The Battle of Big Daddy Weave and Modern Music

Is Fundamentalism Subjective … !?

Brother Tyler, I’m more or less on your side on this issue, but let me suggest to you that zeal for fundamentalism itself (or any of its organizations) is no way forward on this. Consider the following thoughts (from this thread) of a notable fundamentalist:

I do not think that music is a matter that decides whether you’re a Fundamentalist. I’m not sure that Fundamentalism has ever had a unified or consistent view on music. So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian. I don’t see a contradiction here. Christianity is, after all, more than Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism has always been committed to the idea that the music (and other manifestations) of popular culture should be appropriated for use in worship and religious service. Whether it’s Rodeheaver (in the Victorian-Edwardian era), Wyrtzen (in the Jazz age), Peterson (who brought show tunes to church), Hamilton (whose work is just goofy), or the rock-rap-techno-glam-grunge-Indie-metal-Goth-funk-punk crowd, it all comes out to about the same thing, none of it good. Some Fundamentalists just want to stop with their version of popular music.

Sobering, I hope.

DavidO:

We’re on the same page. This was what I was taking issue with:

Greg, what a hilarious screenshot. Amazing. When the name of your blog is “proclaim and defend” and the word “music” and “alcohol” are huge and the word “Christ” can barely be seen, you have problems.

When people who, presumably, call themselves fundamentalists bash one another derisively for a stand on separation (with music or anything else) then what, exactly, makes you a fundamentalist!? Why not call yourself an evangelical and be done with it?

Music is not the defining mark of a fundamentalist. After all, evangelicals believe in the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, inerrancy of Scripture, the resurrection and substitutionary atonement. The dividing line between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is separation. I truly believe this is a misunderstood point. The disparaging comments made here by a few people illustrate this point very well.

To quote from Rolland McCune:

“It is at once both the most maligned and/or misunderstood distinctive of fundamentalism and probably the most defining one. Fundamentalism and separation walk in lockstep.”

Tyler,

I don’t think anyone here is maligning the validity of separation as a doctrinal truth. However, the call is out to have separation done biblically. That means separating in the right way over the correct things. I am sure you would agree that not all separation is equal (either in focus or practice).

Once one adopts philosophically that there is no moral influence in artistic musical communication, then any and all forms of musical expression will be accepted, embraced, and propagated even in sacred worship by the proponents of that philosophy. I made that argument 30 years ago. My prediction has come true.

I’m not sure anyone is denying moral influence. We are hopelessly moral creations.

but I don’t think it means that one has to say that a form of music is inherently moral/immoral.

does that make a difference?

[Mike Harding]

Once one adopts philosophically that there is no moral influence in artistic musical communication, then any and all forms of musical expression will be accepted, embraced, and propagated even in sacred worship by the proponents of that philosophy. I made that argument 30 years ago. My prediction has come true.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that there is no moral influence, I think the younger generation doesn’t buy where the line is drawn. The line seemed easier in the early days of CCM where the music was weak and the songs were weak, and it was easier to sell the idea that this looked like the world. Now as culture changes it isn’t so much as easy line. Woman were told that if they didn’t cover their arms in gloves while at church or weren’t wearing hats that they were giving in to the culture. Now no one does that. It was easier to sell the idea that if women wore pants that they were just being like men. Whereas now, I think anyone would be hard pressed to convince someone that a woman wearing conservative dress pants looked anything more than a woman. The same goes for our music. We try to take the high ground that the artist, the style and the theology is what separates our songs from the CCM world. When in reality, we sing songs from Catholic priests who had the demonic stigmata (All Creatures of our God and King), we sing weak songs (When the Roll is Called up Yonder) and the style is something that no one can relate to and that many people who visit fundamentalist churches would equate to a funeral service. While many modern writers are upstanding Christian men and woman who are serving Christ and who are writing theologically deep and rich hymns. And while the style may throw some off, many young people don’t confuse the musical style of a modern hymn with that of Justin Bieber (albeit many older people don’t see the difference). While no one is saying abandon the past, it is the insistence on staying only in the past that frustrates people, because they don’t buy it, just like wearing pants, wearing hats, having beards…. were all fundamentalist institutions that have given way to culture.

Jay,

I am glad that in principle we agree. I hope we can agree that those who spend enormous amount of time and education researching that principle theologically and musically in order to flesh it out with some modicum of rationality and consistency should be lauded and not diminished. May I recommend for a second time several books authored by men outside of my circles who have done excellent research on CCM, modern hymnody, and ancient hymnody: “Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns” by T. Gordon, “God’s Lyrics: OT Songs” by Doug O’donnell, “Singing and Making Music in the Church” by Paul Jones, and “Worship in Song” by Dr. Scott Aniol. I taught through those books and found them very helpful.

Chip: I agree with your statement.

Jay: Brother, I wish we could have this conversation in person … ! I beg you, please don’t start going KJVO on me and begin WRITING LIKE THIS and THIS! (This is a joke, so don’t take offense - not sure how to insert smileys …)

I’ll write more on this soon. Beale’s book is very good - I’ve read it.

My point of contention is with folks who contemptuously ridicule the very idea of separation:

Andrew Henderson wrote:

Greg, what a hilarious screenshot. Amazing. When the name of your blog is “proclaim and defend” and the word “music” and “alcohol” are huge and the word “Christ” can barely be seen, you have problems.

Honestly, those tag clouds are really very telling aren’t they? They give a great perspective on what matters to the blog owners. Considering the organization, with the exception of “child protection,” I can’t say anything really surprised me.

If you castigate a fundamentalist organization for taking a stand on something, music or otherwise, then why bother to call yourself fundamentalist at all? No, I don’t believe evangelicals are “second-tier” Christians. If you’re going to claim association with a movement, whether fundamentalism or evangelicalism, then you should understand the distinctives of that movement. Those who ridicule the very idea of separation in general, and yet claim to be a part of fundamentalism, don’t get it.

Separation indeed should be about Biblical issues - that is what we’re trying to discuss here. I am simply astonished that some who claim to be fundamentalists would ridicule an organization which merely takes a firm stand on separation on certain issues. Good for them. At least they stand for something definitive, which is more than you can say for the evangelical movement as a whole.

ok, i just downloaded Jones and O’donnell’s books to my kindle app, so I’ll poke around in those and see … whatever I’m supposed to see?

:D

I would recommend Odonnell first. The man is a true scholar on hymnody and has researched the OT songs endeavoring to find a paradigm for NT hymnody. The book has to be read in its stated order on account of the fact that he is building a logical argument. Gordon’s book is an examination of the cultural influences on music that have essentially eliminated serious hymn singing from many modern churches today. Jones writes on having a healthy music ministry in one’s church and fleshes out practically what needs to be done. Aniol covers the way music actually communicates. Aniol will be coming out with more books in the future on this subject. This was the main point of his doctoral work and thesis which is being reviewed by the profs at Southwestern.

This site has Doug’s songs he wrote—free mp3s—scroll down:

http://www.prpbooks.com/inventory.html?target=indiv_title&id=2014

This is Bob Kauflin’s review, and some of the comments are interesting, and Doug commented himself

http://www.worshipmatters.com/2010/10/14/a-review-of-gods-lyrics-by-dou…

Once one adopts philosophically that there is no moral influence in artistic musical communication, then any and all forms of musical expression will be accepted, embraced, and propagated even in sacred worship by the proponents of that philosophy.

That has never been my point, either. I am not one who holds the belief that culture is neutral or even that certain music styles are somehow neutral. Although a few have assumed that I hold to this position. http://sharperiron.org/comment/5278#comment-5278 I see culture through the lens of the Biblical narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and the Final Consummation. Because of this, I believe that those who see culture and/or music styles as neutral can fall in the trap of understanding that depravity of humans on a culture, including the music of the culture somehow has no influence on one’s art. I believe the term Functional Pelagianism was coined for this type of thinking. At the same time, I am concerned for those that believe certain styles of music and even aspects of culture have no redeeming value fall into a trap of not embracing a robust doctrine of creation. In I Timothy 4:1-5, the apostle Paul goes through great lengths to establish that certain aspects of culture (the Apostle Paul uses the word everything) such as food and marriage have been created good. Therefore, if we Christians are rejecting certain aspects of culture because we begin with the fall, not creation as the starting point, maybe we are falling into the trap of being a “functional gnostic” or a “functional dualist?” By dismissing certain music styles they are in essence functionally denying that God created everything good in the first place just as a functional pelagianist denies that the depravity of man has nothing to do with their art form.

Joel,

I firmly believe in common grace which enables unregenerate man to do civic good, including the arts. There is ample evidence of common grace in the world. I am an ardent opponent of philosophical dualism, particularly of the neoplatonist variety that dichotomizes between the noumenal and phenoumenal world. In addition, having been born on the south side of Chicago and having grown up there, few people understand the urban environment as well as I do. I know where you are coming from and why you think it necessary to redeem the rap/hip hop genre. Obviously, we disagree on the application and perhaps to some degree on principle. Marriage is good, but divorce, adultery, gay marriage, etc. are perversions of marriage. Food is good, but decay, improper preparation, improper portion and purpose (offered to idols) is bad. Music is good, but distortion, sensuality, and unrestrained self-expression are detractors from beauty, strength, loveliness, harmony, and melody. We are expressly commanded to make melody unto our God. Our church operates several Bible Clubs in the Detroit public schools. We use wonderful hymns and songs that all would recognize. Never have we received a complaint from the many urban families who regularly send their children. The children understand the songs, music, the message and it has none of the trappings of the urban environment that they have to struggle with every day. There are plenty of potential Ben Carsons in the city of Detroit and we don’t have to dumb down our music, theology, poetry or lyrics to reach them. We have to teach them and show them that there is something different about the way Christians think, emote, rejoice, and worship than the Canaanite forms of entertainment that they are all too familiar with.

Marriage is good, but divorce, adultery, gay marriage, etc. are perversions of marriage. Food is good, but decay, improper preparation, improper portion and purpose (offered to idols) is bad. Music is good, but distortion, sensuality, and unrestrained self-expression are detractors from beauty, strength, loveliness, harmony, and melody.

Mike provides some good examples here. However, they are not all the same.

• The Bible clearly teaches adultery, homosexual marriage, and divorce are wrong. However, what does the Bible say about remarriage after divorce? Can you say there is one “Fundamentalist” interpretation and application? That wouldn’t be reflective of my experience and observation.
• Food can decay, but sometimes the process is harnessed to produce desirable outcomes, and we get wine, vinegar, sauerkraut, or cheese (among other things). Food can be offered to idols yet still legitimately be consumed by a believer without sinning. I suppose one could argue that there has been a Fundamentalist position on fermentation and decay, but…
• Some seem to be arguing for some kind of unilateral interpretation on specific music applications. Like Joel S. observes, though, just because people utilize different kinds of music than we might doesn’t necessarily mean they see music as neutral and amoral. Even up to this point in the discussion historically in recent American culture- I am old enough to remember that it caused controversy when Al Smith included some Gaither songs in his hymnals. In Fundamentalist circles proper, Patch the Pirate himself has been condemned for being too similar to rap music, and had some tapes removed from a well known institution’s bookstore, as I recall.

I am not arguing for myself, by the way. By just about anyone’s measurement, our church’s music would be considered conservative and traditional. This is not about forcing the acceptance of our disco ball. I just don’t understand why a circle than can advocate selling a collection featuring established standards of the faith like “Frosty The Snowman” feels like we are qualified to be making the blanket judgments and condemnations we often seem to.

My concern is when specific applications of music become a barrier to all fellowship, or whether or not someone is considered Fundamentalist. I am not naive enough to think that it will not have some limitations to practical fellowship (say, if a church sponsors a music concert), but I don’t believe it needs to be the barrier or litmus test that “we” seem to have made it.

Is it possible to take a strong personal stand on issues like this, yet grant others latitude to draw their own conclusions without assuming they are teetering on the cliff of apostasy?

Greg,

I was simply taking the examples that Joel gave and revealed how the curse had affected “good” things. Divorce is a result of the fall, plain and simple, regardless of one’s view of remarriage (which I personally allow for the innocent party based on desertion of the unbelieving spouse or adultery). Thus, divorce among other things reveals how a good thing such as marriage has been corrupted by the fall. Death is also a result of the fall as well. My point is that good things have been affected by the fall. We can’t say that since God made language (good things) that there is no such thing as “let no corrupt communication come from your mouth”. God is artistic and is the author of artistic communication (imago dei) of many kinds (good things). Nevertheless, artistic communication can be corrupted and often is corrupt in our militantly pagan culture. If you don’t want to make a big deal out of worship music, fine. The only claim I have made is that the worship music issue among other issues such as some religious speakers, the SGM issue, and presidential blog posts indicated to me a “shift” from where I perceived the school to be in the previous administration.

To quote from Rolland McCune:

“It is at once both the most maligned and/or misunderstood distinctive of fundamentalism and probably the most defining one. Fundamentalism and separation walk in lockstep.”

I believe that Dr. McCune would be referring to separation from false doctrine, false teachers, apostasy, etc. and not separation from brethren. We are thankful for historic fundamentalism’s emphasis on the former but it would seem that some of today’s fundamentalists are more interested in emphasizing the latter.

Mike,

I understand what you are saying. But for example, though divorce is something God hates, it is also something He commanded and allows for. What that means is a point people differ on in their interpretation, even as they agree divorce is a perversion of marriage. General agreement, difference in interpretation/application.

And by the way, I didn’t say that I don’t think a “big deal” should be made. But that’s a relative term. I think it will limit the levels believers can interact. But I don’t think it is the same thing as denying the virgin birth, nor is it akin to Baal worship, as one of my Facebook pastor friends implied this morning…

Are there yet 7,000 (Romans 11:4) who have not bowed the knee to “contemporary praise” worship? (1Co 16:13) “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.” (Psa 96:9) “O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.”

Vitaliy and I sometimes talk about how God deals with people’s past lives once they become Christians. Sometimes a person becomes dead set against the thing that was a part of his life when he was not a Christian. Others want to take that thing and use it for God.

Francine Rivers is one example. She was a romance novelist before she became a Christian. Then she became a Christian. For a few yrs she couldn’t write, but then she started writing, and she is one of the best writers living (for a long time). Yes, she writes romance, though it’s so much more than that. Her books are very powerful. But some might argue that the romance form is completely inappropriate for a christian.

I think music as an art form can be like that. God leads people differently. We have a guy in our church who was a musician before he came to Christ, and then he was saved, and now he continues to play. I don’t really know if his style is that changed, it’s pretty innocuous.

So, I don’t think that Joel S was trying to “redeem” hip hop or go out and evangelize using it. It’s just that some hip hppers are now redeemed! So the Holy Spirit now lives in people who know hip hop. So … are we OK with the Lord using that in their lives and in other hip hoppers’ lives? Other former hip hoppers might want to have nothing to do with it, and that’s how the Spirit leads them. At what point do I have to judge this more personally? Probably if someone wanted to start doing it in our church.

It will probably always be a “museum” form of worship for me, like it was going to the Jewish church with the lovely dancing and Hebrew songs. I think it’s fascinating and I rejoice that God saves us, but it’s not something I easily be able to identify with on a personal level of worship. Although, who knows?

About the CCM concernts and NIU, … what are our assumptions about people who attend these? that they’re carnal, flakey, sinning christians?

Our church operates several Bible Clubs in the Detroit public schools. We use wonderful hymns and songs that all would recognize. Never have we received a complaint from the many urban families who regularly send their children. The children understand the songs, music, the message and it has none of the trappings of the urban environment that they have to struggle with every day. There are plenty of potential Ben Carsons in the city of Detroit and we don’t have to dumb down our music, theology, poetry or lyrics to reach them. We have to teach them and show them that there is something different about the way Christians think, emote, rejoice, and worship than the Canaanite forms of entertainment that they are all too familiar with.

Mike, I rejoice at what you are doing in Detroit! I have never advocated our use of gospel-centered hip-hop as prescriptive when it comes to doing inner-city ministry among the hip-hop culture. In fact, because hip-hop culture is quite eclectic, our Sr. pastor of New City Church happens to love opera and has exposed them to that genre of classical music. Since I grew up on classical music and still listen to it today (I also graduated from college as a classical trained musician in low-brass performance) I have exposed several to my personal tastes in classical music as well. You can’t help but do that as we do life-on-life discipleship with those from the ‘hood, However, we as pastors appreciate gospel-centered hip-hop of Shai Linne, Lecrae, Trip-Lee because they are not at all dumbing down music, theology, poetry, or lyrics. That is quite an assumption on your part (that Hip-Hop can only produce the dumbing down and produce “Canaanite form of entertainment.”

A couple years ago, I brought several students of mine to the tail end of the Gospel Coalition conference because a certain day was free since they were focusing on city ministry. It culminated with a hip-hop concert by Lecrae and Trip Lee. One of our students that we brought was not a Christian and was a known local hip-hop artist in Grand Rapids. His lyrics are your typical secular hip-hop: glorifying himself, sexual immorality and objectifiying women, and talking smack against people he hated. After experiencing the Lecrae and Trip Lee concert he had a rich young ruler moment. The Hip-Hop that he saw on stage from Lecrae and Trip Lee did not glorify themselves, but Jesus. Their lyrics did not put people down. They did not glorify sin like he was, but exposed it in their lyrics. He saw the stark difference between his worldly hip-hop and Christian hip-hop that was glorifying Christ. To him, it was an aroma of death. II Cor. 2:16.

To the outsider like yourself, (I realize you grew up on the South Side of Chicago, but you did not grow up in hip-hop culture) it would look the same. But for an insider that grew up within the hip-hop culture like him, there was a stark difference between worldly hip-hop and gospel-centered hip-hop.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Joel S on everything, could you, would you in good conscience welcome him into the membership of the FBFI? Would there be a place for him there? Do you think there should be?

This is what I am trying to get at with “latitude.” From where I sit, though you and your church have established a clear position on Bible translations (the first time I ever remember hearing the name “Mike Harding” was when David Cloud warned about you because you were hosting the FBFI conference and you used the NASB), you give latitude to others who hold contrasting views. You are pretty strong on Calvinist theology, but give latitude to people who are openly hostile to your beliefs. It seems to me you are working hard to try to draw in others and counter factionalism (for which I think you should be applauded, and I mean that sincerely, Mike), yet you and the FBFI, to this point, tolerate others whose identity is seemingly defined with being on a constant “witch hunt.”

What say you?

Greg,

I have spoken out against David Cloud and Lance about the very concerns you have raised, and the FBFI has passed resolutions against those who have so-called ministries where they do nothing but scrutinize and unfairly criticize other ministries. Lou and I have done some battle over the Lordship issue in full view of the public. We don’t agree with each other about that issue, DBTS, Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, and I have told him this. However, when I read Lou’s second edition, I think he made some helpful modifications, though we still don’t agree. Like MacArthur, I think I made some over-the-top statements in the heat of battle as well. I have endeavored to clarify those statements by balancing out my emphasis on justification with regeneration. The FBFI doctrinal statement is a pro-Lordship, moderately Calvinistic statement. If a person can sign the doctrinal statement in good conscience, then they can be a member of the FBFI. One is suppose to sign it every year. Regarding Joel, I am not aware that a person has to be in full agreement with the FBFI’s position on worship music in order to be a member. Joel may be uncomfortable with the FBFI on account of our position on worship music. For that reason he might not want to identify with the FBFI, and I have no problem with that decision. There are areas of departure (apostasy), disobedience (apostolic traditions mentioned in the epistles), and areas of disagreement. Sometimes those areas of disagreement are so strong that they practically preclude ecclesiastical fellowship on a ministry level. That’s probably the category Joel and I would fall into. Joel and I aren’t preaching for each other anytime soon. I would be glad to meet him and have dinner anytime. We are only a few hours apart.

I understand that anyone can join, provided they can sign the statement. You may have touched on it, but did not say it outright, so I will ask you more directly, again: Would you welcome him into the membership of the FBFI (which I would see as different than saying “he can join, just like anyone else who signs the statement”) ? Would there be a place for him there? Do you think there should be?

I understand there are some resolutions that address the music issue, but I don’t specifically see a document articulating the FBFI’s position on worship music. If one surveys the resolutions, one can see that there has been a change over time in what has been articulated about Bible translations- not that everyone has shifted, but it at least seems to allow for a wider latitude of views.

Not that this is just about Joel S., either. I noticed on the FBF blog (highlighted recently here at SI) that there was the recent series weighing out the wisdom of using SG and Getty music. Would there ever be a place in the FBFI to offer an officially-published counter-perspective to what Bachorik and company submitted?

What I am getting at is it seems like you allow quite of but of room on one side of issues for those who differ with you and your articulated views, but that it doesn’t seem a priority to associate with those who differ with you on others. What makes the music issue different than the others in how you handle it? It doesn’t seem consistent to me.

Greg,

Now you are making me squirm. Are you sure you don’t secretly work for the CIA interrogation sector? The FBFI has come a long way on the translation issue. Many members use NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I think it is a non-issue for the board. We officially object to KJVOnlyism, some positions of which are heretical and others just plain annoying. Bauder put forth the best case for using the KJV that I have ever read. If someone uses the KJV for those reasons, it is perfectly reasonable. We shouldn’t bash people for using the KJV per se.

Would I welcome Joel into the FBFI seeing that he feels comfortable using the rap/hip hop genre for ministry? Greg, I owe you an honest answer. I have both read and written on this subject extensively. I am on record that certain genres have a strong element of sensuality via association and via the essence of the musical communication itself. Joining sensuality to worship is a serious breach with my understanding of worship in the OT and NT. Therefore, I would not join in active ministry participation on an ecclesiastical level. All other things being equal, aside from this issue, I don’t know personally how I would respond to Joel. My guess is that we would communicate about what we had in common and seriously discuss our disagreemnt. Sorry for the cop out, but that is an honest answer. For me personally, egregious violation of the music issue has been a cause for separation regarding other churches in our area (Willow Creek, Saddleback styled ministries). I have godly separatist friends who agree with me on music, but don’t necessarily agree that it is a separation issue. Though I am not quite as conservative as Bauder and Aniol, I am close to them and sympathetic with their concerns.

This is helpful.

It does seem that your answer is where “we” are at. Some of my classmates and contemporaries have adopted methods I would not employ, but still preach generally the right doctrine, and would even practice separation of one form or another. As others have noted it seems like the “trump card” for whether or not one associates with John MacArthur or those connected to him is music related (such as The Resolved Conference), whether or not music is a part of the occasion for fellowship or not. I may be broad brushing (there may be other issues), but the music issue is a significant player in the conversation.

So what are we going to do? The FBFI is meeting at Faith this summer. This weekend, they are hosting the Men For Christ Rally, featuring Tim Jordan as a headliner. The music (and other) shift(s) at Lansdale has been frequently spoken of elsewhere, but apparently he is still, to this point, “in bounds” (and apparently, so is FBBC for hosting him).

On the other hand, I can speak from firsthand experience. I inquired with Don Anderson at Faith about coming to the FBFI conference this summer and setting up a display table for the Minnesota Baptist Association. I wanted, specifically, to publicize our upcoming Men’s Fellowship event in September, featuring speaker Phil Johnson (an event I preside over). I was graciously contacted personally by Don via a phone call that we would be unable to purchase a table, not because of Faith, but because of the FBFI’s decision.

Mike, I don’t get it.

So, I don’t think that Joel S was trying to “redeem” hip hop or go out and evangelize using it. It’s just that some hip hppers are now redeemed! So the Holy Spirit now lives in people who know hip hop. So … are we OK with the Lord using that in their lives and in other hip hoppers’ lives? Other former hip hoppers might want to have nothing to do with it, and that’s how the Spirit leads them. At what point do I have to judge this more personally? Probably if someone wanted to start doing it in our church.

That’s exactly what is going on. By the way I don’t evangelize using it because I cannot rap. It would come off cheesy and me as some hipster wannabe……trying so hard to be “relevant.” For our students, they are using it in their lives because it is a way to express what God has done in their lives. However, these young men that Christ has redeemed from their former gangster and drug-dealing lifestyles do use hip-hop as a springboard to get into conversations about Jesus with those that they used to be “on the block” selling dope with. One of my men that I disciple has been sharing the gospel for years with his older brother…..one that he used to be in a gang, sell drugs, and break into people’s houses with. He tells me that when he tries to have a conversation about God, his brother Nick’s eyes glaze over. However, when he says the same thing using the form of hip-hop, God uses it in a way that it leads to deeper conversations about Nick’s sinful lifestyle and need for Christ.

Would I welcome Joel into the FBFI seeing that he feels comfortable using the rap/hip hop genre for ministry? Greg, I owe you an honest answer. I have both read and written on this subject extensively. I am on record that certain genres have a strong element of sensuality via association and via the essence of the musical communication itself. Joining sensuality to worship is a serious breach with my understanding of worship in the OT and NT. Therefore, I would not join in active ministry participation on an ecclesiastical level. All other things being equal, aside from this issue, I don’t know personally how I would respond to Joel. My guess is that we would communicate about what we had in common and seriously discuss our disagreemnt. Sorry for the cop out, but that is an honest answer. For me personally, egregious violation of the music issue has been a cause for separation regarding other churches in our area (Willow Creek, Saddleback styled ministries). I have godly separatist friends who agree with me on music, but don’t necessarily agree that it is a separation issue. Though I am not quite as conservative as Bauder and Aniol, I am close to them and sympathetic with their concerns.

Well, I am probably in the same boat as Mike on this. I have no problem meeting personally and sharing fellowship on that level. But it makes no sense fellowshipping with a group of Christians that would have a serious problem with how I contextualize the gospel as a missionary in my neighborhood. I strongly disagree, including some of the sources that they cite with some of the research that Scott and others have done on hip-hop and the church, which has led to their conclusion of the associations of sensuality in gospel-centered Hip-Hop. I really don’t want to fight those battles with the FBFI. I have enough battles to fight doing inner-city ministry then to have to recycle these arguments over and over again. I will rejoice that Christ is preached in Troy, extending into Detroit.

By the way, I am an elder in a Gospel Coalition Church (New City Church) and I have ties with two historic fundamental associations of churches: the GARBC because my sending church is Berean Baptist within the GARBC and I have ties with the IFCA because of Calvary Undenominational Church. The churches connected to those stripes of fundamentalism are not as rigid (at least in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana) about my use of gospel-centered hip-hop.

Calvary Undenominational Church…

I always heard it referred to as “Calvary Undecided…” :)

Greg,

I am not an officer. That decision, assuming your report to be accurate, would be made by the president and/or officers. Just so you know, I made a phone call a few weeks ago on your behalf to the chairman to allow your group to come in. The chairman seemed favorable to you and your group, please give a call to Kevin. More than likely the objection was not to you or your group, but Phil Johnson. I think something can be and should be worked out.

Would that be Kevin Schaal, or someone else?

Still, the point remains. You seem to assume that Phil Johnson would be a legitimate objection. Would Tim Jordan? Are there substantial reasons why one would be “in bounds” and the other not?

Its really called Calvary Church. But when I was attending Cornerstone, everyone called it Calvary Undenom……. Old habits are hard to break

Greg,

Believe it or not, the FBFI endeavors not to be quick on the trigger. I just saw Tim a few days ago at the hospital visiting Dave Doran’s son who was hit by a semi-truck. The personal relationships developed thru the years certainly enter into these decisions. I have interacted with Johnson briefly, but he wouldn’t know me from the man on the moon. Minnick has spent time with Johnson and engaged him with his elders at Mt. Calvary. Johnson probably is as close to us as anyone I know in the CE world. Come anyway and tell ‘em Harding sent ya, then duck.

[Jay] What exactly does a guy have to do to be ‘accepted’ as a Fundamentalist? Throw KJV1611 Bibles at liberals while riding a tricycle on the circus highwire, dodging flaming arrows as he sings “Victory in Jesus”?

If only I could draw. Jay’s response for some reason reminded me of this picture of Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor :

” I am on record that certain genres have a strong element of sensuality via association and via the essence of the musical communication itself.”

sometimes threads seem to lose their way without talking about the issue. for me, Pastor Harding’s statement identifies the fundamental point.

40 years ago I sat in Mr. Wilhoit’s Music Appreciation class and hear him espouse this same view. I distinctly recall him gesturing emphatically with his hand how the slide guitar was sensual in its sound. and the jungle rhythms of course.

Rez Band noted sarcastically in its lyrics concerning this issue “they had a baby boom from the last time we came through.”

let us test the theory if certain music is in itself able to create sexual desire. we, as Christians, know sex is an intimate wonderful creation of God between husband and wife. so, if a married couple wanted to spark some interest, they could go to some certain melodies and achieve the desired result. or, how about infertile married folk who are trying to conceive? just put on certain music to help things along.

doesn’t really work, does it?

Alex O.,

I understand what you are saying, in a way. My intent in this thread is not to debate on the specifics or convince anyone of a specific music position. I would just observe that sexual sensation is not the only sense people experience. Even with pop songs, they won’t generally be playing The Carpenters at professional sporting events. Certain kind of music is chosen to generate certain responses. That’s all I’m going to say.