Amy, Vince
Bird of Prey
broadcasting it. It is so sad to see Gary and Amy break up. I believe it
said something like that Amy wanted to grow old with Vince. Whew....... I
think back to those events that Amy and Vince did together in the past....
(A person has to be careful what relationships they build with other
people).
I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
sorry for him. I think Christian artists need to be aware of the risks of
becoming involved in secular music.
Peace,
bop
David Murray (SG Fan)
Jerry B. Ray, Jr. wrote in message <7tu3pc$k...@catapult.gatech.edu>...
>In article <19991011212542...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
>Throesline <throe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
>>>sorry for him.
>
>
>Guh? We (or at least, _I_) don't know all the facts in this situation,
>but that strikes me as a pretty ass-esque thing to say.
I listened to Gary's recording _Outside_. Depressing stuff, especially if it
accurately reflects the way he feels. If I didn't care one way or the other
before, I feel sorry for him now.
David Murray / dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net
http://rfci.net/dbmurray
http://www.musicscribe.com
Making hay while the sun shines.
Throesline
>broadcasting it.
show.
>It is so sad to see Gary and Amy break up. I believe it
>said something like that Amy wanted to grow old with Vince. Whew....... I
>think back to those events that Amy and Vince did together in the past....
>(A person has to be careful what relationships they build with other
>people).
whatever.... look at the bottom for my reply...
>
>I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
>sorry for him.
I don't feel "sorry" for Gary... he had his shot... I'm sad for their
children... I wonder why my marriage has lasted (being the scoundrel that I
am) and theirs didn't...
<I think Christian artists need to be aware of the risks of
>becoming involved in secular music.
>
I am a believer currently involved in "secular" music (Poole, Erin Echo, John
Austin) and find that my faith in God, my wife & family are much stronger now
than when I was involved in "christian" music... we have to remember that we
live in a fallen world, ruled by fallen people, ('christian' or 'secular') and
that there's as much a "risk" in "secular" music as there is in "secular" pipe
fitting, "secular" dentistry, "secular" gynecology, etc.
The issues at hand are much deeper than mere music and friendship...
Please continue to pray for the artists... pray that we will stay faithful in
the Lord, to our spouses, to the body and to ourselves...
The-ever-repressible
Bill Campbell
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Bird of Prey <birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>Saw the piece on TV tonight on Vince and Amy. Now the secular news media is
>broadcasting it. It is so sad to see Gary and Amy break up. I believe it
>said something like that Amy wanted to grow old with Vince.
Wait, so Amy Grant and Vince Gill _are_ a couple after all? Man,
what a bitch...
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Come in here and have a taste.
What's one more hopeless case?"
-- Vigilantes of Love, "Solar System" --
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
>>I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
>>sorry for him.
>I don't feel "sorry" for Gary... he had his shot...
Guh? We (or at least, _I_) don't know all the facts in this situation,
but that strikes me as a pretty ass-esque thing to say.
>Bill Campbell
Oh, well...
JNash07
>Bird of Prey <birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>
>>Saw the piece on TV tonight on Vince and Amy. Now the secular news media is
>>broadcasting it. It is so sad to see Gary and Amy break up. I believe it
>>said something like that Amy wanted to grow old with Vince.
>
>Wait, so Amy Grant and Vince Gill _are_ a couple after all? Man,
>what a bitch...
>
>JRjr
>--
Jerry, it really is not appropriate to call Amy a "bitch" when no one really
knows all the circumstances involved.
Here is the article that appeared in Saturday's Nashville Tennessean in its
entirety. Hopefully, this will help shed some additional light on the
situation.
Grant picks up pieces after divorce, with the help of soaring career - and
Vince
By Jay Orr / Staff Writer
Waiting for Amy Grant to arrive for a visit, a staffer at Vanderbilt University
Children's Hospital wonders, "Vince Gill didn't sneak in with her, did he?"
Everybody, it seems, is asking about Vince and Amy these days. The two have
been fast friends for years. On Sept. 28 they attended a Nashville Predators
hockey game together, prompting speculation about their relationship in the
wake of Grant's divorce from singer and TV personality Gary Chapman.
Yes, Gill and Grant are, in fact, seeing each other frequently of late. But he
is not in the small entourage that arrives with Grant at the children's
hospital.
She's coming to visit with kids who can't go outside on this sunny fall day.
Some can't leave their beds. Some are only days old, born prematurely and
unable to survive on their own. Others have IV packs keeping them constant
company as they move through the halls.
The singer and mother of three kneels, sits, smiles, talks softly, holds,
strokes. She sings along with a few who know one of her songs. She takes an old
guitar and serenades others. She thanks them all for coming out to see her, for
sharing their smiles with her.
Like Minnie Pearl -- the late Sarah Cannon, for whom her youngest daughther,
Sarah, is named -- Grant uses her celebrity to bring comfort to the suffering,
and to raise the profile of those in need.
The visit also affords Grant an opportunity to announce that the hospital is
lead sponsor and one of the beneficiaries of her upcoming Christmas concerts
with the Nashville Symphony, Dec. 7 and 8, at the Gaylord Entertainment Center.
On her third annual national Christmas tour, with special guests Michael W.
Smith and Point of Grace, Grant will play 19 cities. Only Nashville, her
hometown, will get two nights. Tickets for the concerts at the arena go on sale
at 10 a.m. today at all TicketMaster outlets.
Last year, the Christmas tour bypassed Nashville. It was "time to take a
breath" after playing 12 sold-out shows in five years, Grant said in an
official statement. A Southern girl knows better than to wear out her welcome,
she reasoned.
But Grant will admit now that there were other concerns. Her marriage to
Chapman was in its final months. Following "a lengthy state of separation under
the same roof," the couple was undergoing counseling with two local pastors
from September through December.
Playing the Christmas concert in her hometown, she felt, would be difficult at
best.
In February, Grant moved out of the couple's home on Moran Road in Franklin.
After another month spent settling questions of how they would divide
households and parenting responsibilities, Chapman and Grant filed for divorce.
In June, after 16 1/2 years of marriage, the divorce became final.
"It was all incredibly respectful and private," Grant says during an interview
at her home in a shady, upscale West End neighborhood. Already, she has made
three trips to school during the morning, delivering kids, forgotten eyeglasses
and newly washed gym clothes.
It was also incredibly difficult.
"I challenge any couple to have tried harder than we did," Grant says. "We
tried and tried and tried. ... When you feel like you gave something your best
shot and it fell apart, you kinda go, 'OK. There are no guarantees.' "
The sum of many choices, she says, finally prompted her to decide to go through
with the divorce.
On the afternoon of the interview, Grant says she has plans to take a bike trip
with Gill on the Natchez Trace Parkway. The two have eaten together recently at
a Waffle House -- at Gill's invitation. Last Sunday, they went to church.
They've been writing a song together, Look What Love's Revealing.
But they are not secretly married, she states emphatically, answering one of
the latest rumors to circulate through town about them.
The two singer-songwriters have been fast friends since they first met in 1993,
when Grant accepted Gill's invitation to appear with him on a Christmas special
in Tulsa, in his native Oklahoma.
"We got along like two peas in a pod and made no bones about it," she says.
As their friendship grew and deepened, however, others found bones to pick.
"A lot of disparaging things were said about my very public friendship with
Vince," Grant acknowledges.
"One of the reasons that the friendship was so public was because it never
occurred to me to hide it. I would hear rumors about, 'You guys were seen doing
this, you guys were seen doing that.' I just said, 'Not true.' "
Conscientiously, they honored the constraints of their commitments, Grant says.
"I don't take lightly the responsibility of being a public person, of my faith,
all those things. I know why God hates divorce, because it's painful and it's
hardest on the kids and you have to kiss your history goodbye, start over."
"I never thought I would wind up here. I look at the choices all along the way
that were made and think, I did the very best I could and I wound up here, now.
I want to stand up and say, 'It's not the way you think it was!' But it doesn't
really matter."
Gill's marriage to singer-songwriter and clothing store owner Janis Gill ended
in 1997. For all his willingness to appear in public -- at golf tournaments, at
numerous benefits, at the Grand Ole Opry -- Gill always has been intensely
private about his personal life and protective of his 17-year-old daughter,
Jenny.
When the Gills were going through their divorce, Grant was not a confidante to
Vince, she says, nor was he to her when she found herself in the same
situation.
"People try to connect dots -- 'I saw these people here, I saw them there' --
but during the hardest time of getting my feet back on the ground and going
through the process of my divorce, I'll bet we went six months without a
conversation, because it wasn't his life, and I felt the same way (when he was
going through his divorce)."
She knows people will speculate that her relationship with Gill caused the
breakup of her marriage, Grant says, but the circumstances were multilayered
and complicated. She will concede that the friendship may have hastened what
might have been inevitable anyway.
But there are no answers to the questions raised by the course of events.
"You can't say how it would have been if it had been different, because all you
know is how it is," she reasons.
Just as frankly, Grant says that, now that she is divorced, Gill remains "hands
down, slam dunk, my best friend" for male companionship.
Repeated attempts were made to reach Gill for comment on the relationship.
It feels silly, Grant says, for a 38-year-old woman and a 42-year-old man with
professional and domestic responsibilities to say they're dating, though some
of the things they've done, like the hockey game, would qualify.
"I just want to enjoy his company," she says. "Is that the kind of thing that
the natural conclusion is that eventually these two people will wind up
together and grow old together? I hope so.
"But do I understand the timetable for that? No."
It's easier to chart the forward progress of her professional timetable.
On Sept. 26, Grant made her acting debut in a CBS movie of the week, A Song
from the Heart, about a blind cellist. The movie did well, finishing second for
the night behind a Saturday Night Live retrospective. For the week it finished
at No. 19 overall.
Entertainment trade papers Daily Variety and Hollywood Reporter both gave Grant
good notices for her performance, and more scripts have come flooding in.
On Dec. 4, Grant will be the host of her own CBS Christmas special, A Christmas
to Remember. Special guests 98 Degrees and Tony Bennett have been confirmed so
far. The show will be shot on location in Banff, Canada, beginning Nov. 1, and
is the first of what all parties hope will be at least a three-year run.
CBS is excited about its growing relationship with Grant, says her primary
manager, Jennifer Cooke.
"They believe that Amy works well for their demographic," she observes. "They
love the fact that she's family-friendly and yet hip and current."
Her third Christmas album, also called A Christmas to Remember, comes out Oct.
19. Her previous Christmas albums, Home for Christmas and A Christmas Album,
have sold more than 4 million copies combined.
A traditional collection mixing classics such as Silent Night and Jingle Bell
Rock with original material, the new release was recorded with a symphony
orchestra. A new holiday album means Grant will have new material for this
year's tour.
After she finishes her Christmas tour and celebrates the holidays, Grant will
begin work on a new album, due to Interscope/A&M by June 1. No producer has
been selected. Her last studio album, Behind the Eyes, appeared in 1997 and has
been certified gold for shipments of more than 500,000 copies.
Songs on that album such as Cry a River and The Feeling I Had grew out of her
own emotional turmoil. Grant says she hopes the new album will retain the
"songwriter integrity" of Behind the Eyes "minus the Prozac and razor blades."
Behind the Eyes did not have "a lot of big statements of faith," she concedes,
something her fans in the Christian marketplace where she launched her career
must be ready to hear.
"People who gravitate toward my songs are people who want to have an unshakable
faith but who find that life shakes 'em up," Grant reasons.
As she has come through tough times herself, Grant says she has found solace by
writing, over and over, the Bible verse Hebrews 10:23 -- "Let us hold
unswervingly to the hope that we profess, for he who promised is faithful."
Recently, Gill and Grant were grilling hamburgers for a gathering put together
by her daughter, fourth-grader Millie.
"One of them asked, 'Is he your boyfriend?' " Grant recalls, and she felt ready
to let down her guard a little.
"To have tried to walk the line of propriety for so long, I kinda took a breath
and said, 'He is, honey. Yeah.' "
10/9/99
Paul
happened?
Paul
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:27:03 -0500, "Bird of Prey"
<birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>Saw the piece on TV tonight on Vince and Amy. Now the secular news media is
>broadcasting it. It is so sad to see Gary and Amy break up. I believe it
>said something like that Amy wanted to grow old with Vince. Whew....... I
>think back to those events that Amy and Vince did together in the past....
>(A person has to be careful what relationships they build with other
>people).
>
>I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
>sorry for him. I think Christian artists need to be aware of the risks of
>becoming involved in secular music.
>
>Peace,
>bop
>
>
Chuck Pearson
: Jerry, it really is not appropriate to call Amy a "bitch" when no one really
: knows all the circumstances involved.
: Here is the article that appeared in Saturday's Nashville Tennessean in its
: entirety. Hopefully, this will help shed some additional light on the
: situation.
*snip*
i dunno, after reading the article, i'm inclined to agree with jerry.
that sucks. that really, really sucks.
chuck
--
yeah, your radio's pretty good this year [thanx to bill mallonee.]
but your retail's not worth a dime <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Frederick A. Lajoie
>
> Jerry B. Ray, Jr. wrote in message <7tu3pc$k...@catapult.gatech.edu>...
> >>>sorry for him.
> >
> >
> >Guh? We (or at least, _I_) don't know all the facts in this situation,
> >but that strikes me as a pretty ass-esque thing to say.
>
> accurately reflects the way he feels. If I didn't care one way or the other
> before, I feel sorry for him now.
I sampled his latest CD last week and although i can't remember which
particular songs i listened to, i felt sorry too even though i hadn't felt
one way or the other about neither of them up to that point. I've got 3 girls
and a boy (from 11 down to 5), and my oldest daughter reminds us once in a
while how thankful she is that we're not divorced. I can only pray that we
don't disappoint her.
Fred
--
:-) <-- For the humour impaired.
My only X lives in Tex. -> http://www.compassnet.com/grump/
Have a cow boy! -> http://www.galacticcowboys.com/
http://fox.nstn.ca/~fred_l/index.htm
James Stewart
>I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
>becoming involved in secular music.
And why does Amy becoming involved in "secular" music necessarily make
this more likely than if she'd just been involved in "christian" music?
Amy and Gary could have broken up just as easily within a cosy
subculture.
James.
--
James Stewart -- ja...@britlinks.co.uk \ "Telecom ignored us and
Britlinks -- http://www.britlinks.co.uk \ democracy has died"
The Phantom Tollbooth -- http://www.tollbooth.org \ -- Fat and Frantic
Becky White
jna...@aol.com (JNash07) wrote:
> >In article <shvM3.882$Pp1.4...@feed.centuryinter.net>,
> >Bird of Prey <birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Saw the piece on TV tonight on Vince and Amy. Now the secular news
media is
> >>broadcasting it. It is so sad to see Gary and Amy break up. I
believe it
> >>said something like that Amy wanted to grow old with Vince.
> >
> >Wait, so Amy Grant and Vince Gill _are_ a couple after all? Man,
> >what a bitch...
> >
> >JRjr
> >--
>
> Jerry, it really is not appropriate to call Amy a "bitch" when no one
really
> knows all the circumstances involved.
Possibly, Jerry was referring to the situation, rather than just Amy.
People often use "bitch" to mean something like "nasty situation."
Becky (not trying to argue, just trying to clarify)
--Becky White
e3...@sdsumus.sdstate.edu or bec...@dakota.net
C'stone 99: http://members.xoom.com/beckywhite
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael A. Vickers
>JNash07 (jna...@aol.com) wrote:
>:Jerry, it really is not appropriate to call Amy a "bitch" when no one really
>:knows all the circumstances involved.
>:Here is the article that appeared in Saturday's Nashville Tennessean in its
>:entirety. Hopefully, this will help shed some additional light on the
>:situation.
>*snip*
>
>i dunno, after reading the article, i'm inclined to agree with jerry.
>that sucks. that really, really sucks.
motion carried. after having been on the butt-end of a divorce myself, i
just can't think of a whole lot of nice things to say about this.
she's also going to open up a can of theological worms [1] unless there is
some extra light shed on the situation.
michael
nangi namaj perez. n-a-n-g-i n-a-m-a-j p-e-r-e-z. no matter who you are,
no matter what you do, there is only one thing i ask of you... - the 77s
--[michael a. vickers]-------------------------[mavi...@kings-x.com]--
[1] matt 19:3-9; 1 cor 7:10-11
Calweb-News
didn't make me happy, so I got a divorce." How many young girls who love
Amy will go into their marriages with that standard? How far is that from
Christ's call to die to self and follow him? They're diametrically opposed.
She can't disappear fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
Jay
rose
> I listened to Gary's recording _Outside_. Depressing stuff, especially if it
> accurately reflects the way he feels. If I didn't care one way or the other
> before, I feel sorry for him now.
I listened to it, and I don't feel sorry for him. I can't believe that
Reunion went with "Nothin Without You" as the first single/album opener.
"I can hate you if I want to?"
What a jackass.
Peace,
Rose
Ashley Cleveland Online
http://www.ashleycleveland.com
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
I'll concede that my brief going-off on Amy was probably ill-advised,
given that we _don't_ know all the details of what's going on and
probably never will. But I didn't see a lot in that article/interview
that caused my respect for her to go up, to be certain.
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Becky White <e3...@sdsumus.sdstate.edu> wrote:
>>>Wait, so Amy Grant and Vince Gill _are_ a couple after all? Man,
>>>what a bitch...
>> Jerry, it really is not appropriate to call Amy a "bitch" when no one
>> really knows all the circumstances involved.
>Possibly, Jerry was referring to the situation, rather than just Amy.
>People often use "bitch" to mean something like "nasty situation."
My intentions were two-fold, actually. You both got it right. :-)
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
rose <ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
>I listened to it, and I don't feel sorry for him. I can't believe that
>Reunion went with "Nothin Without You" as the first single/album opener.
>"I can hate you if I want to?"
>What a jackass.
What's wrong with that? I mean, from Amy's side, this whole situation
kind of makes you view "Faithless Heart" in a different light.
*Standard disclaimers about not knowing the details apply.*
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Bird of Prey <birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote:
> >I heard that Gary has moved to California. For some reason, I really feel
> >sorry for him. I think Christian artists need to be aware of the risks of
> >becoming involved in secular music.
>
> And why does Amy becoming involved in "secular" music necessarily make
> this more likely than if she'd just been involved in "christian" music?
> Amy and Gary could have broken up just as easily within a cosy
> subculture.
No kidding. I'd say Sandi Patty's affair, divorce & marriage went much
smoother than Amy's situation.
The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
Aaron.
--
st. aaron thomas pierce ~ aa...@avweb.net ~ http://www.avweb.net/
quotes:
"deal with the whirlwind." - theo bott
"it's hard to be a rebel with everyone agrees with you."
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> Chalk me up with Jerry and Chuck. "I gave it my best shot and my marriage
> didn't make me happy, so I got a divorce." How many young girls who love
> Amy will go into their marriages with that standard? How far is that from
> Christ's call to die to self and follow him? They're diametrically opposed.
> She can't disappear fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
*Aaron presents him with the _gosh dang right_ award*
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> >i dunno, after reading the article, i'm inclined to agree with jerry.
> >that sucks. that really, really sucks.
>
> Have to say that I agree too.
>
> It appears to be Amy saying "me, me, me" all the time. Her explanation
> of why "God hates divorce" was pretty poor. No mention of any vow of
> lifetime commitment in there; it now seems that God doesn't like it
> because it's not very nice. Ah, the good old cotton wool God.
fathe...@home.com
In article <3803409D...@avweb.net>, "Aaron Pierce [shameless
self-promotion]" <aa...@avweb.net> wrote:
> The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
Thnakfully, there hasn't been a lot of mudslinging between the two.
I found it interesting that, in his few public comments so far, he seems
to suggest that when all the facts are known, he feels he'll be
vindicated -- if there can be any vindication in the dissolution of a
marriage.
Speaking of which, I would hardly characterize giving a relationship
eighteen years, and going through at least three (that I know of)
extended periods of counseling, as casually throwing a relationship
away. If two people have determined that they cannot live together and
that they would be better parents to their kids _not_ living under the
same roof, who are we to say otherwise?
Throesline
>>>sorry for him.
>
>
>Guh? We (or at least, _I_) don't know all the facts in this situation,
>but that strikes me as a pretty ass-esque thing to say.
>
>
>Oh, well...
Nice english Jr. You forgot the rest of my quote... and I still don't feel
sorry for him (Gary Chapman)... I feel bad for the children... something you
have no knowledge or understanding of...
Again, irrepressibly yours,
Bill Campbell
Throesline
>what a bitch...
>
Duh...
William C. Campbell IV
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Throesline <throe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Guh? We (or at least, _I_) don't know all the facts in this situation,
>>but that strikes me as a pretty ass-esque thing to say.
>Nice english Jr.
Uh, OK...
>You forgot the rest of my quote... and I still don't feel
>sorry for him (Gary Chapman)...
That wasn't the part that was ass-esque, it was the "he had his shot,"
with the implication being "...and he blew it."
>I feel bad for the children... something you
>have no knowledge or understanding of...
I have both knowledge and understanding of children. Pretty simple
concept, really. I'm not sure what you're saying here.
JRjr
--
fathe...@home.com
> In article <19991012113849...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> Throesline <throe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>Guh? We (or at least, _I_) don't know all the facts in this situation,
>>>but that strikes me as a pretty ass-esque thing to say.
>
>>Nice english Jr.
>
> Uh, OK...
>
>>You forgot the rest of my quote... and I still don't feel
>>sorry for him (Gary Chapman)...
>
> That wasn't the part that was ass-esque, it was the "he had his shot,"
> with the implication being "...and he blew it."
>
>>I feel bad for the children... something you
>>have no knowledge or understanding of...
>
> I have both knowledge and understanding of children. Pretty simple
> concept, really. I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I'm sure what Bill is referring to is being a parent, and factoring in
how a divorce will affect the children.
I'd also add that unless you're the product of a broken home or have
been through a divorce yourself (I have), you cannot possibly know how
difficult it is to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that a marriage
is over.
Michael A. Vickers
>I'd also add that unless you're the product of a broken home or have
>been through a divorce yourself (I have), you cannot possibly know how
>difficult it is to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that a marriage
>is over.
sorry to open a potential argument, but you are referring to cases of
infidelity and non-christian abandonment, right?
rose
> In article <Pine.BSI.4.05L.99101...@home.dp.net>,
> rose <ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
>
> >I listened to it, and I don't feel sorry for him. I can't believe that
> >Reunion went with "Nothin Without You" as the first single/album opener.
>
> >"I can hate you if I want to?"
> >What a jackass.
>
> What's wrong with that? I mean, from Amy's side, this whole situation
> kind of makes you view "Faithless Heart" in a different light.
Why? Every marriage has its problems. She was making a statement about
temptation during marriage, right? Like that doesn't happen?
Gary's making a statement after the divorce. I don't have a problem with
being pissed off, :^) but it's bizarre to me that Reunion would let him
get away with saying that he can "hate" someone if he wants to, given that
they're a "Christian" label and the divorce is such a lightning rod.
One other thing: Gary has made statements about his kids being his
priority, but I wonder how much of a priority they are when he's so
interested in spewing his vitriol for Amy in such a public way.
> *Standard disclaimers about not knowing the details apply.*
There ya go.
rose
> The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
There are two sides to every story. Nobody knows what happened in that
marriage except the parties involved.
How you made such an illogical leap from the Mullins song to
"irreconcilable differences" is *beyond me*. It's a non sequiter.
fathe...@home.com
> fathe...@home.com [fathe...@home.com] wrote:
>
>>I'd also add that unless you're the product of a broken home or have
>>been through a divorce yourself (I have), you cannot possibly know how
>>difficult it is to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that a marriage
>>is over.
>
> sorry to open a potential argument, but you are referring to cases of
> infidelity and non-christian abandonment, right?
My ex initiated the divorce. She claims to be a believer and I have no
reason to doubt that. But that is between her and the Lord.
Long story short. I'm talking about a ten-year marriage, roughly five
years of which was spent in counseling, either jointly or separately,
with clergy and with psychologists.
Exactly how long does one take to decide that things are never going to
change? At what point is one permitted to say they have done all they
can?
Michael A. Vickers
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote:
>>The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
>>is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
>>spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>How you made such an illogical leap from the Mullins song to
>"irreconcilable differences" is *beyond me*. It's a non sequiter.
i'm not familiar with the song, but from the title of it i gather it's
about there not being any problems too difficult for god to fix. assuming
that is what the song is about, the logic is that she sang that (and one
would assume that she at least places some grain of belief into it) and yet
they broke off the marriage because of 'irreconcilable differences'.
Michael A. Vickers
>Jerry B. Ray, Jr. wrote:
>>>"I can hate you if I want to?" What a jackass.
>>What's wrong with that? I mean, from Amy's side, this whole situation
>>kind of makes you view "Faithless Heart" in a different light.
>Why? Every marriage has its problems. She was making a statement about
>temptation during marriage, right?
it was a little more than just making a statement about temptation during
marriage. it reads like it's documenting a struggle. if she wrote it (and
if she wrote it about herself) then it makes one wonder if she's been
succeptible to infidelity all these years, and it makes one wonder if that
is why their marriage split.
>One other thing: Gary has made statements about his kids being his
>priority, but I wonder how much of a priority they are when he's so
>interested in spewing his vitriol for Amy in such a public way.
so... what is your logical leap between his statements about his kids and
his vitriol?
Michael A. Vickers
that sucks, man. i'm sorry to hear that. it looks like you did what you
could.
i've just been doing alot of studying on divorce lately, and it can be a
really difficult thing to study. i've bemoaned to my pastor quite a few
times that studies on the biblical legitimacy of divorce are incomplete
because they don't always deal with the subject of who is on the receiving
end of these things, and what kind of predicament that places them in with
respect to remarrying (a different person).
i was married to a non-believer, and she initiated the divorce (and there
was no argument from me). i'd just like to think that two christians, with
a knowledge of what they're vows were, what they mean, and what the bible
says about divorce would be able to work it out. i'm naive, i know, and
this world just sucks and things happen. as christians we all serve the
same god, and somehow i just can't help but think there is something that
can be worked out with his intervention (when infidelity is not involved).
i'm not intending this as commentary on your specific situation. i'm just
thinking out loud. this amy/gary thing gives me pause for thinking about
it, too.
cs...@mail.tds.net
I just wanted to brag to everyone that I am now offically a married man.
My parents are pysched (how saying "I do" makes it so I'm no longer
living in sin is beyond me still. I have been extremely committment to
Shelley for the entire length of time that we've lived together... oh
well. It matters to someone (and I guess in a wierd perverse way... to
me too) and I'm in 7th heaven.
I married an angel.
And suddenly I believe that sex before marriage is evil (and thank you
Lord for forgiving me my past sins) ;-)
Chip
Pastor Mac
> Long story short. I'm talking about a ten-year marriage, roughly five
> years of which was spent in counseling, either jointly or separately,
> with clergy and with psychologists.
>
> Exactly how long does one take to decide that things are never going to
> change? At what point is one permitted to say they have done all they
> can?
This statement illustrates, I believe, much of what evangelical
sub-culture has become today, namely, based on "feelings" rather than
some form of mutually agreed upon objective understanding. To put it
crassly, "I know what the Bible says but my heart says this and it feels
so right and I have such a peace about this" thus making any norm of the
Bible subject to individual interpretation. Let's face it--the United
States handed the Church (regardless of belief or orthodoxy) a tremendous
blessing as well as curse when the government refused to back or support
any particular theological position as a constitutional guarantee. As a
result, the blessing is the freedom to assemble with other theologically
oriented people like yourself to worship as your interpretation of your
holy book so prescribes. But the curse arises when differences appear
within the congregation for if someone does not continue to agree to the
accepted orthodoxy and protocol, the secular authorities cannot be used to
enforce any type of church discipline the church may decide to impose in
order to maintain good order and harmony within the congregation. In
other words, membership vows are largely irrelevant anymore. People are
totally free to pick up and move to another congregation for any reason
and the net result is badly fractured and declining congregations when
there is no reason to get along and try to use Scripture as a basic norm.
Because of the tremendous freedom we enjoy, the imperatives of Christ
simply become Stewart Smalley's Daily Affirmation or Jack Handey's Deep
Thoughts.
Or look at it another way, what is our salvation based upon? Since
evangelicalism is largely based upon the Augustinian model of the
Atonement, that is, the judicial analogy of Christ accepting guilt of
sinners upon himself, Christ had to go the full distance without wavering
or complaining about the pain to provide all the blessings of his perfect
obedience to all who call on his name. There certainly was overwhelming
circumstances preventing full fellowship between the Triune God and man
before Jesus stepped from his throne to undertake personally the work of
redemption--and all those obstacles blocking that relationship were caused
by us. But because of God's profound love for his broken and distorted
creation and especially the pinnacle of that creation which is mankind, He
did everything necessary so that all things would be new for eternity.
The grace extended towards us compels us to act in gratitude for that
grace freely given us. How is that gratitude expressed? Loving God in
the totality of our existence and loving others as God loves us. Our
felt-needs based society driven largely by consumerism has made us into a
people that pretty much quits whenever the slightest resistance is
encountered. We'll find something else that will minister to my perceived
needs, including, sadly, our marriages. It's all disposable now because
there's no real reason to try--it feels right to leave, it's easy to
leave, and the church doesn't care (and if they do care, so what, I'll go
somewhere where they don't).
You're right, I'm a pastor and I haven't gone through a divorce--my folks
have been happily married 54 years, my in-laws for 53 years, and my own
marriage is going on 10 years and two wonderful kids have come our way.
But like everybody, I face any number of choices that directly affect my
relationship to Christ, the church I serve, my family, and a whole host
of others. Although I do not deserve any of this, believe me, I've made
some really stupid choices which have caused some really ugly problems but
all through this my Lord never left me. His faithfulness to me has been
my greatest strength. I simply try to live my life in such a way that
reflects in some measurable way the faithfulness of Christ. Maybe a
reorientation of priorities might be helpful to put the focus on Christ
rather than on our usually less than wholesome desires.
--
Pax,
Pastor Mac (remove NO SPAM for email replies)
Made on a Macintosh, why would you use anything else?
fathe...@home.com
> And suddenly I believe that sex before marriage is evil (and thank you
> Lord for forgiving me my past sins) ;-)
So apparently one can be forgiven for "living in sin" before a marriage,
but not for refusing to continue to live in sin once a marriage is no
longer viable?
(Hoping your entire post was at least somewhat tongue in cheek...)
fathe...@home.com
macu...@SPAMtgci.net (Pastor Mac) wrote:
> In article <iBJM3.55$PV2....@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>, fathe...@home.com
> wrote:
>
>> Long story short. I'm talking about a ten-year marriage, roughly five
>> years of which was spent in counseling, either jointly or separately,
>> with clergy and with psychologists.
>>
>> Exactly how long does one take to decide that things are never going to
>> change? At what point is one permitted to say they have done all they
>> can?
>
> This statement illustrates, I believe, much of what evangelical
> sub-culture has become today, namely, based on "feelings" rather than
> some form of mutually agreed upon objective understanding. To put it
> crassly, "I know what the Bible says but my heart says this and it feels
> so right and I have such a peace about this" thus making any norm of the
> Bible subject to individual interpretation.
As I said, this divorce happened after five years of counseling. It was
based upon knowing going in the biblical injunctions involving being
married and being divorced. The decision was certainly not based on
"feeling" like we didn't want to be married anymore.
How would counsel someone under similar circumstances? If a couple had
been coming to you for five years on a regular basis, would you tell
them simply to pray, trust God, and be miserable for another five? And
then another five?
> Because of the tremendous freedom we enjoy, the imperatives of Christ
> simply become Stewart Smalley's Daily Affirmation or Jack Handey's Deep
> Thoughts.
I've been a Christian for 30 years, based on the definition you outline
below, not on the sarcastic sentence above.
> Or look at it another way, what is our salvation based upon? Since
> evangelicalism is largely based upon the Augustinian model of the
> Atonement, that is, the judicial analogy of Christ accepting guilt of
> sinners upon himself, Christ had to go the full distance without wavering
> or complaining about the pain to provide all the blessings of his perfect
> obedience to all who call on his name. There certainly was overwhelming
> circumstances preventing full fellowship between the Triune God and man
> before Jesus stepped from his throne to undertake personally the work of
> redemption--and all those obstacles blocking that relationship were caused
> by us. But because of God's profound love for his broken and distorted
> creation and especially the pinnacle of that creation which is mankind, He
> did everything necessary so that all things would be new for eternity.
> The grace extended towards us compels us to act in gratitude for that
> grace freely given us. How is that gratitude expressed? Loving God in
> the totality of our existence and loving others as God loves us. Our
> felt-needs based society driven largely by consumerism has made us into a
> people that pretty much quits whenever the slightest resistance is
> encountered. We'll find something else that will minister to my perceived
> needs, including, sadly, our marriages. It's all disposable now because
> there's no real reason to try--it feels right to leave, it's easy to
> leave, and the church doesn't care (and if they do care, so what, I'll go
> somewhere where they don't).
This has nothing to do with the church (either my local body or the
universal group of believers) sanctioning or disapproving of the
decision. This has to do with two people saying, "Lord, we have done
everything within our human strength to make this work. We have allowed
your superhuman grace to permeate this marriage as much as we know how.
But obviously, not enough. We have tried to change toward each other, to
embrace one another as you have embraced us. But because of our sinful
nature, we have not been able to do so. Therefore, we are no longer
going to cause each other pain and unhappiness."
> I face any number of choices that directly affect my
> relationship to Christ, the church I serve, my family, and a whole host
> of others. Although I do not deserve any of this, believe me, I've made
> some really stupid choices which have caused some really ugly problems but
> all through this my Lord never left me. His faithfulness to me has been
> my greatest strength. I simply try to live my life in such a way that
> reflects in some measurable way the faithfulness of Christ. Maybe a
> reorientation of priorities might be helpful to put the focus on Christ
> rather than on our usually less than wholesome desires.
Perhaps if we had done a better foundational job, the marriage would not
have lasted. And perhaps the decision to divorce was just another
"stupid choice." I remain in faith that "all through this my Lord has
never left me." I know he has been grieved by the divorce. Whether he
has been more grieved by that than other poor choices only he knows.
Michael A. Vickers
>fathe...@home.com wrote:
>>Long story short. I'm talking about a ten-year marriage, roughly five
>>years of which was spent in counseling, either jointly or separately,
>>with clergy and with psychologists.
>>
>>Exactly how long does one take to decide that things are never going to
>>change? At what point is one permitted to say they have done all they
>>can?
>This statement illustrates, I believe, much of what evangelical
>sub-culture has become today, namely, based on "feelings" rather than
>some form of mutually agreed upon objective understanding.
[snip]
wow, you sure had a sermon saved up in ya.
i didn't extrapolate everything about 'fathermosh' that you did from that
brief couple of paragraphs that he provided. he did go on to clarify in
another post that his wife initiated the divorce, and he hasn't indicated
that he has remarried. there really isn't enough here to say whether he
broke any marriage vows or not.
rose
> rose [ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net] wrote:
> >On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote:
>
> >>The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> >>is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> >>spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>
> >How you made such an illogical leap from the Mullins song to
> >"irreconcilable differences" is *beyond me*. It's a non sequiter.
>
> i'm not familiar with the song, but from the title of it i gather it's
> about there not being any problems too difficult for god to fix. assuming
> that is what the song is about, the logic is that she sang that (and one
> would assume that she at least places some grain of belief into it) and yet
> they broke off the marriage because of 'irreconcilable differences'.
Maybe the thing that wasn't beyond God was the divorce, dude. That's why
it's a non sequiter.
rose
> rose [ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net] wrote:
> >One other thing: Gary has made statements about his kids being his
> >priority, but I wonder how much of a priority they are when he's so
> >interested in spewing his vitriol for Amy in such a public way.
>
> so... what is your logical leap between his statements about his kids and
> his vitriol?
He cares about his kids so much that he doesn't care if they hear him make
thinly-veiled references to their mother (IMO), like "I can hate you if I
want to." How do you think statements like that are going to affect them?
How is that making his kids his priority when it's just screwing with
their heads/emotions? It's a selfish, self-serving statement, nothing
more, nothing less.
fathe...@home.com
My wife initiated the divorce. I could have contested it. I could have
said to her "I refuse to grant you this divorce on the grounds that it
is against scripture," blah blah. The end result is she would have left
me anyway, would have broken off any counseling (for herself or us as a
couple), would have become more bitter about the church, and would
likely not be on the road to regaining her faith like she is now.
I suppose if I had let her walk away and refused to grant the divorce,
that would have left the door open for God to miraculously change her
heart toward me and get us back together. And I don't want to suggest
that God is not capable of that. But in five years of counseling,
neither of us had budged an inch. We saw no reason to believe that would
happen, together or apart.
P.S. we were separated for a year before the divorce was final, and
tried twice more during that time to reconcile.
Michael A. Vickers
>Michael A. Vickers wrote:
>>i'm not familiar with the song, but from the title of it i gather it's
>>about there not being any problems too difficult for god to fix. assuming
>>that is what the song is about, the logic is that she sang that (and one
>>would assume that she at least places some grain of belief into it) and yet
>>they broke off the marriage because of 'irreconcilable differences'.
>Maybe the thing that wasn't beyond God was the divorce, dude.
?? that's exactly what aaron is saying - she sang a song about nothing
being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce), then
she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
if she believes that nothing is beyond god (in other words, nothing is
irreconcilable to god), then where does she get off saying that the
marriage had irreconcilable differences? i think this is what aaron is
trying to ask.
Michael A. Vickers
>He cares about his kids so much that he doesn't care if they hear him make
>thinly-veiled references to their mother (IMO), like "I can hate you if I
>want to."
your 'IMO' is duly noted. i haven't heard the song, myself.
>How do you think statements like that are going to affect them?
>How is that making his kids his priority when it's just screwing with
>their heads/emotions? It's a selfish, self-serving statement, nothing
>more, nothing less.
it's a sentiment he's entitled to (if he's referring to his wife), kids or
no kids. the whole divorce has probably screwed with their heads and
emotions enough already. i suspect he has a reason for feeling that way,
and since he is a music artist i also suspect that he uses his art as a
means of venting.
there are plenty of other factors that could come into play - the kids may
know the reason(s) the split happen and why he would say something like
that. they may also share his sentiment. who knows?
it would be a completely different matter if he went on the album and said
something that was either untrue about her or slanderous. but he didn't.
Pastor Mac
wrote:
I understand, as much as another human being is capable of empathizing
another's pain, the struggles you went through. I certainly was not
trying to personalize this but to use your original comment to illustrate
what I hear all too frequently: I basically do whatever I feel in my
heart to do. I'm not blaming you, casting aspersions on your situation,
et al. But in this present discussion of Amy/Gary/Vince, it is simply
illustrative of how easy it is to change marriage partners as opposed to
how much Christ budged when he wasn't obligated to in order to guarantee
our salvation. And that easiness which the law allows today and
society's (as well as the evangelical church's) acceptance of easy
divorce does not compel individuals to make the hard choices to change.
My bottom line is to question how much behavior either explicitly or
implicitly prohibited by Scripture is rationalized away by those who
simultaneously confess the authority of Scripture as the only infallible
rule of faith and life. In short, American evangelicalism often looks
like a buffet faith--the very thing these same folks condemn in other
Christian traditions. We claim to be the orthodox, the true witness to
Christ but when we're so willing to live like everyone else with whatever
justification then what testimony do we really offer? And we're holding
Amy, Sandi/y, among others, up as the people we're to emulate? Some might
use the Charles Barkley line that they're not role models but they
are--those lyrics are ministry tools (remember Friends or Angels Watching
Over Me?) so the artist is quite similar to any pulpit pastor. Frankly,
if I did have a dalliance with anybody, in the church or out of the
church, I'm instantly removed from my position and probably lose my
ordination permanently. My denomination looks at adultery by church
officers as sexual abuse: a gross misuse of the authority and position
Christ invested in his church. It is serious because it is. I just wish
we could hold our ministers of music to the same standard.
fathe...@home.com
macu...@SPAMtgci.net (Pastor Mac) wrote:
> But in this present discussion of Amy/Gary/Vince, it is simply
> illustrative of how easy it is to change marriage partners as opposed to
> how much Christ budged when he wasn't obligated to in order to guarantee
> our salvation. And that easiness which the law allows today and
> society's (as well as the evangelical church's) acceptance of easy
> divorce does not compel individuals to make the hard choices to change.
Again, I would submit that eighteen years of marriage with multiple
instances of extended periods of counseling on Gary and Amy's part does
not constitute "how easy it is to change marriage partners." Knowing how
much their lives have been and will continue to be under scrutiny makes
me believe that choosing divorce was certainly not the easier of the
options.
> My bottom line is to question how much behavior either explicitly or
> implicitly prohibited by Scripture is rationalized away by those who
> simultaneously confess the authority of Scripture as the only infallible
> rule of faith and life.
I can't deny that something we have lost in the modern church is
accountability or holding one's feet to the fire by trusted pastors,
elders and friends.
> And we're holding
> Amy, Sandi/y, among others, up as the people we're to emulate? Some might
> use the Charles Barkley line that they're not role models but they
> are--those lyrics are ministry tools (remember Friends or Angels Watching
> Over Me?) so the artist is quite similar to any pulpit pastor.
I would say we part ways here again. The discussion of whether Christian
artists are entertainers or ministers is really not germane to a very
personal decision made by a husband and wife. My guess (and this is pure
speculation on my part) is that if both Grant and Chapman did not
understand the gravity of being considered role models, this would have
happened some time ago.
--bab
rose
> rose [ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net] wrote:
> >Michael A. Vickers wrote:
>
> >>i'm not familiar with the song, but from the title of it i gather it's
> >>about there not being any problems too difficult for god to fix. assuming
> >>that is what the song is about, the logic is that she sang that (and one
> >>would assume that she at least places some grain of belief into it) and yet
> >>they broke off the marriage because of 'irreconcilable differences'.
>
> >Maybe the thing that wasn't beyond God was the divorce, dude.
>
> ?? that's exactly what aaron is saying - she sang a song about nothing
> being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce), then
> she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
That ain't the way I read it, Michael.
> if she believes that nothing is beyond god (in other words, nothing is
> irreconcilable to god), then where does she get off saying that the
> marriage had irreconcilable differences? i think this is what aaron is
> trying to ask.
Eh, why put words in his mouth? I doubt he meant that; it's my POV. He can
say it's so now after you've pointed it out, but by the anger in his post
he was pissed off about the divorce, *period*. (I went back and reread it,
and it still reads the same way to me.)
Most Christians don't believe "irreconcilable differences" is a
"legitmate" reason for a divorce, hence, they should stay in the marriage,
trust God, and work it out, because "nothing is beyond God," especially
saving a marriage. Sounds to me like he was reiterating that.
Truthfully, I guess I don't care either way. I'm not part of the Chapmans'
lives. I hope they both find peace and happiness. It's hard to come by.
fathe...@home.com
> I listened to it, and I don't feel sorry for him. I can't believe that
> Reunion went with "Nothin Without You" as the first single/album opener.
>
> "I can hate you if I want to?"
>
> What a jackass.
It was a bad choice on Reunion's part and probably Gary's too. BUT, it
was written for the previous album, presumably before the current crisis
had gotten to it's worst. (Three years ago, IIRC.)
AND, the line actually is "I can hate who I want to," which in the
context of the song, recognizing that no amount of emotion, good or bad,
directed at someone in particular or no one in particular, has any
meaning without the Lord.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Or look at it another way, what is our salvation based upon? Since
: evangelicalism is largely based upon the Augustinian model of the
: Atonement, that is, the judicial analogy of Christ accepting guilt of
Forgive me for going on a bit of a tangent, but maybe we should set
Augustine to one side and focus on, oh, the Bible.
From pages 15 to 19 of Robert Jewett's _Saint Paul Returns to the Movies:
Triumph over Shame_ (Eerdmans, 1998), the sequel to his earlier _Saint
Paul at the Movies: The Apostle's Dialogue with American Culture_
(Westminster/John Knox, 1993):
Although I have been working intensively on Romans since 1980, it has
only been in the last several years that the awareness of the
theological significance of honor and shame has begun to dawn. Like
other Pauline scholars, I was indebted to the traditional paradigm of
guilt and forgiveness that has prevailed since the time of Saint
Augustine. It stands as the central organizing principle in every
commentary on Romans that I have studied. This highly individualistic
paradigm places the individual believer at the center of Paul's
thought, caught between the temptations of the flesh and the high
ideals of the ethic of love, and therefore bound to fall into sin and
guilt. The essence of grace, according to this traditional model, is
forgiveness of sins.
For at least a decade, doubts have been growing in my mind about the
adequacy of the traditional model of Paul's thought. The more I learned
about the menial social status of most of the Roman congregations, the
less likely it seemed that the conscience problems characteristic of
later Western mentality could have been their major preoccupation. That
both Jewish and pagan religions provided elaborate methods of gaining
forgiveness and atonement for sins added to my disquiet about the
paucity of explicit references to forgiveness in Paul's letters.
My interest was further stimulated by the increasingly wide-ranging
discussion of honor and shame in the Mediterranean world. . . .
The recent publication of _Portraits of Paul_ by Bruce Malina and
Jermore Neyrey advances this analysis by incorporating evidence from
the book of Acts and some of the Pauline letters. Other scholars have
made similar contributions. David deSilva has applied this thorough
grasp of Greco-Roman literature to trace the role of honor and shame in
the Epistle to the Hebrews and Paul's first letter to the
Thessalonians. Arthur Dewey has contributed an investigation of the
theme of honor in 2 Corinthians, while John Elliott has explored both
shame and honor in 1 Peter. The most decisive contribution to my
understanding of Romans, however, came through reading "Honour and
Righteousness in Romans," written by the Norwegian scholar Halvor
Moxnes. He places the entire argument of Paul's most influential letter
in the ancient cultural context of an "honour society" in which
"recognition and approval from others" is central, which means that the
"group is more important than the individual." This contrasts with the
dominant concern of Western theology and its interpretation of Romans,
"in which guilt and guilt-feeling predominate as a response to
wrongdoing." . . .
The need to move beyond the traditional paradigm of individual guilt
and forgiveness is particularly acute when we attempt to understand the
thesis of Romans. As visible in the caption at the head of this
chapter, Rom 1:16-17 declares the paradox of power. Paul claims that in
this shameful gospel the power of God is revealed. I believe that
Paul's claim that the gospel _is_ the "power of God" pertains to the
reversal of the stereotypes of honor and shame articulated in 1:14. The
message of Christ crucified shatters the unrighteous precedence given
to the strong over the weak, the free and well-educated over slaves and
the ill-educated, the Greeks and Romans over the barbarians. If the
gospel that the world considers shameful has divine power, it will
prevail and achieve a new form of honor for those who have not earned
it, an honor consistent with divine righteousness. All who place their
faith in this gospel will be set right, that is, be placed in the right
relation to the most significant arena in which honor is dispensed:
divine judgment. Thus the triumph of divine righteousness through the
gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected is achieved by transforming
the system in which shame and honor are dispensed.
When the frequency of honor and shame terminology is compared with the
single allusion to pardon in Rom 3:25, it now seems clear that a
mainstream has been confused for a minor current in the tradition of
interpreting Pauline theology. It is time to move beyond the paradigm
of individual guilt and forgiveness in understanding Paul. This book
represents my first extended effort to articulate a new assessment of
the triumph of grace over shameful status as the organizing center of
Paul's thought.
Robert Jewett is the Harry R. Kendall Senior Professor of New Testament
Interpretation at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston,
Illinois.
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
No man is an Island, entire of it self... -- John Donne, Meditation XVII
I am a little world made cunningly... -- John Donne, Holy Sonnet V
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
rose <ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
>> ?? that's exactly what aaron is saying - she sang a song about nothing
>> being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce), then
>> she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
>That ain't the way I read it, Michael.
If what's being said is that "if nothing is beyond God, then nothing
is irreconcilable with God," then I'm getting the same thing out of
it that Michael is. (This says nothing of my opinion of divorce,
or of this particular situation, just of my understanding of the semantics
of what's being said here.)
fathe...@home.com
<ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
> Gary's making a statement after the divorce. I don't have a problem with
> being pissed off, :^) but it's bizarre to me that Reunion would let him
> get away with saying that he can "hate" someone if he wants to, given that
> they're a "Christian" label and the divorce is such a lightning rod.
The song was written way before the divorce and you're taking the lyric
out of context.
> One other thing: Gary has made statements about his kids being his
> priority, but I wonder how much of a priority they are when he's so
> interested in spewing his vitriol for Amy in such a public way.
The only public statement I've read by him to date is the following
(from an interview with musicforce.com):
---------
LH: Going through a divorce is tough for anybody. But doing so in the
public eye of an oft-times unforgiving and finger-pointing subculture
must complicate things even more at times. What is it you want from the
public right now? Privacy? Understanding?
GC: You know, I am so torn. Out of respect for everybody involved I want
it to be private. But my need for justice is huge. At this point I'm
just assuming that time will tell the story better than I ever could, so
I'm shutting up."
----------
The only song written by him on this album specifically about his
marriage says:
"My heart could not bend, so now it's broken. / For so long you told me
you'd never say goodbye./ Now I am left with broken pieces."
I'd say that's a natural reaction to the end of a 20-year relationship,
not "spewing his vitriol."
fathe...@home.com
<ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
> He cares about his kids so much that he doesn't care if they hear him make
> thinly-veiled references to their mother (IMO), like "I can hate you if I
> want to." How do you think statements like that are going to affect them?
> How is that making his kids his priority when it's just screwing with
> their heads/emotions? It's a selfish, self-serving statement, nothing
> more, nothing less.
See my previous posts.
Pastor Mac
(Peter Thomas Chattaway) wrote:
> When the frequency of honor and shame terminology is compared with the
> single allusion to pardon in Rom 3:25, it now seems clear that a
> mainstream has been confused for a minor current in the tradition of
> interpreting Pauline theology. It is time to move beyond the paradigm
> of individual guilt and forgiveness in understanding Paul. This book
> represents my first extended effort to articulate a new assessment of
> the triumph of grace over shameful status as the organizing center of
> Paul's thought.
>
> Robert Jewett is the Harry R. Kendall Senior Professor of New Testament
> Interpretation at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston,
> Illinois.
Indeed, the forensic model of justification (the interpretive model given
confessional status by both the Roman Catholic as well as in the
Protestant traditions of Luther & Calvin) has come under scrutiny lately
in evangelical circles, most notably in the writing of Clark Pinnock. I
attended a theological conference on this topic of the old vs new model in
1991 and was rather stunned when Pinnock stated God didn't really know how
things would end up. His partner on the dais was Richard Rice who himself
was taken aback when a questioner asked how he could hold similar views to
Pinnock and still confess the faith in the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
But you're right to point out some reassessment is ongoing, albeit with
some concerns expressed in traditional circles.
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> In article <Pine.BSI.4.05L.99101...@home.dp.net>,
> rose <ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
>
> >> ?? that's exactly what aaron is saying - she sang a song about nothing
> >> being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce), then
> >> she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
>
> >That ain't the way I read it, Michael.
>
> If what's being said is that "if nothing is beyond God, then nothing
> is irreconcilable with God,"
My point *exactly*.
Aaron.
--
st. aaron thomas pierce ~ aa...@avweb.net ~ http://www.avweb.net/
quotes:
"deal with the whirlwind." - theo bott
"it's hard to be a rebel with everyone agrees with you."
fathe...@home.com
self-promotion]" <aa...@avweb.net> wrote:
> "Jerry B. Ray, Jr." wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.BSI.4.05L.99101...@home.dp.net>,
>> rose <ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> ?? that's exactly what aaron is saying - she sang a song about nothing
>> >> being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce), then
>> >> she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
>>
>> >That ain't the way I read it, Michael.
>>
>> If what's being said is that "if nothing is beyond God, then nothing
>> is irreconcilable with God,"
>
> My point *exactly*.
I guess you've never heard of songwriters or artists singing about where
they _want_ to be, not necessarily where they are. Not to mention we
ordinary run-of-the-mill believers. I'd say nary a Sunday goes by
without us singing at least one song that's not where I'm at in my walk
with God but where I wish I was.
Also, keep in mind this was recorded _before_ their separation, not that
that's especially relevant.
You're trying to retrofit an interpretation to a song that she didn't
write and was asked to sing by Rick Elias.
--bab
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> <snip>
> > ?? that's exactly what aaron is saying - she sang a song about nothing
> > being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce), then
> > she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
>
> That ain't the way I read it, Michael.
>
> > if she believes that nothing is beyond god (in other words, nothing is
> > irreconcilable to god), then where does she get off saying that the
> > marriage had irreconcilable differences? i think this is what aaron is
> > trying to ask.
>
> Eh, why put words in his mouth? I doubt he meant that; it's my POV. He can
> say it's so now after you've pointed it out,
Gosh. How the hell am I supposed to respond to that? I'm damned if I do, damned if
I
don't. I recall something I heard once about a pissing match with a skunk...
Josh Marihugh
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote in message
<3803410A...@avweb.net>...
>Calweb-News wrote:
>
>> Chalk me up with Jerry and Chuck. "I gave it my best shot and my
marriage
>> didn't make me happy, so I got a divorce." How many young girls who love
>> Amy will go into their marriages with that standard? How far is that
from
>> Christ's call to die to self and follow him? They're diametrically
opposed.
>> She can't disappear fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
>
>*Aaron presents him with the _gosh dang right_ award*
>
cheeze wiz, baby...two GDR awards in one day?
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: VoL live from Flevo '99
jmarihugh on the internet:
http://www.geocities.com/christrock99/
and of course http://www.tollbooth.org
rose
> Gosh. How the hell am I supposed to respond to that? I'm damned do, damned if I
> don't.
Why do you think I wrote it the way I did? ;^)
> I recall something I heard about a pissing match with a skunk once...
Heh.
Josh Marihugh
Paul wrote in message <3802aed4...@news.newton.dialix.com.au>...
>Vince who? I heard that Amy & Gary had split but what else has
<snip>
Vince Gill, country singer, as well as duet partner on Amy's "House of
Love"...
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: VOL from Flevo '99
Josh Marihugh
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote in message
>The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me
off
>is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
>spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
I knew something was really bothering me about this whole thing, and you
just put your finger on it. Give yourself a _gosh dang right_ award.
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: VOL live from Flevo '99
Josh Marihugh
rose wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote:
>
>> The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me
off
>> is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
>> spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>
>There are two sides to every story. Nobody knows what happened in that
>marriage except the parties involved.
>
>How you made such an illogical leap from the Mullins song to
>"irreconcilable differences" is *beyond me*. It's a non sequiter.
The line says that "NOTHING is Beyond You" (Jesus), so in that context,
"irreconcilable differences" seems a little off...surely God could reconcile
the differences...
*speaking as a man who is unmarried and is blessed with parents who are
going on 26 years and still going strong*
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: VOL Flevo '99
rose
> It was a bad choice on Reunion's part and probably Gary's too. BUT, it
> was written for the previous album, presumably before the current crisis
> had gotten to it's worst. (Three years ago, IIRC.)
Bruce, the casual listener doesn't know that.
> AND, the line actually is "I can hate who I want to," which in the
> context of the song, recognizing that no amount of emotion, good or bad,
> directed at someone in particular or no one in particular, has any
> meaning without the Lord.
Well, that makes it OK then... Seriously, I know about the context. I
listened to the song a couple of times and I couldn't stomach it.
I just think it was very stupid, ill-timed, etc.
rose
> The only public statement I've read by him to date is the following
> (from an interview with musicforce.com):
I've read that.
Just so you know, he has posted to Amy's newsgroup, and I guess you can
call those "public statements." Run a search on Tej...@aol.com on
DejaNews. He posted something to rmaag (probably in May or June) that
basically said time will vindicate him on the divorce thing and in another
post he said no one here will know the truth until they see him in heaven.
(I'm not sure how he thinks he can be vindicated without the truth, but
who knows.)
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote in message
> >The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me
> off
> >is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> >spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>
> I knew something was really bothering me about this whole thing, and you
> just put your finger on it. Give yourself a _gosh dang right_ award.
Umm... that'd be awfully pretentious of me... you may present one if you
wish, but i don't really need one...
Aaron.
--
st. aaron thomas pierce ~ aa...@avweb.net ~ http://www.avweb.net/
quotes:
"trash it babe" - laurelin
"deal with the whirlwind." - theo
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> >The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> >is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> >spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>
> You are being gullible and making the assumption that CCM artists actually
> believe *everything* they sing.
I didn't assume that. I just pointed out that, imho there is glaring hypocrisy in
her actions vs. the song she sang... not that this is the first time it's
happened tho (I'm not speaking just about her, but _all_ music in general).
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> > I didn't assume that. I just pointed out that, imho there is glaring
> > hypocrisy in
> > her actions vs. the song she sang... not that this is the first time it's
> > happened tho (I'm not speaking just about her, but _all_ music in general).
>
> Golly, to quote that great old song by the Bangles, "How is the air up
> there?"
It's nice, thanks.
> There's probably glaring hypocrisy in at least one thing each of us do
> every day. Because we don't have millions of people watching us do it,
> does that make it less hypocritical, or less of a sin?
I didn't say that. All I said was it pissed me off. Frankly, my own sin pisses me
off much more than does AG's... it's just that my sin wasn't the topic of the
thread.
Neiby
>is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
>spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
You are being gullible and making the assumption that CCM artists actually
believe *everything* they sing.
They don't. It happens.
fathe...@home.com
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 fathe...@home.com wrote:
>
>> It was a bad choice on Reunion's part and probably Gary's too. BUT, it
>> was written for the previous album, presumably before the current crisis
>> had gotten to it's worst. (Three years ago, IIRC.)
>
> Bruce, the casual listener doesn't know that.
I got that info from the liner notes. Granted, that still doesn't help
someone hearing it on the radio...
>> AND, the line actually is "I can hate who I want to," which in the
>> context of the song, recognizing that no amount of emotion, good or bad,
>> directed at someone in particular or no one in particular, has any
>> meaning without the Lord.
>
> Well, that makes it OK then... Seriously, I know about the context. I
> listened to the song a couple of times and I couldn't stomach it.
>
> I just think it was very stupid, ill-timed, etc.
Can't dispute that. There's probably a good reason it didn't make the
last album either...
Andrew
>>is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
>>spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences
You are being foolish thinking that people can live up to everything that they
sing. Those songs are meant to be inspirational and lift the listner;s soul.
I doubt that other CCM artists can liveup to all the songs that they sing.
-Andrew
Visit my Christian Music/Amy Grant Website at
http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/bistro/8754
------------
" Every life every beating heart has a searching soul inside Ever needing, ever
seeking out the meaning of life..." -- Amy Grant
fathe...@home.com
(Darren Aitcheson) wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:41:36 GMT, fathe...@home.com wrote:
>
>>You're trying to retrofit an interpretation to a song that she didn't
>>write and was asked to sing by Rick Elias.
>>--bab
>
> I wouldn't bet that she was asked to sing it by Rich. By the sound of
> things, they weren't overly impressed by having to get the "big names"
> involved with the project. Sounds like a record company thing to me...
O.K., let me put this another way. When I interviewed Rick Elias about
the making of the album, he stated that she wanted to be involved and
even specified some songs that were favorites (Amy _was_ one of the
first people ever to cut a Rich Mullins song, so it would be fair to say
she was a fan and a friend.) When the album was recorded, almost every
vocalist involved sang lead on _several_ songs, and Rick picked the
match-ups he felt worked best.
Skaught
hypocrite. I know I am. Doesn't mean you shouldn't sing them.
Scott
"Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]" wrote:
>
> Neiby wrote:
>
> > >The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> > >is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> > >spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
> >
> > You are being gullible and making the assumption that CCM artists actually
> > believe *everything* they sing.
>
fathe...@home.com
self-promotion]" <aa...@avweb.net> wrote:
> Neiby wrote:
>
>> >The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
>> >is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
>> >spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>>
>> You are being gullible and making the assumption that CCM artists actually
>> believe *everything* they sing.
>
> I didn't assume that. I just pointed out that, imho there is glaring
> hypocrisy in
> her actions vs. the song she sang... not that this is the first time it's
> happened tho (I'm not speaking just about her, but _all_ music in general).
Golly, to quote that great old song by the Bangles, "How is the air up
there?"
There's probably glaring hypocrisy in at least one thing each of us do
David Murray (SG Fan)
fathe...@home.com wrote in message ...
>(Amy _was_ one of the
>first people ever to cut a Rich Mullins song, so it would be fair to say
>she was a fan and a friend.)
Yeah, I'd say when he was camping out in the Chapman's backyard before
anyone had ever heard of him, that would rate as a friendship.
David Murray / dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net
http://rfci.net/dbmurray
http://www.musicscribe.com
Making hay while the sun shines.
David Murray (SG Fan)
rose wrote in message ...
>more, nothing less.
It didn't work with me. I certainly had no desire to purchase his album
after hearing it. I felt sorry for him, sure, but I should be driven to pray
for him, not purchase a recording I don't like just because I feel sorry for
him. Perhaps he felt he had to be honest and not release a "I'm OK.
Everything's fine." project. I admire his honesty, but I don't think it will
win any more fans for his music.
snail
No, but we have been covering your rejection of the nectar of the gods
rather well I think :-)
(BTW re: line lengths, perhaps rather than relying on netscrape you
could try inserting hard returns (aka hit the return key) ? Although
I recognise the difficulty of judging this with proportional fonts).
NP Rackets & Drapes Candyland
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Indeed, the forensic model of justification (the interpretive model
: given confessional status by both the Roman Catholic as well as in the
: Protestant traditions of Luther & Calvin) has come under scrutiny lately
: in evangelical circles, most notably in the writing of Clark Pinnock.
So I hear. I'm not familiar with Pinnock's work myself, but the more I
hear his name, the more I think I should be looking him up.
I believe he co-wrote an article with Robert Brow in which they said the
point of the death and resurrection of Jesus was not so that *God* could
change his mind about *us*, but so that *we* would change our mind about
*God*. That sounds about right to me, and if that means letting go of the
"forensic" model, then so be it. It never made much sense, anyway.
: I attended a theological conference on this topic of the old vs new
: model in 1991 and was rather stunned when Pinnock stated God didn't
: really know how things would end up.
I'm not sure what that has to do with "forensic" models, etc., but the
answer to that question would probably depend on whether you thought God
was inside or outside of time. If inside, then sure, why not, God can be
surprised, I guess. If outside, then everything's already old news to
him; he experiences *everything* in the eternal "now". Me, I tend to
think of God as *both*, just as I also tend to think of him (not
coincidentally) as both personal *and* transcendent.
: But you're right to point out some reassessment is ongoing, albeit with
: some concerns expressed in traditional circles.
Well, that's what traditional circles are *for*! :) Seriously, though,
it always amuses me to see Protestants and evangelicals and other
forget-tradition-and-go-back-to-the-Bible types defending the older
theological models just because, well, they're traditional.
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
No man is an Island, entire of it self... -- John Donne, Meditation XVII
I am a little world made cunningly... -- John Donne, Holy Sonnet V
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] <aa...@avweb.net> wrote:
> >it's just that my sin wasn't the topic of the thread.
>
> No, but we have been covering your rejection of the nectar of the gods
> rather well I think :-)
I guess Dr. Pepper was made by a Southern Baptist... it must be the nectar
of the gods. Tho I'm perfectly happy rejecting both (the SB religion and
Dr. Pepper that is). I've never been fond of either. ;)
> (BTW re: line lengths, perhaps rather than relying on netscrape you
> could try inserting hard returns (aka hit the return key) ? Although
> I recognise the difficulty of judging this with proportional fonts).
I'll see what I can do.
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> If you sang half the songs in your average hymnal, you too would be a
> hypocrite. I know I am. Doesn't mean you shouldn't sing them.
Personally, when I'm singing in church and see that my heart is not really in the place
where I'm professing to be thru the song, I just shut up... I'd rather be silent before
my fellow Christians then try and lie to God.
Aaron.
> "Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]" wrote:
> >
> > Neiby wrote:
> >
> > > >The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> > > >is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> > > >spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
> > >
> > > You are being gullible and making the assumption that CCM artists actually
> > > believe *everything* they sing.
> >
> > I didn't assume that. I just pointed out that, imho there is glaring hypocrisy in
> > her actions vs. the song she sang... not that this is the first time it's
> > happened tho (I'm not speaking just about her, but _all_ music in general).
--
Josh Marihugh
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote in message >Personally, when
I'm singing in church and see that my heart is not really in the place
>where I'm professing to be thru the song, I just shut up... I'd rather be
silent before
>my fellow Christians then try and lie to God.
<Wayne>Good call, Garth.</Wayne>
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: Weird Al Yankovic _Running With Scissors_ (Polka Power!(
cur...@my-deja.com
fathe...@home.com wrote:
> In article <3803BFDF...@avweb.net>, "Aaron Pierce [shameless
> >> >> being beyond god (and by nothing i'm assuming that includes divorce),
Many of her songs she sang and or wrote implied that nothing is impossible
with God. Hang in there don't give up. Love will find a way ...House of Love.
then
> >> >> she says that the marriage had 'irreconcilable differences'.
> >>
> >> >That ain't the way I read it, Michael.
> >>
> >> If what's being said is that "if nothing is beyond God, then nothing
> >> is irreconcilable with God,"
> >
> > My point *exactly*.
>
> I guess you've never heard of songwriters or artists singing about where
> they _want_ to be, not necessarily where they are. Not to mention we
> ordinary run-of-the-mill believers. I'd say nary a Sunday goes by
> without us singing at least one song that's not where I'm at in my walk
> with God but where I wish I was.
>
I believe that to be true to a point, but the words lose their empact when
the writer gives up on trying to do it right.
> Also, keep in mind this was recorded _before_ their separation, not that
> that's especially relevant.
>
> You're trying to retrofit an interpretation to a song that she didn't
> write and was asked to sing by Rick Elias.
> --bab
>
The whole Amy package has been about trying to do it right, and you can
overcome against the odds with God's help. Currock
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matt Laswell
: rose [ro...@SPAMMENOTdp.net] wrote:
:>How do you think statements like that are going to affect them?
:>How is that making his kids his priority when it's just screwing with
:>their heads/emotions? It's a selfish, self-serving statement, nothing
:>more, nothing less.
: it's a sentiment he's entitled to (if he's referring to his wife), kids or
: no kids. the whole divorce has probably screwed with their heads and
: emotions enough already. i suspect he has a reason for feeling that way,
: and since he is a music artist i also suspect that he uses his art as a
: means of venting.
Let me offer my perspective.
My parents divorced while I was in college, after nearly 25 years of
seemingly happy marriage. I never really saw it coming, and to this
day I don't remember things being all that bad in our home. In fact,
I had a pretty happy childhood. But after the divorce, everything
changed.
I haven't had a healthy relationship with my Mother since, though
we had always been close as I was growing up. She continued to
vent her bitterness for years afterwards, often to my face. I
cannot tell you the violence it does to a son's heart when Mom
tells him flatly that Dad's no good. How in the world do you
even begin to process that? It's taken me years to get over some
of the damage done because my Mom needed to vent. Some of it
is still there, a little taste of death that I find in my mouth
when I wake every morning.
If this is the effect it had on a cognitively and emotionally
developed 20 year old, consider the potential for damage in
the life of a younger child.
No child should have to face that, regardless of how much the
divorce has screwed with their Dad's head. To the extent that
Rose's description of Gary's CD is accurate (I haven't heard it),
what he's doing is destructive and simply evil. He is, in some
small way, slowly killing his children.
If I can rant a bit more, let me add that even worse has been the
effect that the bitterness that my mother has so carefully
nourished over the years has had on her. This once vibrant person
is now a personality almost entirely defined by her pain. She
still won't forgive Dad, insists that there's no need to do so.
She finds herself lonely, having driven off the people who love
her by her bitterness. If Gary doesn't forgive Amy for any
wrongs, real or imagined, this is the future he has to look
forward to.
There's a place for processing. There's a place for working
through the anger. It's part of the mourning process, and
it can be very healthy. In front of the kids, indeed in front
of the church and the world, is not that place. Contrary to
what you'll hear on daytime talk shows, venting is often the
worst thing you can do.
God have mercy on Gary, Amy, their kids and all the rest of us.
--
matt laswell -- laswell at jump dot net
"The world is changed not by the self-regarding, but by men and women
prepared to make Fools of themselves." -- P.D. James
fathe...@home.com
<las...@nospam.jumpnet.com> wrote:
Aside from one misquoted song, there is little evidence to suggest that
this is the case. To the contrary, Chapman makes mention in interviews
of choosing mostly outside material for that very reason.
> If Gary doesn't forgive Amy for any
> wrongs, real or imagined, this is the future he has to look
> forward to.
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the Chapman's situation is
even remotely like your unfortunate situation. Both have said that they
tried to take great pains to explain the whys and wherefores of the
divorce and to drive home the pint that the children were in no way
responsible. Gary has alluded to the fact that it would be very easy for
him to become bitter, but any reasons for that certainly have not (and
should not) become public.
> There's a place for processing. There's a place for working
> through the anger. It's part of the mourning process, and
> it can be very healthy. In front of the kids, indeed in front
> of the church and the world, is not that place.
Finally. Someone has stated the perfect reason why this thread should
die now.
Jason Steiner
>
> Chalk me up with Jerry and Chuck. "I gave it my best shot and my
> marriage didn't make me happy, so I got a divorce." How many young
> girls who love Amy will go into their marriages with that standard?
> How far is that from Christ's call to die to self and follow him?
> They're diametrically opposed.
That's funny. I didn't realize Gary was Christ...
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
"a general theme of anarchy, rebellion, and autonomy"
==== ja...@gaydeceiver.com =================== http://www.gaydeceiver.com/ ====
fathe...@home.com
> In article <QGPM3.281$PV2....@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
> fathe...@home.com wrote:
>> I guess you've never heard of songwriters or artists singing about where
>> they _want_ to be, not necessarily where they are. Not to mention we
>> ordinary run-of-the-mill believers. I'd say nary a Sunday goes by
>> without us singing at least one song that's not where I'm at in my walk
>> with God but where I wish I was.
>>
>
> I believe that to be true to a point, but the words lose their empact when
> the writer gives up on trying to do it right.
So what you're saying is a Christian artist is not permitted to fail, at
least, not publicly? I'm really getting sick of this "giving up" crap.
It's not as though Amy woke up one day, said "I think I'll wear white
socks instead of blue and, oh yeah, I'll file for divorce."
> The whole Amy package has been about trying to do it right, and you can
> overcome against the odds with God's help. Currock
Certainly. And how many times have _you_ overcome, only to fail again?
Seven? Seventy times seven? I know I fail God on a daily basis, but
that's not going to stop me from telling others that His way is the best
way. God can overcome me giving his name a black eye from time to time.
David Murray (SG Fan)
<9Z9N3.2050$PV2....@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
>> No child should have to face that, regardless of how much the
>> divorce has screwed with their Dad's head. To the extent that
>> Rose's description of Gary's CD is accurate (I haven't heard it),
>> what he's doing is destructive and simply evil. He is, in some
>> small way, slowly killing his children.
>Aside from one misquoted song, there is little evidence to suggest that
>this is the case.
I don't recall any of the songs bashing a former spouse, literally or
metaphorically. I just listened to the album once, though. I came away with
the feeling that the project was done by someone who is hurting and upset
over his loss, which is what I think the average listener who knows the
Chapmans' situation would think, but . . .
>To the contrary, Chapman makes mention in interviews
>of choosing mostly outside material for that very reason.
Well, now you've cleared that up, I don't guess I have to go on admiring him
for making an honest statement with this project. Or maybe it is honest,
just using someone else's words to express his feelings . . . at any rate,
it's still a depressing album. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it to.
Certainly, it didn't appear to encourage others who are in his position. The
only redeeming quality I'd seen was the fact that he was being honest about
his feelings, rather than putting up a happy front. But you say that isn't
the case, so I'm thinking it would have been better for him to work another
year or two and get something of his own to say before releasing anything.
fathe...@home.com
Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote:
> fathe...@home.com wrote in message
> <9Z9N3.2050$PV2....@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>...
>>> No child should have to face that, regardless of how much the
>>> divorce has screwed with their Dad's head. To the extent that
>>> Rose's description of Gary's CD is accurate (I haven't heard it),
>>> what he's doing is destructive and simply evil. He is, in some
>>> small way, slowly killing his children.
>
>>Aside from one misquoted song, there is little evidence to suggest that
>>this is the case.
>>To the contrary, Chapman makes mention in interviews
>>of choosing mostly outside material for that very reason.
>
> Well, now you've cleared that up, I don't guess I have to go on admiring him
> for making an honest statement with this project. Or maybe it is honest,
> just using someone else's words to express his feelings . .
That's exactly it.
> I'm thinking it would have been better for him to work another
> year or two and get something of his own to say before releasing anything.
Maybe, but if Russ Taff had done that rather than recording "Down In the
Lowlands" and "I Still Believe," he wouldn't have added two signature
songs to one of his best albums.
Michael A. Vickers
>I guess you've never heard of songwriters or artists singing about where
>they _want_ to be, not necessarily where they are. Not to mention we
>ordinary run-of-the-mill believers. I'd say nary a Sunday goes by
>without us singing at least one song that's not where I'm at in my walk
>with God but where I wish I was.
true. you'll also have to consider that the person who apparently wrote it
(rich) probably didn't have divorce specifically on his mind when he wrote
it. at least, not if he wrote it with regards to himself.
michael
nangi namaj perez. n-a-n-g-i n-a-m-a-j p-e-r-e-z. no matter who you are,
no matter what you do, there is only one thing i ask of you... - the 77s
--[michael a. vickers]-------------------------[mavi...@kings-x.com]--
cur...@my-deja.com
fathe...@home.com wrote:
> In article <7u3c3m$mfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cur...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <QGPM3.281$PV2....@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
>
> >> I guess you've never heard of songwriters or artists singing about where
> >> they _want_ to be, not necessarily where they are. Not to mention we
> >> ordinary run-of-the-mill believers. I'd say nary a Sunday goes by
> >> without us singing at least one song that's not where I'm at in my walk
> >> with God but where I wish I was.
> >>
> >
> > the writer gives up on trying to do it right.
>
> So what you're saying is a Christian artist is not permitted to fail, at
> least, not publicly? I'm really getting sick of this "giving up" crap.
> It's not as though Amy woke up one day, said "I think I'll wear white
> socks instead of blue and, oh yeah, I'll file for divorce."
Whoa I just said the words lose their power. It is not in the failing and
getting up that is the problem. That's being a Christian. Does Amy see
herself as failing? No I don't believe she did this lightly in any way. Let
me just say my respect for her and her words has gone down, and my husband
would rather I listen to someone who doesn't have divorce in their vocabulary
as an avenue that one should take as a Christian. Currock
>
> > The whole Amy package has been about trying to do it right, and you can
> > overcome against the odds with God's help. Currock
>
> Certainly. And how many times have _you_ overcome, only to fail again?
> Seven? Seventy times seven? I know I fail God on a daily basis, but
> that's not going to stop me from telling others that His way is the best
> way. God can overcome me giving his name a black eye from time to time.
>
Michael A. Vickers
before i reply, i just want to say that i'm sorry about what happened. i
haven't experienced a divorce with my parents, so i can't begin to tell you
that i understand everything you went through. i can imagine that it really
sucks, though.
Matt Laswell [las...@nospam.jumpnet.com] wrote:
>Michael A. Vickers <mavi...@kings-x.com> wrote:
>:it's a sentiment he's entitled to (if he's referring to his wife), kids or
>:no kids. the whole divorce has probably screwed with their heads and
>:emotions enough already. i suspect he has a reason for feeling that way,
>:and since he is a music artist i also suspect that he uses his art as a
>:means of venting.
>I haven't had a healthy relationship with my Mother since, though
>we had always been close as I was growing up. She continued to
>vent her bitterness for years afterwards, often to my face. I
>cannot tell you the violence it does to a son's heart when Mom
>tells him flatly that Dad's no good.
[snip]
i don't know if i pointed it in the post you replied to or in another, but
what i would have to say that if gary wrote that particular line in
reference to amy (and i think others have concluded that this wasn't the
case), to say that 'i have the right to hate you' and 'your mother was a
two-timing bitch' are different matters.
assuming that gary said that in that particular song, and was even
referencing amy, i'm not so sure that he was/is out of line. expressing an
emotion and telling his kids flatly that mom's no good are different
things.
i'll hedge my bet, though. like i said, i've never been through it myself,
so perhaps the reaction to either of the sentiments would be the same. i
don't know.
cdncatlover
"David Murray (SG Fan)" wrote:
>. . . at any rate,
> it's still a depressing album. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it to.
> Certainly, it didn't appear to encourage others who are in his position. The
> only redeeming quality I'd seen was the fact that he was being honest about
> his feelings, rather than putting up a happy front. But you say that isn't
> the case, so I'm thinking it would have been better for him to work another
> year or two and get something of his own to say before releasing anything.
>
I've new here and have only been lurking but I thought it 'funny' that
you should say tht the album is depressing. I personally haven't heard
the album but I have heard Gary say in interviews that the reason he
recorded songs that he hadn't written himself was because everything he
wrote was 'too depressing'.
Sue
Ed Rock
> JNash07 (jna...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Jerry, it really is not appropriate to call Amy a "bitch" when no one really
> : knows all the circumstances involved.
> : Here is the article that appeared in Saturday's Nashville Tennessean in its
> : entirety. Hopefully, this will help shed some additional light on the
> : situation.
>
> *snip*
>
> i dunno, after reading the article, i'm inclined to agree with jerry.
> that sucks. that really, really sucks.
Divorce sucks. Yeah, divorce is a bitch. Is Amy a bitch? I certainly
don't think so, especially after reading the article. For years I've been
saying I like the "her" she presents more than her music. With _Behind
the Eyes_ I've begun to like the music again. With this article, I'm
liking her a whole lot.
She certainly seems like a woman of integrity who has given the marriage
everything she could. There comes a time when calling an orange blue that
you just have to admit the orange is orange. We live in an imperfect
world full of imperfect people. Things that suck are going to happen. If
things that suck haven't happened yet, stay tuned.
Ed Crabtree [ec...@ga.unc.edu]
Ed is agreeable to making an employment transition; see his resume at:
http://ias.ga.unc.edu/~ecrab/resume.html
Ed Rock
> Chalk me up with Jerry and Chuck. "I gave it my best shot and my marriage
> didn't make me happy, so I got a divorce." How many young girls who love
> Amy will go into their marriages with that standard? How far is that from
> Christ's call to die to self and follow him? They're diametrically opposed.
> She can't disappear fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
Collecting stones?
Ed Rock
[gary's record]
> I listened to it, and I don't feel sorry for him. I can't believe that
> Reunion went with "Nothin Without You" as the first single/album opener.
I'm sure it was seen as a perfect opportunity to make the be$t of the
situation.
Ed Rock
> If two people have determined that they cannot live together and
> that they would be better parents to their kids _not_ living under the
> same roof, who are we to say otherwise?
Exactly.
Ed Rock
> The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses me off
> is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_ and then
> spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
Oral Roberts felt the same way until Richard wanted to divorce Patty.
Ed Rock
> How would counsel someone under similar circumstances? If a couple had
> been coming to you for five years on a regular basis, would you tell
> them simply to pray, trust God, and be miserable for another five? And
> then another five?
Or, like my Holiness aunt and uncle, despise eachother hoping for the
death of the other to set them free...?
Ed Rock
> (Apologies for snipping the whole thing!)
Do not apologize for good netiquette.
Ed Rock
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:41:36 GMT, fathe...@home.com wrote:
>
> >You're trying to retrofit an interpretation to a song that she didn't
> >write and was asked to sing by Rick Elias.
> >--bab
>
> things, they weren't overly impressed by having to get the "big names"
> involved with the project. Sounds like a record company thing to me...
Well, in case the kids here weren't around in the beginning of Rich's
career, Amy was a proponent of his music from before his first record.
The aurgument could (and again I say aurguably) be made that there would
not have been a Rich Mullins tribute if Amy hadn't recorded his music
before he was a "star" and wrote liner notes for his first record.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion] wrote:
> > The whole thing really disgusts me. The main thing that really pisses
> > me off is on the Rich Mullins record Amy sings _nothing is beyond you_
> > and then spouts this shit about "irreconcilable differences".
>
> Oral Roberts felt the same way until Richard wanted to divorce Patty.
Unless you read Patty's book _Ashes to Gold_, in which she insinuates that
Oral pressured Richard to divorce her because she dared to challenge some
of Oral's beliefs (like the whole seed-faith thing).
Oil4hvinss
divorce. When my husband left me I felt so rocked and broken down emotionally
that just functioning was a challenge. I always thought death of a loved one
would be so much easier to deal with because the profound rejection wouldn't be
attached to it. Then there was the whorl of advice from all sides--and even
critisim (God hates divorce you know) even though I didn't want or participate
in the divorce (not to say I wasn't at fault, in part, with marriage problems).
I always wondered how people with kids make it through. Someone told me it is
easier since their needs move you forward more quickly. I've really admired the
way Gary has handled himself through this whole thing to the extent we have any
real perspective. I just know I wasn't married as long, nor did I have kids and
I felt crushed into such fine pieces I didn't know how God was going to make me
a whole person again. He did, of course. But the scars are still there.
If Gary is angry, he's seems to be making a major effort not to vent it
publically. The strength he's showing in the face of what must be public
humilation is really admirable. O4H
Ed Rock
> If you sang half the songs in your average hymnal, you too would be a
> hypocrite. I know I am. Doesn't mean you shouldn't sing them.
Wow, I think we have a Church of Ed and Dave theological award winner.
Well put.
Ed Rock
> Personally, when I'm singing in church and see that my heart is not
> really in the place where I'm professing to be thru the song, I just
> shut up... I'd rather be silent before my fellow Christians then try and
> lie to God.
Maybe I should be following Aaron instead of Jesus.