Why I Love Frank Garlock and Ron Hamilton
Recently, I allowed myself to get caught up in online debate about the compilation of songs on a CD. On further reflection, I think it was a waste of time. However, blogging can be quite passionate.
Anyway, given the negativity of the discussion, I decided to put a positive spin on the subject. The CD is published by Majesty Music out of Greenville, South Carolina. Majesty Music is a sacred music publishing company founded by Dr. Frank Garlock. Dr. Garlock is an incredible musician, playing with a symphony orchestra as a boy and studying at the Eastman School of Music. While he doesn’t carry an aura of academia, he is brilliant, especially in the area of music theory. He served for a number of years as a music pastor in one of the larger Independent Baptist churches in the Greenville area. His son-in-law, Ron Hamilton, is known around the Christian world as “Patch the Pirate” due to a patch he wears over an eye lost to cancer. Ron is a songwriter who has been used by God in the character development of literally thousands of children through his unique ministry. He has a wonderful family and currently serves as a music pastor in Simpsonville, South Carolina. Dr. Garlock’s wife Flora Jean and daughter Shelly Hamilton complete the inner core of the Majesty Music songwriting team. Many of their long-time friends have also worked and helped with the ministry. Majesty Music has put together numerous recordings and published many musical collections for singers and instrumentalists. Earlier in his ministry, Dr. Garlock traveled extensively teaching music seminars around the country and chaired a graduate program at a large Christian College.
Okay, that is just off the top of my head and not meant to be a complete or detailed history of the company. The fact is: they’ve been busy, and God has allowed their business to prosper, both within the United States and also abroad. Dr. Garlock spent a long time editing a new hymnal, Majesty Hymns, which you will find in many fundamental churches in the United States.
Okay, a little more background info: The Garlocks and Hamiltons are friends of mine, and longtime friends of my wife’s family from South Carolina. I have spent time talking with each of them about ministry issues and practical issues. I have shared meals with them. In my formative years in high school and college, these men (and women) had a large influence on me, particularly as a church musician and pianist.
Here’s the disclaimer: I don’t agree with everything that Dr. Garlock teaches in regards to music. I have stated such disagreements before on this blog and others. I also don’t currently use much of their music. I don’t have their hymnal in my church. I don’t remember the last time I bought a Patch album, although I have many of them.
Having said that, I still want to make this point: I love Frank and Flora Jean Garlock and Ron and Shelly Hamilton. Let me tell you why:
- These men love their God. It is not just in word; it is in deed. I have seen it first-hand.
- These men love the Church. They have devoted their lives to giving the Church new music with which to praise God, educate children, and challenge sinners. They are still devoted to this task. They host annual seminars to help to equip pastors and lay musicians in their service to God. They love to inspire them.
- These men are humble. They carry no airs about them. They realize they are fallible. I have seen both men in different settings publicly admit mistakes. They do not relish praise from men. They don’t strike back when others attack them. I remember writing to Ron as a teenager because I was concerned about a couple of songs on his “Patch Goes West” cassette. He took the time to send me a personal letter and explain his reasoning in a very sensitive and caring way.
- These men love people. They are accessible. They are servants and generous to others. They always have time for children.
- They are not profit-driven. I have witnessed numerous occasions where Dr. Garlock has given away merchandise to someone who couldn’t afford it. They have always given a very generous discount to missionaries. They live very modestly and are generous to the cause of Christ.
- They are concerned about the influence of the world on church music. While I will not agree with all the conclusions Dr. Garlock has reached in this area. I respect his piety for God’s worship.
- They embrace creativity and are not afraid to try new things. I see this as a positive part of what Majesty Music is. Shelly, especially, has always sought to broaden her knowledge of composition and arranging and apply that learning to published works. Some people will not appreciate the styles or sounds of various recordings, but many do. They are not stuck in ruts as often as other music publishers seem to be.
- Regarding the whole “pirate” thing: I think Ron would be the first to say that a pirate is not a good person and that the history of such characters is replete with ungodliness. However, with the pirate patch that he wears, it is a natural reaction from children to call him a pirate. Ron has never, to my knowledge, promoted any aspect of pirating that is evil. He sails a fictitious ship, refers to the Bible as his “sword” and that’s about it with the pirate thing. Most people are willing to accept the title as he has defined it through his recorded adventures. If you want to make a big deal out of it, fine. Piracy is evil. But Patch the Pirate is not.
- Family is a priority for these men. Their families have experienced trials and struggles like any normal family, but keeping their family together and growing in the Lord has taken priority over other “successful” ventures. When his constant traveling began to affect his family, Ron pulled the plug on his busy itinerant schedule and took a pastorate locally while his kids grew up.
- These men (and women) are partly the reason that I am in music ministry today. Their love of the Church and their love of music was infectious to a seven-year-old boy who sang a solo (”Rejoice in the Lord”) for the first time in his church after hearing Ron’s testimony and song. I have enjoyed the piano instruction from the Hymnplayer series and the piano recordings and arrangements that Flora Jean and Shelly have done. They motivated me to work hard to become a good pianist and use that skill in my church. I even remember dressing up like Patch the Pirate and leading music services in my garage for neighborhood kids when I was in elementary school. These people helped to fuel in me a gift that I was just beginning to recognize, a God-given passion for pastoral ministry.
Anyway, I say all that to say this: I don’t always agree with Dr. Garlock and Ron Hamilton. In fact, I have some strong disagreement. But I will stand side-by-side with them as ministers of the Gospel. At times, they deserve criticism, as we all do. They are NOT, however, causing irrevocable harm to our churches or our children. They are a blessing to both. And to me.
FWIW, I would not disagree with much (if any) of what you have said about them personally. I’m sure that all the people involved are genuine and sincere, and have had positive impact. They have in mine as well (although the extent of my wife’s involvement with them was that she sang “Keep Your Sunny Side Up” with Patch in a grade school production at Grand Rapids Baptist Academy as a child.
What I don’t understand is why we could discuss, say, the polity of John MacArthur, or John Piper’s views on the Holy Spirit, or whether or whether Kevin Bauder should speak at a Presbyterian seminary, or if Jason Janz should have spoken at the GodBlogCon- and not many would feel compelled to defend such men personally or feel like they had had their reputations slandered. It would be a discussion based on principle, and whether or not we agreed and why.
Why can’t this be true when it comes to beloved Fundamentalist musicians?
What is important to remember here is that Frank Garlock and Bill Gothard were the men who took the argument against modern music from “that demon jungle bunny beat” to a psychologically-based, Biblically proof-texted “position”. In doing so they are guilty of teaching error and sowing the seeds of discord.
make that psychology-based
Because Greg, despite calling them “beloved” I see very little of it (love) in posts from you and those like-minded on this subject.
Sure, love means speaking the truth even if it hurts, but love also means “believing all things, hoping all things.” The constant barrage of skepticism and pessimism with regards to organizations like MM to me is unsettling. We can address their errors, and I have. We can talk about principles, and we have. But to engage in mockery and satire with regards to Christian brothers is just not where I believe the Lord wants me to be.
Brian,
Thank you for such well-written support. While I may not have a current “friendship” with the Hamiltons & Garlocks, I learned much about the Lord and what true humility is from them. I worked at MM for nearly 5 years, before the Lord moved my husband (and myself) into full-time ministry. The Lord has blessed this family and their ministry over and over again.
I don’t believe that much of the debate that has taken place over the last week has been Christ-honoring, and it has been discouraging for me to see what Christian men and women do in the name of a discussion or debate. It seems to me more about “stirring up strife”, but maybe that’s just my female point-of-view.
I am a former student of Dr. Garlock’s taking music theory from him when he taught at BJU; was in his vesper choir for 4 years and I take credit for Ron and Shelley getting married as I talked Ron into changing choirs when he was a student living next to me in the dorm. I have not seen any of the discussion on MM and I will say that I have used their music in the past. I much prefer the Trinity Hymnal to their’s as my heart is blessed each Sunday as our church sings from that Hymnal. Good theology appeals to the mind and heart.
That being said, I agree that Dr. Garlock is a gentleman in all areas. We had the pleasure of having the Garlocks in our home several years back. I was impressed by the way Dr. Garlock took the time to speak to each of our 3 children individually asking genuine questions of interest as to what was going on in their lives. He did not need to do that but that is the kind of individual that I have always known him to be. He even compared his psoriasis with my daughter’s to see whose was worse. She really appreciated that he took the time to take interest in her. Do I agree on all that he teaches in regards to music? I truthfully must say that I do not. But he is a man who loves the Lord and seeks to serve Him with the talents intrusted to him
Brian,
I’m not sure how I’m supposed to “show love”- do you expect me to do a post like yours? Should I do a post on “Why I Love Billy Graham” after I disagree with his position on separation?
It seems to me that when these accusations of “not being very loving” come up is when it is somebody we know and love or have “been a fan of.” I have appreciated and benefited from MM’s ministry since I was a child. But it would not be loving them or those I influence if real concerns with some of their recent decisions and trends (appearing regularly in Hammond, tendency to blur lines between entertainment and ministry more and more) were not mentioned. Frankly speaking, I don’t see many others doing it.
I would welcome personal interaction with someone- anyone- from MM on this. I can assure you I would not be brusque, rude, or obnoxious- even if we didn’t end up drawing the same conclusions.
I mean, come on- we disagree all the time, Brian. Do you really think I don’t love you?
Thanks for all the nice things you said about me, Greg. I would do a follow-up about you here, but then people might start throwing up with our syrupy sentimentalism.
I think I expressed what I wanted to say about the lack of charity in posts about Majesty Music, etc… It strikes me that many of these posts are not just about principles to be discussed and concerns to be aired. Rather, it comes across to me with a heavy dose of sarcasm, skepticism, and pessimism about these people who are in our spiritual family. It’s not the “what is said” that bothers me; it’s the “how it’s said” that makes me want to stick up for people like MM. It’s the little side comments that are made. The way that such thoughts are lauded and encouraged at places like Remonstrans.
As I said before, I’ve commented many times on the disagreements I have with Garlock and others in the realm of music philosophy, sometimes very strongly so. And, I’ll be the first to admit that I have stooped to posting comments that were skeptical and pessimistic about brothers in Christ–things that contradict what I learn of love in places like 1 Corinthians 13.
Yet, there seems to be a steady diet of mockery toward these brothers. I don’t like it. It makes me laugh sometimes, unfortunately, but it’s not what I want to spend my time on.
I would object to the accusation of mockery. This isn’t a matter of heaping derision on them. Think of it like an editorial cartoon- someone who made such a point against the president, for example, would not mean that they hated the country- in fact, in some ways, it could demonstrate one’s passion and love by the time they took to know the situation and even have an opinion about it in the first place.
Satire and parody are legitimate devices. In the case of the fake CD cover, many seemed to struggle with exactly what I saw to be the problem with the Renfrow CD. I thought one good way would be to reword the promo for the Renfrow CD slighty (adjusting the main performer, and the theme and selections of the album) to something more obviously ridiculous but obviously mismatched (as I think the selections on the Renfrow CD are as well).
Nothing would bring me greater joy than to see even a public statement and explanation of recent moves (such as the Hammond appearances, the Renfrow CD, etc etc). As it stands right now, they seem to be above criticism. I’m not sure that’s a place any of us should aspire to be, whetehr we think the criticism is purely motivated or not.
mock·er·y
1. ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2. a derisive, imitative action or speech.
3. a subject or occasion of derision.
4. an imitation, esp. of a ridiculous or unsatisfactory kind.
5. a mocking pretense; travesty: a mockery of justice.
6. something absurdly or offensively inadequate or unfitting.
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME moquerie < MF. See mock, -ery]
—Synonyms 4. mimicry.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Exactly. I hold no contempt for Mr. Garlock, Hamilton, or Renforw. I do take exception to some of their choices and practices.
Okay, good. I’m glad to hear that.
What would you say about my comparison of your satire and parody to the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13? Do you think satire and parody can complement true love or are they opposed to it?
I don’t think that these methods are incompatible, no (though they could be used in an unloving way).
You might have a stronger case if I had anything to gain from this- perhaps promoting my own recordings or music company. You might have a case if I was gloating or taking delight in what I perceive to be bad choices. You might have a case if I was promoting rumors, innuendo, or flat-out lies.
But whatever else you might say- I am not responding to anything that is not public and verifiable. I am not responding as one taking gleeful potshots from “the outside” (like, say, “we” might do to a CCM artist). I am not raking in any dough selling subscriptions or receiving donations.
Why do I say what I say? Because I love God. Because I love Fundamentalism and people who have been under its influence. Because, frankly, I love the goal I perceive Hamilton and Garlock, et al have attempted to pursue over the courses of their lives. and I would wish that their company would make decisions that would aid in realizing that rather than responding to the appetites of perceived clientèle.
Brian,
Basically Greg critiqued the ideas and the methodology of MM. He did not impugn anyone’s character personally. I understand the need to remain biblical in one’s remarks, and often in my attempts at humor, etc., I fail or am perceived to fail in that regard. But Greg was expressing love–love for the Cause of Christ…That is undeniable…
In fundy blogdom, ideas and methods get critiqued (and the people promulgating them are left alone), and yet often I see you, Tetreau, and others respond as though the person got gored, instead of his ox (his ideas, methods, etc.)
In one discussion at SI, men who held similar views (incl. Greg and I) were having our views critiqued by a lot of posters. No one attacked me, Greg, or other sympathizers–just our ideas. Someone came on and made apologies, and hoped that we weren’t “hurt” in the whole discussion. I recall both Greg and I making comments that we weren’t “hurt” and that it was strange to speak that way because we were in the sphere of ideas, not personalities. It is what I have perhaps carelessly referred to as the “Oprah effect.”
When is it loving or unloving to question other Christian’s ideas and methods? When is it wrong to wonder if (rightly motivated or not) someone is doing damage to the Cause of Christ through ignorance, misguided thinking or carelessness?
Thanks for taking my post…
I respectfully disagree, Sam.
You said, “When is it loving or unloving to question other Christian’s ideas and methods? When is it wrong to wonder if (rightly motivated or not) someone is doing damage to the Cause of Christ through ignorance, misguided thinking or carelessness?”
It’s unloving when the “questioning” and “wondering” becomes unloving. Love is pretty well defined in the Scripture, don’t you think?
Brian, I guess we get to agree to disagree. Unlovingness is being credited to Greg for his willingness to express his love for Christ and His Church. Why is anyone’s critique of Greg’s desire for caution in the area of sacred music not seen as an unloving response to his desire for caution?
I guess we have quite a different idea of what loving Christ and His Church means, Sam. I guess I fail to see the legitimate place for satire and parody when it comes to confronting Christian brothers. You guys obviously do. We disagree.
I would encourage Greg and others who share his assessment of this latest CD to please contact Majesty Music and Ken Renfrow and express your concerns to them directly.
It appears that most of you just don’t get it. It is not wht Frank Garlock, Ron Hamilton or you think about music that matters one bit. It is what God says that is Truth. People talk about being devisive. What is more devisive than the Gospel of the Lord Jesus? I don’t care waht music you like or don’t like. All I care is what music my God creats and ordains. Next to food, music is a fleshly obsession for most people. Fat preachers try to proclaim Jesus and self discipline. Worldy musicians playing music designed to enflame the passions of the flesh try to proclaim a humble “submissive to His Father’s will” Jesus. Both are anathema. Try to take obsessive eating and worldly music from most Christians and they will turn into junk yard dogs. They vilify what the Bible describes as Godly music, hymns psalms and spiritual songs, and call those so inclined as narrow minded. Yes so is the Gospel the narrow way. Broad is the way to destruction and narrow is God’s way and few there be that find it. Get off your platform and on your knees and ask God what music honors and blesses His name. Be willing to accept His answer and He will reveal to you the Truth. It will look and “SOUND” like Jesus.
Left the world for Jesus.
Buck,
I find your comment interesting and thought-provoking. I once held very strong convictions against music styles different from those in my comfort zone, but I began to realize that my standards could not be explained to others or forced on others. They worked for me, but they were not absolute because they were not all clearly delineated in the Bible. I still listen to the same music as I did before, but am not so quick to condemn a song unless I have something specific to point to (profanity, racism, self-help theology, drug use, etc.). Some of the questions that led me to this position were the following:
First: What exactly what enflames the passions of the flesh and can I show this either by solid logic or by some scriptural passage? Is it found in the repetition of phrases, number of beats, tempos, decibels, or specific meter? Does it provoke that response universally and can I prove that response factually? What does the Bible specifically say about music? What are solid biblical criteria for determining if an act (including listening to a specific song) is sinful or not?
Second: What do I mean when I use the term “world” or “worldly,” and is my use of these terms aligned with the Bible’s use of them? Furthermore, does my application of this term to the musical realm correspond to how I apply the term to other realms of common decision-making (clothing, recreation, hairstyle, transportation, communication, etc.)?
Third: Because something is wrong with a song, is the whole genre bad? Furthermore, how do you define “rock music”? What about other genres with similarities to rock such as blues, jazz, pop, gospel, and “popra” (the Celtic Woman/Josh Groban pop/opera stuff)?
Fourth: How do I deal with other devoted, Spirit-filled, Christ-loving, fundamental Christians that end up comfortable with things I’m not comfortable with after great prayer and Bible study on the issue?
What I ended up finding is that I was uncomfortable with any song that seemed like it had a beat in it because I had grown up that way. Other good Christians who were not taught this from childhood did not find these problems with certain songs. I also found that I was constantly calling genres/songs worldly because they were either (1) modern or (2) associated somewhere down the line with other songs/genres that were unbiblical. My use of “worldly” could not be applied to other areas of my life. I could not avoid wearing suits because sinful people somewhere are wearing suits; I could not avoid driving a four-door sedan because it was modern. Neither of these criteria for the term “worldly” was actually working in real life. Also, my generalizations of “rock music” were confronted with specific facts (e.g. Josh Groban is not a rock musician and performs songs that, to my knowledge, do not contain immoral lyrics). I realized that I was trying to assimilate too many genres into one term (“rock”) so that I could define them by another term (“worldly”) that I could not define properly.
There was a time when I would have considered the very words I am writing as liberal and evangelical propaganda, but now I have evaluated my positions and seen them to be merely traditions. I, for one, still find my traditional Christian music and classical music comfortable and stay within my comfort zone; however, I find neither biblical precedent nor solid reason for trying to condemn other believers for their broader comfort zones. That being said, I also don’t have any trouble counseling teens struggling with listening to things like Rihanna’s “Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded” and telling them specifically what is wrong with what they are listening to. Furthermore, I still can find problems with the utilitarian (end justifies the means) or “draw the world” mentality for the use of certain kinds of modern music in the church (btw “traditional” Christian music can be used in a utilitarian manner as well). In other words, a willingness to be understanding of other Christians’ comfort zones coupled with a proper understanding of the terms involved in the issue at hand does not erase the presence of right and wrong/proper and improper, it simply puts them in much more defined areas. Attacking other Christians for their participation in what I find uncomfortable (but not truly and obviously sinful) only serves to advance a “touch not; taste not; handle not” [listen not?] mentality condemned by the Bible (Col. 2:21-22).
I admire your passion brother Buck, I would just ask you to consider these questions. If you disagree with my conclusions, I at least appreaciate your honest consideration of my comments. I do not intend anything to be seen as a personal attack on you or the music you listen to — I’ve been right where you are Buck! Thanks man…I hope this wasn’t too obnoxiously long (brevity comes hard for me).