Forcing Amy Grant to apologize for her divorce. – By Matthew Paul Turner
Chasing Amy
– February 2, 2010
Forcing Amy Grant to apologize for her divorce. – By Matthew Paul Turner
About the Author
Richard Clark (Co-Founder/Editor-in-Chief) has spent his entire life writing, reading, listening, and playing. He has a Bachelors in Theology from the Baptist College of Florida and has a Master of Arts in Theology and the Arts from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY where he is the classroom technology manager at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In addition to writing at Christ and Pop Culture, he is also a staff writer for Kill Screen Magazine's website and has written for various other outlets such as Paste, Gamasutra, and Collide.
Email: deadyetliving [at] gmail [dot] com. Twitter: @deadyetliving. Xbox Live: deadyetliving 
Holy cow! I absolutely could not believe what I was reading! I’ve never been a magazine reader, so I don’t have any relationship whatsoever to CCM, but wow…! I can’t believe that story is for real… Amazing…
Wow. Unbelievable.
How many times and ways can you say, “Wow!”? It nauseates me to think that the publisher of a Christian magazine would direct a staffer to fabricate quotes to suit his needs. I’m so sorry for you and for Amy. Thank you for standing for truth.
Thanks for this link. Definitely makes me want to get hold of Turner’s book. I am glad that the writer showed some integrity. I can’t imagine CCM is going to take this lying down though – defamation suit anyone?
I agree that the article was disturbing–if it is indeed true.
But equally disturbing was the inference that the author drew from his experience that “biblical literalists” are all rude, condescending, and unloving. Whereas I would argue that if we take the Bible literally (where it is meant to be taken literally, some of it is symbolic, not most of its moral teaching though) we will be more loving, more gracious and at the same time take sin more seriously.
While I think that the aforementioned CCM editor probably needed to let things go, the conclusion to draw from such an encounter is not that someone who lives by moral absolutes is dangerous–that is an unfair inference that made me question the whole article–because the writer seemed to clearly have an agenda to defame this particular CCM editor.
Yeah, Drew’s on target here. Where the article could have been about how to deal graciously or otherwise with those we believe to have sinned (in the author’s case, either Amy Grant or Gruffgruff McGruffypants), instead it was a hit piece. It’d be okay (functioning as a hit piece) if it really named names and dropped the sanctimonious air. Instead it came off as little more than the ranting blog-post of somebody who still hasn’t gotten over his own personal Vietnam. I mean, catharsis is good and all, but… maybe save it for the secret diary.
I’m still not sure what the intended point of the article was. I mean beyond the fact that the guy didn’t like his boss who wouldn’t look him in the eye. (You know how I know he wouldn’t look him in the eye? Because that was apparently so important to the story that it had to get beaten into the ground. Yes, we get it. You walk into his office and he doesn’t make eye contact. He’s a) callow and b) as bored by your posturing* as I am.)
*note: it may not be posturing, but it sure reads like it is.
Note II: Drew’s also nicer than I am.
Haha . . . I was just encouraged to see that you had written the words “Drew is on target here”!
Really? You guys read that and got mad at the author? Weird.
I might be wrong, but I think that the point of the article is to give people a look inside the “Christian” music business. A lot of people don’t realize that the bottom line is just that – it’s a business and not any different from secular run companies (magazines, record labels, etc.) There’s far too many people who just blindly assume that since the “Christian” label is slapped on something, it’s better or even more holy.
I think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that the point of the article is that “all Biblical literalists are rude, condescending, etc.” If anything even close to that, it would be a good example of how Biblical literalism can be used as a device for some people to get their way or prove themselves more holy than others – which isn’t uncommon. But even with that being the case, I find it hard to believe that was the point he was trying to make.
I didn’t get “mad” at the author–now you are reading into my comment–its ok though I am not upset . . . lol.
I certainly agree with what you are saying about the Christian music industry. My point was that if we really take the Bible literally we ought to be more gracious and more loving–which the author clearly made a connection between this editor being rude and cold and being a “biblical literalist.”
He also ended the article with a slam on the guy’s “moral absolutes.” Divorce can be a complex issue and certainly there is reason to be very upset with this editor’s expectations but that doesn’t have anything to do with his belief in moral absolutes (it could but it doesn’t necessarily)–it is an ungrounded inference. That was my point. I think the argument being made in the article would have carried more weight had it been free from inferring the source of this man’s rudeness to be his literal interpretation of the Bible and his belief in moral absolutes.
Maybe the guy was rude because he is a jerk. I don’t know . . . I don’t know the guy. So I am not mad at Matthew Paul Turner, I just think he gave a poor argument by inferring that this editor was rude and mean because he took the Bible literally. Like The Dane said, it could have been an honest discussion on healthy ways to address sin and how to be gracious with our speech etc, but instead it was kinda more of a slam piece.
And maybe its just me, but Turner’s prayer for Amy Grant to like him was kind creepy . . . that is probably a personal problem of mine though.
Kiel, I think the difference is between the point the author was trying to make and the point he made. Or at worst, between the point he wanted us to believe he was trying to make and the point he made.
It could have made an interesting behind-the-scenes look at the publishing world, but the author got waaaaaay too melodramatic with painting Gerald as the black-hearted antagonist. Instead of an incisive look as the Christian music industry, we get a story about Gerald, the meanest man on earth—a man who hates a sweet-as-buttecups girl named Amy.
Rather than talk about the idea of Grant needing to apologize to CCM fans, whether stars are ethically beholden to the starmakers, whether Christians should support stars who are unrepentant over past sin, whether there was room for Gerald’s view of things and the author’s—rather than any of that or anything else that could have been useful, the author simply wrote “Okay, so I had this boss named Gerald. He was a real jerk. Ha ha. Doesn’t that make you sad and angry and smug and self-satisfied? Like it does me.”
Only he used way more words to say the same thing.
There was no content to the story. Just an anecdote without a home. The article didn’t give us a look inside the “Christian” music business. It just gave us a look inside the author. See, Gerald isn’t the Christian music business, just one single cog in it (if he even exists as portrayed). Gerald could rape unicorns and it still wouldn’t say anything about the Christian music business. Well, beyond the fact that businesses make mistakes when hiring.
The Dane said: “I’m still not sure what the intended point of the article was.”
One problem with this excerpt, especially if you have no prior familiarity with Matthew’s writing, is that it is less than half the word count of the full essay, which is only one chapter in Hear No Evil. Knowing Matthew’s work, I’m not sure where the impressions you all have of the author came from.