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.
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.
Aaron,
I’m not trying to be condescending or rude; please understand that before I go any further.
That being said, if there’s a reason why the food analogy shouldn’t work (when it’s clearly a reference to Romans 14:1-13) in regards to music, I’d love to hear why from you or anyone else. It’s a passage that I deal with in the article I’ve been putting together.
I was reading in Colossians this morning, and this passage struck me as being applicable to the discussion, although the Colossian heresy was just a little different from music preferences.
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Colossians 2:20-23).
"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
Jay,
I know you’re addressing Aaron, but I hope you’ll allow me to “butt in”. :)
Music “doesn’t perish with the using”. It isn’t digested and eliminated. It imparts a sensibility and understanding (admittedly not propositional) to the hearer. It demonstrates an approach. Colossians is not applicable here.
As for Romans 14, well, in a local church service anyway, what would be the prescribed ramification of that passage when one portion of the congregation objected to a certain music due to reasons of conscience, while the rest thought it ok?
[DavidO] As for Romans 14, well, in a local church service anyway, what would be the prescribed ramification of that passage when one portion of the congregation objected to a certain music due to reasons of conscience, while the rest thought it ok?
DavidO,
I’ve answered this several times now, but the answer is very clear according to Romans 14. You can not and must not offend a believer by forcing them into things that they are not comfortable with. Paul is very clear that at that point the ‘stronger’ (more free) brother is to lay aside his ‘liberty’ for sake of conscience (v. 13-16). On the other hand, the ‘weaker’ brother is not to use his conscience as an excuse to manipulate the church congregation (v.3, 5-10). That goes for both ‘cultural Christians’ and the ‘modern music Christians’.
What I object to is people coming back to the ‘stronger’ believers (because I do believe my position is stronger) and imposing artificial strictures regarding the form of worship for those of us who have moved beyond them. Remember that I’m not arguing against conservative music - we still use it in our congregation, and I’m happy with that. This isn’t a zero-sum game where you must win and I must lose.
I would disagree with you that music is excluded from the Apostle’s arguments in both Romans and Colossians, and I should also note that I was specifically interested in the bolded portion of Paul’s writings that I cited.
For this: “It imparts a sensibility and understanding (admittedly not propositional) to the hearer. It demonstrates an approach. Colossians is not applicable here.”
Yes, it does, which is why I have no problems with songs like this:
My soul is anchored to Heav’n’s holy veil,
For Christ, the Great High Priest,
Died in my stead.
Hold fast! God’s promise will never fail.
We are His,
For Christ has risen from the dead.No man or angel can keep me from Him.
(Chorus)
My hope in heaven is steadfast and and firm.
Though trials and suff’ring come,
Death cannot win.
So we live in light of our great King’s return.
Your steadfast love
Will lead us through the tempest.
Grace and strength are ours.
Your faithfulness
Will see us through the storm
And give us hope to carry on.In faith, my ransomed soul will ne’er depart
From Christ, my Savior who freed me from sin.
Rejoice! This confidence is sealed in our hearts
By the Spirit who empow’rs us from within!
or this:
There’s a day that’s drawing near
When this darkness breaks to light
And the shadows disappear
And my faith shall be my eyesJesus has overcome
And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won
He is risen from the deadAnd I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles’ wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will riseAnd I hear the voice of many angels sing,
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
And I hear the cry of every longing heart,
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
And I hear the voice of many angels sing,“Worthy is the Lamb!”
And I hear the cry of every longing heart,
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
for starters. Now would I use them for congregational worship? Probably not. But I can use them to corral my fleshly affections and re-point them to the Savior, His Work, or any of a few other things.
"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
Going off topic for a second here -
I saw this Kickstarter project yesterday and figured I’d note it somewhere on SI.
The page notes:
Josh Bauder began this project in November 2011, motivated by the belief that there are many great hymn texts “out there” that are theologically rich and poetically competent, yet under-used and under-appreciated. His endeavor has been to revive these hymns by writing new tunes.
I have no idea who Josh Bauder or Deo Cantamus are, but I wanted to put it out there for anyone who might be interested. The project’s aim is to set existing choral hymns to fresh music, which is a very worthy goal.
"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
Josh is Kevin’s son. He’s a great guy, very intelligent and a talented, skilled musician and composer.
It’s a very worthwhile project to support, IMHO.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Deo Cantamus is directed by a member of Fourth Baptist
Here are videos of their program last month and of previous programs.
http://m.youtube.com/#/user/DeoCantamus/feed?&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2FDeo…
[Jay]What I object to is people coming back to the ‘stronger’ believers (because I do believe my position is stronger) and imposing artificial strictures regarding the form of worship for those of us who have moved beyond them. Remember that I’m not arguing against conservative music - we still use it in our congregation, and I’m happy with that. This isn’t a zero-sum game where you must win and I must lose.
or “more spiritual” or “more mature”
It is a reference to the relative lack of sensitivity or reaction from one’s own conscience. If you have a “strong” conscience the item in question doesn’t bother you. If you have a “weak” conscience, it does.
The terms have no bearing on the spiritual value of the position, they are descriptive of the conscience.
Please note that consciences can be misinformed and even seared.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Just to clarify, I wasn’t saying Romans 14 wasn’t applicable. And the portion of the Colossians 2 you bolded, I think it’d be a mistake to apply verse 23 outside of what it refers back to, namely the things listed in verse 22.
As for this:
Yes, it does, which is why I have no problems with songs like this …
Why, when we are discussing music (notes, melodies, song styles, etc.) do you keep switching over to lyrics? I’m (we’re?) making an intentional distinction between the two in this conversation.
It is a reference to the relative lack of sensitivity or reaction from one’s own conscience. If you have a “strong” conscience the item in question doesn’t bother you. If you have a “weak” conscience, it does.
The terms have no bearing on the spiritual value of the position, they are descriptive of the conscience.
Yes, that’s what I said. Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts. It would, however, be a cause for separation as Mike Durning and others on SI have said; it would offend their consciences to sit under or use that music. Many here on the site can’t imagine the possibility of using that kind of music. So I am totally confident that I’m ‘stronger’ in this specific area.
I used to be concerned about making sure that the music was traditional and I would have separated over it. Now I’ve moved beyond that…which is not intended to be a humblebrag. That’s part of why I thought Col. 2 was appropriate and had bearing.
Yes, consciences can be misinformed and seared. I’m not talking about that at all, and I’m fairly sure that you don’t mean to insinuate that mine is seared.
"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
Jay said:
“Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts.”
Jay, some are like me…recovering Charismatics. When I hear so-called CCM (I really don’t like that term), I have to struggle with old issues of worship. See, to some fundamentalists, using CCM is perceived like a calf being freed from a stall. For those of us who used to be out in the wilderness of emotional driven worship/Christianity, CCM is all that was wrong with what we left…
For the record, I have no problem with new songs. What I don’t like is the culture that almost inevitably comes along with so-called CCM. Next thing you know the ties go…then the dress pants. Finally, guys are wearing shredded jeans and knitted caps up on stage while jammin’ with Jesus. I’ve seen it all before and I am purposed to not go there again!!!
As “freed up” fundamentalists when you hear a guitar riff in some CCM song, you think “how cool”. When I hear one, the next thing I know I am humming the intro riff to Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away”…or something like that. It is a lot like alcohol. If you never had a problem with it, it is a fun occasional pleasure. To those who grew up listening to Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Metallica, etc…it is an avenue to that old life we left behind.
Watch for land mines on that path to “freedom”.
Maybe one of the first questions to answer is whether or not music is in the category of adiaphora like meat is. Is it essential to the faith? Does it fit into the “take it or leave it” category? Does it have no effect upon the person?
It seems that both sides of the music debates agree that music does affect the person, that God’s Word commands us to sing to Him, and that it is not something we can simply cast aside and do without.
Regardless, if music is like meat, remember that Paul said he would never eat meat again if necessary. He didn’t say he would only abstain when the “weaker” were in his presence or within earshot.
[Mark_Smith] For the record, I have no problem with new songs. What I don’t like is the culture that almost inevitably comes along with so-called CCM. Next thing you know the ties go…then the dress pants. Finally, guys are wearing shredded jeans and knitted caps up on stage while jammin’ with Jesus. I’ve seen it all before and I am purposed to not go there again!!!
There’s an adage that comes to mind…something about “baby with bathwater”?
I can’t argue against that. Pastor and I’ve individually talked our own musicians in our church about getting on stage in inappropriate attire, and that is specifically covered by our church’s music policy as well. I believe that there are times when Pastor has changed the music on the fly because someone showed up in inappropriate attire. I can’t, however, argue that music is bad because people don’t dress right to play for the church. It grieves me when I see anyone leading worship in jeans or a collared shirt in an inappropriate setting. I would probably never go to ‘concert’ for a band, simply because I’ve been to other secular concerts and have all kinds of association issues with those contexts. My wife and I noticed that one of our favorite groups came to a nearby church, but we decided not to go because we didn’t think that a church was the right setting for a ‘concert’.
I think it is possible to accept the music without adopting the entire package. There’s a lot of lousy, doctrinally weak songs that I reject. There’s a lot of inappropriate leadership and performers. There’s a lot of stuff that I think is flippant or worldly in it. But I don’t think that labeling all the music as ‘worldly and sinful’ does anything to help anyone else.
I *do* think, however, that a lot of kids and young adults are excited to be able to participate and lead worship and sing the songs that they do and they simply haven’t thought hard or at all about how to do what they want to do. I don’t think that I’ve ever run into a musician at our church that was just “hey, I need to be comfortable to play” and blew off concerns about their dress. The ones I’ve talked to have received the admonition well and we’ve gone away ‘at peace’. That is a heart issue, not a rule issue.
And I’ll go one further - one can ‘lead worship’ in dress pants or suits and be far from God or lead people away from Him by using doctrinally compromised songs. So maybe the solution is burqas for everyone? :)
"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
Have fun…the trip to the bottom is slipperier than you think. Try not to take anyone else with you!
As I said above. To you, this music is “freedom”. To me, it is a return to the things I left behind.
I forgive you, brother. Looking forward to meeting you in Heaven on That Day.
Philemon 1:3
"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
The point is to remember that what is freedom to you is a return to bondage for others. Get it? Also, the CCM crowd is so sure that they are freer. Are they?
Also Jay, you say you monitor what the people on the stage do. Make sure they are dressed appropriately, etc. But what about at home or in the car? You start down this road, and people will think they are free to listen to “harder” music. They develop a taste for the style. Eventually, some will think that your freedom allows them to listen to secular rock/pop music.
It is one thing to allow a guitar, drum set, and a bass on stage to sing a few little “praise songs”. At first it seems so liberating. Everyone feels good about the “worship”? But what happens out in the parking lot? People think it is ok to listen to Beyonce, or Bieber, etc…
As a silly aside, do you know how many CCM musicians list the Beatles as a positive musical influence on their lives?
[Mark_Smith]As “freed up” fundamentalists when you hear a guitar riff in some CCM song, you think “how cool”. When I hear one, the next thing I know I am humming the intro riff to Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away”…or something like that. It is a lot like alcohol. If you never had a problem with it, it is a fun occasional pleasure. To those who grew up listening to Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Metallica, etc…it is an avenue to that old life we left behind.
Watch for land mines on that path to “freedom”.
Have fun…the trip to the bottom is slipperier than you think. Try not to take anyone else with you!
As I said above. To you, this music is “freedom”. To me, it is a return to the things I left behind.
Mark,
I am glad that you are convinced in your own mind that CCM is wrong. I have no problem with that. (Romans 14:5) The problem starts when you assume that your temptation of a slippery slope with CCM automatically applies to other Christians in their walk with Christ and pursuit of holiness. Then it becomes dangerously close to a logical fallacy. By the way, I did grow up on some of the same music that you did. When I truly began following Christ, I eventually switched to Christian Rock and for seven years wrote songs, played keyboards, and sang in a Christian Rock band. A guitar riff or a drum beat never reminded me of my old life when I was in rebellion against God. However, as I mentioned in another post, I did have a problem with certain venues that we played that seemed to encourage idolatry (of the artists), which was why I stopped.
My point is to say that freedom for some is a return to bondage for others. If you are ok with it, fine. But what about someone out in the congregation that it trips up?
By they way, I am setting aside all of the other issues with CCM and sticking with this one for now.
To those who hold the music-is-like-meat argument it seems that one would have to say that meat is a type of food just as jazz is a type of music. Paul did not say he would never eat any more food, if necessary, but he did say he would be willing to never eat any meat.
[Mark_Smith]I’m glad you included the word “almost” because it is certainly not inevitable. I used to believe these kinds of “slippery slope” arguments until I found out there are churches who use contemporary music who don’t fit the stereotypes.Jay said:
“Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts.”
Jay, some are like me…recovering Charismatics. When I hear so-called CCM (I really don’t like that term), I have to struggle with old issues of worship. See, to some fundamentalists, using CCM is perceived like a calf being freed from a stall. For those of us who used to be out in the wilderness of emotional driven worship/Christianity, CCM is all that was wrong with what we left…
For the record, I have no problem with new songs. What I don’t like is the culture that almost inevitably comes along with so-called CCM. Next thing you know the ties go…then the dress pants. Finally, guys are wearing shredded jeans and knitted caps up on stage while jammin’ with Jesus. I’ve seen it all before and I am purposed to not go there again!!!
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Mark_Smith]My point is to say that freedom for some is a return to bondage for others. If you are ok with it, fine. But what about someone out in the congregation that it trips up?
By they way, I am setting aside all of the other issues with CCM and sticking with this one for now.
To be honest, this has never happened in the over 20 years that I’ve been an inner-city missionary. For instance, in our context, secular hip-hop is so identifiably different than Christian hip-hop that everyone (except those on the outside of hip-hop culture) can tell the radical difference between the two.
Now before that, I knew a few people that had been saved out of a sinful lifestyle that included Rock music with their drugs, alcohol, and sexual immorality, but they were discipled by fundamentalists to identify and reject all rock music as evil, which contributed to leading them to this conclusion.
[Mark_Smith]It is often interesting how a certain context is overlaid upon CCM. Granted, it is a very real context to some, and so people need to be careful on a person-to-person level not to cause one to stumble. It is not a one-size-fits-all kind of context however. It is CRITICAL to recognize that.The point is to remember that what is freedom to you is a return to bondage for others. Get it? Also, the CCM crowd is so sure that they are freer. Are they?
Also Jay, you say you monitor what the people on the stage do. Make sure they are dressed appropriately, etc. But what about at home or in the car? You start down this road, and people will think they are free to listen to “harder” music. They develop a taste for the style. Eventually, some will think that your freedom allows them to listen to secular rock/pop music.
It is one thing to allow a guitar, drum set, and a bass on stage to sing a few little “praise songs”. At first it seems so liberating. Everyone feels good about the “worship”? But what happens out in the parking lot? People think it is ok to listen to Beyonce, or Bieber, etc…
As a silly aside, do you know how many CCM musicians list the Beatles as a positive musical influence on their lives?
Further, there is a big difference between “causing a brother to stumble” and “irritating a particular preference”. I think that too often the two are equated/conflated, and the finding out process of what is happening comes through communication and grace-filled, loving questions.
One point that seems to require mentioning is the often ignored opposite end of the “weaker/strong” brother issue and Romans 14. Often, it is assumed that the stronger is the one who is “ok” with CCM, and that person needs to defer to the weaker, who can’t handle CCM. Therefore, the congregation should move toward the more traditional. However, it never seems to get noted that some have a rather problematic context overlaid upon the traditional. Whether right or wrong, some cannot get past the unnecessarily condemnatory and judgmentalness of their upbringing; and so they cannot worship with the traditional music. It literally causes them to stumble because of the very real context associated in their brains with that type of music. So then should not the church opt for a more contemporary worship approach in deference to the weaker brother?
In view of some of the speculations about Scott Aniol’s current work and theology, I have taken the liberty of getting a few clarifications from him. What follows is what Scott said to me, with his permission to share it as I saw fit.
*******************************************
1. I am personally a pre-Trib, pre-Mill, traditional dispensationalist.
2. I have made very clear for years, and as recently as two weeks ago, what I believe to be the relationship between doctrine, music, and separation, and as that recent article demonstrates, I believe this to be the traditional fundamentalist position. I have not changed on this, nor do I think men like Harding (or you) have changed on this. Fundamental doctrines (virgin birth, inspiration and inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, etc.) are non-negotiable, and I would never choose to be part of a church where these doctrines are denied just because they have good music. So whomever it was in the thread that made a comparison with joining a Catholic church because they have good music was making a false comparison. I also believe secondary doctrines (eschatology, etc.) are important, and my ideal would be to be in a church in which there was full agreement on these matters as well. However, given a choice between agreement on secondary doctrines or agreement on worship/music philosophy, I would choose worship since it more directly affects me and my family on an immediate, deep level than some other secondary doctrines. With my understanding of these relationships, I consider myself a consistent separatist, fundamentalist in the best sense of those words.
3. I have no problem with a church putting pretribulationism, premillenialism, and dispensationalism in their doctrinal statement. I actually prefer it. However, I also am comfortable with a church that decides to leave those issues more flexible, and that is well-within fundamentalist practice. In fact, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, which many fundamental Baptist churches use as their statement of faith, leaves that issue open.
4. The church of which I am a part is not a reformed church. We have Calvinists and Arminians (the real ones!), Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians. Again, personally this is not my ideal, but I will unapologetically affirm that we chose our church over others that had dispensationalism as part of their doctrinal statement because of our agreement over worship philosophy.
5. As of February, I am an elder in our church. I/we believe that elder, pastor, overseer are the same office. I/we disagree with MacArthur’s artificial distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders, and I/we disagree with Dever’s artificial distinction between staff elders and lay elders. The five elders in our church are equal, with the founding pastor serving as a lead elder, understanding the regular order of things (seen, for example, in the economic trinity) to necessitate one primary leader among equals.
6. I recognize and appreciate the difficulty some fundamentalists may have with the fact that I am teaching at at Southwester Baptist Seminary. It has already hindered some fellowship with a few churches, and while I am saddened by this and disagree with their decision to break fellowship with me, I understand their reasons and appreciate their caution. I made this decision with much prayer and counsel from men like Pastor Harding, who enthusiastically encouraged me to teach at Southwestern. He told me that while it may cause some to break fellowship with me, he didn’t think it would be many, and my decision to teach here would in no way hinder my relationship with him or with FBC Troy. He even consulted his deacons who shared that sentiment.
7. The nature of the SBC, the cooperative program, and the relationship between churches, the national convention, and the state convention is something much more complex than I think most on this forum understand or appreciate. For example, my church gives a very small amount of money to the national convention each year so that students and faculty at SWBTS can attend, and our church is not even a member of a state convention. For me, that was significant in our decision to join.
[Jay]It is a reference to the relative lack of sensitivity or reaction from one’s own conscience. If you have a “strong” conscience the item in question doesn’t bother you. If you have a “weak” conscience, it does.
The terms have no bearing on the spiritual value of the position, they are descriptive of the conscience.
Yes, that’s what I said. Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts. It would, however, be a cause for separation as Mike Durning and others on SI have said; it would offend their consciences to sit under or use that music. Many here on the site can’t imagine the possibility of using that kind of music. So I am totally confident that I’m ‘stronger’ in this specific area.
Yes, but here’s the rub: you seem to define music as simply a matter of conscience. The other side, as I am sure you are aware, does not. Therefore we are talking past one another in this equation.
The solution is to prove conclusively that music has no moral component whatsoever. Then and only then can it be simply a matter of conscience.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Re: the explanation about Scott Aniol’s membership in an SBC church.
I look in vain for any retraction of the call for fundamental Baptists to separate from the SBC in the 65+ years worth of FBFI resolutions here. Although, it was 12 years ago when they last addressed the SBC. A group that warns against giving “unqualified approval of” the Together For the Gospel conference does not appear ready to encourage fundamentalists to join SBC churches. This is pertinent, since some of the participants in this discussion are board members of the FBFI.
The fact that someone who is raised in fundamentalism and intends to still minister to fundamentalist churches, and continues to be associated with other fundamentalists through a prominent ministry, and still feels free to become a member at a SBC church and teach at an SBC seminary is indeed a big change.
From my vantage point on the sidelines, I think it is a positive thing. But I do wonder at what seems to be an elevation of the music issue above doctrinal areas that used to be the most prominent points that would prevent cooperation between fundamentalists and their evangelical/SBC brethren.
To quote from Aniol’s post on this linked in Bauder’s post above,
It is for this reason that I view differences in philosophy of culture as more limiting to cooperation than differences in secondary doctrines within the realm of orthodoxy. This perspective is no longer limited to Evangelicalism — there are plenty of Fundamental churches that I could not cooperate with since we do not share this philosophy. But one’s philosophy of culture is important because culture affects everything, especially the gospel.
An attachment to traditional music is consistent with historic fundamentalism, and perhaps even, to a degree, a separation philosophy that is more open and nuanced, more situational and less programmatic. But certainly this attitude toward the SBC seems to be a shift and a change. I think it is good, I just wish there was more openness to allow for more variety of musical expression in our pursuit of a tangible unity that exalts the Gospel in everything.
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.
For what it’s worth, to piggy back on my previous post, Aniol’s being in a SBC church and teaching in a SBC seminary will potentially lead to a greater influence for his positions and be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. I think that mentality of influence the evangelical movement by critique, and thoughtful interaction - and cooperation at times, is a good strategy.
It does sound similar to the strategy of the new evangelicals however, in some respects. Aiming to influence others, stepping out of your orbit into theirs… that can be a form of compromise with error. Obviously the problems in the SBC are not as severe as the problems with liberal theology.
Personally, supporting T4G and The Gospel Coalition, seeking greater unity within conservative evangelicalism, praying for and working with conservative (doctrinally) churches in one’s area would be a way to bring fundamentalist emphases such as opposing the encroachment of worldliness and stressing the need and role of ecclesiastical separation out into the evangelical sphere. This would be a good thing if more of this could happen.
The variations of separation and non-cooperation that Bauder has emphasized is a good thing and I do wish that fundamentalism would continue down this path. Reminding the wider church of its rich legacy of traditional worship would be good too.
All of this seems like a change from the fundamentalist modus operandi of years gone by however.
Not sure how this ties in to the culture bit, I fear I’m rambling a bit. But others had brought up this point too….
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.
Thanks for posting this, Dr. Bauder, and Scott, for letting him. I want to say in the beginning, though I do not think I could take the step Scott has church-wise, I do not think that he is now off limits or denied the faith or anything like that. I would like to respond to one statement:
The nature of the SBC, the cooperative program, and the relationship between churches, the national convention, and the state convention is something much more complex than I think most on this forum understand or appreciate.
I can appreciate what Scott says here. What I would counter with, though, is why the complexity in this specific instance is offered to encourage the reader to give Scott and others in the SBC (or moving that way) latitude or breathing room, but the way we handle musical choices is often presented much more black and white, when it really can be just as complex as navigating through the convention system (if not infinitely more so). A pastor with conservative leanings going into an existing church could face pressures from older saints whose idea of traditional is essentially the Gospel Song genre, and pressure from younger saints to make the music more “relevant” by adding variety in instrumentation and singing the stuff they hear on the local Christian station, and the only thing they have in common is that they both think the pastor’s choices are “boring” (not that I speak from experience or anything… Purely theoretical, here… :) ). I won’t even start with the complexity one can have when people from foreign cultures are assimilated into an American congregation. And that is theoretically just within a local assembly. Once you start going into existing partnerships with missionaries, church associations, youth camps, men’s and ladies’ retreats… Well, it can vary depending on who’s making the decisions for the given meeting, but how you handle the variety can be “complex.”
I can also appreciate the priority he sets in the article linked in his second point. But to stretch his “dish” metaphor a bit, it seems to me that if the liturgy becomes a defining point of separation at certain levels, what you can easily end up with is establishing those choices based on the fancy china you use for Sunday meals. The rest of the week, people are making their own choices, and they are eating a lot using plastic sporks and styrofoam plates, or bypassing utensils entirely and wolfing down sandwiches with paper napkins as they drive. What I’m saying is just because there is tight control of the music in Sunday services doesn’t guarantee those choices will inform the practices and forms people use and partake of during the week.
All that being the case, my main concern in this case is not with Scott and his choices, but how others are handling their relationship with him. It appears to me that there is some latitude extended to him by people who would not match Scott’s apparent comfort with doctrinal ambiguity, who would not extend the same latitude to someone who had more agreement with them on doctrinal matters, but was more comfortable with a degree of music/cultural ambiguity.
At best, the issues to me appear complex enough where I would argue there should be similar latitude extended to someone like Scott as there would be to someone like Matt Olson, at least as far as “who the real Fundamentalist” is. I would even go so far as to say that I would probably find it easier to partner with someone in say, a common missionary endeavor if someone were coming from a church whose worship was somewhat more progressive, but whose approach to the interpretation of Scripture lined up with ours, than I would a missionary who was planning to plant a church like Scott’s. I know not all would agree with me on this (not even Bob Bixby, whose statement of faith has the same ambiguity Scott’s does on eschatology), but in the end, I believe that if we cannot agree at the local church level on how we interpret the Scriptures, all the rest of the arguments we have (including about worship) will be somewhat subjective, anyway.
Well, now that everyone now hates me, I’ll withdraw into my little cyber-corner…
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Aniol’s being in a SBC church and teaching in a SBC seminary will potentially lead to a greater influence for his positions and be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole.
That’s interesting. Why would exposing a broader swath of evangelicalism to “a Christ-less view of worship” (or whatever you recently called it) be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole?
[DavidO]Aniol’s being in a SBC church and teaching in a SBC seminary will potentially lead to a greater influence for his positions and be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole.
That’s interesting. Why would exposing a broader swath of evangelicalism to “a Christ-less view of worship” (or whatever you recently called it) be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole?
I am just too busy to read all of the comments on all these threads. Could you point me to the statement made by Bob about “Christ-less view of worship.” He made that statement about who? Scott Aniol?
Andrew Henderson
Here, at Fundamentally Reformed.
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2013/04/25/superior-affections-yet…
The use of “religious affections” in quotes several times indicates who he’s referring to. Bob got the Christless view of worship accusation from the other Bob.
[Brenda T]http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2013/04/25/superior-affections-yet…
The use of “religious affections” in quotes several times indicates who he’s referring to. Bob got the Christless view of worship accusation from the other Bob.
Thanks, Brenda. I will read the article when I grab a little time. Appreciate the response.
Andrew Henderson
Sorry David, I didn’t see your comment before I posted mine. Bob’s article was also posted at another site.
http://theaquilareport.com/superior-affections-yet-a-christ-less-concep…
[Don Johnson] Yes, but here’s the rub: you seem to define music as simply a matter of conscience. The other side, as I am sure you are aware, does not. Therefore we are talking past one another in this equation.The solution is to prove conclusively that music has no moral component whatsoever. Then and only then can it be simply a matter of conscience.
Don,
I’ve never argued is that music has no moral component, so I’m not sure why you are putting false statements in my mouth. I believe that this is now the second or third time I’ve had to ask you to stop misrepresenting me, and I’d appreciate it if you would do so. As a matter of fact, I agree completely with DavidO, who said, “Music “doesn’t perish with the using”. It isn’t digested and eliminated. It imparts a sensibility and understanding (admittedly not propositional) to the hearer. It demonstrates an approach.” I said that before.
I’ll concede that maybe Colossians 2 isn’t the best passage to use, but there are other biblical passages - not just my ideas - that would seem to support what I’m saying. So I’d appreciate it if you could interact with Romans 14:1-13 and others that I’ve cited, as I asked Aaron to.
When you get done, perhaps you can explain how modern music does not fall into the rubric of Colossians 3:15-17 or Ephesians 5:18-21. Please keep in mind that I’ve already argued that most modern music is worthless and that I have theological problems with some songs, so you don’t have the option of saying that I’m accepting all music carte blanche. I asked Dr. Aniol that question a few days ago, and he never responded either.
Now you said that “God created sound, and fallen man creates music. Big Difference”. I’d like to see where you get that from in the Bible. That’s on you, not me, to prove. Furthermore, there are several Biblical verses that tell us to make music.
*
Mark_Smith - If you’ve already decided that I’ve compromised myself and will be leading others down the ‘slippery slope’, then I really don’t see any point in engaging with you anymore on this. Your mind is made up, so there’s no point in us tying up the thread with endless argument. I’ll respond to your last set of questions, and after that, I’m done.
Yes, I understand that freedom for me might lead you back into bondage. So don’t listen to it (Romans 14:5, 23). That’s fine with me.
It’s not my job as a Christian to police (read: control) what other Christians do or how they dress when they’re on their own. It’s not even my job to discipline them for the way the dress if they were in a church I pastored. All I can do is encourage them to think harder about it as we study what it means to ‘lead worship’ - they have to make those decisions on their own as the Holy Spirit informs their conscience through the study of the Word. I’ve never argued - and would argue vociferously against - listening to Beyonce or Bieber, and I don’t know (or care) how many musicians credit the Beatles. If the Beatles were going to be in my church, I might.
"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
This quotation seems to be the pejorative term used by Bixby and Hayton of RAM.
What does that really mean? None of the songs RAM endorses preach the gospel? That can’t really be it, can it? Or is it the gospel style of music that they want RAM to endorse. Can they define what they mean by “gospel music” a little more?
It unfortunately sounds like all the other gospel centered buzzwords of today.
[Jay][Don Johnson] Yes, but here’s the rub: you seem to define music as simply a matter of conscience. The other side, as I am sure you are aware, does not. Therefore we are talking past one another in this equation.The solution is to prove conclusively that music has no moral component whatsoever. Then and only then can it be simply a matter of conscience.
Don,
I’ve never argued is that music has no moral component, so I’m not sure why you are putting false statements in my mouth. I believe that this is now the second or third time I’ve had to ask you to stop misrepresenting me, and I’d appreciate it if you would do so.
Jay, you are the one proposing to use Romans 14 to write your argument about music. Romans 14 has to do with the conscience and things that have NO MORAL COMPONENT. Therefore it doesn’t apply.
We are having a conversation, it is leading to a point, and this is the point. I have seen you state before things that indicate you see a moral component to music. I am trying to point out that if you really believe that, Romans 14 doesn’t work for you.
[Jay]When you get done, perhaps you can explain how modern music does not fall into the rubric of Colossians 3:15-17 or Ephesians 5:18-21. Please keep in mind that I’ve already argued that most modern music is worthless and that I have theological problems with some songs, so you don’t have the option of saying that I’m accepting all music carte blanche. I asked Dr. Aniol that question a few days ago, and he never responded either.
But Jay, you are very inconsistent. Your “theological problems” have to do with lyrics. We are not talking about lyrics. If you persist in confusing the poetry with the music, we’ll never be able to communicate.
[Jay] Now you said that “God created sound, and fallen man creates music. Big Difference”. I’d like to see where you get that from in the Bible. That’s on you, not me, to prove. Furthermore, there are several Biblical verses that tell us to make music.
Alright, show me the score that God wrote. Or do you want to claim Divine Inspiration for some composer? I don’t think you can prove from the Bible that God created music, at least, not any music that you or I have ever heard.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.
That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.
Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.
Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.
To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:
If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.
The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship - a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.
Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general - on lots of things, would be a good thing.
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.
I respect what you are doing - but I’d like you to clarify some more.
Aren’t the action and attitude of worship two separate issues?
Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.
We really don’t have the ability to judge the attitudes of others, but the actions are an area where we can counsel and concern ourselves with. I’m not trying to judge the attitude of the less conservative worship. However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.
Fine, there are excesses. No one is arguing that there aren’t.
How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?
What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?
[Steve Newman] Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.
I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.
However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.
Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.
How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?
Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.
Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music - that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.
All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to - his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.
What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?
Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?
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.
[Jay] I’ve never argued is that music has no moral component … Please keep in mind that I’ve already argued that most modern music is worthless.
Jay,
I think the problem I’m having, and I admit it’s likely my problem, is I’m hearing you agree that forms matter, that some music is worthless, and that it conveys a sensibility, but then I’m hearing you say that we cannot evaluate a tune or style with principles of scripture.
Maybe I’m overlooking something you’ve written in the various threads (which multiply daily), but I don’t see how you can hold the former notions and not the latter. Sorry to be so boneheaded about this, and I don’t want to make you repeat yourself, but can you help me out?
Thanks for the clarification, Bob.
I think the problem I’m having, and I admit it’s likely my problem, is I’m hearing you agree that forms matter, that some music is worthless, and that it conveys a sensibility, but then I’m hearing you say that we cannot evaluate a tune or style with principles of scripture.
Maybe I’m overlooking something you’ve written in the various threads (which multiply daily), but I don’t see how you can hold the former notions and not the latter. Sorry to be so boneheaded about this, and I don’t want to make you repeat yourself, but can you help me out?
Actually, that is kind of where I’m at, DavidO. Yes, I understand it’s confusing, and I am not really comfortable with it either. But until I see someone come up with Scripture that would seem to apply, I am kind of stuck with the inconsistency. So that’s why I try to participate in these discussions.
My argument is basically this:
- The ultimate goal is to fulfill passages to love the Lord with all the heart, soul, mind and strength. Music is a means to that end.
- The words and lyrics do communicate. They must communicate Biblical principles.
- The Bible is not clear on what that must sound like - it references different instruments (cymbals, stringed instruments, etc). It tells us to sing ‘a new song’. It tells us to sing ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’. It does not say (although it references) things like choirs and orchestras are the only acceptable form of music tune making.
- The Bible tells us not to love the world. It is entirely possible to not love the world or the world’s styles and still make musical “tunes” (not lyrics). There is no Biblical precedent (that I see) that the ‘new song’ (of Psalm 40:3) is the ‘conservative’ form of music, the ‘modern’ form of music, or any other particular style.
- Arguments for a music’s style based on the culture that it “came from” or “sound like” are specious because the associations with those sounds can and do change. The sound or style can also mean two totally different things to different believers (what is a great and edifying song for me might be horribly offensive to Mark_Smith - because I don’t have the background and associations that Mark does). That’s the point of Romans 14:1-13.
- Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God.
I hope that’s helpful.
As an aside - I may have mentioned Mike Durning in earlier posts when I meant Mike Harding. My apologies to both men.
"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
Thanks Jay, very helpful.
When Scott joins an SBC church, IFB says, “What a faithful servant. GODSPEED Scott!”
When some other young guy joins an SBC church, IFB says, “Compromising fella who failed to think through all the issues. Let’s separate from him!”
Shaking. My. Head.
Ecclesia semper reformanda est
[iKuyper] tl;dr all the comments… When Scott joins an SBC church, IFB says, “What a faithful servant. GODSPEED Scott!” When some other young guy joins an SBC church, IFB says, “Compromising fella who failed to think through all the issues. Let’s separate from him!” Shaking. My. Head.it seems to me that dr. harding, for example, has given a lot of latitude to S.A. because he knows him well personally, trusts his music views, and was a part of his decision making process at some level. But it is very confusing that there is only hopefulness, along with an acknowledgement of having stopped financial ties. … As someone who doesn’t know S.A. at all personally, I find his trajectory a little odd, but I am not his master, certainly. He is still welcome to speak in fundamental places who agree with his music philosophies?
[iKuyper] When Scott joins an SBC church, IFB says, “What a faithful servant. GODSPEED Scott!” When some other young guy joins an SBC church, IFB says, “Compromising fella who failed to think through all the issues. Let’s separate from him!” Shaking. My. Head.
As one of those “compromising fellas” who left the IFB world for the SBC more than a decade ago now, I am having the same thoughts, and have been wondering for a couple of months now why Scott being an elder in an SBC church and my being a pastor and now Chaplain for the SBC are any different. Oh, wait, I think I know - I fully embrace modern worship, and left the IFB world because of legalistic attitudes.
Years ago, fundamentalism considered the SBC a “house built on sand” because its seminaries were full of apostates. When Al Mohler helped clean house at at the seminary in Louisville it created a scenario that was hard for some to comprehend-a seminary rescued. Now I know that some might consider Mohler’s job incomplete because of the music they permit or his associations with SGM, but the idea of being able to evict apostates was considered inconceivable by people whose default position was separation. I think its safe to say that Scott Aniol’s recent moves wouldn’t have been acceptable 25 years ago.
Here’s the concise version:http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/courage-in-christian-ministry-part-1#/listen/excerpt
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron, this is my personal opinion. I don’t support Scott in his recent moves. I think it is a mistake and it would preclude ministry cooperation for me. I am speaking only for myself, but I am sure there are many others who would see it the same way. I can’t see a way to justify it.
As for the cleanup of Southern Seminary, for example, since you brought it up… I guess the fact that Mohler honored the liberal past president Duke McCall by naming a building after him and holding a day celebrating him would be an example of “cleaning house”. And the ongoing presence of the Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism at Southern is an example of “cleaning house” as well, eh?
Now, I respect Mohler, think he has done a fantastic job, but there are still serious problems at Southern. It isn’t just the music, but I suspect that would be a problem as well.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Steve Davis][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…
I was thinking the same thing, Steve.
How can Mike fellowship with Scott now that he has declared his allegiance to the SBC.
I can assure you that nothing he says about secondary separation will hold any weight any longer. He is completely compromised by his continuing fellowship and association with Scott.
Which means he really doesn’t believe in secondary separation as it was practiced in the 1980s by Northland.
[Mike Harding]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.
Really? Then you must reject Jesus because he most certainly was post-trib (Matthew 24:31). And yes, you must reject the Apostle Paul because he also was post-trib (2 Thess. 1:5-9, 2:1-12).
Now back to your regularly scheduled separation.
Discussion