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.
- 171 views
[Mike Harding]Bob,
Scott and I are in agreement theologically and on most worship/music issues. His personal character, values, integrity, doctrine, and family life are outstanding. Scott’s family has grown up in our church for over 25 years. His mother has been our elementary principal for many years as well. Scott, as your know, has been heavily involved in IFB churches, schools, colleges his entire life. Several years ago he pursued his Ph.D. at Southwestern in the only seminary to my knowledge that offers that level of training in the field of music, aesthetics, and worship. While there he was asked by Paige Patterson to teach some grad classes while working his way through school. He finished his program just a few days ago and now he is going on full-time faculty as a professor. I had him teach one workshop at my conference while he was pursuing his Ph.D. as a part time grad teacher. I was supporting him financially, but I have ceased that support as of several months ago. I wish that one of our churches or schools could have taken him on fulltime. However, those opportunities did not come to fruition. I am no fan of the SBC; however, the substance of Scott’s doctrine, lifestyle, worship practices, have remained extremely conservative. I just received his Ph.D. dissertation and am looking forward to reading it.
My man Mike;
I have not followed all of this but your and your church’s relationship with Scott Aniol is interesting. Don’t get me wrong. I think it is outstanding that Scott did his PhD work at a SB seminary and is an elder in a SB church. For me as a non-militant biblical separationist this presents no problem. I’m surprised it doesn’t for you although I’m glad. It gives me hope that you might support us again someday :-). Seriously, I mean after all the well-deserved accolades you have for Scott and that you are no fan of the SBC, am I wrong in seeing selective secondary separation? You even allowed a SBC prof and elder teach a workshop (only one I see). It seems that if someone is in “agreement theologically and on most worship/music issues” they override what many would consider compromising SBC connections. I would love to sit down with you and pick your brain someday.
Still your friend,
Steve Davis
p.s. Is this the school where Scott teaches? Looks like CCM to me.
http://www.swbts.edu/campus-news/news-releases/youth-ministry-lab-offer…
So Mike-o
First, nice job on the Kum-bay-ya! Second, Steve asked the question I wanted to but didn’t. Watching that answer with interest. Third, I’m not worried at this stage of the game how you “& friends” view my approach - but I was simply stating those fears fuel the level of angst in my view.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I ask this in all honesty. What is the difference between having someone from Master’s (Rick Holland) and having someone from SWBTS and a member of an SBC church (Scott Aniol) in to speak at a conference? I am sure that Rick has good personal character, values, integrity, doctrine, and family life. Why would it be okay to have Scott in and not Rick? Is it because of where Scott and Rick would differ in the music department? I personally have no problem whatsoever with either one of them and would have no problem with either one of them coming to a conference to speak. But I am genuinely curious as to the difference.
Andrew Henderson
After reading the opening post and “some” of the discussion afterward, here are some thoughts after a bit of introduction.
Using some of the terminology above, I’m more in the cultural progressive camp as opposed to the cultural traditionalist camp. However, I was definitely born and raised in the traditionalist camp. One of the big things that helped me to think critically (not saying that others are void of critical thinking) about my upbringing was a massive shift in theology. What that theology is/was is not at issue; however, that shift brought about a desire to reacquire Biblical moorings. Consequently, I was much more open to reevaluating my previously held beliefs, since some had been decimated by a closer examination of the Word. One of those beliefs were my standards. This paragraph is written to give the reader a slightly better “context” in following what is to be mentioned.
Context is actually quite important. It was in a basic linguistics class or speech class that I first noticed a communication paradigm. It dealt with issues like the “sender” and the “recipient”. It also dealt with “noise”; those are the things that happen between the persons, external to the persons, that blocks or hinders communication. Words like “encoding” and “decoding” were also at play. After all, when a person wants to communicate a message, he/she then has to “encode” or produce a “form” of communication. The “recipient,” upon receiving the message, also has to “decode” the communication. We also have the skill levels of both individuals to take into account as well. Sometimes we just flat out don’t communicate well; and likewise we just flat out don’t listen well either. However, the point of this paragraph is found with the opening word: context. And this issue of context can be found in both the “encoding” process and the “decoding” process. What this means is that “communication” is not a simple thing. There are complications, and I really like what Dr. Bauder has stated before in critiquing fundamentalism for its common sense realism roots. This just means that people tend to see things in an overly simple manner sometimes.
While I’m not necessarily speaking of others on the “culturally progressive” side of things, I can at least speak for myself via personal experience. The argument that I often run into by the culturally traditional is often guided by what appears to me to be a rather naive view of “meaning.” Granted, my time in the “cultural fundamentalism” camp is about 7-8 years removed; so my comments come from that earlier time period as well as reading some on this website and others. But things need to get back to this statement about a naive view of “meaning”. Further granted, Dr. Bauder could probably destroy me in a hermeneutics test, so I’m writing as one who is expressing an opinion but I’m also open to correction. Meaning is not monolithic. Just because Bach or whatever classical guy influenced or wrote something, it is still associated with sin. Sin can be the motivation of great architecture and design just as much as sin can be the motivation toward chaos. Hence, arguments built upon a guilt by association argument destroy all forms of communication and nullify the holiness of everything used in worship, when taken consistently. The issue then becomes, “what sanctifies the inherent corruption in everything?” And I would put out a previously used word: proper context. Context is quite key when a person “decodes” something. If my internal context is providing a conceptual framework for the encoding process that is positive, then I will be much more likely to view the music in a positive light. If my internal context is providing a conceptual framework for the encoding process that is negative, then I will be much more likely to view the music in a negative light.
Here is an example. Case #1: Having grown up in a culturally traditional church, I encountered a great number of times when the piano was played during the offering. Let’s consider a song that is almost universally agreed to be a conservative song: “Amazing Grace”. The pianist is accomplished and capable, and the piece is played flawlessly. It is also played in a culturally traditional manner. Further, it clearly incorporates elements of classical music into its arrangement. Again, the pianist is accomplished, and the piece is played flawlessly and with excellent dynamics (loud and soft at the appropriate moments). Hence, an exquisite masterpiece has been played upon surface level examination, and this seems to be the level were many stop. Unfortunately however, the pianist is quite proud, and the entire “performance” was just that; it was a performance. The music never matched the heart of the person, and the “style” regardless of its traditional stance, was just an outward facade. Dead men’s bones were on the inside of the whitewashed sepulcher. The individual had massively corrupted the traditional music by fame seeking and the pride in showing off his/her skills. Aloof the person stands from others of lesser capabilities. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. People are watching and listening! Again, the performance is flawless; the pianist sits down, plays, and gets up in a way that never indicates his/her pride and motivations. The person watching is brought to tears because of an internal context of the word of God. The person is thinking of the words of the song as the pianist is playing, and the person is relating the words to the Scripture, and then the person is relating all of that to God’s gracious working in his/her life. The “performance” is seen as a wonderful and awesome experience, and the person’s heart is directed in genuine praise to the One who deserves it. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. Another person is watching! The person is nervously examining each and every note, examining each and every change of tempo and volume, examining each and every movement of the arms of the pianist, examining the quality of the piece itself. And the person is doing this because of a different internal context through which the meaning is being decoded. The person observing, in this situation, is also a pianist; and he/she is in direct competition with the other pianist for the top spot at the church. Consequently, he/she has an internal context of competition and over-examination to look for flaws in the performance. Whatever words/lyrics might be a part of “Amazing Grace” are completely lost to that person because of the internal context. Hence, this person is not making any connection to the words of the song, nor is the person making any connection to the realities of the Word and grace. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. Another person is listening. This person has just newly begun to understand the history of the the song itself. This person has an extremely passionate stance against slavery, and hence whether or not John Newton became a Christian is entirely beside the point. He was involved in the slave trade!!! And this person, via an internal context of massive antipathy against slavery, is utterly at a loss as to why the church would EVER play such horrid, terrible music! Doesn’t the church leadership realize how bad slavery is? The internal association with the sin of slavery and the brutality and murder completely contextualizes the message of the song in such a way that the person is in a state of righteous indignation against the church leadership. But the scenario is much more complicated than that. After the “performance” has ended, the pastor gets up, says “amen,” and thanks the musician for the piece. And all of those people, then perceive his words in different ways. To the one, pride and ego stroking are the response. To another, praise to an awesome God is the response. To another, utter disgust against another receiving the praise he/she so desperately craves. To another, never coming back to a worldly, slavery endorsing church is forefront.
The point is that sin permeates a lot more than people give credit; meaning is naively assumed to be overly monolithic in the “worship” experience; and the word of God via the Holy Spirit internally sanctifies the listener and performer with the proper context to send and receive the message communicated. Much of the culturally traditional argument seeks to try to poison the internal context of the listener, so that only a message of unholiness can be heard. I would suggest that this cultural baggage is not always in the mind of the listener, nor need it be; and so the music is seen in a different light. Hence, there is a generational gap because the young simply do not have the same internal context of the older generation. This is also true of different churches with different cultures; the context differs. Therefore, how the music is viewed differs. Hence, just because something is culturally traditional does not mean that it is good, and just because something is culturally progressive does not mean that it is good. The same can be said of the negation of each. (no doubt, a great many issues have not been dealt with, but who ever deals with all the issues all the time with every piece of writing; I wrote this to address a particular issue that seems at fault, and that has been underlined above.)
For those of you who are interested, Scott Aniol is here, at the 2013 Chafer Theological Seminary Bible Conference.
CTS does not use the fundamentalist label though it would be consider fundamentalist probably more so than many fundamentalists schools. Very old Dallas Seminary in their formation.
This video which was created by Dean Ministries (Robert Dean) is a must see for all, on both sides.
I am happy to have encountered this seeing that this association of Teachers, Pastors, churches and CTS theology are my theological roots and upbringing. That is a personal comment and is, of course, not germane. I encourage viewing the video.
[Mike Harding] Scott and Mike Riley (I am assuming that is the “Mike” in your post, because it’s not me) are responsible for their arguments. I did not see Mike calling anyone the Devil. I didn’t see name calling by Scott in your post either. Scott’s normally careful about that kind of thing. Bauder is also quite careful about name-calling and ad hominem arguments as such. I don’t doubt, however, there are violations of this nature on both sides of the argument.
Hi Mike and Michael-
It’s OK. Really, it is. I’ve gotten used to it, but I just couldn’t sit here and pretend that it isn’t a issue, even a very minor one, anymore. I’m sure that Scott doesn’t believe that I’m like the Devil or that I demeaned him or his position. Jesus told me to expect persecution in the world, so I learn to roll with it a little more each day, even when it comes from my brothers (which is what all of you are).
What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture. Let’s disagree - by all means. That’s what the site is for. But let’s not get into the position where ______ clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he hasn’t studied the Scriptures. We can and should be more charitable than that to each other. We can disagree vehemently on the principles and practices without violating Ephesians 4:29-32.
If NIU was wrong to shift music positions, then let’s discuss it. But let’s do it without making them the ‘enemy’.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
“What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture.”
A (seemingly) long time ago in a thread far, far away DavidO asked what biblical principles you use in evaluating music (tune, not text) and you graciously said you would spell that out. I believe he was sincere in his question and I believe you
were sincere in your offer. I’m interested, too.
Well, I was out busy and 28 posts later, I’m back.
But there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that connected directly to the OP, so… I don’t seem to have fallen behind.
On the rules of separation issue, that’s, as we say in Wisconsin, a whole nuther subject. But not unrelated, certainly. I’m not sure where to go with that other than to repeat that I believe a healthy debate about culture and meaning is well worth having and the insult-exchange (whether directly or by implication) is not helpful.
If there is a concerted effort to realign the criteria for separation, I have to confess ignorance on that one. But I think the degree of redefinition, even in the representations I’ve seen here in the thread, may be exaggerated. Fundamentalists have long felt that preaching and practice on some cultural matters, both in and outside of the context of corporate worship were grounds for varying degrees of non-cooperation and, sometimes, outright “separation.”
So in that sense the idea that “conservatism” is among the bases for limited fellowship is not a new one. It’s just a new name for what we used to call “not conforming to this world” and so on (I’m OK with shorthand terms for biblical ideas: Trinity for example… not that I’m putting conservatism on that level of importance doctrinally.)
What might be new is a willingness to soften the associational critera for separation. I think on that subject it really is time to recognize that the landscape has changed and the situation is far less black and white than it used to be (though it never was as black and white as many seemed to suggest). The SBC is far from perfect, but sure isn’t what it was before the conservative (there’s that word again) resurgence.
I’ve got another post coming on this subject, and then maybe another after that, and then I think I’m going to give up on the topic again for a while.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Brenda T] Jay wrote, “What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture.” A (seemingly) long time ago in a thread far, far away DavidO asked what biblical principles you use in evaluating music (tune, not text) and you graciously said you would spell that out. I believe he was sincere in his question and I believe you were sincere in your offer. I’m interested, too.
Brenda, I think you ask a fair question. But here is the thing. I do keep up with RAM to a large extent. I have read Scott’s books. And I have never seen him give musical specifics in how to evaluate a tune. And he is supposedly the expert. It seems to me that it is a bit unfair to ask Jay to do something that the other side refuses to do.
Hey there GregH. Thanks for the fairness tip, but it wasn’t my question. And, as I look back on things I see I was wrong — Jay brought it up first with this comment.
My point is this - if we handed a bunch of Bibles to a group of unsaved pagans with no contact to “the West” (think the Auca Indians from fifty years ago) - would those Bibles be sufficient to teach them how to write songs and conduct musical worship? I think that they would, and I don’t think that we need to parachute Scott (or anyone else) in there to teach them the appropriate music, instruments, or style to use. I think that God would accept their musical worship insofar as it agreed with the concepts the Bible teaches.
Greg,
I’m certain you would be able to accurately categorize various works as art music, pop music, folk music, grunge, jazz, folk rock, country, what passes for country today but isn’t really country anymore so much as twangified rock, etc.
Scott’s pretty clear about which of those he believes are fit for worship and why.
Furthermore, although I don’t have ready access to his Worship in Song, I seem to recall a section describing what kind of melodic movement and modes, rhythms, etc to which he ascribes various emotional meanings.
That’s pretty clear. He doesn’t give proof texts, but then his view of sola scriptura, as opposed to Jay’s, doesn’t require him to.
As to my inquiry, it was genuine, but no one should feel pressed to answer. Whenever, or never, is fine.
It was the following statement by Jay that prompted the initial question
Bible = acceptable music that is pleasing to the Lord (My argument)
[Caleb S]The point is that sin permeates a lot more than people give credit; meaning is naively assumed to be overly monolithic in the “worship” experience; and the word of God via the Holy Spirit internally sanctifies the listener and performer with the proper context to send and receive the message communicated. Much of the culturally traditional argument seeks to try to poison the internal context of the listener, so that only a message of unholiness can be heard. I would suggest that this cultural baggage is not always in the mind of the listener, nor need it be; and so the music is seen in a different light.
Hi Caleb,
Nice to see you on here. I too have some background in linguistics and the Gadamerian hermeneutical tradition, so much of what you said makes sense to me. I’d like to explore this quoted portion above a bit more. I agree that some traditionalists do what you say, focusing on a presumed internal context for meaning. However, I think that there is another, opposite approach to this issue that at least some are pursuing. This approach would be to make music into a more straightforward biological/psychological stimulus-response affair that bypasses subjective associations and culturally-influenced meaning altogether. So, X music style by virtue of its very formation produces Y effects in the human body and psyche, whereas A music style produces B effects. So, if we know what effects are good and bad, and which styles/forms produce those effects, AND if we know those links hold true generally regardless of culture, we have a fairly simple argument. Take a food analogy: individual subjective and cultural context play very little part in determining what a significant amount of hydrogen cyanide is going to do to a person.
However, I am skeptical that music’s effect on the soul can be assessed so determinately or independently of culture and subjectivity.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Aaron Blumer]Well, I was out busy and 28 posts later, I’m back.
But there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that connected directly to the OP, so… I don’t seem to have fallen behind.
On the rules of separation issue, that’s, as we say in Wisconsin, a whole nuther subject. But not unrelated, certainly. I’m not sure where to go with that other than to repeat that I believe a healthy debate about culture and meaning is well worth having and the insult-exchange (whether directly or by implication) is not helpful.
If there is a concerted effort to realign the criteria for separation, I have to confess ignorance on that one. But I think the degree of redefinition, even in the representations I’ve seen here in the thread, may be exaggerated. Fundamentalists have long felt that preaching and practice on some cultural matters, both in and outside of the context of corporate worship were grounds for varying degrees of non-cooperation and, sometimes, outright “separation.”
So in that sense the idea that “conservatism” is among the bases for limited fellowship is not a new one. It’s just a new name for what we used to call “not conforming to this world” and so on (I’m OK with shorthand terms for biblical ideas: Trinity for example… not that I’m putting conservatism on that level of importance doctrinally.)
What might be new is a willingness to soften the associational critera for separation. I think on that subject it really is time to recognize that the landscape has changed and the situation is far less black and white than it used to be (though it never was as black and white as many seemed to suggest). The SBC is far from perfect, but sure isn’t what it was before the conservative (there’s that word again) resurgence.
I’ve got another post coming on this subject, and then maybe another after that, and then I think I’m going to give up on the topic again for a while.
Aaron, as a fellow cultural conservative and someone who probably attended BJU about the same era as you (the 80’s), I have to admit there has been a slight shift in how conservatives viewed separation from the late 70s thru today. When we were in school there was a black and white separation issue with the SBC with their doctrinally liberal seminaries and affiliated colleges and churches. In the early 80’s I don’t remember “the music” as the stated reason by fundamentalists as the reason for separation. In fact, there were churches and christian schools aligned with, and sent their children to BJU that had quite the “loose” music standard for worship, drums and all. When I was a kid in the 70’s our church was headed by two current MBBC board members and our music was Gaitheresque in style. Music standards seemed to “tighten up” during the 80’s among the IFB world that even Gaither was frowned upon. Blame Garlock/Hamilton? I don’t know. Then, the SBC became more theologically conservative, but maintained their cultural music path so that, now, culture, though quite an important issue, has become the main differential between us. I am not here to debate whether music is a separation matter, but just to note that music wasn’t a significant issue for separation back in the day.
Featured Resource
Discussion