Cultural Fundamentalism or Cultural Evangelicalism?
Image
From Theologically Driven. Posted with permission.
Over the past decade it has been popular to distinguish between “cultural fundamentalism” and “historic fundamentalism.” Cultural fundamentalism is regarded by its critics as very, very bad. It consists of folksy/outdated traditionalism that has drifted from its quaint, innocuous origins and has entered a bitter, skeptical stage of life—complete with theological errors of a sort that typically attend aging, countercultural movements. Historic fundamentalism, which focuses more on basic theological issues, fares a little bit better, but only a very little bit. Critics puzzle over those who accept this label, marveling that anyone would risk associative guilt by lingering near those nasty cultural fundamentalists: “Why not get with the program,” they ask, “and become a conservative evangelical?”
Part of the reason, I would venture, is that conservative evangelicalism itself appears, to all but those blinded by its euphoria, to be yet another cultural phenomenon—a new iteration of a broader movement (evangelicalism) that, let’s face it, has a track record easily as jaded as that of fundamentalism. True, the conservative evangelicals of today are a bit more conscious of theology and mission (that’s how the life cycle of ecclesiological “movements” begins), and their culture is more up-to-date; but it’s just a matter of time until the present iteration of evangelicalism grows old, propped up only by the same nostalgia that today keeps Billy Graham crusades and Bill and Gloria Gaither homecomings on cable TV (except that these will be replaced, for a new generation of elderly evangelicals, with John Piper recordings and Keith and Kristyn Getty sing-alongs that allow folks to relive the glory days).
Recently Darryl Hart, a notable critic of conservative evangelicalism (a.k.a. the “New Calvinism” and “Young, Restless, and Reformed” movements), wrote a scathing exposé of today’s culture-heavy evangelicalism. Speaking specifically to his own confessional concerns, he made the obvious point that the major attraction of the “New Calvinism” and the “Young, Restless and Reformed” movements wasn’t primarily theological (the “Calvinism” and “Reformed” part) but cultural (the “New, Young, and Restless” part). Calvinism, he observed, has been faithfully preserved for centuries in confessional churches (like the OPC of which Hart is a part) that guarded it far more carefully than the confessionally unconstrained evangelicals ever could. No, the major attraction of the “New Calvinism,” Hart opined, was that it offered something that the Old Calvinism didn’t, viz., “the sorts of celebrity, technology, mass crowds, and enthusiasm upon which the young sovereigntists thrive.” The “Gospel Allies” (a derogatory label Hart uses for the conservative evangelical movement) deliberately denigrate the Old Calvinists for one prevailing reason: They’re not new. And since they’re not new, they have little appeal for the young and restless crowd. The “Gospel Allies,” on the other hand, stay new by brokering alliances with cool, edgy, avant-garde, and (mostly) Reformedish celebrities like Driscoll, McDonald, and Mahaney, who, granted, might fall over the edge with which they flirt—but it’s worth the risk.
So what comes next? Well, if history is our guide, the generational cycle of cultural ecclesiology will soon move to its next phase, what I call ecclesiastical “niche-making.” The fundamentalist version of this is well documented. The 1940s and 50s revivalist culture (the best snapshot of which is found in its music) was all new and fresh and culturally edgy in its day. But now it is the realm of churches populated by 80-year-olds who can’t figure out why there are no “young people.” It’s happening again with the Patch the Pirate generation. Patch and Company were all the rage in the 1980s and early 1990s, but now they’re old news. Still, by publishing their magnum opus, Majesty Hymns, a coalition of Patch-culture churches lives on, populated mostly by those who were parents of small children during the 1980s. Now they’re beginning to wonder why the “youth group” is so small.
But evangelicalism is no different. Visit the various evangelical churches in your neighborhood and you’ll find Gaither churches, romantic but theologically vacuous churches from the golden age of CCM, and now Getty/Townend/SG churches (hint: this is where that missing generation has gone). I have little doubt that this cycle will repeat, because there is little in place to break the cycle. The pattern for all of these groups has been to push the cultural envelope until they create their niche, then settle down to enjoy it.
The possible conclusions, then, appear to be twofold: some churches will (1) do nothing and become culturally backward, ingrown congregations that reminisce together until they eventually die of old age, while others will (2) transition to the next cultural cycle and thrive for another 25 years or so. But is this the way it’s supposed to be? I think not.
The answer
The answer, I would suggest, is faithful ministry in confessionally bounded churches committed more to the spirituality of the church than they are to the socio-political and cultural relevancy of the church. By striving, self-consciously, to be as culturally transcendent as possible, I would argue, we can cultivate timeless, transgenerational bodies that do not need to reinvent themselves every quarter century to remain solvent. It will not be easy—after all, culture has told us for a hundred years that this is not the way church is done. But it’s definitely worth the effort.
Mark Snoeberger Bio
Mark Snoeberger is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as Director of Library Services since 1997. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. from DBTS and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. Prior to joining the DBTS staff, he served for three years as an assistant pastor.
- 145 views
Hi Ed,
You aren’t seeing my point, which is the sufficiency of Scripture in ecclesiology versus the adoption of culture to make church relevant. Quite clearly, Scripture never teaches in both precept and example how we are to analyze culture and employ it in moderation. It isn’t even contemplated and therefore in infinite wisdom God did not tell us whether we should be culturally transcendent, culturally moderate…, or even culturally relevant.
So in what sense is anyone closer to the Bible than others who are more extreme in their adaptation of culture in their church? Are you sure you aren’t merely defending your own perception of how your church functions in distinction from others you have experienced in your lifetime, because in the end, all we can say is “our church is more conservative/liberal/contemporary/traditional” than others we’ve known? Isn’t the whole discussion of culture and churches itself dependent on there being multiple church choices where we live, and that we employ limited and quite possibly faulty cultural observation to defend our church as preferable to others around us?
My point isn’t that we ignore culture, an impossibility for us both as individuals and churches. Ignoring culture is itself a cultural proposition. My point is to go beneath Mark’s assertion of developing culturally transcendent churches, and now your assertion of culturally moderate churches, to acknowledge that Scripture says nothing about churches and cultural adaptation, transcendent or otherwise. You’ll not find any exegesis in Mark’s article, but you will find assertions about how churches are to function vis-a-vis others. I suggest we all lose the idea that we will can make such assertions on how much or how little culture to adapt since we are all ignorant by God’s own perfect wisdom in Scripture on how to do it. Instead, let’s accept the Bible as God has ‘once-for-all’ revealed His will for how churches ought function and believe.
I also encourage you to wrestle with the fact that Paul disallowed a practice in the Corinthian church that appears to have been culturally acceptable in Corinth, but actually went against what all the other churches of God practiced (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Cor. 11:16). On what basis do you suppose Paul rebuked it - that it wasn’t culturally moderate, or that it violated principles for every church in every culture for all time?
[Ted Bigelow]But since Paul was STARTING churches in various areas, wouldn’t personal adaptations automatically become ecclesiastical adaptations in the various areas that had churches? Otherwise he would start out doing one thing, and then he’d have to tell people, once they had a church, that they had to do things differently than how they started.Even if 1 Cor. 9:19ff were teaching cultural adaptation, it would be teaching personal adaptation - i.e., Paul alone, instead of ecclesial adaptation.
That is why 1 Cor. 11:16 is more promising, referring to the practice of churches. But even here Paul rebukes a practice that may have been culturally relevant to Corinth but is out of keeping with “the churches of God” - a phrase referring to churches spread across several culturally diverse realms. And since the head covering matter was not a practice in keeping with the churches, it was rejected even if a culturally relevant issue (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33-40).Is Paul actually rebuking the custom itself, or is he rebuking contentiousness about the custom? If he is rebuking the custom, which custom is he rebuking - the practice of wearing head coverings or the practice of NOT wearing head coverings?
[Jim]What I see is a “our worship is better than their worship” among some in our circles.
… … . .
My wife remarked that there would be some in our circle who would find the music abhorrent … but only because of their closed-mindedness and prejudices.
Psalm 47:1 (ESV): Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!
Psalm 150 (ESV): 1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! 2 Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! 3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! 4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! 5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals! 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!
Today, fundamentalism doesn’t really know what to make of the psalmist’s exhortations here to praise God. Clapping? Shouting? Tambourines? Dance? Cymbals?
–––––––––-
If a style of worship hinders us from worshipping God, the problem lies not with the style, but with our hearts.
Hi Kevin,
But since Paul was STARTING churches in various areas, wouldn’t personal adaptations automatically become ecclesiastical adaptations in the various areas that had churches? Otherwise he would start out doing one thing, and then he’d have to tell people, once they had a church, that they had to do things differently than how they started.
Yes, excellent point.
In my original post to Ed I followed up with this:
As for 1 Cor. 9:19ff, if we hold to a ‘cultural adaptation’ understanding of that passage rather than a ‘permissible religious’ adaptation (of Jewish practices), what could Paul mean by “I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1Co 9:27) but that he remains qualified for ministry based on the success of his cultural adaptation?
You wrote,
Is Paul actually rebuking the custom itself, or is he rebuking contentiousness about the custom? If he is rebuking the custom, which custom is he rebuking - the practice of wearing head coverings or the practice of NOT wearing head coverings?
I don’t think there is much debate that Paul is rebuking the custom and not alleged contentiousness over the practice in Corinth. At least for me, I am unaware of his stating that the practice was causing contention among them. Nor am I familiar with anyone arguing that Paul is rebuking the practice of not wearing head coverings, although you may.
Paul never uses the word for ‘veil” in the passage, which is strange if that what he is either commending or rebuking. I think the veil, like the hair, is incidental to Paul’s argument. I take the rebuke to be with women praying/prophesying in church service (1 Cor. 11:5, 13), something that applies to all churches of all time. Apparently ladies back then wore a wrap-around veil under the jaw and up around the top of the head that had to be undone and for a women to speak loudly and publicly. Bible scholar Joachim Jeremias describes the veil of a Jewish woman at that time (Hans Conzelman writes that this was also worn by Gentile women):
“Her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils, a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be recognized.”
The word “uncovered” is a derivative of “apokalupto” but with a literalness of “uncover down” (κατακαλύπτεται). One writer suggests this supports the thesis that Paul is admonishing the women not to let down their veils during worship (http://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj35-1-03). I would agree with that.
In the 1600’s Isaac Watts sat in a service and was put off by the previous generation’s music forms. You know the rest of the story how he composed many great hymns. As believers we want to pass our Christian heritage on to the next generation (of course putting the Lord ahead of families if it ever came to a choice between the two. The best way to love others though seems to really know and love the Lord first). One way to remove the variableness of styles which change is to emphasize the timelessness of the truth of the bible.
I do not think we have to go back and look like the first century synagogue to do this either. Obviously the Spirit empowered church can live itself out individually and not become too provincial in the process. Individual participation seems to be a feature of NT life in the church which has been expressed in music (some is probably fine). How about the believers expressing their faith weekly in the remembrance of the Lord’s supper? Jesus’ explicit command to perform this identifying memorial seems like a good way to spend Sunday mornings taking some of the entertainment out of our services (and therefore relegating the congregation to spectators), it would seem a biblical thing to do.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Many times I’ve heard it said that some styles of music are sensual and promote…well, you know. Wouldn’t this be great if, in a legitimate relationship which has lost some of its ‘fire’ we could just put on some jungle rhythms to rekindle the flame? It just doesn’t work like this, does it?
I would not be opposed in some circumstances if music were used as outreach or youth group activities or afternoon concert series if done correctly. The weekly assembly, in my thinking though, should feature more reading and textual exposition.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
From an article linked to in today’s SI Filings:
“I’m not a fundamentalist. My friends and I enjoy…cultural engagement.” -
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september/wrong-kind-of-christ…
–––
The author is saying that fundamentalists do NOT enjoy cultural engagement.
Is that perception based upon reality? What sort of metric might one use to determine its truth?
[Jim]http://www.philchristensen.com/subpage30.html
A Response to Dr. Frank Garlock’s Teaching About Praise
Garlock puts all his theological eggs in one basket. The premise would make Francis Schaeffer spin in his grave: Garlock teaches plainly that music is not a-moral. Its character is moral.
What’s the difference? A knife is a-moral. It’s neither good, nor bad. Depending on who’s holding that knife, it can do things that are either good or evil. It can accomplish good things by freeing the bonds of a captive, or slicing a tomato for a sandwich. But - in the hands of a fiend - a knife can also murder the innocent. It’s a tool.
In Frank Garlock’s world, however, music is NOT just a tool. Music is a powerful entity that - in itself - is either holy or evil. He teaches that music is moral or immoral by its very nature, and cannot be neutral. The sound itself is here to either help you or to hurt you. There’s no middle ground.
He attempts to support this truth by associating it with the character of God Himself. Garlock reasons that since (a) God is musical, and (b) God is moral, therefore (c) music is moral by nature. That’s Frank’s Theorem.
(Note: for fun, try Frank’s Theorem with any other two random attributes of God, and see how it works. Here’s one to get you started: (a) God is kind, and (b) God is unchangeable. Therefore (c) kindness is unchangeable. Kids, you can try Frank’s Theorum at home: (a) Rudolph is a reindeer, and (b) Rudolph has a red nose. Therefore, (c) all reindeers have red noses! Donner and Prancer might disagree, but I digress.)
Frank’s Theorem gives birth to Frank’s Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and “acceptable to the Lord” and (b) the style which is immoral and “unacceptable to the Lord.” It’s a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” For those who don’t agree with what he’s proven, he’s obviously adopted the next verse in context: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
So the battle’s on; we’ll either accept what Garlock’s “proven” or be “reproved.” With no middle ground, his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of “worldliness.” He will also define this.
To avoid being reproved by Frank Garlock, we’ll have to:
1) agree with his premise about the morality of music,
2) accept his definition of “worldliness,” and finally we’ll
3) penitently adopt the styles of music he authorizes
If that looks familiar, it should. Garlock is only one of a few different musicians to espouse that understanding and argument for music. I could list a few others, but don’t want to revisit the music wars.
"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
Jim, can you think of the name of any of the music that was sung at this church you visited? It had to be great for a “nut case” like you (using your definition of nut case as “odd person”) to accept it given your conservative music tastes. I am truly interested in the names if you can remember.
Mark says that the answer is for ministry in “confessionally bounded churches”. Can someone clarify what that means? When does a statement of faith in Jesus Christ become a “confession” as Mark is meaning?
[Mark_Smith]Mark says that the answer is for ministry in “confessionally bounded churches”. Can someone clarify what that means? When does a statement of faith in Jesus Christ become a “confession” as Mark is meaning?
Perhaps I can help. “Confessions” are doctrinal statements written by leaders of numerous churches that have met over a lengthy period of time to deal with one or more theological crises of their age. A “Statement of Faith” is the theological position of the leader(s) of a particular individual church or religious institution, also defined at a point in time.
While you could argue that a statement of faith is a confession and would be quite correct, it would pass over the historic use of the term and suffer from a lack of wider appreciation among others outside your church.
Mark S. recommends confessions, which are a bugaboo for Baptists since ecclesial autonomy runs counter to them. Nor does he address the several downsides to confessions which are “levels of subscription,” a tendency for “cold orthodoxy” to replace living faith, they have not produced unity except among their own few adherents but have produced the hardening of positions and thus divided the truly saved, and their track record - confessions have not held back heresy or produced fidelity to Scripture. Mark’s own school teaches dispensationalism, which is itself castigated in some of Protestant confessions. In other words, find a confession that fits your pre-existing theology, and then claim to be in the flow of historic Christianity. Sabbatarian? Go with London Baptist 1644. Not Sabbatarian? Go with 1689.
You might find Aaron’s post the following day interesting. He is looking to create unity among like minded Baptist leaders but is not recommending confessions but meetings hoping to produce “a louder collective voice.”
As always, the questions to ask are, “where does Scripture speak to this practice in both precept and example so I know I am obeying God and not being presumptuous,” and, “if these attempts at unity are not clearly taught in both precept and example, what is the position of Scripture, taught in both precept and example, for for church unity?”
Mark S. recommends confessions, which are a bugaboo for Baptists since ecclesial autonomy runs counter to them.
This seems a rather novel view. Ecclesial autonomy would run contrary to a confession being imposed on a church by a fellowship or association. However, generally, the fellowship or association has a confession (whether they call it that or not) and a church or individual (depending on your view) enters association based on their agreement with the confession or creed. In other words, a church freely enters fellowship/association with other churches and can freely leave. The confession is only the basis for their free association. The creed is not imposed on them.
I think the main objection to confessions or creeds by Baptist (at least recently) seems to be the “no creed but the Bible” line. That is, we have the Bible as authority; we need no confession or creed. That reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of a confession, or more likely, a rejection of biblical authority itself since the “no creed but the Bible group” sometimes has some nefarious goals.
Hi Larry,
However, generally, the fellowship or association has a confession (whether they call it that or not) and a church or individual (depending on your view) enters association based on their agreement with the confession or creed. In other words, a church freely enters fellowship/association with other churches and can freely leave. The confession is only the basis for their free association. The creed is not imposed on them.
You made my point. To a Baptist, both individually and ecclesially, confessions are “free association” because of a prior commitment to autonomy. To a Protestant they are not.
Here’s an article on the historic use (and dilemma) of confessions from a hybrid Protestant/Baptist viewpoint: http://drbobgonzales.com/2013/06/01/confessional-subscription-strict-vs…
[Larry Nelson]Jim wrote:
What I see is a “our worship is better than their worship” among some in our circles.
… … . .
My wife remarked that there would be some in our circle who would find the music abhorrent … but only because of their closed-mindedness and prejudices.
Psalm 47:1 (ESV): Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!
Psalm 150 (ESV): 1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! 2 Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! 3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! 4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! 5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals! 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!
Today, fundamentalism doesn’t really know what to make of the psalmist’s exhortations here to praise God. Clapping? Shouting? Tambourines? Dance? Cymbals?
–––––––––-
If a style of worship hinders us from worshipping God, the problem lies not with the style, but with our hearts.
Church Member: “Pastor, what would you think if we sing “Shout to The Lord” this Sunday morning? Many of us are wondering if we could sing some newer songs.” [ http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/darlenezschech/shouttothelord.html]
Pastor (with horrified look): “We can’t sing that! It isn’t in our hymnal. Besides, it’s CCM!”
CM: “Well, yes, it is CCM. But it’s a song of praise, and it’s lyrics are Biblical.”
Pastor: “We still can’t sing it. It would be too loud for our tastes. We can’t tell our people they can “Shout” out to God during our worship services. Next thing you know, they might think percussion instruments would be o.k. during our songs!”
CM: “But Pastor, those things are all encouraged in the Psalms, when giving praise to God.”
Pastor: “Nevertheless, our standards will not permit it!”
Larry Nelson, would you encourage pastors and leaders to have no respect for the culture of a particular church in choosing music or other aspects of corporate gathering?
Discussion