Pensees: Phil Johnson on Worldliness. . .hmmm

Thanks for asking the question. I was not aware of these things and I even left a comment for Phil asking him the same question and to please explain these things!

Phil responds at 10:03, Dec. 3 in the comments section.

Ebner’s information is quite public. His website is available to anyone. Anyone can read it. His CD is sold at Grace’s bookstore. Though it has been implied that I should have kept this private, I contend that it was already public.

In defense of Phil’s delayed answer, he obviously cannot answer me until he goes through the proper channels and procedures of any local church. I can wait. But, I am not wrong to point out the obviously public information and its apparent (did anyone notice how often I used that word?) contradiction to the position of one of its shepherds.

I’m a fan of Grace Community Church. I’m fully expecting a biblical reaction. It will take time. I am still hoping that the problem is only apparent. Things are NOT always as they appear.

I’ll be interested to hear how Grace responds, if they respond. Certainly this is not earth-shattering for them and I’m sure they will be upright in how they handle it.

What Phil and others at Grace need to know (if they don’t already) is that there are those of us out here in fundamentalville who have consistently defended Grace. I’m thinking of one person specifically who has had a long term friendship severed and has layed himself out to be separated from as a result of his defense of Grace (actually a defense of what is right).

This kind of information about Ebner will greatly bolster the critics of Grace (since a large portion of their criticism often concerns music). Help us out Phil.

As for the ethics of Bob posting this for all to see. Christian’s site is on the WORLD wide web and I personally purchased his CD in the Grace bookstore after hearing him on numerous occasions while visiting Grace both for church and at Shepherd’s Conference. All of it very public.

Whether or not a church with 10,000+ regular attenders has a musician in it that has an inappropriate song out, Phil’s article was right on the nose and brilliant. Your childish response only makes his point more effectively. Few churches take on the sins of the sheep more regularly than does Grace. But with your church’s one-note fixation on “music, music, music”, I can see why you can’t see the forest for the trees. I’m not interesting in defending whats-his-name’s music…I am pointing out rather than learning from what Phil wrote, you chose to pick up a stone instead. So typical of your particular limb on the tree of fundamentalism.

An apologetic clarification…I incorrectly confused Morning Star Baptist in Rockford and 1st Baptist in Rockford on their music “issues.” I apologize for the confusion. I would still say that the question raised was a less-than-artful dodge on addressing the real issue that Phil raised in his article.

Frank in Greenville,

I agree that Phil’s article was good. It is what we teach here at our church. We think that if he believes what he says he believes about worldliness, he might have an explanation for us because we think that a song that is a flagrant musical violation of the seventh commandment is a significant problem when it (at least part of it) is used to exhibit the talents of your church’s soloist. Call me old-fashioned, but from my particular “limb on the tree of fundamentalism” the view is pretty good, and what I see sure doesn’t seem right. I’m not dodging. We’re waiting to see if Phil dodges. And if I could bet my bottom dollar, he won’t. Give him time. Maybe weeks. I am very open to learn from Phil.

As to my “limb of the tree of fundamentalism”, I’m flattered to be assigned a limb. I wish I knew who you were, then I would really be flattered. (Are you anybody that can give an honorary doctorate?) Anyway, out on this limb we have devoured (as in “yummy”) almost everything that Grace Community Church has produced and many of us actually like Christian Ebner’s CD. (How do think we knew about him?) However, out on this limb we still have fundamentalist instincts, so we don’t mind sticking our neck out and letting people saw on it or even ticking people off every now and then when we think it’s a matter of significance. Smut is significant.

Also, we are very flattered to be confused with First Baptist, but I think that you probably owe them an apology!

Thanks for your comments.

Bob

By the way, Frank, you also misrepressent First Baptist. They do not have a one note obsession. A church is much more than a staffer’s blog. That goes for First, for us, and for Grace Community Church. If I have erred in challenging Phil with this, it may be less about how it affects him than how it affects his church. Your representation of First Baptist Church as obsessed with one note helped me see how easy it is to put a blog face on an entire body of believers. Aniol is not First Baptist, Bixby is not Morning Star, and Johnson is not Grace. Not completely anyway. We can’t give the whole picture. We are, however, representatives and that may put us in sticky situations from time to time.

I know that Phil doesn’t think I transgressed ethically, but this did put him in a pickle because I connected him to his church. I forced him into a sticky situation. I’m not sure that he shouldn’t be in the pickle or sticky situation, but let us all remember that a church is much more complex than the one blog we know that emanates from that church. So, while I am not sorry for asking an aggressive question of some of the foremost teachers in the land about a public matter, I am sympathetic to the fact that Phil can take all the time in the world to shape an answer that will best represent his church.

Frank,

Bob’s comments are not “childish” spiritually - they are “adultish” spiritually. A close look at both testiments reveal that God is concerned about the minisry of worship and the ministers of worship.

I do appreciate your vigor!

Joel Tetreau

Forgive the wrong spelling - Once again I was in a hurry - once again I leave my calling card! funny spelling!

Joel

Frank,

One more point - Bob, bless his heart, has never dodged anything in his lifetime. You notice when you see his pictures on his blog and website - if you look close you will see all those scars on his forehead - his face, etc… Bob, has been in a few battles - most of the battles have gone to him - he really doesn’t go “looking” for this stuff. But, being a leader, when he sees a problem that has the potential to effect his church or his movement - He will show up for the discussion. Don’t read anything more in to that than a genuine love for the Lord and the purity of his Church. Just as Phil will answer Bob’s questions - you can be sure Bob will answer your questions. You may not like what you hear - but you don’t need to assume Bob here is blindly protecting his limb - Frank, my brother - where in the world did that come from?

Just a thought - or two.

Joel

I think we’re dodging the issue here. Phil was correct to delete the post on his site. It was wrong to draw public attention to the issue before first pursuing it privately. It’s especially bad form because you KNOW that if you privately brought it to the attention of Grace’s leaders, they WOULD deal with it correctly. But you never gave them the chance. But it’s a reasonable mistake—one that I’ve done myself. But please acknowledge that it was inappropriate to malign Grace publically before allowing them a chance to correct things privately.

One question—where do you find a link between Ebner and Casanova? I don’t see anything on his site that indicates he’s performed this song or approved of this song. I only see that he has pitched songs to Ricky Martin—which may mean nothing more than he pitched a track for Ricky’s Christmas Album that never made it past his agent. What am I missing?

Nevermind. I found it.

Wendy, “It was wrong to draw public attention to the issue before first pursuing it privately.”

Did you talk to Bob privately before you posted this? Just wondering.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It does beg the question, doesn’t it?! Here’s the difference. Bob has already been rebuked publically about this by Phil. Then Bob publically defended himself. We’re well past one-on-one private confrontation BY BOB’S CHOICE. So public rebuke is appropriate. In contrast, Phil Johnson did not even know who Ebner is. He didn’t publically lift him up, was apparently completely unaware of Ebner’s music in question, and was blindsided by the public criticism. Private confrontation is a must in this case.

But I do want to train myself to default to private confrontation first. Even in this case, it would have been a good choice. Note to self—must privately confront about the sin of by-passing private confrontation.

And is anyone concerned about the sin against Christian Ebner in this case?

I wonder what Phil thinks about the ethics. He may not have liked what Bob did, but I have not read anything by him that thinks what Bob did was wrong (sin).

Wendy, what sin against Ebner are you talking about? And can you please give biblical justification for calling it sin? And now that you have raised Bob’s post to the level of sin have you heeded your own “note to self” and contacted him personally?

Ebner’s site was public—out there on the world wide web for the whole wide world to see. Bob merely pointed out the obvious to Phil. You can disagree with whether or not you thought Bob was wise, but to call it sin is a big jump.

Okay. Make me the target if you want. I think Bob’s original post violated 2 Cor. 12:20’s warning against the sin of gossip and slander. I think this fits the definition of katalalia. It would not be slander if Ebner and Bob had conversed privately, Ebner resisted Bob’s confrontation claiming that there is no problem singing explicit lyrics, and then Bob brought the issue to the next level. It would also not be katalalia if Ebner had publically defended his right to sing explicit songs on the front page of his website or on PJ’s website. This is what Bob has done—publically defended his right to tear down Johnson and Ebner as the FIRST step in the process. Bob’s public defense of these specific actions warrant a public rebuke of these specific actions. It’s not rocket science.

In conclusion, I like Bob, though at best he only tolerates me. I agree wholeheartedly with about 80% of what he says and hope good things for his ministry. But you all have got to learn you can’t START these types of conversations in the public arena. That more than any other attribute has undermined fundamentalism for the last 50 years (see Ian Murray’s succinct summary of fundamentalism in Evangelicalism Divided).

Nuff said. I’m done. God bless you all in ministry. Feel free to email me privately other concerns or corrections. I’m quite receptive to hearing and sifting through rebuke, believe it or not.

Wendy, you miss the point entirely. Your legalistic arguments about how public rebuke must be conducted are as Pharasaical as you accuse fundamentalists of being. Too bad.

Quite frankly, Bob is in the right in this one and you are in the wrong.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Bob-
You know what I think (not that it matters) since I have already spoken with you privately… however, I didn’t think it would hurt to add my two cents here. I am not going to say it was sin for you to launch this discussion in such a public way, but, having said that… two things seem odd to me.
1. What did you hope to accomplish by making it so public as oppose to to dealing with it privately (I realize Christian’s site is on the WORLD wide web, but that does not mean that everyone and their mom and their cousin that is a member of Sharper Iron knew aboput it)? You have mentioned that you have great respect for the ministry at GCC and the elders of that body. It seems like, if nothing else, you would have dealt with it privately out of respect for your brothers at GCC… knowing that they would handle it biblically and quickly.
2. If I was Phil, I would have a hard time believing that all you had in mind was the repuatation and testimony of the ministry at Grace Church. It seems like, if that was your greatest concern, you would have let your friend and brother Phil know your concern (which you knew he would share) and allow he and the rest of the leadership at GCC to deal with this matter as they saw fit.

I don’t buy that bringing this into the public forum is doing them a favor… I believe that allowing them to deal with it privately with Christian, as a body of elders, would have been the favor… and perhaps also would have communicated more personal concern, love and respect for GCC.

Had it been you Bob and I saw something on one of your members sites/blogs/public forums… I would have contacted you and let you know, having confidence that you and the leadership at MSBC would deal with it correctly. I would have acted such, because of the great respect I have for you and the concern I have for my brothers and sisters at MSBC. I would not have any desire to bring you or your members indiscretions to the attention of the general public…. what good would that do anyone? (even if their comments/indiscretions/sins were on the WORLD wide web….Shannon)

Just my thoughts.

Your brother,
Jason

COMPLEXITIES, SIMPLICITY, & APPEARANCES—points to consider

Let me start by quoting Bob Bixby,

“Things are often not as they appear. This certainly appears wrong.”

I think we all agree that this is a complex world. Many people wish that the Bible could speak to each and every complexity we encounter in much the same way as the “magic 8-ball” does.

Should I eat at a restaurant which serves alcohol? Shake ball, (flip pages to find the chapter and verse on the subject), it says: “No unless you eat at a tamer restaurant like Pizza Hut, but Applebee’s is definitely wrong.” (Duplicate this scenario in any number of countless situations.)

Consider a situation that bears much closer resemblance to Ebner’s dilemma. What if you worked at Best Buy as a cashier? Would you ring up a sale of a CD that had “Casanova” or even more evil songs on it? What about an R-rated video that included explicit material? Could you in good faith contribute toward the sale of Showgirls or Striptease or some other equally evil movie? Could you willingly give someone something that would contribute to their sinning. And, worse, could you contribute to the profitability of such an evil industry?

But wait! We are looking at this from a simple standpoint. This is much more complex. What if you work at a factory that makes CDs or CD covers and then sells them to companies that produce CD’s which promote overt sensual themes in violation of the 7th commandment and other sections of Scripture? What if you work for a software company that provides support to Best Buy? Do you catch my drift? We assume, simplistically, that the cashier who rings up the sale, or the stocker who stocks the video on the shelf, is directly promoting the success of an evil industry. But no one would say that we should just shut down all theaters, and movie makers, and CD producers, because these media can be used to convey wrong things. They can equally be used for good.

So, we find complexity. Should the stocker only stock family movies? Or should he find a job sweeping streets (only to be promoting the ease with which people can drive down those same streets in order to hook up with their girlfriend for illicit relations!) We all are aware that the cashier at Best Buy needs to work to provide food for his/her family. Don’t exempt Wal-mart or Target either! Oh, and should we as Christians even shop at places where such items are sold? Or should we even go to restaurants which serve gays and adulterers, as well as lawfully married and chaste individuals?

We are inextricably part of a world that includes much banality and sin. We are being kept from the world, but not out of it (John 17). So as Christians, we need to be careful in jumping to condemn others for actions we view as absolutely evil. For, truth be told, there are actions we do which others might find equally offensive. For things are not always as they appear.

Now, enter Ebner. We must remember that most of us do not know exactly what his job description looks like, nor what goes into the duties of his job. We also are aware of many more explicit and more evil songs than “Casanova”. Further, we have no understanding of what his situation is as a Christian. How do we know that he is not a fairly recent convert, and that stint with Ricky Martin is a thing of the past?

How do we know that he is not trying to walk the fine line in maintaining his job and influence, and yet not participating in overt evil. What about this scenario. He repeatedly avoids more explicit songs. He has let his bosses know his position. They insist that he must showcase (he did not write it, by the way) this song, for it is not as bad as most: it leaves much implied, and does not explicitly say they (the people in the song) are not going to wait until marriage, and in fact just intimates that he is attracted by the woman. And they lay down the law, sing it or else. And he prays about it, and seeks advice from elders which know him (as apparently Phil does not), and makes a decision. Let’s say that as he grows in the Lord, years from now, he regrets that decision. Or let’s say that he stands behind it. His reasoning being that by keeping his job and influence, when he authors a song, he might get one of these personalities like Timberlake to sing it, make it popular, and teach the world that songs do not have to be overtly sensual in order to sell well, and thus contribute positively to the goal of preserving culture (as the salt of the earth).

He may, and the elders at GCC may, in reality have a very conscientious objection to “Hollywood smut.” He may be working to stem the tide and make a change. Or he may have come out of the “Hollywood smut” category and have some left over baggage, which elders are in the process of gradually teaching and leading him along in the process of developing a Christian mind and attitude toward such things. He may have at one point been so much a part of that way of life, that he honestly did not even think about that song, which leaves much implied, as being directly sinful.

Interpreting appearances requires at least some knowledge of the situation, motives, and background of the person acting. Scripture has much to say about the importance of motives and intentions of the heart. Ps. 19:12a even intimates that often we cannot discern our own motives. Much less others. Since we know so little about the actual details of his situation, can we not charitably give him the benefit of the doubt?

1 Cor. 13:7 “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

I just wanted to bring up some things to think about in this case, before everyone goes out and writes off GCC as promoting evil. As has been mentioned, we need to allow time for confrontation/discussion/discipling to occur before we are ready to cast Ebner out of the flock!

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Bob,

I was under the impression that you were in agreement with the statements Phil Johnson made last spring at Shepherds Conference concerning fundamentalism’s tendency to tie tin cans and criticize publicly without due process. I’m curious to understand your perspective on how that agreement is consistent with your actions here.

I am under the assumption that Bob is speaking for his church because of the paragraph in his response to Frank that begins with, “I agree that Phil’s article was good. It is what we teach here at our church.” I beleive the church referenced is Morning Star Baptist Church, hereafter MSBC.
I am wondering if anyone from MSBC confronted Christain Ebner about his sin. (If a reader does not agree the lyrics promote sin, not holiness, then there is no reason to discuss the matter).
Second, if MSBC did contact Mr. Ebner, and there was no acknowledgement that he was sinning by singing those lyrics, did MSBC contact the elders of Grace Community?
Third, does MSBC listen to the Ebner CD mentioned in Bob’s response since becoming aware of the “song of notoriety?” If so, it is a very hypocritical stance MSBC has taken.
MSBC should be able to answer “yes” to the first two questions before they would take any further steps.
Finally, the attack on Pyromaniac is simply wrong. Bob is holding Mr. Johnson accountable for Mr. Ebner’s sin. It seems to me a good analogy of what has happened here is this: Bob writes a discourse on lying. He doesn’t know it, but a leader in one of his church’s ministries has lied on his tax return. Bob is then accused of apparent disingenuousness.

Tom,

Ebner’s CD does not contain the song in question. Check your facts. The song in question is a demo on Ebner’s site. The Ebner CD that many enjoy is a good CD.

All, fwiw I did not post on Phil Johnson’s site. Somebody else (I’m not sure who) posted the question on his site. I did take into account that his site is probably heavily frequented by his people. I did intend for him to see it. A more complete justification of my action is forthcoming.

Apparently, I have grievously offended the Body of Christ for being public with this. Is nobody offended by Ebner’s public behavior?

I am.

It is much easier to build a case for my action biblically than for Ebner’s. Get your priorities right, folks.

Bob-
I would agree with your assessment of the “song/behavior”. However, I have confidence that the elders of GCC could and would be biblical in their dealings with CE. I have not and would not condone CE’s actions, nor would I condone your public shepherding of GCC’s flock. Let the elders that God has placed over Christian and the rest of the GCC family do what God has called and gifted them to do.
Once again, I would argue the same if the situation involved one of your members.

-Jason

Pastor Bixby,
I am sorry that I did not state my points as clearly as I could have. I will try to.
MSBC says Grace Community Church is wrong to have Mr. Ebner lead worship since he is guilty of using lyrics that are anything but holy when recording “for the world.” I will assume Mr. Ebner is singing God-honoring song while leading worship.
MSBC enjoys Mr. Ebner’s CD of God-honoring songs even though aware Mr. Ebner is using unholy lyrics in a song intended for the world. I don’t see how one is any different than the other-maybe worse for MSBC in that they are aware of Mr. Ebner’s “secular” lyrics and it has not yet been established that Grace Community Church was aware of Mr. Ebner’s “worldly” actions.
Yes, Mr. Bixby, I do see the singing of those lyrics as sin, but I do not understand why your comments seem to have been intended for Mr. Johnson’s eyes.
I would like to see you build a biblical case for your actions if they did not include speaking to Mr. Ebner first.
If not, then a biblical defense is not possible for either.

The information which Bob pointed out is all public domain. It’s not at all private. In fact, it is published by Ebner himself. Does that make it Johnson’s fault or GCC’s? No, though it seems there has either been a failure to address the clear problem or perhaps a rush to thrust a novice into very public ministry. How reasonable is to assume that Bob (who doesn’t know Ebner) found his website, but the leaders of his church (who trust him to lead public worship and must know the details of his occupation) had not? Even if they didn’t know of that explicit song, the idea of using someone from an industry that sells sensuality as a leader in public worship is — at the very least — poor judgment. GCC needs to deal with it in-house (and perhaps more broadly, since they have promoted Ebner), and they probably will. But to criticize Bob as though he publicized a private sin isn’t accurate. Could it have been handled via email or a phone call? Maybe so. But it seems that GCC’s promotion of Ebner hasn’t exactly been hush-hush, either. Anyway, to point people to a man’s own website sure seems ethical enough.

BTW, I am grateful that “Casanova” wasn’t included on Ebner’s sacred disc (which itself is a little too…um…”Timberlake” for me, but I digress). To put “Casanova” and “Search Me, O God” back-to-back would have been poor judgment. The fact that it is highlighted on a separate web page was a big relief to me. (???) Sarcasm aside, Bob H, your reasoning that the song isn’t as explicit as some, doesn’t exactly mention the act of fornication, etc. is baffling. It “leaves much implied”? It “does not explicitly say they (the people in the song) are not going to wait until marriage”? It “just intimates that he is attracted by the woman”? Either I’ve got a dirty mind, or you’re being naive. As for your suggestion that he may be working from inside the industry to clean it up? Such a strategy would be flawed from the start, and it apparently isn’t working.

Could it be something done in the past that Ebner’s not proud of? Sure…so get it off the website. Could he be a new Christian? Sure…so don’t thrust him into the limelight of ministry. As anyone suggesting that he be “cast out”? No…but holding him accountable not only for his own practices, but for his own publication of those practices is more than reasonable. Remember, he’s not just been an attendee of GCC; he’s led worship, and Scripture clearly has a higher standard for those active in ministry. One could argue that his public ministry there makes both him and the church more accountable.
__________

Concerning “due process,” it seems to me that Phil Johnson is guilty of the very thing for which he has criticized fundamentalism. I think his treatment of fundamentalism has been less than fair, both in his SC lectures and even in his post on worldliness, where he uses the term in the following senses:

* “I have vivid recollections of the two semesters in I spent in fundamentalist purgatory in the mid-1970s. Worldliness was one of the most oft-mentioned sins by chapel speakers at the Baptist college where I was enrolled.

To hear them describe it, worldliness was essentially the sin of being too cool. An acquaintance of mine—a rigidly old-fashioned middle-aged woman—once scolded me as a worldling for wearing contact lenses.”

* “Conversely, worldliness isn’t necessarily related to movies, music styles, the latest fashions, or other typical fundamentalist taboos.”

* “As a matter of fact, I know some hard-core fundamentalists who are the rankest kind of worldlings, because they imagine that holiness consists only in external and cultural things, and they have not cultivated a genuine love in their hearts for that which is spiritual.”

Are some of these things true? No doubt. But Johnson here — as in the aforementioned lectures at the SC — seems all too glad to broadbrush fundamentalism by using ridiculous statements and examples from 30+ years ago (many from dead men) as though they were accurate representations of the movement today. And he has continued to do so despite the protestations of good men. Talk about tying a tin can to someone’s heel!

His inconsistency certainly doesn’t justify lack of due process when it is appropriate; I’m not making a goose/gander argument. But I’m not sure Johnson has firm footing from which to issue the complaint, nor am I sure that this situation has been handled unfairly.

I have read with a just a bit of amazement the posts on this thread. First, there seems to be an assumption by many that the activities of Christian Ebner are probably unknown to the leadership of GCC. I really find that hard to believe. It doesn’t seem like GCC is the kind of organization that would allow someone to be publicly involved with their ministry without first looking into the individual’s background. What’s more, it certainly is no secret what Ebner’s occupation is. On GCC’s online bookstore Ebner is described as a “studio singer for commercials, television, and movies”, and a link to his web site is provided. So for some to suggest that Bob should have approached Phil Johnson (or someone else at GCC) privately about this is absurd. Why speak privately about something which is in all probability public knowledge?

A second implied assumption which is also surprising to me is that, given the opportunity, GCC will look into this issue and do what it takes to correct it. Though many positive things can be said about GCC (including their willingness to practice church discipline), they are not about drawing clear lines of prohibition in the area of entertainment. Movies, TV, various music styles – all of these are ok, just use some discernment. Coming from this perspective, on what basis would you condemn Ebner for singing Ricky Martin? Certainly not on account of the music style (latin pop). After all, a strong beat or syncopation can’t make music wrong, because we all know that some good music has a strong beat and syncopation (right?). But what about the rather risqué lyrics? Well, if we were to put off-limits every song with risqué lyrics we’d be outlawing a good percentage of popular music these days, which would seem to be very legalistic. Besides, if we say that Ebner is wrong in singing such lyrics, we would have to take the next step and say that he (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong in listening to them. And how could you expect a musician to become proficient in these various secular styles then? It would be most hypocritical to say that under Christian liberty, a believer can listen to any style of music he is comfortable with, but at the same time deny the musicians who perform those styles access to the secular artists whose performances define them.

Now maybe I’m wrong here. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised, and in two or three month’s time we will see that Ebner is no longer being promoted by the GCC bookstore, or else we’ll visit his web site and find that Ricky Martin is no longer on the demo reel (leaving such gems as the exuberant boy band sounding “What Would Heaven Be”). But I’m not holding my breath. I am equally disturbed at the list of TV and movie credits (Angles In America, Austin Powers Goldmember, Meet The Parents, Ally McBeal, Veronica’s Closet, Mad TV, Boston Public) – quite a list of not-so-wholesome programming. But when you’re not into setting boundaries in the area of entertainment, well, what can you say?

I will be surprized if GCC does not handles this with dignity and with Biblical conviction. We all know that Phil knows about this now, so (as I have said before) give him time.

All,

Let me for just a moment be the really stupid guy in the civil war who put a grey pair of pants and a blue coat on at the battle of Gettysburg!

I can understand both sides here. All things being equal, I prefer to hear about something like this privatly first for the reasons that have already been noted. But in this case, all things are not equal - especially given the public nature of the individual in question. And given the public nature of that person’s leadership.

Also, Chris brings up a very good point about fairness and all (I can’t believe I said that in front of all these people!). I wonder do the various ministries of GCC and it’s leadership ever blow the wistle on other ministries for Biblical inconsistency within it’s leadership? Do they always contact those ministries privately first? I don’t know the answer - I think I know the answer - but I am curious.

Straight Ahead!

Joel Tetreau

PS - In the words of another great California Theologian, “Can’t we all just get along - dude?”

Well, it looks like I was wrong on both counts. I would have thought that at least someone in the GCC leadership would have been aware of Ebner’s activities in the entertainment industry. Since this is apparently not the case, I think in hindsight we would all agree that it would have been better to deal with the issue privately.

And I am glad to hear that, being made aware of the situation, they (GCC leadership) do recognize that the song in question is quite out of bounds with a Christian testimony, and are willing to work toward correcting the situation. While they may not draw the line in entertainment as tightly as I would like to see (e.g., no real objection to various styles of pop/rock music), at least they do have a line, which is commendable.