John Vaughn (FBFI President/CEO): "one thing is clear: this video ends the fiction that 'Northland has not changed.'”

[Jay]

How in the world did a movement predicated on doctrinal truths and the gospel ever become this?

You are working with a faulty definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn’t simply holding orthodox doctrine. The Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine. The New Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine.

Fundamentalism as a movement is predicated on the notion of militancy for orthodox doctrine as seen in the famous Curtis Lee Laws quote: “We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’”

You really need to memorize that statement and understand it if you want to understand Fundamentalism. When you enter these debates, you should use that as your working definition. You would do better in understanding how fundamentalists think and act if you did so.

For more background, here is a good article by Dr. Moritz summarizing fundamentalism (and identifying Maranatha with fundamentalist philosophy.)

[TylerR]

Understood. For myself, however, I don’t need or want the laboratory experience for Christian education. I didn’t come into ministry in a “normal” way. I left the military after a decade and then went into ministry. I wasn’t a kid anymore. I absolutely understand what you’re saying. You may be right when it comes to 18 yr old kids who are leaving home for the first time, but perhaps not for everybody.

[jcoleman]

[dcbii]

Does new music mean that Northland has changed on fundamentals? No. But clearly, their musical standards have.

I think the debate is precisely around that though: a very large number of fundamentalists seem to believe that changing musical standards necessarily means that you have changed your fundamental philosophy.

I think you are redefining the terms here. The fundamentals of the faith (what I was referring to) are distinctly different from a university’s fundamental philosophy(ies), though the latter could mention/require belief in or adherence to the former.

So to restate, I don’t believe that Northland’s change on music means that they must have changed on the fundamentals of the faith (though some take any shift in music standards as meaning exactly that), though it’s clear they now define the lines of separation differently than they did before. However, they could indeed have changed in the fundamental philosophies of how NIU does business/ministry.

Don wrote:

You are working with a faulty definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn’t simply holding orthodox doctrine. The Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine. The New Evangelicals hold to orthodox doctrine.

Fundamentalism as a movement is predicated on the notion of militancy for orthodox doctrine as seen in the famous Curtis Lee Laws quote: “We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’”

According to this definition it looks like the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the willingness to take a stand on important issues of orthodox doctrine. In think Don is right on concerning that point. That is why in 1996 I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism. The problem I have with some parts of fundamentalism is that that they want to do battle royal over areas that are not issues of orthodox doctrine. (even Don admits that the New Evangelicals hold orthodox doctrine).

Once we decide that it is important to do battle royal over issues that are not orthodox doctrine we will end up fighting with almost everyone. I think Titus 3:10 has something to say about that. There is a reason to be concerned about the lack of militancy over orthodox doctrine among the Evangelicals, but we also need to be concerned about a heretical militancy on issues that are not orthodox doctrine among Fundamentalists.

[TylerR]

Joel:

What I am speaking of here:

Evangelicals had different views on methods. Briefly, they preferred infiltration and reformation from within, not separation. Surely you must grant this historical reality …

are historical realities about the genesis of evangelicalism as a movement. I believe this is often misunderstood by those who haven’t studied the history of these issues. The challenge is - how do you apply the historic fundamentalist paradigm of “separation, not infiltration” to the challenges of today?

I contend that those who utilize CCM are broadly representative of a philosophy that says, “infiltrate or imitate the world to some extent and reform from within.” This model is an evangelical model. This is why I say NIU must choose.

Anybody’s perspective of “mainstream” fundamentalism is necessarily narrow. Your characterization of what is “mainstream” does trouble me a bit! I hope it isn’t quite as pervasive as you suggest …

GregL:

The issue under discussion is the method, not the motivation. And yes, you are imitating secular music standards when you employ CCM. Do so if you wish. I applaud your motives. However, this strategy is a historically evangelical strategy, not a fundamentalist one.

The original schism between evangelicals and fundamentalists was over methods. The theology was the same. This is well documented by Pickering, MacLachen, McCune, Moritz, Beale and others. If you disagree, I beg you to provide documentation to that effect - otherwise we both may type a lot and achieve nothing of substance.

I do not impugn your motivations, Greg. I simply question the method.

Greg L

i find the above statement a bit disingenuous or somewhat naive. Assuming your sincerity, then …

Why CCM over piano and organ? Are you really arguing that drums and guitars are inherently more joyful? Whatever else can be said of Scott Joplin, no one would call his music dour. Same for J S Bach’s organ music

Variety of instrumentation? I’ll buy that … but why is it that the variety in many churches is limited to guitars and drums but not violins and trumpets? Fourth Baptist has an orchestra. Now there is variety. But perhaps you use guitars and drums one week, violins and trumpets another, mandolins (Romania) and tablas (India) on a third.

Greg, I really think there is more to your use of CCM than you have suggested here. Is imitation your primary reason? Only you can say, but … .

I have been in a number of foreign countries who have “joyful” music but resist the CCM. I date to the early days of Andre Crouch. Bill Gaither etc. Churches rarely (if ever) changed styles simply to add variety. Perhaps your church is an exception. Just read books on contemporary worship for a litany of reasons cited. I am not sure variety is a common justification … but even if it is, it is merely one among many.

If you really believe what you have written here …

JPS

[JD Miller]

According to this definition it looks like the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism is the willingness to take a stand on important issues of orthodox doctrine. In think Don is right on concerning that point. That is why in 1996 I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism. The problem I have with some parts of fundamentalism is that that they want to do battle royal over areas that are not issues of orthodox doctrine. (even Don admits that the New Evangelicals hold orthodox doctrine).

first, let me grant that some men are militant because they like to fight.

But if the New Evangelicals held orthodox doctrine (and they did), why did they oppose the fundamentalists and why did the fundamentalists oppose them?

The answer lies in what the New Evangelicals opposed. They opposed militancy towards liberals (deniers of orthodox doctrine) in favor of accommodation, reconciliation, dialogue. In other words, they laid down the arms and refused to do battle royal for the fundamentals.

When doctrine or practice moves towards accommodation of unorthodoxy, the battle still must be enjoined, although there are differences. Now we battle with brothers, unfortunately.

Many of us have observed the music battle as a front in the war against this kind of accommodation, and it is part and parcel of the battle with worldliness. That’s why it is still a big issue and is constantly discussed here on SI and other places.

Don, I do not disagree with this statement that you made;

The answer lies in what the New Evangelicals opposed. They opposed militancy towards liberals (deniers of orthodox doctrine) in favor of accommodation, reconciliation, dialogue. In other words, they laid down the arms and refused to do battle royal for the fundamentals.

That statement is why many of us are not willing to leave fundamentalism for evangelicalism. The issue that some of us have is whether or not music choice is an issue of orthodox doctrine. Even by your own statement it does not appear to be since you admitted that they held to orthodox doctrine. Though I have a conservative preference on music, I do not view it as an orthodox doctrine. Therefore, I am not willing to do battle royal over it.

And yes, you are imitating secular music standards when you employ CCM.

So, was Frank Garlock and Majesty Music employing an evangelical strategy when they included songs like “Lamb of Glory” and “There is a Redeemer” in Majesty Hymns? Was Scott Aniol imitating secular music standards when he included a Getty song on his album? What about BJU recording “Before the Throne of God Above” (a SGM song)? I understand Central Seminary, where Jeff Straub is teaching, now uses Hymns: Modern and Ancient in chapel services, which includes several entries from the CCM genre. And let’s not forget Maranatha’s “I’m Gunna Apply…”

Just wondering how much imitation is acceptable imitation, or if these people and institutions are considered squarely in the Evangelical camp now…

I have provided a historically accurate definition of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, and a factually based distinction between their respective methods. I have seen no refutation of that.

Your appeal to isolated incidents at various schools does nothing to address these matters. If you have evidence to suggest BJU, Central or Maranatha is going the direction NIU is, please provide it. If you cannot, then it has no bearing on the matter at hand.

Each Pastor may steer his church in whichever direction he personally and Scripturally feels is best. Good luck and God bless - sincerely.

This does not change the reality of the difference between the two movement’s ministry philosophies. I am simply pointing out a historic reality and attempting to measure whether NIU is following this standard or deviating from it.

Men will draw appropriate conclusions for themselves; some will agree, other will not.

Tyler,

All I am observing is that your criteria may be somewhat accurate, but are not by themselves completely descriptive of what constitutes Fundamentalism vs. Evangelicalism, from the estimations of many who are in even what you would call the “Fundamentalist mainstream.” Fundamentalists have tended to retain use of the KJV, for example, more than evangelicals. Some have even gone so far as to attempt to make that a doctrinal fundamental, using similar reasoning as you are with music. Other methods such as walking the aisle invitations, Sunday evening services, pants on women, mixed “bathing…” are also similarly reasoned as areas of potential deviation from Fundamentalism by some… and there have been times, if we are honest, where many of these things I list were indicative of Fundamentalist culture, but to some degree or another are now points of deviation and departures from previously established methodology.

As much as Northland has gone farther than others, still, as I have established, many examples exist of Fundamentalists who have embraced in a lesser fashion what NIU has rushed headlong into. If you are right about NIU and music, where was that line crossed? I’m asking sincerely- where do you think that happens?

Tyler, but that’s just it…you have made an assertion, but you have not proved the necessary connection between music and fundamentalism. I know you are new to SI, but this has been discussed many times previously. Music styles are NOT a fundamental of the faith. There are evangelical churches with conservative music (there are liberal churches with conservative music, for that matter), and there are (some) fundamentalist churches that use more or less contemporary music, as the other Greg L has pointed out.