconds because of the pain it was causing my ears.

  3. I actually didn’t think they “sanctified” it all that much. That still wouldn’t fly in a lot of churches.

    And please, somebody tune that guitar.

    1. It would fly in more than you might expect. And that’s the real irony.

      In reality, fundamentalism is far from being separated from the larger culture. It’s music, methods, and technology may lag but they’ll inevitably change.

      The strangeness comes from the fundamentalists claiming that they would “never use CCM!” while constantly using their own versions of the CCM from 5, 10, or 20 years ago. When I was at PCC in 2003 singing songs like Lord, I Lift Your Name on High was just starting to be acceptable. That song was written in 1989 and peaked in popularity during the mid-90’s (Petra covered it in 1997)

      Fundamentalism inevitably got on board with it a few years later.

      1. I didn’t realize we attended PCC at the same time. I just dusted off my yearbook and saw you were part of Pi Zeta. Then my mind went back a little as I thought it was Pi Zeta Reprobeta, but then I remembered it was Phi Beta Reprobeta. I was in Delta Chi. Good times… good times…

      2. My former extreme FU’s singing group sang “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)” and I inwardly giggled every time.

      3. I’m having this issue right now with my hopefully-will-eventually-be-former-fundy-church. I have heard so many sermons railing against CCM that I can’t even count them. Now, it’s perfectly acceptable to sing praise choruses, FROM A DROP DOWN SCREEN NO LESS! I guarantee that if I were to ask why the change, I would get the “Well we never said anything was wrong with contemporary music, per se…blah blah blah” and looked at as if I have three heads. I can’t tell you how many people have actually been turned off by the church because of the music “standards” which I guess aren’t so standard anymore!

        1. Musical tastes are an issue in most churches.
          But it’s a bit different when a church (or a pastor) preaches that certain musical styles are actually evil or demonic or not God-honoring.
          Usually if you take the explanations of why and blow on them, they atomize.

    2. Besides, in the original version the drums and guitar that start around 0:44 make all the difference in the world.


  4. We recently sang this arrangement in my church’s (non-fundy, by the way) choir. If you pick up the tempo a bit, add drums, and people who can actually carry a tune, it’s a very nice arrangement. This rendition was just awful (I sing in our choir, by the way!).

    1. We’ve done it in my current non-fundy church too. But we have a godless band (piano, violin, flute, guitar, drums) and the words are on a godless screen, thereby cancelling out any goodness in the song itself.


  5. I apologize in advance to my friends here who like Casting Crowns, but I don’t really like either version of this song. The problem is the song itself. The tune seems unimaginative and clumsily arranged, and the lyrics are obvious and unsophisticated and full of too-easy rhymes.

    That said, neither version seems more religious or spiritual than the other, and neither offends me except aesthetically.

    It’s true that the second one lacks drums and synthesizers, and is sung less skillfully, but none of those changes are necessarily improvements. I also have the idea some words have been changed, but I’m not sure what the changes are. I’m not curious enough to listen to both versions again.

    1. There are some lines added to the end of the verses.

      Darrell, do I get a prize for listening only part of the way through the second version? The real version was fine, but I could handle only 2:16 of the second. The piano was killing me.

      Also, that second version isn’t truly sanctified, because you can clearly discern a beat. That’s just wrong.

    2. I agree with you. If you told me this was something an untrained worship leader came up with when he was learning guitar chords, I’d believe you with no questions asked.

    3. Big Gary:
      Your classical musical education is getting the best of you. But I won’t make you love my music if I don’t have to love yours. Someday you’ll come around. Oh glorious daaaaaaay.

  6. Well, well.

    I suppose it depends on whether or not you are in the BJU or the PCC camp. BJU hates “contemporary” Christian music of that style. It says it hates CCM altogether, but likes what it’s people produce.

    Then again, the PCC groups like CCM of this kind. They just go off the rails on other things.

      1. Yes, it seems to be all about the money. My former Fundy church and its unaccredited Bible college are very into modifying CCM too. Anything to bring in the younger generation.

        1. As a matter of fact, they even sent their music minister to conferences at…

          wait for it…

          Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church.

        2. The Saddleback conference attendances were kept hush-hush. I only found out because a friend of mine worked at Saddleback.

        3. http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/will-paul-chappell-criticize-rick-warren-today/



          “I won’t forget hearing a Paul Chappel sermon bashing Saddleback church and the music there, even to the point of falsely claiming the women in the praise group “were dancing in their midriffs”. Not true! We had standards there…no midriffs allowed on stage! LOL

          But this at the same time Chappel’s music guy (not sure what they are called nowadays in the IFBx churches) would attend the worship conference at Saddleback each year with Paul’s knowledge. Go figure.

          Perhaps he has matured since then. ”

          I doubt I will find more proof than former Saddleback staff JustJohn’s posts on the FFF (old and new FFF).

  7. Okay, music. You’re in my wheelhouse. Casting Crowns was once described to me as the Nickelback of Christian Rock; bland, uninspired, corporate, and formulaic. They seem popular despite no one really claiming them as a favorite. That being said, is this altogether different than what most church cover bands–excuse me–worship bands do each Sunday? Yeah, that out of tune piano is about as bad as you can get, and this adaptation makes the original seem brilliant by comparison. But since I don’t know this particular church and can’t speak to their ministry philosophy, on a basic level it seems like they are just performing the song using the (meager) resources they have on hand. On any given Sunday, you’re going to hear Casting Crowns, Hillsong, Chris Tomlin, and many others covered with varying degrees of skill in congregations around the world. CCM is the new hymnody. Some will rise to the level of musicality required, some will match it, and a few may surpass it. Perhaps this example is less one of “sanctifying” and one of just not being up to scratch.

    1. I don’t know if Casting Crowns will ever use it in its promotional material, but “The Nickelback of Christian Rock” is a world-class epithet. 😀

    2. “Nickelback of Christian Rock”
      Yes you have a point 😛 They have some good songs: Praise You in the Storm, Who Am I, Lifesong are some of my favorites. But they have a very similar sound for most of their songs.

      1. Yeah… there’s nothing I specifically dislike about Casting Crowns, but nothing I like more than anybody else, either.

      2. I’m not a fan either. Frankly, I’m over the whole “praise n’ worship” thing. It’s as if someone figured out you could write fluffy lyrics, set them to mediocre music, and rake in tons of money. The really good Christian artists these days are just making music without slapping a “Christian” label on it. IMHO, that’s as it should be.

    3. I wouldn’t mind if they were doing their best to make music with the skills their congregation has. The problem is in the preaching: if they preach against see CCM, as nearly every IFB church does, they are hypocrites to sing this music. If they truly find the music worthy to use, it is dishonest of them to attack and criticize modern musicians and songwriters as if they are all worldly or liberal.

      1. I so much agree with you on this one. If a church is going to preach against CCM, then STOP USING THEIR MUSIC!!!!!!!

        1. Funny standards of music are so arbitrary, anyway.

          When I went to BJU ‘way back in the day, I had a cassette tape of Celtic harpsichord music. I was told I couldn’t play it since it was “New Age.”

        2. rtgmath,

          Now that’s funny.

          When I was at BJU I was utterly appalled that they allowed Bob Marley’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” to be broadcast by hapless students all through the hallowed halls of the men’s dormitory.

          The Celts, on the other hand, are godless and wicked witches and warlocks!


        3. Don’t you mean Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”?

          McFerrin wrote the song and also recorded the most popular version of it (done entirely a capella). I’m not aware of Bob Marley having ever done that song.

        4. Bobby McFerrin, Bob Marley…blah, blah, blah…

          They both did it, so I would venture a guess that it was the former, rather than the latter. Sounded the same to me. 🙂


        5. I should have mentioned why I don’t think Bob Marley ever did that song. Bobby McFerrin (the author) first released “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” in September 1988. Bob Marley died in May 1981.

      2. If the congregation does not have those with the skills to do special music well, then putting them on stage is an exercise in vanity. They should stick to congregational singing.

        By all means, make the most of what you have! But don’t try to `impress or imitate “the stars.” IMHO, that is little more than idol worship.

    4. Perhaps. But I know I’ve seen this exact thing done with other songs. You take out all the things that people who really appreciate rock music love and then sing what is left. To me what is left is bland and uninspiring (to use your words).

  8. Each one of those renditions is equally awful in its own way. By the way, not only do IFBs trash good music, but many churches do that, both Protestant and Catholic. Good music in churches is scarce as hens’ teeth these days.

  9. Look closely and you can spot an electric drum set opposite the piano. There must be a younger pastor at this church because they are so contextualized. Lol

  10. ugh.. I can’t get the horrible sound of that second rendition out of my head! Oh my.. the man that starts the song off.. wow. he was literally a headache to listen to!! haha

    1. I couldn’t listen to the church service one more than a little. Headache is right! It was horrible.

      I know horrible. I can’t sing, and his singing was worse than mine.

  11. So glad that the Youtube description includes the estimated attendance that day. I thought they were singing for the Lord.

  12. Oops… I stopped listening to it before I got to when the girls join in. Just went back to hear if they helped at all. They didn’t. =)

  13. I have been away from this particular style of worship so long that I wonder how the singers manage to hold their bodies so still while singing a text that should involve the emotional part of their person. It seems strange and unnatural. Wooden even. Very distracting to me honestly.

    I am also no longer a fan of the “special number” having been doing nearly 100% congregational worship for a long time.

    1. I agree. The church we go to now, it’s so refreshing to see people emotionally involved in worship instead of just standing there like emotionless robots. I remember a former fundy preacher always saying when people who didn’t get “excited for the Lord” (such as singing like a robot??) would get to heaven they will be in shock. Fundies are in for a REAL shock. They won’t know what hit them.

    2. Oh my goodness I really really disliked that the choir could sing the non-hymns but we couldn’t as a congregation. We almost never have specials at my current church, and it is so much better.

    3. I remember being in fundie teen choir we would get chewed out for moving in the slightest way. We were never trusted to hold the microphones and we had to sing like robots.

      I remember the girls getting chewed out for having their legs too far apart. The MoGs wife always told them that’s because they wear britches.

      I remember hearing my first sanctified contemporary song at FBC Hammond. My MoG was a hoopin and a hollerin, he had no clue. Me still having a foot stuck outside the fundie door knew better and enjoyed them basking in their stupidity.

  14. Seems like it’s becoming more common now for fundies to sing CCM songs. There was a day (by golly) that would never happen. But, they just justify it only because they don’t use drums. Even the fundiest of fundies are getting sick of singing the same few songs over and over. Now, maybe they’ll get sick of hearing a piano over and over and realize there are many other great instruments out there. Including, gasp, the DRUM. 😮

    1. It’s like clothing and style. Immodest dress is what worldly women today wear. Modest clothing is what worldly women wore 15 – 20 years ago…

      1. I don’t think you know a thing about women’s clothing Josh. Sorry. Christina Aguilera and Brittany Spears made their debuts about 15 years ago. Before that, my generation had Madonna about 25 years ago. Madonna’s thing was wearing just a bra as a top. Trust me, that look was hip in all the clubs in the late 80s. I think they would be classified as “worldly women”, whatever that means. To me it is just another recycled fundy phrase that makes me want to puke.
        And if you want, let’s kick it all the way back to 70s and the miniskirt. Or even the 50s. Ever watch the old Superman show. Lois Lane wore some very tight dresses.
        Like anything in life, modesty is a relative term.

        1. Scorpio, your math is off. Madonna’s rise to fame started in 1980something, which would be 30something years ago.

        2. Just a bra as a top goes back at least to the 1950s (see: Bikini). Madonna’s innovation was wearing a bra *over* a shirt. It brought to women’s wear the “underwear on the outside” look that Superman and other comic-book heroes had pioneered for men decades before.

          But while we’re on the subject of outfits Fundies consider immodest, the “Monokini” (woman’s topless bathing suit) made its high-fashion debut in 1964 (following link possibly unsafe-for-work):


        3. Not safe for work, indeed!

          Even more, not safe for Wife! If my wife had seen me looking at that article, she might have killed me.

          I note that Peggy Moffat who modeled it in the US received death threats for wearing it. Typical. Fundamentalist (extremist) rage and intimidation, even if they didn’t have the guts to carry it out.

        4. There was a book series that fundies all over the country joined together to ban — the Adventures of Captain Underpants.

          It was funny, middle-schoolers found it entertaining and relevant to their experience, and their fundy parents were scandalized.

          If you don’t like something, ban it! Make it illegal. That will get rid of the problem! And if it doesn’t, jail the miscreants and keep making the penalties harsher. You can see how effective the strategy is by looking at the war on drugs.

          And anyone knows a good book is stronger than any drug!

      2. And Josh let me add that I didn’t mean to come across as sounding like I was slamming you. Just the concept of what constitutes modest dress.
        It’s still early and I haven’t a long enough conversation with Mr. Coffee yet. That or I am just getting grumpy in my old age. Now get off my lawn. 🙂

        1. You’re old and grumpy, Scorpio. I don’t think any amount of coffee is going to change that. 😛 And I’m not on your lawn, I’m on your sidewalk singing, “neener, neener”!

  15. When I was in Fundy U, we jokingly called these “crossover songs”—CCM that was old enough and had been covered by a respected enough group (Pettit Team) that it became acceptable to sing. “In Christ Alone” was our big ne, and we sang it to death because we could!

    That being said, the churches of my Fundy upbringing would have thought there was entirely too much emotion being shown in this music. I saw several brief hand-raisings by both the singers and the members of the congregation. And “amening” should be reserved for preaching alone. Only wicked, worldly music stirs the emotions!

    1. “special” music is non-congregational music. Maybe it’s a quartet, maybe it’s the choir, might be a soloist, but the key difference is that it’s not a congregational song. It fits in the IFB liturgy right before preaching.

    2. As someone raised IFB-lite and now taking part in adult formation for the Episcopal church, trust me when I say you are happier not knowing.

      One of the things that drew me to the Episcopal church was the beautiful music that is a natural part of the service, calling the congregation to worship together. I love, love, love the singing of the Psalms. Of course, I also love that the number of scripture readings is unfailingly greater than the number of “sermon illustrations” wherein the pastor gets in a real zinger to some heathen, unchurched politician/teacher/scientist.

      1. Thanks, Sharon and Seanchaigirl. I guess “special music” is more or less equivalent to an anthem, which is sung by the choir. We almost never have a soloist (except perhaps for part of the anthem) and I’ve never seen a quartet inside an Episcopal church.

        We Piskies are big on congregational singing–and without some maestro waving his arms!

        1. Or a duet, trio, quartet, or quintet, although in some churches a quintet would be the whole choir.

  16. It’s great to IFB churches “sanctifying” Contemporary Christian Music that was once considered “worldly” LOL. My parent’s IFB church sings songs now that were considered “worldly” 15 years ago. I guess time and a piano and organ minus those worldly instruments removes the “worldliness” of something, whether music or clothing lol. I say this as a former IFBer who heard weekly (oh yes and Wednesdays too) that almost everything was “worldly” just to see it acceptable 10 – 15 years later. We sing this as well at the Reformed Baptist church we are members of, but we have yet to remove the original “worldly” instruments it was made with LOL.

  17. Wow. Talk about a song coming full circle. I remember singing the original hymn as a kid in my fundyesque church.

    And yeah, the description of Casting Crowns as the Nickelback of CCM is spot on.

  18. The older members of the church probably don’t even know that the arrangement was taken from a CCM group. They’re just sitting there thinking what’s wrong with the hymnal version? Why change it?”

  19. Can’t say I like either version. I’ll take the original hymn. The tune isn’t the greatest (when compared to Bach or Handel), but it was written for the words and thus fits them better.

    1. The thought isn’t complete. The original tune matches the poetic meter of the words. Unfortunately, when CCM artists reset the words, they frequently override the natural poetic metre in order to syncopate the song, and thus ruin the poem’s emotion. That happened with the transition of ‘One Day’ to ‘Glorious Day’.

      This doesn’t always happen though. Witness this fantastic modern setting (keeping both words and tune) of the Advent hymn ‘Let all mortal flesh’ by High Street Hymns. This is what happens when the performers really understand music:

      1. I agree. This one is different from the more traditional version (mainly just louder, if truth be told); but it keeps the emphases in the right places and respects the meanings of the words and sentences and the overall argument of the hymn.

        The interjection of the freestylin’ rapper doesn’t do anything for me, but I guess younger people like that sort of thing, so I’m fine with it.

        1. Yes, you got what I was trying to say. I linked the live performance, since that was on Youtube, but the recording sounds better and doesn’t include the freestyle rap performer.

  20. I just found out that the ELCA congregation of my youth, where I learned much of what I know about love and worship, joined the Missouri Synod several years ago because gheyz.

    And on top of that they ditched their four-part-harmony hymnody, every song chosen for ordinary people to sing and all of it beautiful, for PRAISE SONGS. Agh!

    1. I find the trend of fundamentalist congregations moving to “praise” songs to be interesting.

      Not that there isn’t room for musical diversity and worship styles, but most praise music I have encountered over the years seems to be little more than theological and emotional mush.

      I keep thinking, “You are what you eat.”

      1. A lot of it seems to be an attempt to recreate the exalted feeling of standing in a large audience and swaying to the repetitive music of a well-electrified band.

        Which. Um.

  21. When CCM quotes Scripture the KJV is not often used. Interesting how this does not pose a problem with Fundies who use this sanctified CCM.

  22. Not sure why folks in a local congregation should be judged so harshly on how they perform a song compared to how it was done professionally in a studio.

    Ya’ll really don’t have much to talk about over here at SFL! I have been kicked off of better sites than this….almost forgot I was kicked off here too……lol

  23. If listening to CCM is dangerous for “real” Christians; who is spiritually “mature” enough to find these songs that are candidates for sanctification? What is the process for finding suitable material? Does this practice of singing cleaned up versions of CCM indicate that someone out there actually listens to CCM (secretly, of course) and finds that the texts are good and edifying ?

  24. Pretty liberal church if you ask me. They still have the devil rock beat in the song and there is all that clapping in the end. Haymen!

  25. I didn’t see much wrong with this… I thought they did a really good job! Sure, they don’t have a full band kit, but we can’t expect that every church has the resources or desire have one. That pianist did a really good job, and the singers did as well. The more I visit this sight, the more I wonder how many of us have actually shed our IFB, hyper-judgmental scales.

    1. Okay, this was rife with typos and I can’t fix it… I haven’t had my coffee… I am literate, believe it or not… please just overlook the grammer… (that last word was on purpose, before you grammar nazis pounce).

    2. Other than a lot of it is off-key, and the fact that it is the hated, evil, CCM that fundies preach against (albeit “sanitized” to exclude the drums), it’s not bad.

      The point of the post is to point out how fundies decry modern music because they say it’s rock music, etc., but yet they will often take the same modern music and re-format it to try to be relevant, as if taking out the drums is going to make it not of the CCM genre. Also, while they demand perfection in the form of rules about how to insert copy paper and having tires with clean white walls, they will often allow sub-standard musical performances. Audio quality in a clip like this is bound to be poor, but you can still hear that the untuned piano is used to pound a beat as hard as a rock number.

      You can’t tune a fish but you can tune a piano. And you should.

    3. I think perhaps that you have missed the point. No one here is judging them for using CCM music. Used honestly as with other things we do in our worship and in our lives, there is great freedom. It does not have to fit our tastes.

      No, the issue is that, being a fundy church, CCM music has undoubtedly been roundly condemned as compromise with the world, an ungodly joining of beat and melody and syncopation meant to turn your body into gyrating, sexualized, uncontrolled mounds of flesh.

      So they took the CCM version, removed the drums, transferred the “beat” to the piano, smoothed over some of the syncopation so make it more acceptable — essentially trying to “sanctify the flesh” — things they have condemned others for.

      Now I am not saying *this church* made this doctrinal fuss over CCM. But it is a fundy “thing,” commonly found in their churches and their writings. But hypocrisy is found there, too.

      And that hypocrisy is what we criticize.

      I remember that Jesus told all of us that the kind of judgment we use to judge others is the kind of judgment we will have as well. I do hope that we can give others grace in worship and not attack honest differences. Jesus judged hypocrisy. If we become hypocrites, allowing in ourselves the things we condemn in others, we will deserve such judgment also.

    4. I don’t know… it seems rather audacious to divine the thoughts and intents of another person. Any time I see a variation of the phrase, “Well THEY deserve it because they PROBABLY {insert whatever belief/action here}!” it makes me cringe. I am numbered among the many of you who was hurt deeply by the fundamentalist movement. I think it’s healthy to call out the leaders on their punitive legalism, and point out written logical fallacies. But I shrink away when our bombardment begins to drop shells on well-meaning bystanders. I just feel like we are becoming the same thing that we revile, namely, not giving people an opportunity to redirect their own course, even if it’s taking a baby step of singing a toned down version of an extremely moving song. We pounce on every little misstep, and revile and ridicule anyone in remote proximity of our ire. Maybe I’m a bit sensitive since I’ve been thinking about our “Well-meaning” US military bombing ISIS and shrugging when our bombs kill civilians. We really need to be more sensitive about collateral damage. It’s necessary at times, but there are also times for restraint. I urge Darrell to focus on the heavy-hitters of the movement, and basic philosophy of legalistic fundamentalism, rather than relying on making a sideshow of innocent people who have little to no impact on the Legalistic Fundamentalist movement, just to drive clicks on the website.

      1. “It seems rather audacious to divine the thoughts and intents of another person…just to drive clicks on the website.”

        You do see the issue here, right?

        1. Obviously Darrell, everything you do here is to make yourself famous. You have become those whom you revile. Your motivations and intentions are evil. You should just pick up your internet and go home. Begone.

        2. Mark, it’s amazing that you know the motivations and intentions of Darrell—whom you’ve probably never met. I have a lot of trouble knowing my own true motivations and intentions.

          And last I checked, this is, well, Darrell’s blog. That’s like telling someone to leave his own house. If you don’t like SFL, you’re just one little mouse click from leaving. Of your own free will. Or, hang out and engage in civil discourse with the rest of us. Your choice.

        3. Scorpio, your bitterness is showing.

          You’re already a star, you know. You are the star of the cockpit.

          Do you prefer salted or unsalted butter?

        4. Holy sht BJg! Is there really a sarcasm font? I was joking. I do think I was a little harsh with Rizer though. Rizer, I teased you for what you said, but speaking for myself, I got your point. But I disagree with you. What fun would it be if Darrell only went after the big fish? The biggest fish (Hyles) is dead. Another of the top 5 is in prison. Many of us here have had very little, if any, contact with the big, famous ministries. I went to a small fundy lite school in Winston-Salem, N.C. In 1985, someone put up a flyer in my dorm advertising the anti-rock music evangelist who was coming to one of the IFB churches in town. So the flyer said “Who is the REAL King of Rock n Roll?” The obvious answer was, it’s not Elvis, it’s Satan. But being the rebellious teenager that I was, it seemed obvious to me that since we are created in God’s image, different styles of music that we create reflect the creativity that God put into each of us. So I got out my pen and wrote on the flyer, “God is”. You should have seen the witchhunt that followed.
          Anyway, my point is, this legalistic crap has been perpetuated everywhere across fundystan and Darrell is doing the whole world a service when he exposes it wherever it rears its ugly head. Please keep up the good work Darrell.

          And BJg?…………………..GOTCHA!

      2. Okay, it’s a fair point… I accept the rebuke, as I made a very hypocritical statement. I only hope that the spirit of my comment was interpreted. I tried to frame it properly the best I could, in as non-combative a way as possible. Based on the replies of biting sarcasm and no one addressing my points seriously, I need to think of a different way to say it, because I’m certain you all would agree with me if you understood what I was trying to say.

      3. How about: Keep going after the big guys, and the philosophy of the IFB. I think you should leave the little guys alone. You can’t expect people to ever change their way of thinking, if you mock them relentlessly, by circulating content with the intent of ridiculing them. If those people ever see this article, you can be certain that no matter what this site ever posts, they will only know this community as the one that made them the butt of a joke. My post is a perfect illustration of this. I made a comment about not hurting innocent people, but the only thing Darrell saw was the .02% of the comment where I (unfairly) accused him of being disingenuous. Nothing else I said mattered, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s human nature to allow personal criticism eclipse anything context. I do it myself. And a lot of people looking to find a way out of fundamentalist legalism will see this site much the same way.

        p.s. If the pastor of that church ever sees this article, and if he’s the type of man you all think he is… those poor people may be subjected to a season “hymns only” special music, or a strict “music check” process, simply by learning that the song is actually sung by a wicked rock band(insert sarcasm font for the less astute).

Comments are closed.