Fundamentalism, Culture and Lost Opportunity
I woke up this morning thinking, “Not enough people are mad at me.” Hence, this post.
Actually, my sincere hope is to encourage, not more rage but more reflection on all sides of the fundamentalism-and-culture issue. I’m going to argue that the two perspectives that are most passionate and opposite on this question are both wasting an important opportunity. First, some framing.
Fundamentalism and cultural conservatism
The central question is basically this: how should Christians evaluate heavily culture-entwined matters such as music styles (chiefly in worship), entertainment, clothing, etc.? To nuance the question a little more: how should churches, ministries, and individuals connected with fundamentalism and its heritage view these cultural issues?
Two nearly-opposite sets of answers to this question have become prominent among leaders and ministries of fundamentalist lineage. My guess is that most people are really somewhere between these two attitudes, mixing points from each. But the two near-opposite views seem to have the most passionate and articulate advocates.
At one end of the question, we have the Kevin Bauder, Scott Aniol, David DeBruyn, et. al. axis. At the other end, representatives are more scattered (and more numerous), but recent high-visibility proponents include Matt Olson of Northland International University and pastor Bob Bixby.
At the risk of catastrophic failure in the first 300 words, I’ll attempt to fairly summarize the differences in these two perspectives at least well enough to talk about them clearly. Because we’ve already got more than enough overstatement in the mix(!), I’ll consciously aim to err on the side of understatement.
Cultural conservatism
Let’s call the Bauder-Aniol point of view “cultural conservatism,” and simplify it as the idea that everything cultural is full of meaning and that the meaning is heavily influenced by where we are in history as a society—both in the history of ideas and in the history of cultural changes associated with those ideas. In short, nothing cultural is neutral, everything must be scrutinized for fitness for use by Christians, and that scrutnity should be biased in favor of the not-recent past. To say it another way, we ought to look at cultural change with a regard for the past that increases (to a point) as we look further back. I think I can fairly say that this view sees changes in culture in the West as being mostly negative since the middle ages.
The cultural conservatives are often about as unimpressed with 19th century “Second Great Awakening” music as they are with most of today’s “CCM.” It’s a lonely place to be, because it means most of what’s being created now is junk and much of what we (and our grandparents) grew up singing in church is junk, too.
Full disclosure: I’m mostly in the Bauder-Aniol-DeBruyn bailiwick. Though I would often argue the case differently (sometimes very differently), I consider myself a cultural conservative.
Cultural anti-conservatism
The perspective I’ve identified here with Olson and Bixby has many, many representatives. And I’m sure that “anti-conservatism” is not what they would choose to call their point of view. I apologize for that. It’s my intention to represent this perspective fairly and accurately—I just don’t yet have a better handle to attach to it.
This view rejects the idea that there is a superior cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West. It associates the cultural reactions of 20th century fundamentalism with legalism and tends to see the “standards” and “rules” of that era (and the surviving present forms) as often arbitrary and ill-conceived, at best, and as a ruse for unethical exercise of power and oppression by fundamentalist leaders, at worst.
In this view, the meaning of musical styles (and clothing styles, forms of entertainment, etc.) either never amounts to much to begin with or very quickly fades into irrelevance. Since the Christian faith and the church cross millennia and know no ethnic boundaries, the range of acceptable cultural forms for Christian worship is very broad and continually changing. Further—and this is an important point—the time has come to put many (most?) of the cultural stands of movement fundamentalism in the rear view mirror (post haste!).
Why the debate is going nowhere
Just looking at the ideas at stake, it should be pretty clear why the culture debate is not a trivial one. If everything cultural is packed with meaning—and not necessarily meaning we are conscious of—and if that meaning matters to God, we have much sober thinking to do about every bit of the culture we accept and use.
If, on the other hand, cultural meaning dissipates quickly into irrelevance (or doesn’t exist in the first place) and if tradition-favoring fundamentalists merely use these matters to impose their personal preferences on people, it’s possible that the “rules” not only dishonor the God we claim but that these traditions also cripple the joyful, heartfelt and free expressions of worship God wants from His people.
These are not abstract questions that should only interest academics or “overly contentious people.”
And that means all who love the Bible and want to live for the glory of God in these chaotic times are facing in important opportunity. More in line with the scope of this essay, we who are of fundamentalist heritage have an important opportunity.
But as far as I can tell, both sides are mostly botching it. There is almost no real engagement.
On one hand, Olson (and many others—let’s be fair) is saying rules and do’s and dont’s have no relationship to spirituality or sanctification and that to believe they do is legalism. And Bixby (and, again, he’s hardly alone) is saying that the cultural conservatives are basically arrogant, condescending snobs who are heaping guilt and shame on the “the average fundamentalist,” who, by the way, is a mindless, conforming robot.
On the other hand, the case for cultural conservatism has often included a “You’re too ignorant to understand; take my word for it” subtext. Though I can’t supply examples, I’m pretty sure I haven’t imagined that (I say this as one who is very sympathetic with their position). Proponents of cultural conservativism have also shown a tendency to be brittle in response to passionate opposition.
So in different ways (by insult or by non-engagement), both sides have shown a tendency to preach only to their own choirs (or praise bands, as the case may be).
The passion is good
Let’s be clear, though: these matters are too important to consider in a completely passionless way. We’re not debating infra- vs. super-lapsarianism. (Okay, that debate’s been pretty passionate too—aren’t they all?!) So I’m not faulting either side for getting hot and bothered at times. There would be something really twisted about examining these ideas with yawns and drooping eyelids.
But that means both sides of the question should expect that the other will, at times, commit the errors that always attend passionate disagreement. We humans just can’t be worked up as we should without also being worked up in ways we shouldn’t and lapsing into overstatement, bile-dumping, walking off in a huff, etc. It isn’t good, but it is normal. Rather than judge one another by unrealistic standards, we should quickly recognize how prone we all are to “gettin’ ugly,” and open the forbearance valve wide and hard.
At the same time, realizing how sensitive and close-to-heart these matters are (and how much historical baggage is attached), we should accept the need for extraordinary self-restraint (vs. extraordinary effort to restrain the other guy—i.e., shut him up). The debate calls for understanding and persuasion, not reaction and coercion.
For my part, I’m fully prepared to grant that just about everybody on both sides (and the points between) of the “cultural fundamentalism” question is keenly interested in doing what honors God and best serves His people.
The opportunity
So what is this opportunity we’re wasting? For the sake of brevity, perhaps it’s best to put it in terms of what could happen if enough believers put their minds and hearts to it.
I already hear snickers at my naïve idealism. But this isn’t really “idealism.” Idealism confuses what ought to be with what really is. Pursuing what truly could eventually be is something else.
What could eventually be—an articulate group of leaders on each side of the question could:
- separate the debate from the meta-debate
- identify the real the points of agreement and disagreement
- have the real debate
These points require more expansion than this post permits. A few clarifying observations, though: on both sides of the culture question (and several of the positions between), argument has occurred in a manner that obscures rather than clarifies the real points of disagreement. They have poured all sorts of meta-debate into the mix, making what’s really at issue nearly impossible to identify or engage.
It’s tragic. These matters are so important. It’s also tragic because a healthy debate exposes and highlights real differences so that those trying to make a wise, godly decision are better informed. We need a healthy debate about culture and meaning.
I hope to give more attention to meta-debate and points of agreement in a future post.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
Jay,
Scott and Mike Riley (I am assuming that is the “Mike” in your post, because it’s not me) are responsible for their arguments. I did not see Mike calling anyone the Devil. I didn’t see name calling by Scott in your post either. Scott’s normally careful about that kind of thing. Bauder is also quite careful about name-calling and ad hominem arguments as such. I don’t doubt, however, there are violations of this nature on both sides of the argument.
Pastor Mike Harding
Mike,
I can appreciate your push back. I think it is a fair commentary to note that many of those older sage SBC guys see something of value in Scott’s work. Furthermore it’s of interest to me that Scott’s view is actually accepted in an orb outside of Type A fundamentalism. That always gives me pause. When I see a leader being accepted only by his corner of the vineyard - that doesn’t say much. When I see multiple sections of the vineyard opening up to a leaders thoughts - I stop and reconsider the message. That’s just me. Of course that is tempered by the academic nature of the seminary ethos. Scott may represent a philosophical alternative that these SBC men are for the moment intrigued by. Time will tell how Scott does in an SBC context. I honestly hope he does well. I pray he finds a “niche” and a community that receives well his “niche.”
So, I would hope that even in a case like “music” which always brings peoples emotions to a “bubble!” we can debate with vigor…..yet at the end of the day remain charitable with those differences.
Mike, my guess is both sides - or all three or four or five or how ever many views we have here at SI - most of us have a bit of a chip on our shoulder because we just know that the other guy is trying to throw us under the bus. We just know that you and Bauder and Scott and the rest of the “Beethoven Group” are looking down your long reformed/refined noses at the rest of us who are so base as to use that which is syncopated or hymnody which misses your aug-ust target.
Actually I’m kind of relieved Scott has ended up as a Southern Baptist. It demonstrates what I kind of knew with you BG guys - there is some diversity amongst you guys after all. That’s outstanding - you have to love diversity. So I would be first to say - in a sense I’m not offended if your personal or even your church view of music is more or less “strident” than mine as long as you love the Lord, preach the gospel and are striving to live under the corporate and individual Lordship of Christ….and that you would not tag the brotherhood as “losers” just because they don’t hold to everything your music philosophy represents.
So I think If you and men like you can say - you “non-BG men” out there can still be good men if you take a different view of this - I think the tone would diminish. I don’t think we have heard you guys say that. If you have said that maybe you need to say it louder - use pictures - you know you and me with our arms around each other - around the SI camp fire. Stuff like that.
Many have this fear that was engraved in them back in the 80’s or 90’s that as soon as you cross “the man” or the local fundamentalist “war lord” on whatever - then your ministry or influence is over. It doesn’t dawn on guys those days are over - Hallelujah the Fiefdoms are finished! It doesn’t work that way any more - imagine my little “happy dance” here. OK - don’t image my happy dance.
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - as to the Devil thing - let me add my own thought there - go ASU “Sun Devils!”
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Jay,
Please correct if I’m simply being blockheaded here and missing your nuance, but are you reading the quote you cited from Scott (and, indirectly, from me) as saying that those advocating a progressive position on music are somehow like the devil? If so (and again, if I’m just failing to read you correctly, please let me know), I wish to apologize for an unclear use of language.
When I said, “Let me play progressives’ advocate,” I used that locution specifically because I wanted to avoid saying “devil’s advocate” in connection to the position I’m arguing against. When Scott asked, “Are you equating progressives with the devil?” I took him (he can clarify here, as he wishes) as making an attempt at humor (which is dangerous in a heated discussion). When he says, “I agree, of course,” he is not saying that he agrees that progressives are like the devil. To read him as saying that is completely wrong. What he agrees with is not linking progressives to the devil, but (in the context, this seems apparent to me) the further point that I made in the post itself (that disagreement between conservatives and progressives goes down to method of argumentation). He clarifies this directly in the sentence that you quote from him and leave unhighlighted.
This is likely too long a post for is a simple misunderstanding, but I wouldn’t want anyone reading this to think that those of us arguing for conservatism would simply write off progressives as being “like the devil.” We have not done so, and would not do so.
Come on………..
Aaron posted this thread to begin with - we need to see more “pejoratives” against Aaron for even writing this note. Let me start - Aaron - you dork! I don’t know why you are a dork - but I just know you are for some reason. Take that you hyper-legalistic, compromising, hyper-sensitive, left-leaning, ultra right buffoon!
So there!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I agree with Mikes first statement, I have not really been involved with the Northland disagreement and a see it as a completely different issue. And I am not really sure of the context of anything you’ve just quoted, so I will not comment on it. I don’t really see that as the same issue (though it probably is a related one). The issue you are dealing with in the above is separation, not legalism. The question you are alluding to is a question about separation and whether or not non-salvific issues are appropriate to separate over, I would assume we would probably disagree on this judging by your post, but in my mind that is not the issue of what I am talking about. I am dealing specifically with the subject of legalism and what it really means when someone uses that term. Mike was correct in saying that no one (necessarily, I really can’t speak for other standard users on SI because I am speaking from my own standards and speaking in defense of Kevin and Scott, whose work I am familiar with) is imposing upon anyone anything. Now some would argue and perhaps you are among them, that separation in a way is imposing upon others. But I would disagree with that especially when dealing with my own circles. This has much to do with the idea of covenanting institutions. I personally view separation in this way, as separation is often the negative aspect to the whole view. Institutions that agree to work together and share the work of the ministry together. This is first (and biblically seen) on the church level. In a local church people covenant around a church covenant, When you join a church you are required to agree to and often sign such a covenant. Very few church covenants of any stripe are just made up of doctrine, they deal with polity, worship, and philosophy issues as well. When one agrees to such a covenant they are responsible to abide by that covenant, and if they don’t they are subject to church discipline. This is not legalism, because the reason you are being disciplined is due to breaking a covenant not any of the actual issues at hand. Now when institutions work together (at least in denominations that are autonomous) they agree to work together based on like doctrine, convictions, and philosophy and direction. It is perfectly acceptable for one institution to chose not to work together or to separate from another institution when that institution changes doctrine, convictions, philosophy, or direction. In fact they can really chose not to share the ministry for any reason what so ever. Why? Because we live in a Stewardship of Grace. It is up to us and our church leaders to best decide who to cooperate with using the limited time and resources we are given. Now the difficulty happens due to all of our sin. When institutions work together for a long period of time and then one side decides to stop that cooperation based on a change in direction, due to the complexity of the interworkings of the fellowship and the amount of human beings with sin natures involved, things always get messy. It is almost inevitable. People say things they regret, due to emotions and/or not fully understanding the situation. Articles get written back and forth to try to help explain to constituents why things are happening this way, this leads to discussions that tend to get heated as people weigh in their opinions on what is happening. It does not discredit the need for choosing not to work with certain organizations that are made up of individuals that truly love the Lord with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. It does not discredit separation or the stances of any parties involved. It is a part of this messy thing called life. Sin stinks. Have people on both sides said things they shouldn’t have? You bet ya. But is anyone being a Liberal or a Legalist, there may be some individuals but they are in the minority. Is Northland compromising? possibly. I usually don’t use those words, but it is very likely from the little I’ve paid attention to the whole thing that they are changing or moving in a direction they have previously said they wouldn’t and there may be support for some people to say this has something to do with trying to improve enrollment numbers in an economy that has hit most Bible colleges very hard. That by definition would be compromise. That being said. I really don’t have in opinion on that because I wasn’t really ever a huge fan of Northland before any of this happened. My intentions in my posts in this thread were to clarify terms and deal with objective issues.
Joel,
I recently returned from Brazil teaching at the Baptist Mid Missions seminary in Curatiba. Taught homiletics and hermeneutics there for about 50 hours and preached in numerous churches at night and on the weekends. I learned how to speak Portuguese in one week. Just add “O” to every word—Pastooor Miguel Hardingo. Please, Greg, no more pictures. The missionaries greeted me with a blown-up poster of your last artistic creation. I don’t remember signing a release on that either.
Actually, Joel, there is a decent amount of literature on this subject from the evangelical world. Scott is tapping into those resources. The worship/music debate is much more than a fundamentalist shibboleth. My personal position is very close, nearly identical, to the recently published BJU statement. I know Scott, Riley, Bauder, and myself well enough that we are not looking down our arrogant noses at you, Jay, et. al. I think the BJU statement indicates a similar attitude. Kum Bai Yah, My Lord, Kum Bai Yahhhhh, mmm mmm mmmmm my Lord, mmm mmm mmmmmmmm (slowly fade). You see, Joel, I’m not nearly uptight as you think I am.
Pastor Mike Harding
Joel,
I will have to correct you again. In Portuguese it is pronounced “Dorkooo”.
Pastor Mike Harding
In the opening post, the follow words can be seen.
On one hand, Olson (and many others—let’s be fair) is saying rules and do’s and dont’s have no relationship to spirituality or sanctification and that to believe they do is legalism.
Upon looking up the link to Olson, I found the following words.
Institutional rules, regulations, guidelines, and policies can serve a purpose. We all have them as a functioning part of life—whether home, church, or institution. Rules have the ability to protect, structure, and control behavior but they cannot produce spiritual life, real growth, or lasting fruit. Authentic Christianity can only be realized through Christ, by means of His Spirit and His Word, as faith is exercised. There is nothing to add. If you do, you have another gospel.
When the OP uses the words “no relation to spirituality or sanctification” that is missing the point that Olson is making. Olson is simply applying Galatians to the issue; what he is addressing is the effective causes of spiritual life, etc. “Relationship” is another category. The OP is taking a step back in specificity, but in so doing the paraphrase broadens the category addressed, to the point that the paraphrase now becomes a straw man, since it is now encompassing a much broader field. Olson also appears to be making a distinction between “functional” standards and the viewing of those standards as if they are the effective cause of spiritual life, real growth, or lasting fruit.
Whether or not his point is valid is not at issue for me right now; I’m just pointing out what I see as a misrepresentation. Once, a correct representation finds its way into the discussion, then there may be something to discuss.
Finally, I’m sorry if this has been addressed already, but I’m just responding to the Opening Post with some preliminary thoughts before even looking at the 55+ responses.
[Anne Sokol]It appears that someone has beat me to the punch, though I addressed it a bit differently.…
no one who really understands God’s grace believes this:
On one hand, Olson (and many others—let’s be fair) is saying rules and do’s and dont’s have no relationship to spirituality or sanctification and that to believe they do is legalism.”
Matt wrote:
Rules have the ability to protect, structure, and control behavior but they cannot produce spiritual life, real growth, or lasting fruit. Authentic Christianity can only be realized through Christ, by means of His Spirit and His Word, as faith is exercised.
There is a lot of difference between these two statements.
… Back to your regularly scheduled programming …
Please, Greg, no more pictures. The missionaries greeted me with a blown-up poster of your last artistic creation. I don’t remember signing a release on that either.
Ha! We have some BMM connections there- folks we support and so on. Well done, guys! :)
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Mike Harding]Bob,
Scott and I are in agreement theologically and on most worship/music issues. His personal character, values, integrity, doctrine, and family life are outstanding. Scott’s family has grown up in our church for over 25 years. His mother has been our elementary principal for many years as well. Scott, as your know, has been heavily involved in IFB churches, schools, colleges his entire life. Several years ago he pursued his Ph.D. at Southwestern in the only seminary to my knowledge that offers that level of training in the field of music, aesthetics, and worship. While there he was asked by Paige Patterson to teach some grad classes while working his way through school. He finished his program just a few days ago and now he is going on full-time faculty as a professor. I had him teach one workshop at my conference while he was pursuing his Ph.D. as a part time grad teacher. I was supporting him financially, but I have ceased that support as of several months ago. I wish that one of our churches or schools could have taken him on fulltime. However, those opportunities did not come to fruition. I am no fan of the SBC; however, the substance of Scott’s doctrine, lifestyle, worship practices, have remained extremely conservative. I just received his Ph.D. dissertation and am looking forward to reading it.
My man Mike;
I have not followed all of this but your and your church’s relationship with Scott Aniol is interesting. Don’t get me wrong. I think it is outstanding that Scott did his PhD work at a SB seminary and is an elder in a SB church. For me as a non-militant biblical separationist this presents no problem. I’m surprised it doesn’t for you although I’m glad. It gives me hope that you might support us again someday :-). Seriously, I mean after all the well-deserved accolades you have for Scott and that you are no fan of the SBC, am I wrong in seeing selective secondary separation? You even allowed a SBC prof and elder teach a workshop (only one I see). It seems that if someone is in “agreement theologically and on most worship/music issues” they override what many would consider compromising SBC connections. I would love to sit down with you and pick your brain someday.
Still your friend,
Steve Davis
p.s. Is this the school where Scott teaches? Looks like CCM to me.
http://www.swbts.edu/campus-news/news-releases/youth-ministry-lab-offer…
So Mike-o
First, nice job on the Kum-bay-ya! Second, Steve asked the question I wanted to but didn’t. Watching that answer with interest. Third, I’m not worried at this stage of the game how you “& friends” view my approach - but I was simply stating those fears fuel the level of angst in my view.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I ask this in all honesty. What is the difference between having someone from Master’s (Rick Holland) and having someone from SWBTS and a member of an SBC church (Scott Aniol) in to speak at a conference? I am sure that Rick has good personal character, values, integrity, doctrine, and family life. Why would it be okay to have Scott in and not Rick? Is it because of where Scott and Rick would differ in the music department? I personally have no problem whatsoever with either one of them and would have no problem with either one of them coming to a conference to speak. But I am genuinely curious as to the difference.
Andrew Henderson
After reading the opening post and “some” of the discussion afterward, here are some thoughts after a bit of introduction.
Using some of the terminology above, I’m more in the cultural progressive camp as opposed to the cultural traditionalist camp. However, I was definitely born and raised in the traditionalist camp. One of the big things that helped me to think critically (not saying that others are void of critical thinking) about my upbringing was a massive shift in theology. What that theology is/was is not at issue; however, that shift brought about a desire to reacquire Biblical moorings. Consequently, I was much more open to reevaluating my previously held beliefs, since some had been decimated by a closer examination of the Word. One of those beliefs were my standards. This paragraph is written to give the reader a slightly better “context” in following what is to be mentioned.
Context is actually quite important. It was in a basic linguistics class or speech class that I first noticed a communication paradigm. It dealt with issues like the “sender” and the “recipient”. It also dealt with “noise”; those are the things that happen between the persons, external to the persons, that blocks or hinders communication. Words like “encoding” and “decoding” were also at play. After all, when a person wants to communicate a message, he/she then has to “encode” or produce a “form” of communication. The “recipient,” upon receiving the message, also has to “decode” the communication. We also have the skill levels of both individuals to take into account as well. Sometimes we just flat out don’t communicate well; and likewise we just flat out don’t listen well either. However, the point of this paragraph is found with the opening word: context. And this issue of context can be found in both the “encoding” process and the “decoding” process. What this means is that “communication” is not a simple thing. There are complications, and I really like what Dr. Bauder has stated before in critiquing fundamentalism for its common sense realism roots. This just means that people tend to see things in an overly simple manner sometimes.
While I’m not necessarily speaking of others on the “culturally progressive” side of things, I can at least speak for myself via personal experience. The argument that I often run into by the culturally traditional is often guided by what appears to me to be a rather naive view of “meaning.” Granted, my time in the “cultural fundamentalism” camp is about 7-8 years removed; so my comments come from that earlier time period as well as reading some on this website and others. But things need to get back to this statement about a naive view of “meaning”. Further granted, Dr. Bauder could probably destroy me in a hermeneutics test, so I’m writing as one who is expressing an opinion but I’m also open to correction. Meaning is not monolithic. Just because Bach or whatever classical guy influenced or wrote something, it is still associated with sin. Sin can be the motivation of great architecture and design just as much as sin can be the motivation toward chaos. Hence, arguments built upon a guilt by association argument destroy all forms of communication and nullify the holiness of everything used in worship, when taken consistently. The issue then becomes, “what sanctifies the inherent corruption in everything?” And I would put out a previously used word: proper context. Context is quite key when a person “decodes” something. If my internal context is providing a conceptual framework for the encoding process that is positive, then I will be much more likely to view the music in a positive light. If my internal context is providing a conceptual framework for the encoding process that is negative, then I will be much more likely to view the music in a negative light.
Here is an example. Case #1: Having grown up in a culturally traditional church, I encountered a great number of times when the piano was played during the offering. Let’s consider a song that is almost universally agreed to be a conservative song: “Amazing Grace”. The pianist is accomplished and capable, and the piece is played flawlessly. It is also played in a culturally traditional manner. Further, it clearly incorporates elements of classical music into its arrangement. Again, the pianist is accomplished, and the piece is played flawlessly and with excellent dynamics (loud and soft at the appropriate moments). Hence, an exquisite masterpiece has been played upon surface level examination, and this seems to be the level were many stop. Unfortunately however, the pianist is quite proud, and the entire “performance” was just that; it was a performance. The music never matched the heart of the person, and the “style” regardless of its traditional stance, was just an outward facade. Dead men’s bones were on the inside of the whitewashed sepulcher. The individual had massively corrupted the traditional music by fame seeking and the pride in showing off his/her skills. Aloof the person stands from others of lesser capabilities. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. People are watching and listening! Again, the performance is flawless; the pianist sits down, plays, and gets up in a way that never indicates his/her pride and motivations. The person watching is brought to tears because of an internal context of the word of God. The person is thinking of the words of the song as the pianist is playing, and the person is relating the words to the Scripture, and then the person is relating all of that to God’s gracious working in his/her life. The “performance” is seen as a wonderful and awesome experience, and the person’s heart is directed in genuine praise to the One who deserves it. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. Another person is watching! The person is nervously examining each and every note, examining each and every change of tempo and volume, examining each and every movement of the arms of the pianist, examining the quality of the piece itself. And the person is doing this because of a different internal context through which the meaning is being decoded. The person observing, in this situation, is also a pianist; and he/she is in direct competition with the other pianist for the top spot at the church. Consequently, he/she has an internal context of competition and over-examination to look for flaws in the performance. Whatever words/lyrics might be a part of “Amazing Grace” are completely lost to that person because of the internal context. Hence, this person is not making any connection to the words of the song, nor is the person making any connection to the realities of the Word and grace. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. Another person is listening. This person has just newly begun to understand the history of the the song itself. This person has an extremely passionate stance against slavery, and hence whether or not John Newton became a Christian is entirely beside the point. He was involved in the slave trade!!! And this person, via an internal context of massive antipathy against slavery, is utterly at a loss as to why the church would EVER play such horrid, terrible music! Doesn’t the church leadership realize how bad slavery is? The internal association with the sin of slavery and the brutality and murder completely contextualizes the message of the song in such a way that the person is in a state of righteous indignation against the church leadership. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. After the “performance” has ended, the pastor gets up, says “amen,” and thanks the musician for the piece. And all of those people, then perceive his words in different ways. To the one, pride and ego stroking are the response. To another, praise to an awesome God is the response. To another, utter disgust against another receiving the praise he/she so desperately craves. To another, never coming back to a worldly, slavery endorsing church is forefront.
The point is that sin permeates a lot more than people give credit; meaning is naively assumed to be overly monolithic in the “worship” experience; and the word of God via the Holy Spirit internally sanctifies the listener and performer with the proper context to send and receive the message communicated. Much of the culturally traditional argument seeks to try to poison the internal context of the listener, so that only a message of unholiness can be heard. I would suggest that this cultural baggage is not always in the mind of the listener, nor need it be; and so the music is seen in a different light. Hence, there is a generational gap because the young simply do not have the same internal context of the older generation. This is also true of different churches with different cultures; the context differs. Therefore, how the music is viewed differs. Hence, just because something is culturally traditional does not mean that it is good, and just because something is culturally progressive does not mean that it is good. The same can be said of the negation of each. (no doubt, a great many issues have not been dealt with, but who ever deals with all the issues all the time with every piece of writing; I wrote this to address a particular issue that seems at fault, and that has been underlined above.)
For those of you who are interested, Scott Aniol is here, at the 2013 Chafer Theological Seminary Bible Conference.
CTS does not use the fundamentalist label though it would be consider fundamentalist probably more so than many fundamentalists schools. Very old Dallas Seminary in their formation.
This video which was created by Dean Ministries (Robert Dean) is a must see for all, on both sides.
I am happy to have encountered this seeing that this association of Teachers, Pastors, churches and CTS theology are my theological roots and upbringing. That is a personal comment and is, of course, not germane. I encourage viewing the video.
[Mike Harding] Scott and Mike Riley (I am assuming that is the “Mike” in your post, because it’s not me) are responsible for their arguments. I did not see Mike calling anyone the Devil. I didn’t see name calling by Scott in your post either. Scott’s normally careful about that kind of thing. Bauder is also quite careful about name-calling and ad hominem arguments as such. I don’t doubt, however, there are violations of this nature on both sides of the argument.
Hi Mike and Michael-
It’s OK. Really, it is. I’ve gotten used to it, but I just couldn’t sit here and pretend that it isn’t a issue, even a very minor one, anymore. I’m sure that Scott doesn’t believe that I’m like the Devil or that I demeaned him or his position. Jesus told me to expect persecution in the world, so I learn to roll with it a little more each day, even when it comes from my brothers (which is what all of you are).
What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture. Let’s disagree - by all means. That’s what the site is for. But let’s not get into the position where ______ clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he hasn’t studied the Scriptures. We can and should be more charitable than that to each other. We can disagree vehemently on the principles and practices without violating Ephesians 4:29-32.
If NIU was wrong to shift music positions, then let’s discuss it. But let’s do it without making them the ‘enemy’.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
“What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture.”
A (seemingly) long time ago in a thread far, far away DavidO asked what biblical principles you use in evaluating music (tune, not text) and you graciously said you would spell that out. I believe he was sincere in his question and I believe you
were sincere in your offer. I’m interested, too.
Well, I was out busy and 28 posts later, I’m back.
But there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that connected directly to the OP, so… I don’t seem to have fallen behind.
On the rules of separation issue, that’s, as we say in Wisconsin, a whole nuther subject. But not unrelated, certainly. I’m not sure where to go with that other than to repeat that I believe a healthy debate about culture and meaning is well worth having and the insult-exchange (whether directly or by implication) is not helpful.
If there is a concerted effort to realign the criteria for separation, I have to confess ignorance on that one. But I think the degree of redefinition, even in the representations I’ve seen here in the thread, may be exaggerated. Fundamentalists have long felt that preaching and practice on some cultural matters, both in and outside of the context of corporate worship were grounds for varying degrees of non-cooperation and, sometimes, outright “separation.”
So in that sense the idea that “conservatism” is among the bases for limited fellowship is not a new one. It’s just a new name for what we used to call “not conforming to this world” and so on (I’m OK with shorthand terms for biblical ideas: Trinity for example… not that I’m putting conservatism on that level of importance doctrinally.)
What might be new is a willingness to soften the associational critera for separation. I think on that subject it really is time to recognize that the landscape has changed and the situation is far less black and white than it used to be (though it never was as black and white as many seemed to suggest). The SBC is far from perfect, but sure isn’t what it was before the conservative (there’s that word again) resurgence.
I’ve got another post coming on this subject, and then maybe another after that, and then I think I’m going to give up on the topic again for a while.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Brenda T] Jay wrote, “What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture.” A (seemingly) long time ago in a thread far, far away DavidO asked what biblical principles you use in evaluating music (tune, not text) and you graciously said you would spell that out. I believe he was sincere in his question and I believe you were sincere in your offer. I’m interested, too.
Brenda, I think you ask a fair question. But here is the thing. I do keep up with RAM to a large extent. I have read Scott’s books. And I have never seen him give musical specifics in how to evaluate a tune. And he is supposedly the expert. It seems to me that it is a bit unfair to ask Jay to do something that the other side refuses to do.
Hey there GregH. Thanks for the fairness tip, but it wasn’t my question. And, as I look back on things I see I was wrong — Jay brought it up first with this comment.
My point is this - if we handed a bunch of Bibles to a group of unsaved pagans with no contact to “the West” (think the Auca Indians from fifty years ago) - would those Bibles be sufficient to teach them how to write songs and conduct musical worship? I think that they would, and I don’t think that we need to parachute Scott (or anyone else) in there to teach them the appropriate music, instruments, or style to use. I think that God would accept their musical worship insofar as it agreed with the concepts the Bible teaches.
Greg,
I’m certain you would be able to accurately categorize various works as art music, pop music, folk music, grunge, jazz, folk rock, country, what passes for country today but isn’t really country anymore so much as twangified rock, etc.
Scott’s pretty clear about which of those he believes are fit for worship and why.
Furthermore, although I don’t have ready access to his Worship in Song, I seem to recall a section describing what kind of melodic movement and modes, rhythms, etc to which he ascribes various emotional meanings.
That’s pretty clear. He doesn’t give proof texts, but then his view of sola scriptura, as opposed to Jay’s, doesn’t require him to.
As to my inquiry, it was genuine, but no one should feel pressed to answer. Whenever, or never, is fine.
It was the following statement by Jay that prompted the initial question
Bible = acceptable music that is pleasing to the Lord (My argument)
[Caleb S]The point is that sin permeates a lot more than people give credit; meaning is naively assumed to be overly monolithic in the “worship” experience; and the word of God via the Holy Spirit internally sanctifies the listener and performer with the proper context to send and receive the message communicated. Much of the culturally traditional argument seeks to try to poison the internal context of the listener, so that only a message of unholiness can be heard. I would suggest that this cultural baggage is not always in the mind of the listener, nor need it be; and so the music is seen in a different light.
Hi Caleb,
Nice to see you on here. I too have some background in linguistics and the Gadamerian hermeneutical tradition, so much of what you said makes sense to me. I’d like to explore this quoted portion above a bit more. I agree that some traditionalists do what you say, focusing on a presumed internal context for meaning. However, I think that there is another, opposite approach to this issue that at least some are pursuing. This approach would be to make music into a more straightforward biological/psychological stimulus-response affair that bypasses subjective associations and culturally-influenced meaning altogether. So, X music style by virtue of its very formation produces Y effects in the human body and psyche, whereas A music style produces B effects. So, if we know what effects are good and bad, and which styles/forms produce those effects, AND if we know those links hold true generally regardless of culture, we have a fairly simple argument. Take a food analogy: individual subjective and cultural context play very little part in determining what a significant amount of hydrogen cyanide is going to do to a person.
However, I am skeptical that music’s effect on the soul can be assessed so determinately or independently of culture and subjectivity.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Aaron Blumer]Well, I was out busy and 28 posts later, I’m back.
But there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that connected directly to the OP, so… I don’t seem to have fallen behind.
On the rules of separation issue, that’s, as we say in Wisconsin, a whole nuther subject. But not unrelated, certainly. I’m not sure where to go with that other than to repeat that I believe a healthy debate about culture and meaning is well worth having and the insult-exchange (whether directly or by implication) is not helpful.
If there is a concerted effort to realign the criteria for separation, I have to confess ignorance on that one. But I think the degree of redefinition, even in the representations I’ve seen here in the thread, may be exaggerated. Fundamentalists have long felt that preaching and practice on some cultural matters, both in and outside of the context of corporate worship were grounds for varying degrees of non-cooperation and, sometimes, outright “separation.”
So in that sense the idea that “conservatism” is among the bases for limited fellowship is not a new one. It’s just a new name for what we used to call “not conforming to this world” and so on (I’m OK with shorthand terms for biblical ideas: Trinity for example… not that I’m putting conservatism on that level of importance doctrinally.)
What might be new is a willingness to soften the associational critera for separation. I think on that subject it really is time to recognize that the landscape has changed and the situation is far less black and white than it used to be (though it never was as black and white as many seemed to suggest). The SBC is far from perfect, but sure isn’t what it was before the conservative (there’s that word again) resurgence.
I’ve got another post coming on this subject, and then maybe another after that, and then I think I’m going to give up on the topic again for a while.
Aaron, as a fellow cultural conservative and someone who probably attended BJU about the same era as you (the 80’s), I have to admit there has been a slight shift in how conservatives viewed separation from the late 70s thru today. When we were in school there was a black and white separation issue with the SBC with their doctrinally liberal seminaries and affiliated colleges and churches. In the early 80’s I don’t remember “the music” as the stated reason by fundamentalists as the reason for separation. In fact, there were churches and christian schools aligned with, and sent their children to BJU that had quite the “loose” music standard for worship, drums and all. When I was a kid in the 70’s our church was headed by two current MBBC board members and our music was Gaitheresque in style. Music standards seemed to “tighten up” during the 80’s among the IFB world that even Gaither was frowned upon. Blame Garlock/Hamilton? I don’t know. Then, the SBC became more theologically conservative, but maintained their cultural music path so that, now, culture, though quite an important issue, has become the main differential between us. I am not here to debate whether music is a separation matter, but just to note that music wasn’t a significant issue for separation back in the day.
Andy and Steve,
Thanks for your input. As you may be aware, Scott just graduated with his degree only a few days ago and will now become a full-fledged professor. Things have changed for Scott this year. Forgive me for not being too quick on the trigger, but I don’t cut a guy off because he is getting his doctorate at an SBC school. We did cease his financial support about three months ago. One of my own staff is getting his Ph.D. from Southeastern. As far as his church is concerned, I just learned yesterday that he is an elder. In the recent past Scott told me that his local Baptist church was very, very conservative in worship and orthodox in doctrine. My guess is that he has to be a member of an SBC church in order to be a full-time bona fide professor. Again, these developments are very recent. I am no fan of the SBC; however, as most of us know, there are some very conservative churches doctrinally and philosophically in the denomination. There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well. I am not sure Warren is qualified to lead a Bible study. The difference between Holland and Scott has to do with music and worship styles. I never criticized Holland for his doctrine, church, or personal life. He is solid doctrinally, but I personally think he violated some key principles in worship and music at his RESOLVED conference. My difference with him was more of substance than his association with Grace, In many ways Grace is a very good ministry. JM has become quite militant in recent years. I also appreciated what JM wrote on music in his commentaries, but his practice in certain areas is broader than I would allow. I hope this clears things up.
Pastor Mike Harding
I want to thank Caleb and Charlie for their posts on how people receive music. The food analogy came up with Charlie and then Andrew too. I think it has great potential for illustrating the debate.
If music is likened to food, the following analogies may be drawn:
- The Bible doesn’t expressly forbid certain types of food (in the NT era after Mark 7, Col. 2, and 1 Tim. 4:4).
- The Bible doesn’t expressly forbid certain types of music (although there are occasions where music is associated with evil practices - Nebuchadnezzar’s Idol, the golden calf, etc.
- Too much of a certain type of food can be unhealthy.
- Too much of certain types of music can be unhealthy.
- Some food is more appropriate for “fine dining” and royal banquets, than others types.
- Some music may be more appropriate for worship than others.
What I’m trying to illustrate is that in saying one cultural form of music is of a higher aesthetic and more innately “good” than another, is similar to judging steak better than twinkies. We may think offering a twinky to a King is foolish, but is it necessarily sinful?
Yes, certain kinds of food are deadly intrinsically, and there may be some kinds of music that have an intrinsic dead-ness but that is not as apparent as with food.
My contention with music has been for a long time that the musical accompaniment, the musical form itself, divorced from words, is almost never specific enough as to its associative connotations or communicative quality, to be immoral. It almost always required additional context and most often, the addition of lyrics in order to communicate with a sufficient degree of specificity to be immoral.
Don’t have time to develop this to the degree I’d like - it merits more thought. I just wanted to add this to the discussion in some way, to see if Charlie, Caleb or Andrew - or someone else could run with it further.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well.
At the same time, Mike, as a local pastor friend reminded me recently, Dever is the one who is on record as saying that if a church articulates doctrinal specificity on matters of eschatology, they are in sin. I think Dever would be fine with Scott’s church’s statement on this:
XII. The Last Things
We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and in His eternal kingdom in heaven. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous and the eternal damnation of the wicked.
For that matter, so would many others here at SI. But from the environment in which he was raised, and what he learned under people like you, Ken Endean, and Dr. McCune, it’s a deviation. That is contrary (because it is less specific) to the dispensational hermeneutic that has led many of us to make a precise stand on things like a Pre-Tribulational rapture, a literal 1000 year reign of Christ, and God’s promises to Abraham, David, and Israel having literal fulfillment.
This is what I’m talking about when I say that the landscape is changing. Apparently, the quality of one’s liturgy can now trump doctrine for some. Apparently, potential influence can trump principled stands. Apparently, job qualifications can trump secondary separation principles.
Apparently.
By the way- I don’t resent anyone for any of this. I just think that it’s ironic for people to be making a big deal over some of the things that they do, while appearing to completely ignore others. Things are getting complicated, and yet we seem to handle some of these things in very black and white ways (like music), while overlooking others.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
I agree with you about Dever. I was simply using him as an illustration of contrast in the SBC. Scott is pre-trib, pre-mil., and dispensational I am not speaking for Dever anytime soon, nor he for me.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding]Again, these developments are very recent. I am no fan of the SBC; however, as most of us know, there are some very conservative churches doctrinally and philosophically in the denomination. There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well. I am not sure Warren is qualified to lead a Bible study. The difference between Holland and Scott has to do with music and worship styles. I never criticized Holland for his doctrine, church, or personal life. He is solid doctrinally, but I personally think he violated some key principles in worship and music at his RESOLVED conference. My difference with him was more of substance than his association with Grace, In many ways Grace is a very good ministry. JM has become quite militant in recent years. I also appreciated what JM wrote on music in his commentaries, but his practice in certain areas is broader than I would allow. I hope this clears things up.
For whatever it’s worth - Dever’s position in the SBC (and now, Dr. Aniol’s as well) is worth encouraging and supporting. Even though he and I would disagree on eschatology (as Greg noted).
The enemy of my Enemy is my friend - especially in spiritual matters. Even when we don’t stand cheek to jowl. :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Scott is pre-trib, pre-mil., and dispensational…
Is he? One couldn’t tell from the doctrinal statement of the church where he now pastors. Compare it to to your church’s, or the FBFI’s. It’s not that hard to see. One could easily hold an amil or postmil position under that statement. Easily.
I don’t mean to sound snarky when I say this, but maybe it’s an easier pill to swallow for some of you BJU alumni. In the GARBC, for example, there is an atmosphere where you can allow some latitude on music expressions, but the way they approach the Scriptures (including eschatology) is much more defined- because they believe the case can be objectively made using Scripture. And let’s face it, whether you agree with that position or not, you can at least see how the position is drawn from their interpretation of Scripture when they’re done.
I’m not saying one’s position on musical issues aren’t based in Scripture. But the specific applications can at least appear much more subjective when one is making a case- which is why, the more I look at the landscape, I am becoming more inclined to be less rigid in my assessment of those whose practice may not line up neatly with my own in these areas. I may not adopt their approach or allow its expression in settings where I am responsible, but neither would I see it as a reason to withdraw all fellowship or accusingly question one’s commitment to holiness and personal separation.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
I sat on Scott’s ordination council at FBC Rockford, read his doctrinal statement, and signed his certificate, along with a dozen other IFB dispensational pastors. Scott has not changed his doctrinal statement to my knowledge. Being an elder in a Baptist church does not necessarily mean you are the pastor of the church. Minnick has elders, but they are not pastors per se. Whether that is the case with Scott, I don’t know.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Brenda T] Jay wrote, “What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture.” A (seemingly) long time ago in a thread far, far away DavidO asked what biblical principles you use in evaluating music (tune, not text) and you graciously said you would spell that out. I believe he was sincere in his question and I believe you were sincere in your offer. I’m interested, too.
[GregH] Brenda, I think you ask a fair question. But here is the thing. I do keep up with RAM to a large extent. I have read Scott’s books. And I have never seen him give musical specifics in how to evaluate a tune. And he is supposedly the expert. It seems to me that it is a bit unfair to ask Jay to do something that the other side refuses to do.
I thought I had answered that question already in the original thread, but can’t find it now. My apologies. I think Brenda asks a fair question too, and I’d love to see Dr. Aniol (or another professionally trained musician) take a crack at it. As for me, I can’t evaluate the ‘tune’ itself. I don’t think we should do that, because the ‘associations’ of the music style vary from person to person, and because the music styles themselves radically vary between people in different cultures and different times. I also think, and I’m going to expand on this in what will hopefully be a future article, that the Bible gives us warrant for that kind of argument. Aaron put it best - the church of God is transcultural and transchromal (to coin a term), so styles come and go, but only truth remains.
I believe that it was Joseph Haydn’s compositions in his day that were scandalous and even caused women to faint when they were played in concert halls because of their melodies and structure. Does that happen to us now? Someone mentioned that a believer in their own church was saved out of Satan worship and could not listen to Bach (maybe Beethoven?) because of the associations - I guess the organ music was used during their ‘services’ or something. Yet I have music from both composers, and more, that I’ll occasionally listen to and enjoy (Especially if you get the $8.99 “Big Beethoven Box” at Amazon. It’s hard to go wrong with 175+ pieces of music for that cheap!). So why do we worry so much about the ‘style’? If the attitude of the composer is right and the lyrics are right, then I think that the composition will intrinsically reflect the right structure. Rap songs, for example, about illegal and immoral acts will have a style that reflects their discordance with God and His Word (because of general revelation - Romans 1).
Is that helpful?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Being an elder in a Baptist church does not necessarily mean you are the pastor of the church.
Oh, so now ecclesiology is up for debate now, too? I always thought that 1 Peter 5 made it pretty clear that an elder=pastor/shepherd=bishop/overseer. He may not be the “lead” pastor, but if he is an elder, what other role would he be functioning in than shepherding the local flock?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
You should known that elder mean’s different things in current and various local church contexts. Dever’s elders are not all consider “pastors” or at least, some are not in full time ministry paid positions in the church.
As for Scott, I suspect that his new connection will mean he won’t be gracing many independent Baptist churches in the future. Mike has already said he has made something of a break with him. Can’t be a very pleasant topic for him, he has been close to Scott and his family for a good long while.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You should known that elder mean’s different things in current and various local church contexts. Dever’s elders are not all consider “pastors” or at least, some are not in full time ministry paid positions in the church.
Actually, I’ve been to CHBC for a Weekender and sat in on an actual elder’s meeting. Their elders do all have teaching responsibilities. Mark is not the chair of the elder board. They do all have shepherding responsibility, and equal input on matters of doctrine and care of the flock. Not all are staff, but they all would pastor. If you read them on this (9 Marks and what not), that is something they make clear.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Don Johnson]Don,Maybe I read Mike wrong. I didn’t get the impression of a “break” with Scott. I thought support ceased due to Scott becoming full-time prof. Perhaps Mike would clarify. I would hope Mike would not break with Scott on his SBC connections but further refine his position on secondary separation. If IFB churches are less graced by Scott’s presence it wil be their loss and another indication of decline. Scott and I would surely disagree on some worship issues but he is a gift to God’s church. Btw, I could affirm his church’s statement on eschatology. It is balanced and biblical and leaves room for views that differ on details. To affirm more than that statement may not be sin (per Dever) but goes beyond Scripture if we make modern views, i.e., dispensationalism, a test for membership or fellowship.Steve DavisYou should known that elder mean’s different things in current and various local church contexts. Dever’s elders are not all consider “pastors” or at least, some are not in full time ministry paid positions in the church.
As for Scott, I suspect that his new connection will mean he won’t be gracing many independent Baptist churches in the future. Mike has already said he has made something of a break with him. Can’t be a very pleasant topic for him, he has been close to Scott and his family for a good long while.
…goes beyond Scripture if we make modern views, i.e., dispensationalism, a test for membership or fellowship.
Steve,
At some point, application of Scripture is made, and affects fellowship in about any church. Even though your church’s position is open-ended on Baptism (administering only immersion, accepting those who were sprinkled as infants), to some degree, you had no explicit verse to base that practice on- you had to make a call on how passages would be applied.
Dispensationalism is a system that doesn’t just dictate an eschatology- it is, in the end, a set of hermeneutic principles that inform how one reads and interprets the Bible. It affects the mission of the church- Douglas Wilson and I may share some values and ideas, but his expectations and aims as a post-millenial advocate are significantly different for his church than mine would be for the congregation I serve in. To have people with strong positions serving alongside each other would effectively mean that one or both of us would not be able to lead in a direction consistent with our understanding of Scripture and the mission of the church. I understand why you think it should be more open-ended, and can respect that- though it would effectively limit my ability to church with you.
I do think that liturgical expression can and should be a factor in where we seek out our most intimate fellowship as believers. I just don’t think it should overrule the way we read and interpret the Bible as a congregation. It’s a factor in the decision-making process, but not the only factor, or even the primary one.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
You and I agree on the use of episkopos, presbyteros, poimaino as interchangeable descriptions on the office of the pastor. I don’t make a distinction between ruling or teaching elders. Yet, in some Baptist churches they have their official pastors, elders, and then deacons. I don’t know the details of Scott’s church other than what Scott told me. I stopped Scott’s support in part because he was beginning fuller employment. However, I also knew that I could not financially support through our missions budget a Southern Baptist Missionary as such. Therefore, I had two reasons for ending the support.
Pastor Mike Harding
Mike,
Maybe it’s too early in the game here to see exactly where this is coming out. As I said, it seems to me we are in the middle of a shifting landscape. Your attitude seems to be different in the case in question in Fort Worth, where applied principles of interpreting the Scripture are somewhat more ambiguous and fluid than the liturgy, than they might be to someone like Joel S., who we have established in previous discussions is probably more in line with where you are doctrinally (or at least his church is), but allows more fluidity in liturgical forms. Would you be responding the same way if Scott had remained a committed conservative musician in a dispensational environment like Grace Community Church? Maybe you would. I’m asking.
This is where I am struggling, frankly. It almost seems to me that making worship forms the defining priority in determining church fellowship often end up demonstrating a disregard for new and immature believers, at least practically speaking if not intentionally. People leave congregations or drive long distances to find specific forms and expressions they believe are true and right and God-honoring, but often neglect to consider the effects their departure will have on those they leave behind. They can tolerate things like paedobaptism, divergent views on the significance of communion, and many other issues, as long as there is reverence and solemnity.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I think I have handled the situation appropriately.
Pastor Mike Harding
I think I have handled the situation appropriately.
Mike,
I never said you weren’t. I’m just asking if it would be handled differently if the church in question were more ambiguous in its music methods and more specific in its doctrine/eschatology.
It’s a simple question.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Mike Harding]Andy and Steve,
Thanks for your input. As you may be aware, Scott just graduated with his degree only a few days ago and will now become a full-fledged professor. Things have changed for Scott this year. Forgive me for not being too quick on the trigger, but I don’t cut a guy off because he is getting his doctorate at an SBC school. We did cease his financial support about three months ago. One of my own staff is getting his Ph.D. from Southeastern. As far as his church is concerned, I just learned yesterday that he is an elder. In the recent past Scott told me that his local Baptist church was very, very conservative in worship and orthodox in doctrine. My guess is that he has to be a member of an SBC church in order to be a full-time bona fide professor. Again, these developments are very recent. I am no fan of the SBC; however, as most of us know, there are some very conservative churches doctrinally and philosophically in the denomination. There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well. I am not sure Warren is qualified to lead a Bible study. The difference between Holland and Scott has to do with music and worship styles. I never criticized Holland for his doctrine, church, or personal life. He is solid doctrinally, but I personally think he violated some key principles in worship and music at his RESOLVED conference. My difference with him was more of substance than his association with Grace, In many ways Grace is a very good ministry. JM has become quite militant in recent years. I also appreciated what JM wrote on music in his commentaries, but his practice in certain areas is broader than I would allow. I hope this clears things up.
Mike, thanks so much for the response. I appreciate it very much. I wish that I had more time to respond. I certainly think it is great to have Scott Aniol speak at a conference on worship. I hope that nobody would decide to not have Scott in to speak simply because he teaches at a conservative evangelical school. He has a PhD in the subject and needs to be heard and interacted with. I am also glad that you made it clear that the difference between Rick and Scott in your mind is one more of substance (music and worship styles) and not necessarily his association with Grace Community. But I wonder of you are not an exception in that regard in your circles. I remember a few years back having a friend questioned by a fundamental organization about his associations. My friend had been part of a group putting a conference on several years before in which Rick Holland was invited to speak. It set off at least a little bit of a firestorm. My friend was seeking support from this fundamental organization and they wanted to know if he would ever consider having a conservative evangelical in to speak again. He told them that he would consider that on a case-by-case basis. He did not get the support. Perhaps there were other reasons as well. I do not know. But the fact remains, they considered ever having a conservative evangelical in to speak was a problem, not because of music or worship styles, but association. I think that some are just tired of seeing the perceived double standards of some in this area.
There is no need to respond. I know that you are very busy. Appreciate again your kind response. Grace and peace.
Andrew Henderson
[Greg Linscott] This is where I am struggling, frankly. It almost seems to me that making worship forms the defining priority in determining church fellowship often end up demonstrating a disregard for new and immature believers, at least practically speaking if not intentionally. People leave congregations or drive long distances to find specific forms and expressions they believe are true and right and God-honoring, but often neglect to consider the effects their departure will have on those they leave behind. They can tolerate things like paedobaptism, divergent views on the significance of communion, and many other issues, as long as there is reverence and solemnity.
Recently, I have come across two different examples of friends who have started attending a Catholic church so they can have music that is conservative/traditional. It obviously is a big issue to them, and neither of these people would be necessarily fundamentalist at all. It just speaks to how powerful this issue is to some.
For my part, I can’t believe they would go to that degree to find music they like - but perhaps it gets back to what Caleb was talking about. They just have a certain filter through which they evaluate music which makes it very difficult for them.
That being said, I think that doctrinal issues, and the teaching in Scripture about loving the brethren and welcoming one another, should challenge us to be accepting of a variety of styles and forms and seek to minister to a variety of generations and people types in and through a shared, blended worship style. That makes sense to me, but obviously there will be a need for churches of a traditional bent, given the differing conscience that exists among people on this issue. I can respect that and would wish those churches would respect the ones that try to be blended and reach out to others in different styles - all the while taking worship seriously, not practicing an anything goes approach, and seriously trying to use a variety of styles in a skillful way to bring glory to God and minister to the sheep.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Greg,
I am with you when it comes to laying it all on the table doctrinally. I have a very long doctrinal statement on my church website. Many SBC churches including the dispensational ones use a common basic confession of faith. One of my staff who is receiving his PhD from Southeastern confirmed this to me. Next time I talk with Scott I will ask him specific questions. I just rejected a man in my own church for missionary support because he is now post-trib. I don’t endorse any SBC church, including Capitol Hill, but I realize that some are much better than others. I think Scott is in one of the better ones, but that is no endorsement of the church or the SBC on my part. Doctrinally, I like JM for the most part. Some differences on limited atonement, overstatements on the Lordship question, and church polity are noted. I think JM is personally conservative on music and worship. He reflects this is his morning worship service. Other places in the ministry seem to be quite different. It disappoints me when I hear about it.
Pastor Mike Harding
I see some merit in the music and food analogy.
I remember reading some arguments a while back from a music and language analogy.
In both cases though, it’s possible to use the analogy to support either a conservative and more restrictive view of what’s suitable for worship or a less conservative, more permissive view.
Analogies tend to be like that.
One one hand, if music is like food, the “dish” can be far from perfect and still nourish. On the other hand, the dish can taste, poison you or just not nourish at all because it isn’t really food, just empty calories. You could even argue that it’s possible to prepare stuff and call it food and eat it like food but it doesn’t even have calories, much less nutrients. Then there’s a clash over whether it’s even right to call it food.
But FWIW, I think the whole debate is better off looking past music at culture-and-meaning and culture-and-results/impact on people. But it seems like when the discussion moves away from the more sensational particulars and digs into principles, it gets boring to most people. I’m not sure what that says about us…
So to be more interesting (maybe), what might be most useful about music=like food and music=like language is that, either way you go, it helps us see the situation as not being as binary as many seem to suggest.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks for the thoughts, here.
I do find it interesting, though, how significant of a difference your responses seem to be with music versus doctrine. I realize that both are serious, but as I read your responses, musical deviation seems more serious than finer points of doctrine.
As important as music is to me, I’m not sure I’d be there. As we look to the future, who knows? Maybe it won’t really matter, since all of the best and brightest will go SBC anyway (/mild sarcasm). I’m under no delusions that the recent NIU debacle will be the last time the topic will be raised in Fundamentalism in my lifetime. And I guess that’s why I keep asking. As the landscape continues to shift, to some degree we who still remain in Fundamentalism (and I intend to, both principally and in my relationships in formal organized fellowships) have not only got to figure out how we relate to our immediate forbears, but to their children, many of them whom seem to be leaving for the greener grasses of conservative evangelicalism.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]As the landscape continues to shift, to some degree we who still remain in Fundamentalism (and I intend to, both principally and in my relationships in formal organized fellowships) have not only got to figure out how we relate to our immediate forbears, but to their children, many of them whom seem to be leaving for the greener grasses of conservative evangelicalism.
Greg, I am on the road so only have intermittent access and limited ability to comment here. I am sure that is a good thing!
On this point, I personally don’t think the problem of “many … leaving” is really related to fundamentalism as such. In fact, from the evangelicals to the Catholics and almost all points in between, you can find concerns articulated about the loss of young people. I don’t know if this is unique to the present day - when I was growing up we heard the term “generation gap” constantly in the media of the day. Nevertheless, it seems to me that present day “religion-ists” are all declaiming the loss of young people and anxiously looking for answers.
Quite frankly, I don’t think we can let the perceived loss of young people become a driving force in our decision making. We need to be certain of truth, proclaim the truth (in as winsome a way as possible, I grant), and trust the Lord to build the house.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
…one question I wrestle with is something like what we are talking about something we consider a “loss”?
I mean, I graduated from a small Christian day school in Maine- senior class of 5. Three of us are either pastors or married to a pastor. One of us is living openly as a lesbian. That’s a loss. Someone leaving an IFB church for a conservative SBC one? I gotta say, if that is one of my daughters in 10 years- well, I think I can live much better with option 2.
And even here, I’ve had some young twenty-something couples from more conservative evangelical backgrounds coming to and joining our church, because we’re the best option available compared to what they’re used to. There’s overlap, whether we especially aim for it or not, even.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Don said:
Quite frankly, I don’t think we can let the perceived loss of young people become a driving force in our decision making.
I agree. But the exit of young people from fundamentalism is a reality.
Five or six years ago in my quest for a place of service I visited a large number of fundamentalist churches from Virginia to New England. In all of them there was an absence of the 21-34 year-olds. On a suggestion from a friend I visited Capitol Hill Baptist Church in D.C. and saw that nearly 3/4 of the congregation was made up of that younger generation. There was a lot of congregational singing, no praise band, an active church planting program, an hour long expositional sermon, and genuine joy. I am now involved in a church that was planted five years ago and is self-supporting. We have a membership of about 60 and have been blessed with the addition of over 20 children by birth or adoption. The median age of the church is probably in the high 20’s to low 30’s. There stories regarding their journey to our church is worth listening to. Fundamentalism needs to interview them and take note of their answers. And they’re not here for the music, or because they don’t have to wear suits and ties.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Discussion