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.
- 169 views
[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