Your Thoughts on the FBFI

location may be a factor.

Out here in Northern California, we seem to be somewhat isolated from the intramural politics back East. It’s not that we don’t have representatives of the various factions out here. It’s just that California is so big we don’t incidentally bump into each other.

[Greg Linscott]…the attitude of the past has been “If you don’t like the program or the speaker don’t come.” If the leadership is really interested in answering the enrollment issue, perhaps the attitude you mentioned is a factor they should consider.

This bit stood out to me. Why, if they are doing what is right/best/proper, would they try to be more populist in their approach? My guess is they look at it as they can limit their message or limit their fellowship. Not entirely improper, is it?

Point is, they are telling everyone who they are with every move they make. It is then up to anyone not presently “among” them to decide if they themselves are “of them” or not and make decisions of association accordingly.

[Greg Linscott] I’m not begrudging you or anyone else the benefits they receive from any fellowships, regional or otherwise. I am observing that it seems to me that the question is being asked or implied about why some aren’t attracted to the FBF. You said that the attitude of the past has been “If you don’t like the program or the speaker don’t come.” If the leadership is really interested in answering the enrollment issue, perhaps the attitude you mentioned is a factor they should consider.

But hey, what do I know? I’m only a former member, who joined on my own accord when no one went out of their way to recruit me, and who no one went out of their way to inquire when I let it lapse.

I mentioned an attitude of insularity earlier in this thread - Greg’s observation makes me want to upgrade that from ‘insularity’ to ‘self-obsession’.

If the FBFI wants people to join it, they’re going to have to learn to cultivate members and learn how to pursue people who are leaving. But if they aren’t interested in doing that, then I don’t want to hear panicked cries from them about how ‘Fundamentalism is dying!!!!’

[DavidO]

This bit stood out to me. Why, if they are doing what is right/best/proper, would they try to be more populist in their approach? My guess is they look at it as they can limit their message or limit their fellowship. Not entirely improper, is it?

Dave,

That is their prerogative, and i don’t think I have accused them of impropriety. But for what it is worth, I am not calling for a limit of their message- as far as I can tell, I have not expressed any difference with them doctrinally. I don’t think it is a matter of pure populism, though, especially when you are dealing with an organization that would be generally targeting Baptist pastors. Baptists have generally held to concepts like congregationalism and not called it “populist.” There are principles that limit the congregation and keep them accountable, even as there are leaders who provide a measure of direction. For whatever reason (past history, as Rob Fall noted, is a factor), the leadership lacks that accountability to the membership in the FBFI. What they need to ask is, 1. Is that a deterrent to some? and 2. Is it okay if it is?

I don’t really disagree with you (although I suspect the local church model elements you wish were present in the international fellowship work precisely because the church is local and doing church rather than a fellowship). I think your questions are on target except for the fact they were answered decades ago and those answers have been more or less affirmed all the way along since then. Changing that culture will be a long and painful process for anyone who attempts it. Or perhaps for any who watch them attempt it.

One of the lessons I take away from some of the history that Rob and Kevin highlight is the sad irony of separatist fundamentalism. There is a slippery slope to secondary separation - and you see it in the inter-relationships of these break-off groups from the NBC. As I’ve said over and over again….a real problem with Type A fundamentalism is far more than their inability to fellowship with Type B’s (like me) or Type C’s (like Dever, etc…..) - they fracture into groups insisting that “our group” is the most consistent…..most fundamental…..most “God-like.” As noted by Kevin - this sometimes has been in part, a cover for personality fights. Kevin noted that the bad blood between the GARBC - NTA - FBFI continue today. I know there are some differences between these groups but in the main they have so very much in common - especially the conservative side of the GARBC - NTA and the FBFI. I know I’m outside looking in but it’s just goofy - you have so much in common and yet you can’t work together. This probably more than anything else is why you loose your young men to other orbs of fellowship. Perhaps with the FBFI meeting at Faith this year this indicates a bit of a willingness for the conservative GARBC and the FBFI to seek a higher level of koinonia. Good for you guys! You should have a campfire after your gathering and enjoy some marshmellows or something at the end.

Straight Ahead!

jt

The following statement was made over in the other thread: “Whether its anti-dispensationalism, continuationism, old-earth progressive creationism, or Christian rap, its a whole new world that I don’t desire to participate in.”

I think this statement gets to the crux of the issue as to why younger guys are steering clear of organizations like the FBFI. The only way I can explain it is by asking some questions.

1. Is it possible that there are non-dispensational scholars - godly men - that we can profit from and learn from? I think the vast majority of folks here would say “yes”. Then why should dispensationalism be a matter of separation?

2. Is it possible that there are Christian rap artists who really are sincere, genuine, and godly? Is it possible that they are reaching a demographic that can’t be reached with classical hymns? Is it possible that much confusion is wrought when people on one hand embrace the music of Beethoven, Copland, or Tchaikovsky and yet on the other hand consider Christian rap (and all CCM, for that matter) anathema? Again, even as a fairly conservative music guy I have to say the answer to those questions is “yes”.

I don’t necessarily think that FBFI guys have to “participate in” non-dispensational theology, Christian rap, or CCM. But I also think it is wrong to separate from those folks on those bases alone. And I think this is where we perhaps get closer to the heart of the disconnect between organizations like the FBFI and younger guys.

[Mark Mincy]

2. Is it possible that there are Christian rap artists who really are sincere, genuine, and godly?

Mark, I think there wouldn’t be many who fit your definition, but I believe it’s possible. However, that’s not by itself a complete answer to the question. Other men have made this argument, so it’s not new with me, but don’t we have to consider men like Uzzah when we think about this topic? As far as what one can read in the scripture, he had only sincere, genuine, and godly intentions, but he didn’t follow the guidelines God had laid out, and God punished him for it.

Music, of course, is not nearly as clear as the commandments surrounding the handling of the Ark. Still, we have plenty of warning about being like the world. I don’t buy all the arguments about the supposed inherent “evilness” of notes, rhythms, and melodies, and yet, why would we want the music we use to worship God to sound exactly like that used by the world? Something that is holy is by definition “set apart.” Wouldn’t we want the music used to worship a holy God to be set apart from that of the world? I wouldn’t want our worship music to resemble either nursery rhymes or John Philip Sousa, and certainly not that used by popular recording artists to portray things that are completely antithetical to what we as sanctified believers should be thinking on, i.e., those things that are true, honest, pure, etc.

Though I am someone who appreciates and loves the classical tradition, I understand that that idiom does not speak to many today, and that there were plenty of composers/performers of that time who were no different or better than the composers/performers of today.

The way I see it, the question we should ask ourselves then, is “Why should our worship music be too much like any worldly form?” Obviously, some musical elements will be common to all types of music, but why shouldn’t our hymns and songs have a distinctly different sound to the extent possible than that used for secular purposes? When we hear church music, I’m convinced it should sound distinct from what we will hear in stores, on TV, at concerts, at political functions, etc. It should serve to draw our hearts toward God, and not make us think of something worldly, or serve as merely a replacement for something worldly we “gave up,” but can’t live without. I’m sure I’m in the minority, but even loving classical music, I don’t believe that worship music should sound like Beethoven’s 5th symphony any more than it should sound like something from a popular rap artist.

[dcbii]

[Mark Mincy]

2. Is it possible that there are Christian rap artists who really are sincere, genuine, and godly?

Mark, I think there wouldn’t be many who fit your definition, but I believe it’s possible. However, that’s not by itself a complete answer to the question. Other men have made this argument, so it’s not new with me, but don’t we have to consider men like Uzzah when we think about this topic? As far as what one can read in the scripture, he had only sincere, genuine, and godly intentions, but he didn’t follow the guidelines God had laid out, and God punished him for it.

Music, of course, is not nearly as clear as the commandments surrounding the handling of the Ark. Still, we have plenty of warning about being like the world. I don’t buy all the arguments about the supposed inherent “evilness” of notes, rhythms, and melodies, and yet, why would we want the music we use to worship God to sound exactly like that used by the world? Something that is holy is by definition “set apart.” Wouldn’t we want the music used to worship a holy God to be set apart from that of the world? I wouldn’t our worship music to resemble either nursery rhymes, John Philip Sousa, or that used by popular recording artists to portray things that are completely antithetical to what we as sanctified believers should be thinking on, i.e., those things that are true, honest, pure, etc.

Though I am someone who appreciates and loves the classical tradition, I understand that that idiom does not speak to many today, and there were plenty of composers/performers of that time who were no different or better than the composers/performers of today.

The way I see it, the question we should ask ourselves then, is “Why should our worship music be too much like any worldly form?” Obviously, some musical elements will be common to all types of music, but why shouldn’t our hymns and songs have a distinctly different sound to the extent possible than that used for secular purposes? When we hear church music, I’m convinced it should sound distinct from what we will hear in stores, on TV, at concerts, at political functions, etc. It should serve to draw our hearts toward God, and not make us think of something worldly, or serve as merely a replacement for something worldly we “gave up,” but can’t live without. I’m sure I’m in the minority, but even loving classical music, I don’t believe that worship music should sound like Beethoven’s 5th symphony any more than it should sound like something from a popular rap artist.

Dave,

Some great thoughts there. Ironically, it sounds like you and I are very much alike on this issue. I am a music conservative at heart (and in practice), but I struggle with much of what has been done under the umbrella of separation in this realm. Just a few bullet points/questions in response and I’d love to hear more of your thinking on this.

• Regarding Uzzah, and the OT…As you allude to , I really struggle with making rigid application from these OT passages. While there are certainly instructive principles to be found I just don’t think there is anyway to consistently apply those things to our NT environment of grace. I prefer to use passages like “all things are lawful, but all things edify not” and others like it in discussions on these types of topics. I don’t think the OT passages are helpful in the realm of application because there is no way to remain consistent (i.e. we would live in a very harsh world given all the death penalties for various sins in the OT law).
• Another aspect of this is how do you determine what is or what is not acceptable? In other words, I think many conservative churches have more in common with the Roman Catholics or Mormons when it comes to the issue of music because the classical tradition is deemed as most acceptable and even “holy”. Can praise and worship music, or Christian rap be just as acceptable and just as distinctive in the sense of being different from the world? I think so. I say that while admitting again that those genres don’t appeal to me. But I lived and ministered in the inner city of NYC for 4 years and ultimately realized that different cultures don’t appreciate European, classical music like I do :). Another aspect of this is can genres (like rap) be “redeemed” and used for gospel good? Again, I think so. Are there dangers there? Sure. In any art form there are always inherent dangers of appealing to the flesh. In any presentation of art there are always inherent dangers of performers seeking their own glory.
• Your point about distinctiveness is well taken. I try to emphasize that principle in our church. But at the end of the day, I think we have to admit there will be a wide variance on this. It has always been that way in the church. The CCM or rap guys could ask us how we are distinct from the Mormons or Beethoven in our music. We might ask them how they are distinct from popular bands or rap artists. Both of us would have good answers. And that is why this is so difficult.
• One last point…I’ve heard guys like Shai Linne and Tripp Lee give their testimonies. They are real. They are genuine. They want to reach people with the gospel. They use a genre that is totally foreign to me. And again, that is what makes this so difficult.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dave and Mark,

I appreciate both of you attempting to understand Christian Hip-Hop without necessarily disregarding it completely. For the last 20 years of my life, I have been a missionary within inner-city Grand Rapids, reaching out to the hip-hop culture, particularly drug dealers, gang members, rappers, “baby-mamas,” “baby-daddies,” and athletes. Interestingly enough, within Hip-Hop culture, everyone, whether they are non-Christians or Christians, can tell the difference between worldly secular hip-hop and Christian hip-hop within 15 seconds of the songs start. The reason? Since hip-hop focuses so much on the lyrics, those who grew up listening to hip-hop have trained themselves to hear every single lyric and rhyme without missing a beat. Therefore, since hip-hop is primarily about the message, non-Christians and Christians can easily discern what is worldly and what isn’t.

However, to those who did not grow up listening to Hip-Hop, it all sounds the same. It all seems like worldly music to Christians that did not grow up listening to Hip-Hop. Sadl;y, Christians on the outside looking in make the worldly argument about Christian Hip-Hop when non-Christians within Hip-Hop culture easily see a complete difference between the two.

The Hip-Hop question is not irrelevant, but how would most Fundamentalists in this discussion (FBF’ish) handle something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJHGETpow7E

This is something I’m having to wrestle with in my own church. I have people like the ones in the video coming in to our town for work. They had to leave their homes and country because of the Burmese government- dominated by a dictatorship that would favor Communism and Buddhism- taking violent action on their tribe. This is due in part to the way that Christianity has taken hold among their people, dating all the way back to Adoniram Judson and Ko Tha Byu. They have undergone a great deal for their faith that I have never had to face, as you can see in this (long) video:

http://vimeo.com/16548078

Since their introduction to Christianity preceded a great many things here in the US, including the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversies- their outside influences have not come from generally conservative sources. In spite of that, they have remained pretty traditional overall from what I can tell as far as the expressions and practice they employ in worship (They were very glad when they came to our church, because as they said, many American churches no longer used the hymnal!). At the same time, because of influences and technology, there is quite a bit that has become established in their tribe. The video above is one illustration. Another of a slightly different flavor (but still under the broad Christian umbrella) is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1OF9CePKJk

Now, I know for a fact that the ethnic people in my church listen to things like this. Furthermore, I know that the “white folk” in my church listen to things I wouldn’t listen to or allow in our services. And this is the point- we are discussing hip-hop, when many of us, if we’re honest, would react almost as strongly to most Southern Gospel (at least in this discussion). How important is music to our practical fellowship? Where does it cease to be a matter of poor taste or lack of conditioning and become a matter where we actually cannot cooperate?

I will admit, I am not as confident answering that question as I was a few years ago.

Greg,

A few thoughts on this. I think there are several things in play on this issue. Things like ethnicity, culture, generational gap, and even preference. I kind of break things down into “groups” as it pertains to this issue.

• One group would include churches (like the one I serve) who have always had conservative music and continue to maintain conservative music. We use many new songs (Getty, Townend, SG, etc.) but sing them in a conservative style. We may use guitar and strings at times, but generally we use just keyboard. We have a balance of young and old in our congregation and my philosophy on music is to try and “edify all and offend none”. Difficult to do at times. But generally we don’t have anyone pushing us to go to a totally different style of music in our services.
• Another group includes churches similar to the one I serve only a pastor comes in and wants to change the whole music philosophy and perhaps go to more of a praise band style. Now, not all change is bad change. But if you offend half the congregation in making this change (many times just for the sake of change) then I think a big mistake has been made. I sense there are too many guys out there who are changing just for the sake of change. Or, perhaps they are changing to be “cool” or “relevant”. To me, there’s nothing worse than observing a music ministry that is trying desperately to be cool. Give me a little old lady on the organ any day :). Can there be anything worse than a bad praise band? I don’t think so.
• Yet another group includes churches who use exclusively contemporary music (great texts, but set to a very contemporary sound, and done very well). But the key is “that is who they are”. They aren’t trying to be cool. That’s who they’ve been all along. I can’t fault these guys. I think they are pursuing ministry with a clear conscience and doing wonderful gospel work.

I think the key is we have to humbly “be who we are” as churches. I realize that can be easier said than done. I think that as church leadership focuses the attention on congregational singing (as opposed to “special” music, or even choirs, etc.) that some of the more difficult decisions are taken care of (i.e. is this “special” music going to offend anyone). We also need to let other people “be who they are”. That includes other churches who may have different music styles. And even in our own churches, folks may have different musical tastes in their private listening. I’m obviously talking here in the realm of Christian music, or at least music that is not blatantly objectionable (there is unfortunately plenty of that).

Well - in a moment of painful transparency I think I’m with you guys here almost word for word. Like Mark, Dave and Greg the church I pastor is relatively conservative (hymns - newer stuff without a drum - we are clearly conservative when compared to the larger world of Bible-believing churches) and I am conservative in my personal taste of music. KBACH is my favorite radio station here in the Phoenix area. As I write this note here in my office, I’m listening to a Lifescapes Classical Guitar CD - fantastic! Having said that, I can and do enjoy other stations/genre’s but I remain conservative in personal taste. Back to Mark’s original note that kicked off the last 4 or 5 posts - I also am dispensational in basic approach but have benefited “big time” from theological and biblical teachers who are not.

The issue then is do we throw men/ministries out our “tent” because they are not as conservative as we in music or as dispensational as we in hermeneutics. I think many of us are seeing some of our Type A brothers in the FBF or the conservative side of the GARBC say “yes.” To my view (whatever that’s worth) we are post-fundamentalist if we do. That is historic fundamentalism allowed a diversity in a variety of areas. Much of this is captured in Romans 14 where some activity (not specified in the Scriptures) is judged as “sin” and others doing the exact same things are judged as “righteous” based on a God-honoring conscience. Type A fundamentalism has had at best a strained relationship with Romans 14 in my opinion.

If one simply takes an exegetical approach/Biblical theological approach to music genre there is no way you place music choice in the fundamentals of the faith. I don’t think it even belongs in the second category such as denominational distinctives. So, maybe based on a “philosophy” of ministry issue, you can bring music genre choice into the third or fourth level of doctrine/practice. There is no way I can with good conscience cut all koinonia with a brother over a third/fourth level issue.

So I actually can appreciate the attempt from our good friends in the Beethoven Group who will speak of the implications of that which is “good” and then try to build a case for either a corporate or individual musical limitation based on the concept of “good.” At the end of the day - it is still not a clear biblical/exegetical apologetic - it is philosophical in nature, which means the authority behind the argument is anything but universal.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Mark,

• Whether I would agree with everything you said or not, the fact is that churches like those represented in the FBF membership have drawn those lines much differently, at least in the past. I would even do so far, still, to say that musical choices should factor to some degree into our choices of fellowship. But all fellowship is not equal.
• You say a church has to “be who they are.” That is pretty subjective. First Baptist of Marshall is not “who they were” five years ago. I have admittedly made some changes in my five years here (some still pine for “In the Garden” and “The Old Rugged Cross” rather than “The God of Abraham Praise” and “Jesus, Lover of My Soul”). Some of my leadership has brought about change. Some has been brought in because we have 1/3 of the attending congregation who speaks S’gaw Karen, and I am desperately trying to figure out how to work them in. They sing very well, but the style is different than we would have had in the past, anyway…
  
  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150447771497411
  
• The problem we will face more and more is how much room do we have to change? Again, what is just a matter of good judgment vs. allowing profane worship? I had one of my Karen friends who we scheduled to sing the offering who wanted to sing “Shine, Jesus, Shine”- and since it was in English, could my family and I join him!
  
  I did steer him another way, but the matter will come up again. It’s not an easy conversation to have even in your native tongue, much less with someone who is not a native English speaker.
  
  
• What do we introduce? I have made a change in the last couple of years and intentionally introduced more Getty songs (as well as some SG and Chris Anderson stuff) because I know that I have people who are pursuing new music on their own, and want them to at least see some of what is better by comparison.

It won’t get any easier, I’m sure. I’m just observing that the influences (and related questions) come from multiple directions.

You’re right, Greg. “Be who you are” doesn’t communicate very well what I am thinking. If we were talking face to face this would be easy :). The idea there, in my mind, is that too many churches are trying to be something they are not. They are trying to be cool or relevant. They are trying to be like another church or ministry rather than utilizing the talents and gifts available to them within the scope of their ministry philosophy. That said, and as you allude to with your church’s journey, things will change. But it has to be change for the right reason. Having the group you linked to sing for your congregation makes sense now because a substantial portion of your congregation is made up of the Karen people. That is wonderful. I imagine that 5 years ago you would never have expected such a thing. To me, that is good change.

Your example of “Shine, Jesus, Shine” is a good one (and brought a smile to my face). I think these types of situations are fairly common. And they aren’t easy. I can honestly say I dread those situations :). But we try to evaluate everything within a philosophy that demands a Biblically rich text married to a musical presentation that edifies the body. As you note, there are times when that isn’t easy.

My greater point, though, is to the broader FBFI discussion. My personal position is that if another church (particularly one that falls into bullet point 3 in my previous post) has a different music philosophy than I do it is not reason for separation. On the contrary, I can rejoice that they are ministering with a clear conscience for the glory of God. I sense that the general FBFI position is that certain musical styles are themselves cause for separation, without consideration of any other factors. And as Kevin just noted over in the other thread, they can’t do that without being very inconsistent.

Dr. Bauder just referred to something that I was thinking about on the Featured Discussion thread, so I wanted to quote it and mention it.

Fourth, I acknowledge that the FBFI also has sober hands on the wheel. People like Mike clearly see the danger of both ditches, and I know he’s not alone. The question is, who’s really steering the bus? There are lots of hands on the wheel, and it’s not clear to me whether the bus is going to stay out of the ditch or whether it is about to lurch back in again. Either way, much as I respect Harding, Schaal, Sproul, and people like them, I wonder whether drivers of the FBFI bus are in the strongest moral position to be warning about the other ditch.

….The FBFI has been willing to name conservative evangelicals publicly, to analyze their putative errors, and to warn against them. Do you think that the FBFI would ever be willing to name the IFBF and to warn against its errors? If not, then why the imbalance?

If we cannot demonstrate an ability to stay between the lines with the shiny side up, why shouldn’t other drivers just ditch us?

This is what I wrote last Friday, but hadn’t put out here:

I’m also concerned about the members and leaders who are involved with it (and yes, I know that it’s a fellowship and that they can’t throw members out - but leadership in the org is a different matter) which is in and of itself a problematic point if you’re going to be an organization that is concerned with eternal truths. The fact that Chuck Phelps wrote a major article for the December issue and is an officer of the FBFI flatly amazes me, after all the events of 2011. The seemingly ongoing tack to the hard right - WCBC was one org that was referred to earlier and the Schaap conferences (granted, that was pre-Schaap’s incarceration days) - make me worry whether or not the lunatic IFBx fringe is now becoming the mainstream within the FBFI and if they are beginning to steer the boat away from the good guys that run it, simply because they will bring in the money needed to drive the organization. I see that Rick Arrowood is on the Board as an Emeritus member and am uncomfortable with his (to borrow from Joel) A- vision of Fundamentalism. Then you get into Pastor Sweatt’s ramblings at the FBFI meeting a couple years ago, and the vision that I see is of a flawed (possibly compromised?) organization.

I am very reticent to join an organization that doesn’t know where it’s going or has so many varying shades of Fundamentalism at the helm. The FBFI is a ship adrift - who is the real ‘captain’ of the ship? Where exactly does the proverbial buck ‘stop’?

The answers remain to be seen.

Couple of random thoughts floating around about younger men and the FBFI:

1. My guess is that a number of younger men are not in the FBFI because they do not see men in the FBFI that they want to be like and to be mentored by. That may say something about the younger men, the men in the FBFI, or the visibility of men in the FBFI, or all three, or more. (And I could be wrong.) And if they did see these kinds of men, they could probably have the relationship without the FBFI.

2. My guess is that younger men do not see any compelling reason to be part of the FBFI in terms of ministries that they can participate in, nor do they believe they can have any great input in the future of the FBFI if they even wanted to. But they do see a history that they do not want to be associated with. I think the concerns and drives are different.

3. In another recent thread, “tastes” in music were equated with homosexuality. I imagine that many younger men are probably troubled by that kind of rhetoric. My guess is that the person who said that is not in the FBFI, but I imagine that some in the FBFI (not all) would not be far from a position that would echo the same kinds of strains.

4. Related to this, I think Greg is hitting on something very important when we start wrestling with cultural issues. Dave comments that probably most CCM hip-hop guys are not sincere and godly, though he gives us no insight into how he has reached that conclusion. Joel says that those “in the know” can tell worldly hip hop in less than fifteen seconds because of the words, which misses the argument of many (whether right or wrong) that the worldliness of hip hop is not the words, but the medium. And my guess is that the younger men are (for better or worse) are not interested in making these things tests of fellowship (probably similar to Joel). Most are probably willing to fellowship to one degree or another with churches who worship significantly different, or at least to refrain from loud pronouncements about those who use different music, but they are not willing to fellowship with people who make pronouncements that certain types of music as worldly by definition. Again, I am not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of either position, but merely suggesting a reason why younger men may not be hip on the FBFI. They, like Greg, are confronting culture outside of fundamentalism, and they (perhaps unlike Greg, I don’t know) are struggling to place their fundamentalist upbringing into their ministry context.

5. My guess is that many younger men perceive that they are doctrinally different than the FBFI and see no latitude for their views. For instance, they hear the message of Sweatt (yes, I know it was “handled” … or something), but they hear that, and are troubled mostly by the demeanor of it, not so much by the content, though it is likely that many younger men are more Calvinistic than older men. I know, as Don said, that they don’t check messages, and they shouldn’t necessarily. But the fact that a man was preaching who did not have the judgment to avoid that troubles them. They see the tolerance of the KJVO movement and are troubled by it. They see doctrinal issues and name-callings of the past and are troubled by it. They sense an “all or nothing” approach; they do not see a “He’s a good man who differs from us on some things.” So they simply see no reason to join an organization that treats them and people they have learned from in that manner. Again, whether that’s right or wrong view for younger men to have can be disputed I suppose, but I think that’s probably part of it.

[Greg Linscott]

• You say a church has to “be who they are.” That is pretty subjective. First Baptist of Marshall is not “who they were” five years ago. I have admittedly made some changes in my five years here (some still pine for “In the Garden” and “The Old Rugged Cross” rather than “The God of Abraham Praise” and “Jesus, Lover of My Soul”). Some of my leadership has brought about change. Some has been brought in because we have 1/3 of the attending congregation who speaks S’gaw Karen, and I am desperately trying to figure out how to work them in. They sing very well, but the style is different than we would have had in the past, anyway…
  
• The problem we will face more and more is how much room do we have to change? Again, what is just a matter of good judgment vs. allowing profane worship? I had one of my Karen friends who we scheduled to sing the offering who wanted to sing “Shine, Jesus, Shine”- and since it was in English, could my family and I join him!

• What do we introduce? I have made a change in the last couple of years and intentionally introduced more Getty songs (as well as some SG and Chris Anderson stuff) because I know that I have people who are pursuing new music on their own, and want them to at least see some of what is better by comparison.

It won’t get any easier, I’m sure. I’m just observing that the influences (and related questions) come from multiple directions.

I’ve been struggling with this for years now, so let me piggyback off of Greg’s post a little.

I came out of a very anti-CCM background, but I’ve changed on that issue myself, although I’m not ready to go down the whole ‘Christian hip-hop’ or ‘Christian rap’ road. The biggest instigator for that change, was realizing that there are a lot of hymns that have been remade (and remade well!) by artists, and when I listen to those songs, I can’t really find any fault with them unless I’m prepared to go down the ‘drums are evil, electric guitars are evil, and rock music kills plants argumentation’ that so many preachers (and music ministries) have. After all - if the words are the same for the songs (or have minor differences), then why is it a horrible thing for the tune itself to change? I think it’s really safe to say that the Bible says you shall not use electric instruments in a band or performance - because those things didn’t exist in the [00] ’90s, when the book of Revelation was written.

Here are the songs that I’m thinking of:

* Blessed Redeemer by Casting Crowns

* Glorious Day (Living He Loved Me) by Casting Crowns

* Wondrous Love by Enfield (What Wondrous Love is This?)

* Crown Him With Many Crowns by Enfield (Link for the this and the next two songs)

* Jesus Shall Reign by Enfield

* Lead On, O King Eternal by Enfield

* Holy, Holy, Holy by Enfield

* All That Thrills My Soul by Sovereign Grace

Then you have to deal with songs that are theologically orthodox that have no objectionable tune (as far as I can tell):

* Plead for Me - Sovereign Grace Music

* Behold Our God - Sovereign Grace Music

* Arrived by Enfield

* I Will Rise by Chris Tomlin

There are others that I could list as well, but I think you understand my point. I don’t endorse all the bands and all their songs (I have huge objections to “Jesus, Friend of Sinners” and “What This World Needs” by Casting Crowns (and don’t get me started on Chris Tomlin’s “God’s Great Dance Floor”)!

Greg is right - our musical tastes and preferences can’t be based on culture. They HAVE to be based on theology - but if so, then why are we spending so much time discussing side issues and fighting to preserve the way 300 year old hymns sound?

So how exactly do we take the musical principles from God’s Word (Let all things be done decently and in order, make a joyful noise to the Lord, etc) and apply them to music without resorting to personally-taste-based Christianity because ‘it has drums’ or because someone scribbled ‘Rock Out’ on their drum set? That context becomes a lot different when you see the lyrics to the songs that they’re ‘rocking out’ to.

If someone could help me understand that, I’d appreciate it.

If someone could help me understand that, I’d appreciate it.

Here you go. Start at the beginning.

This is also helpful. Perhaps starting with this series.

David,

I don’t think this needs to turn in to a lengthy discussion on music specifics. Scott and Bauder, for example, have had to figure out ways to peacefully coexist with those who don’t share their conclusions. If the context of this discussion with the FBF, the point being raised as I understand it are the acceptable parameters of music perspectives. Raising Aniol and so on is not helpful in that way, since most FBF pastors would be considered “unorthodox” if that is the standard, much less Holy Hip Hop artists…

I say that as someone who has had Aniol speak in my church, by the way. I am not at all antagonistic to what he has to say. But even Scott teaches in an SBC setting.

mark sparked this thought: that maybe a bigger aspect of this discussion, when it comes to churches, their music, and fellowship with churches (or not) based on music is that you have to look at the holistic picture of that church and where the leaders/whole church is moving and why they have a particular music style.

I think sometimes it is the process of reasoning that has gone on behind the music choices are sometimes more critical than the actual songs, if you know what I mean.

Two churches can play the same song, but their reasoning be miles apart—one is trying to be perceived as “cool” the other is thoughtfully allowing cultural expression at the level of some of its members, or what have you. Maybe someone else can say it better, but Tim Keller in Center Church says this:

During these years of conferences, it became clear that the real “secret” of Redeemer’s fruitfulness did not lie in its ministry programs but in something that functioned at a deeper level. What was important for observers to grasp was not so much the particular ministry expression but the way in which we arrived at the expressions we used at Redeemer. We had thought long and hard about the character and implications of the gospel and then long and hard about the culture of New York City, about the sensibilities of both Christians and non-Christians non-Christians in our midst, and about the emotional and intellectual landscape of the center city. It was the character of that analysis and decision-making process rather than its specific products that was critical to the fruitfulness of our ministry in a global city center. We wanted to be shaped by what Jonathan Edwards called “the rules of the gospel.” 2 We did not simply choose music or sermon illustrations to please our own tastes and make us happy, any more than Christ lived to please himself.

…

What was this deeper level, exactly? As time went on, I began to realize it was a middle space between two more obvious dimensions of ministry. All of us have a doctrinal foundation — a set of theological beliefs — and all of us conduct particular forms of ministry. But many ministers take up programs and practices of ministry that fit well with neither their doctrinal beliefs nor their cultural context. They adopt popular methods that are essentially “glued on” from the outside — alien to the church’s theology or setting (sometimes both!). And when this happens, we find a lack of fruitfulness. These ministers don’t change people’s lives within the church and don’t reach people in their city. Why not? Because the programs do not grow naturally out of reflection on both the gospel and the distinctness of their surrounding culture.

Keller, Timothy J. (2012-09-04). Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Kindle Locations 159-205). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

[Greg Linscott] David,

I don’t think this needs to turn in to a lengthy discussion on music specifics. Scott and Bauder, for example, have had to figure out ways to peacefully coexist with those who don’t share their conclusions.

I don’t think so either, hence my link to resources which one who asked for that specifically may pursue at his leisure. Not that he wasn’t likely aware of them.

Barring striking out entirely on one’s own, one has to teach and fellowship in what exists which explains why Bauder is where he is and Aniol is where he is. By the way, I have no criticism for either of their decisions.

There is another alternative outside of broad evangelicalism, Fundamentalsim (including all FBFI IFBX ,or other brands), or conservative evangelicalism, and I’m surprised it hasn’t been dealt with at least in passing by Dr. Bauder in the other thread. It seems to me that serious confessionalism (OPC, Reformed Baptist, etc), while frequently included in/divided up into one of the other groups I mentioned, actually represents another clade entirely.

[DavidO]

If someone could help me understand that, I’d appreciate it.

Here you go. Start at the beginning.

This is also helpful. Perhaps starting with this series.

I really question why anyone would ever recommend reading the first website you linked to. What exactly is godly about that site, that writer, or his writing? Seriously…

Dissidens is not on the approved reading list, eh Greg?

Surely you’ve learned helpful things from people you don’t think are godly (not that I’m agreeing with your implicit charge against Norm.)

[DavidO]

If someone could help me understand that, I’d appreciate it.

Here you go. Start at the beginning.

This is also helpful. Perhaps starting with this series.

David - Seriously? Read three eight years worth of blogposts by an anonymous person and that will change my mind? Adopting reformed theology will make all my questions go away? Surely you jest!

I’ve talked with Scott several times here and on Facebook. He doesn’t engage my points and reiterates that culture is what drives CCM, which is bunk. I’ve watched him interact with others (again, both here and on Facebook), and he continually refuses to engage with points or perspectives that don’t fit his predetermined view. He does, however, do a good job of being snide and condecending to people that he doesn’t agree with. That being said, I am actually going to link to that very post on RAM’s FB page later on today, and we’ll see how things go from there.

Biblical and exegetical theology drives the worship that creates the music that Christians should use (or the theology should drive the music that stirs our hearts to worship - take your pick). Fallen culture exists outside of a worship context, because the two purposes are different. So to juxtapose principles concerning a fallen and unregenerate culture on a setting of worship is to compare apples and aircraft carriers.

For someone who is so highly recommended by so very many, I have been amazed at Aniol’s ‘influence’ within the FBF/BJU orbit…but maybe Jeremiah 5:30-31 is really what’s going on here.

We need to move this discussion to a new thread.

David - Seriously? 1) Read three eight years worth of blogposts by an anonymous person and that will change my mind? 2) Adopting reformed theology will make all my questions go away?

(numbering mine)

1) I don’t know if it will change your mind or not. It helped me see some things much more clearly. That person is not so anonymous as the old SI archives document well.

2) The confessionalism (which is, I guess, mostly reformed, but wouldn’t have to be) comment wasn’t in relation to this. It was an attempt to get back on topic … sort of. We tend to portray the choice as Fundy vs. Cons. E. I wondered out loud why confessionalism had not been included as an option. I tend to see it as a separate thing from the other two, and since one of the participants in the “other conversation” had voiced a fairly stunning point of difference with fundamentalism in general, I’m curious to hear why fundamentalism is the better option than confessionalism, which, in my limited experience, may offer something more up his alley, so to speak.

Fallen culture exists outside of a worship context, because the two purposes are different.

I don’t see how this can be possible.

[DavidO]

Dissidens is not on the approved reading list, eh Greg?

Surely you’ve learned helpful things from people you don’t think are godly (not that I’m agreeing with your implicit charge against Norm.)

LOL. I don’t care if you read him. I occasionally read him myself for comic relief and I laugh still about some of the things he has said about me over the years. I have noticed that his site does not seem very active any more but I still get over there every few months.

This is not about being on an approved list. It is about you recommending that foolishness to people to read. That is a big difference and it makes me question your discernment.

[GregH]…it makes me question your discernment.

Feel free. :D

I don’t recommend it to all people. Just certain ones I think could handle the approach and might be interested in what he has to say.

Why is it that music always enters into the discussion? Let’s get back to the OP.

I think it does in this context because it has become a determining factor in what constitutes a Fundamentalist, albeit an ambiguous one. Ron’s experience aside, I think it is becoming pretty well established, now, that Fundamentalists can utilize songs from the Gettys, for example, since they have cleared the institutional gatekeepers of the Pettit Team and Soundforth :) . But how would it be accepted if a church utilized the original performance styles those songs were set in? What about having the Gettys perform in one’s church, or attending a concert?

I’m not proposing any answers here. I am simply observing that it is yet another factor in the aversion some have with the culture of the FBF and institutional Fundamentalism. There are people out there with very definite ideas and black and white thinking on the issue in their own minds. It can be like identifying pornography- we can’t fully explain it, but we’ll know it when we see it! But since those principles vary so much from one individual to another, it can be like navigating through a field strewn with land mines, where even admitting one asks questions or makes tentative adjustments calls one’s Christian commitment into question from some, while from others it elicits a sympathetic nod and helpful discussion.

[Greg Linscott]

I think it does in this context because it has become a determining factor in what constitutes a Fundamentalist, albeit an ambiguous one. Ron’s experience aside, I think it is becoming pretty well established, now, that Fundamentalists can utilize songs from the Gettys, for example, since they have cleared the institutional gatekeepers of the Pettit Team and Soundforth :) . But how would it be accepted if a church utilized the original performance styles those songs were set in? What about having the Gettys perform in one’s church, or attending a concert?

I’m not proposing any answers here. I am simply observing that it is yet another factor in the aversion some have with the culture of the FBF and institutional Fundamentalism. There are people out there with very definite ideas and black and white thinking on the issue in their own minds. It can be like identifying pornography- we can’t fully explain it, but we’ll know it when we see it! But since those principles vary so much from one individual to another, it can be like navigating through a field strewn with land mines, where even admitting one asks questions or makes tentative adjustments calls one’s Christian commitment into question from some, while from others it elicits a sympathetic nod and helpful discussion.

It’s also especially since Scott Aniol is well known and well recommended in the FBFI circles - which IS the OP of this thread.

Fallen culture exists outside of a worship context, because the two purposes are different.

I don’t see how this can be possible.

One of Aniol’s arguments is that CCM is deficient because we are trying to ‘redeem’ the music of fallen culture and apply it to Christian living via CCM. If you push a little further with his thinking, you’ll realize that he is saying that there is nothing that is redeemable about culture, which is an interesting and problematic theory. Is there really nothing that God can’t save or use? I would argue no. If God can use Judas’ betrayal and treason to bring about the Greatest Good there is, then I’m fairly sure he can use ‘hip-hop’ or ‘rap’ music, even though I don’t like it.

Aniol errs because he shouldn’t start with culture as the determiner of what the Lord accepts. He needs to start with the theological principles of what a ‘new creation’ is and does - which is to praise our God (We all believe in the doxological purpose of redemption, right?). So what principles do we use to govern our music? What does the Bible say about making music?

Well, that’s where Aniol and other reach back to the ‘fallen culture’ argument. Instead of dealing with the theological questions that I (and others) raise, they go back to arguments based on musical style or society - they don’t go to the Bible, which is where he ought to go, and he knows well enough that he should be embarrassed that he doesn’t.

Enough hijacking now. Maybe he’ll be kind enough to get on SI and start a thread to discuss this further.

Especially since Scott Aniol is well known and well recommended in the FBFI circles - which IS the OP of this thread.

This is an issue that in no way can be pinned on Scott. Scott is a friend, but is only one voice, and in no way singly indicative of music trends in the the circles in question. All one has to do is raise Patch the Pirate with him to demonstrate that.

AGAIN- I am not trying to start a discussion on the specifics. But this all started with Aniol? Puh-lease. These platters were spinning long before he was born…

Greg - you are correct, and I’m not intending to pick on Aniol because I don’t like him…I’m using Aniol as an example because he’s one of the current experts on all things music. This problem has been around for decades.

As I said - this is a theological issue, not a cultural issue. We had this same kind of discussion in the 80’s and ’90s, long before Sovereign Grace was on the scene. :)

[Greg Linscott]

But this all started with Aniol? Puh-lease. These platters were spinning long before he was born…

I don’t think that’s fair at all.

DavidO, the issue as far as it relates to this discussion and the FBF is how much latitude on musical practice there can be while still being considered a Fundamentalist/ in good standing in organizations like the FBFI. As Kevin has noted elsewhere, there is not precise consensus on that.

I raise the Garlock album only to observe that related issues have been bandied about for quite some time, and from a variety of angles. Scott doesn’t have the same argument as Garlock, any more than say Ed Welch does with Jay Adams (to make a comparison in another discipline). But Aniol would not get the audience he does in IFB churches if people like Garlock had not come before. Scott will admit that himself.

Because you hadn’t explained it as you now have, and people took you to mean simply:

he’s one of the current experts on all things music. This problem has been around for decades.

Thanks for clarifying.

That was my comment, David, not Greg Linscott’s. That being said, I may have been too hard on Aniol personally, and I apologize for that. I do still think that this problem is much older than Aniol or I am :).

[Jay] If God can use Judas’ betrayal and treason to bring about the Greatest Good there is, then I’m fairly sure he can use ‘hip-hop’ or ‘rap’ music, even though I don’t like it.

Jay,

This reasoning doesn’t work. God using something does not make it good. No one would argue that Judas’ choices/actions were good because God used them. You cannot argue that any variety of CCM is good either, even if something good comes from its use. The rest of your argument deserves discussion, but not on this merit.

Chip-

Good call on your part - that’s some bad reasoning on my part. Thanks for pointing that out.

Just one quick, passing comment, for Jay: I think you are missing something very significant about what Scott Aniol (or Makujina or a host of others) is saying when you pit theological versus cultural as you do.