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

32615 reads

There are 236 Comments

JD Miller's picture

Kevin, I must admit that I used to think that those who were into CCM chose that music style because they loved their music more than they loved God.  Then I realized that they could make the same accusation against me- even thought I was choosing traditional music because of my love for God.  My thoughts began to change once I realized that some of the guys who used CCM music in worship, were using it precisely because of their love for God.  If we could find a verse to prove that God hated a specific kind of music, I honestly believe that many on both sides of this issue would give up what they preferred if they knew for certain that God did not like it.    If someone is committed to a music form because they idolize it (whether that music is traditional or CCM) then we have a good reason for separation.

Don Sailer's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

JD Miller wrote:

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?

 

This is just too simplistic. There was a huge segment of fundamentalism that was tired of the bitterness of the separatists and opposed to the the idea of dialogue with liberals. It is this large group of fundamentalists that are known as "conservative evangelicals" who in reality are carrying the mantel of historic fundamentalism.

Greg Linscott's picture

Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

This thread is supposed to be about John Vaughn's observation RE Northland. So here's my observation.

In no sense was Vaughn piling on. His comment was actually quite restrained. He was simply pointing people to the facts that answered the questions that many of them had been answering.

Remember, NIU built itself largely upon an FBFI constituency. If anybody has a right to comment, John does.

Why is it that he didn't address some of the other, more substantial issues, though (like the Charismatic ties, for one)? That one, specifically, is easily established. It seems to me he only addressed one area or fact, and not ones that would perhaps not be as "scandalous," but would ultimately carry more weight.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

JD Miller's picture

Don Sailer, You have a point- I did oversimplify by lumping all evangelicals together.  (I really appriciate the conservative evangelicals who have taken a strong stand and I believe many of them are close to being fundamentalists with a small f).  But as a whole evangelicals have been more willing to cooperate with those who hold unorthodox positions.  Remember I left the EFCA in '96 right around the time the Promise Keepers movement was sharing platforms with Mormons and Catholics and the EFCA was strongly promoting it.  Northland is nowhere near doing that as far as I can see- of course some are worried about the slippery slope.

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Don,

Saying that today's conservative evangelicals are the historic fundamentalists is like saying that today's modalists are the historic Trinitarians. It's the kind of comment that seems plausible only because it skips entire epochs of theological development.

Every theological idea has its defining moment, and that moment almost invariably comes in the midst of controversy. What is inchoate and imprecise is crystalized as a result of the controversy. After the defining point the same imprecision is no longer permissible.

Fundamentalism has had two defining points. The first occured in its conflict with liberalism. Fundamentalists took the position that the gospel (including the fundamentals) constituted the boundary of Christianity. To deny the gospel was to disqualify one's self from Christian fellowship and especially leadership. Consequently, the first-generation fundamentalists pushed for separation--originally, purge-out separation as they sought to expel the liberals, but subsequently come-out separation as it became clear that the liberals were firmly entrenched.

The neo-evangelicals believed the gospel, including all the fundamentals. Nevertheless, they insisted upon the possibility of Christian mutuality and cooperation with those who denied the gospel. They were neither fundamentalists nor liberals, but indifferentists--they were indifferent to the gospel (including the fundamentals) as the boundary of Christian faith and fellowship.

Fundamentalists rightly perceived that neo-evangelicalism was actually a gospel error. While the new evangelicals did not (at first) deny the gospel, they did demean it. They robbed it of its rightful place as a demarcator between Christianity and non-Christianity. To fundamentalists, this error revealed a shocking lack of biblical discernment. At minimum they felt (rightly!) that they had to reject the leadership of any individual or institution that fell into the neo-evangelical error.

That is precisely why fundamentalists left the CBA of A. It is precisely why they rejected the NAE. It is why even today they look askance at the BGC (which still lists Greg Boyd as part of its fellowship, no?) Given the current controversy, it is worth pointing out that Campus Crusade (now CRU) has been one of the foremost voices for neo-evangelical methodology, and has been consistently rejected by historic fundamentalists.

Denominationalism is not and never has been the issue. Fundamentalists organizations like the ACCC include Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and others. Since the early 1940s the debate has been over indifferentism.

Neither the moderate evangelicals of the 1950s-1960s, nor the conservative evangelicals of today, are new evangelicals. They are not indifferentists. Unlike Fundamentalists, however, they have been willing to form ties with and accept leadership from indifferentists. They have been largely unwilling to denounce the error of indifferentism.

There are bridge figures, such as Phil Johnson. But this difference remains the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. (See my response to Al Mohler in Four Views on the Evangelical Spectrum.)

I do not see conservative evangelicals as the enemy, but as friends and allies. I do not rule out all possibility of limited and carefully-targeted cooperation. Even if such limited cooperation occurs, however, it does not removed the differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, nor does it authorize carte blanche cooperation at every level.

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

JD,

You're getting way ahead of the ball. In fact, you've strayed out of bounds. The attitudes of CCM advocates are not the question of the moment.The question is the importance of the Greatest Commandment and its juxtapositon to the gospel. That's where the entire conversation must begin.

How important are ordinate affections?

[For the record, I'll identify myself at this point as an Augustinian and Edwardsian, if that's any hint.]

Kevin T. Bauder's picture

Greg (Linscott),

Actually, I'm not sure that the charismatic issue is as easily established. There's been a good bit of obfuscation at that point. At any rate, it is not as easily illustrated.

If NIU had put out a video of a staff member speaking in tongues, perhaps Vaughn would have pointed to that.

You know that I'm not shy about criticizing the FBFI when I think they deserve it. But John is well within his rights on this one. And there wasn't a bit of "I told you so" about it. If I know John, this is a genuine grief to him.

Don Johnson's picture

Don Sailer wrote:

Don Johnson wrote:

JD Miller wrote:

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?

 

This is just too simplistic. There was a huge segment of fundamentalism that was tired of the bitterness of the separatists and opposed to the the idea of dialogue with liberals. It is this large group of fundamentalists that are known as "conservative evangelicals" who in reality are carrying the mantel of historic fundamentalism.

But in an effort to be substantive and restrain my smart aleck past, I'll leave you guessing as to what it is.

There may be instances of what you suggest, however almost every evangelical organization that I know of that fit the category "conservative evangelical" will have some examples of new evangelical taint in their history. Nothing was done about it.

I realize that statement is a generalization, but I don't have time to offer thorough documentation of that point. I will note, though, that one source says of the IFCA (for example) that members of that organization have engaged in dialogue and compromise with no reprisal from the rest of the body. The same is still true for the Southern Baptist Convention, in spite of some recovery credited to the 'resurgence'.

I don't think there is much point in coming back and demanding I document this, readers will have to just consider what I say and do their own research if they are interested.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Greg Linscott's picture

I will take you word on those things, KTB.

FWIW, though, this post on Olson's blog still stands, and has been up since last summer, so it seems to me there's one good starting place to connect the dots (though perhaps not as easily if they have taken their doctrinal statement offline)...

But then again, that, to me, would seem another thing to focus on- deception and dishonesty. It may be hard to say graciously, but I would have to say that at this point, "fiction" seems to me somewhat light, and "lying" would not be an inappropriate word to use.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jay's picture

Kevin T. Bauder wrote:
With respect to the present debate, the germane question would be whether NIU even intends to be a fundamentalist institution in the future. Given the dramatic nature of some of these transitions, the willingness of NIU to poke its past constituency in the eye, the sudden departures of key figures very recently, the appearance and disappearance of documents from their web site (most recently, the doctrinal statement has disappeared--though who knows when it may reappear), and the fact that the transitions are not limited to one area, my guess is that there's a major repositioning going on. If so, then the way in which it is being done is not merely a theological or affective issue, but an ethical one.

Wow...Totally missed that, and Bauder's right - the website doesn't display one and a search turned up no hits.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Don Sailer's picture

Kevin T. Bauder wrote:

Don,

Saying that today's conservative evangelicals are the historic fundamentalists is like saying that today's modalists are the historic Trinitarians. It's the kind of comment that seems plausible only because it skips entire epochs of theological development.

Every theological idea has its defining moment, and that moment almost invariably comes in the midst of controversy. What is inchoate and imprecise is crystalized as a result of the controversy. After the defining point the same imprecision is no longer permissible.

Fundamentalism has had two defining points. The first occured in its conflict with liberalism. Fundamentalists took the position that the gospel (including the fundamentals) constituted the boundary of Christianity. To deny the gospel was to disqualify one's self from Christian fellowship and especially leadership. Consequently, the first-generation fundamentalists pushed for separation--originally, purge-out separation as they sought to expel the liberals, but subsequently come-out separation as it became clear that the liberals were firmly entrenched.

The neo-evangelicals believed the gospel, including all the fundamentals. Nevertheless, they insisted upon the possibility of Christian mutuality and cooperation with those who denied the gospel. They were neither fundamentalists nor liberals, but indifferentists--they were indifferent to the gospel (including the fundamentals) as the boundary of Christian faith and fellowship.

Fundamentalists rightly perceived that neo-evangelicalism was actually a gospel error. While the new evangelicals did not (at first) deny the gospel, they did demean it. They robbed it of its rightful place as a demarcator between Christianity and non-Christianity. To fundamentalists, this error revealed a shocking lack of biblical discernment. At minimum they felt (rightly!) that they had to reject the leadership of any individual or institution that fell into the neo-evangelical error.

That is precisely why fundamentalists left the CBA of A. It is precisely why they rejected the NAE. It is why even today they look askance at the BGC (which still lists Greg Boyd as part of its fellowship, no?) Given the current controversy, it is worth pointing out that Campus Crusade (now CRU) has been one of the foremost voices for neo-evangelical methodology, and has been consistently rejected by historic fundamentalists.

Denominationalism is not and never has been the issue. Fundamentalists organizations like the ACCC include Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Bible Churches, and others. Since the early 1940s the debate has been over indifferentism.

Neither the moderate evangelicals of the 1950s-1960s, nor the conservative evangelicals of today, are new evangelicals. They are not indifferentists. Unlike Fundamentalists, however, they have been willing to form ties with and accept leadership from indifferentists. They have been largely unwilling to denounce the error of indifferentism.

There are bridge figures, such as Phil Johnson. But this difference remains the difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. (See my response to Al Mohler in Four Views on the Evangelical Spectrum.)

I do not see conservative evangelicals as the enemy, but as friends and allies. I do not rule out all possibility of limited and carefully-targeted cooperation. Even if such limited cooperation occurs, however, it does not removed the differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, nor does it authorize carte blanche cooperation at every level.

 

Thanks Kevin.

And we are right back to secondary separation. The "moderate evangelicals of the 1950s-1960s" were my parents! They called themselves fundamentalists. Their relatives served as missionaries in the CBA. My parents are representatives of that broad group of fundamentalists who were not hyper-separatists and who did not dialogue with liberals. They can trace their historic, Christian lineage directly back to the fundamentalists who left the Northern Baptist/American Baptist denomination. It is funny how only the "separatistic" fundamentalists think they have the right to the term fundamentalist. When my generation saw what was going on in "fundamentalism" with regard to the bitter and hysterical application of separation, we just walked away. We gave up the term without giving up our beliefs. 

But a rose is a rose by any other name. Today's conservative evangelicals are the fundamentalists who chose not to follow the bitterness of the hyper-separatist branch of fundamentalism. They aren't new evangelicals even though they were called that by people in the FBFI. And even though most conservative evangelicals wouldn't want to be called a fundamentalist today, they are the direct descendants of those fundamentalists who chose not to separate over non-biblical reasons. Conservative evangelicals do separate from liberals and apostates. Conservative evangelicals do hold to the fundamentals of the faith. And conservative evangelicals unite together just like their grandparents did in the 1920s-1940s.

Only one of the three branches of fundamentalism practiced secondary separation. And it is that branch that calls itself "fundamentalism" today. The middle branch was reclassified right out of the movement and didn't fight it and are known today as conservative evangelicals. The third branch called themselves new-evangelicals.

Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking by it.

Blessings.

 

 

Don Sailer's picture

Greg Linscott wrote:

I will take you word on those things, KTB.

FWIW, though, this post on Olson's blog still stands, and has been up since last summer, so it seems to me there's one good starting place to connect the dots (though perhaps not as easily if they have taken their doctrinal statement offline)...

But then again, that, to me, would seem another thing to focus on- deception and dishonesty. It may be hard to say graciously, but I would have to say that at this point, "fiction" seems to me somewhat light, and "lying" would not be an inappropriate word to use.

 

Do you know why the doctrinal statement is offline? Maybe they are doing exactly what you are calling on them to do. Maybe they are changing it. I don't know. I'm just saying.

But be careful of the "L" word. We have had known presidents of colleges do the "L" thing and anyone who pointed it out was silenced. So be careful.

 

 

Don Sailer's picture

Jim wrote:

Link: 

http://gradschool.ni.edu/about/articles-of-faith/

PDF attached

 

 

From the doctrinal statement:

We believe God has called believers to live a life characterized by personal, ecclesiastical, and even familial separation. [bold face for emphasis]

Who was that targeted at? Good grief.

Now there's a statement that I would like changed. Smile

Blessings.

 

 

 

jcoleman's picture

TylerR wrote:

Briefly, they preferred infiltration and reformation from within, not separation. Surely you must grant this historical reality . . .

 

But both reformation from within and separation from are both methods the original fundamentalists used. And there wasn't a hard line at all that finally determined, en masse, when some determined that fighting from within was a lost battle. It was a gradual thing. You're rewriting history to claim that the real fundamentalists separated -- when that decision came well after the fundamentalists began fighting for in the beginning all of them fought from within.

Now Kevin might call them both forms of separation (i.e. separation by kicking out those in error), but who could possible dispute that that's precisely what's happened even this much later at, oh, say, SBTS where the liberals have left because the conservatives won the fight! Both leaving and fighting from within are valid forms of fighting. And one might reasonable argue that the ones fighting from within have actually done more of the actual fighting.

jcoleman's picture

dcbii wrote:

jcoleman wrote:

dcbii wrote:

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.

Let me rephrase: a large number of fundamentalists seem to believe that changing musical standards necessarily means that you have changed both your fundamentals of the faith and your university's fundamental philosophies. I believe that neither necessarily follow (though obviously it could be true in certain cases.)

I think it's abundantly clear that NIU hasn't changed on the fundamentals of the faith, and I also believe that anyone who claims otherwise is guilty of the sin of causing disunity in the church--a serious problem.

I also think it's quite possible (and given that this is their assertion, there is no reason to believe otherwise) that NIU has not changed their fundamental philosophies. Yes, the application looks different. But the application of many of our practical philosophies will be consistently changing every year. That's not a bad thing. In fact, if it's still guided by scripture (and I believe it clearly is at NIU) then it is in fact a good thing.

TylerR's picture

Editor

You wrote:

You're rewriting history to claim that the real fundamentalists separated -- when that decision came well after the fundamentalists began fighting for in the beginning all of them fought from within.

I am not re-writing history. Not at all. You are misunderstanding the history of these two movements. The approximate period before 1930 fundamentalists attempted to purge apostasy from within denominational organizations, schools, missions boards, etc. From approximately 1930 onwards, they chose to separate instead.

Evengelicalism came about mid-century over a disagreement about militant separation among fundamentalists. There was a difference of opinion over methods. This is a historical reality. 

If you wish to dispute these historical facts, provide documentation. If not, please concede this point and let us all move onto other issues. 

There is an alarming lack of clarity of thought going on here. Over and over again, people in this thread write something similar to, "music was never a fundamental of the faith!" Folks, I don't know how else to make this clear - we are discussing a difference in methods, not theology.

I beg people to interact with the historical reality of the different philosophies of ministry between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. This is why NIU is wrong. This is the issue.  

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Greg Linscott's picture

TylerR wrote:

I beg people to interact with the historical reality of the different philosophies of ministry between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. This is why NIU is wrong. This is the issue.  

Tyler, 

If you're appealing to history, it doesn't fit neatly. Ockenga didn't part ways so he could have Christian rap. If you want to talk methods, music wasn't the issue then. Fundamentalist pastors weren't forbidding their congregates from singing "How Great Thou Art" because it was associated with George Beverly Shea and the Billy Graham Crusade, or "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" because of its identification with the Neo-Evangelical Moody Bible Institute. If you want to get technical, the current music controversy congealed around "Jesus People" music in the 1970s, much later than the history you appeal to. To that point (and for many, long after), the divergent movements sang pretty much the same kinds of songs here in the USA, of which Kevin and Scott have already described fairly accurately.

The differences in philosophy and methods of ministry had much more to do with recognizing Roman Catholics and liberal mainline denominations as Christian brothers and collaborators. While some of today's performers may continue to some degree in the ecumenical footsteps of their predecessors, that philosophy did not, by itself, lead to the development of the current P&W or CCM genres. It's just more complicated than that.

 

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Ron Bean's picture

Fundamentalist pastors weren't forbidding their congregates from singing "How Great Thou Art" because it was associated with George Beverly Shea and the Billy Graham Crusade,

Actually I know of one fundamentalist ministry that did and does to this day. They also banned "Amazing Grace" for awhile when Judy Collins popularized it.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

TylerR's picture

Editor

We are finally making progress. I was not saying the schism between fundamentalism and evangelicalsim was over music. It was over methods. As the neo-evangelical movement split off from fundamentalism, the concept of secondary separation came about as fundamentalists began to distance themselves from ecumenicalism or compromise over militant separation (e.g. Blily Graham). The issue under discussion with NIU is secondary separation. Moving forward to today . . .

I do contend that CCM is indicative of an evangelical approach to ministry, in that it mimics secular music. It is more appealing to contemporary audiences because there is a corollary between the musical style of CCM and secular music. I contend this is reflective of the historic evangelical philosophy eschewing militant separation at the expense of love - to greater or lesser degrees depending on the nature of the ministry and temperament of the Pastor, etc. 

This is the whole issue. I appreciate you acknowledging the basis of the schism between fundamentalism and evangelical separation was over methods.

The fundamentalist philosophy of ministry is, very broadly (1) militant separation from apostasy and (2) secondary separation from disobedient brethren. There are probably better definitions, but I don't have time to think of them now. 

How do we apply these two precepts to ministry today within fundamentalism? This is the crux of the matter. I believe NIU is doing so wrongly. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

fljones3's picture

jcoleman, 

[/quote]

Let me rephrase: a large number of fundamentalists seem to believe that changing musical standards necessarily means that you have changed both your fundamentals of the faith and your university's fundamental philosophies. I believe that neither necessarily follow (though obviously it could be true in certain cases.)

I think it's abundantly clear that NIU hasn't changed on the fundamentals of the faith, and I also believe that anyone who claims otherwise is guilty of the sin of causing disunity in the church--a serious problem.

I also think it's quite possible (and given that this is their assertion, there is no reason to believe otherwise) that NIU has not changed their fundamental philosophies. Yes, the application looks different. But the application of many of our practical philosophies will be consistently changing every year. That's not a bad thing. In fact, if it's still guided by scripture (and I believe it clearly is at NIU) then it is in fact a good thing.

[/quote]

Are we confusing "fundamentals" and "philosophy"? Most mainline denominations have on paper that they adhere to some form of the "fundamentals". Perhaps NIU hasn't changed on the fundamentals of the faith, but they have changed in some form their philosophy ("any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation"). By definition, yes.

I assume that the NIU of old, NBBC did what they did with a conviction that it adhered to their philosophy. If that activity has changed then the philosophy has changed to some measure. They are not handling their music in the same fashion as years ago.

What that means to individual believers in their selection of schools will vary, as we read on SI.

 

 

Frank Jones, Pastor

www.faithmemorialbaptist.org

Greg Linscott's picture

This is the whole issue. I appreciate you acknowledging the basis of the schism between fundamentalism and evangelical separation was over methods.

I haven't acknowledged that at all. Secondary separation is not a methodology, per se. Fundamentalism, by its very nature, emphasized collaboration between those with significant differences- such as still seen today, for example, at BJU, with Baptists and Presbyterians (among others) finding common ground in spite of their significant disagreements. The fallout did not center around methods, but around whether one could find room to offer Christians fellowship with those who denied essential truths (Billy Graham cooperating with RCs then, or Manhattan Declaration today). In other words, it was over the implications of doctrinal differences, and their level of significance.

This why I would also contend that the best case to be made would be a departure from their stated doctrinal principles (which overtly stated opposition to the Charismatic movement), as well as a lack of honesty in how they have communicated (or not communicated about) their changes in "application" (to use the term of another poster). 

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jay's picture

TylerR wrote:
I do contend that CCM is indicative of an evangelical approach to ministry, in that it mimics secular music. It is more appealing to contemporary audiences because there is a corollary between the musical style of CCM and secular music. I contend this is reflective of the historic evangelical philosophy eschewing militant separation at the expense of love - to greater or lesser degrees depending on the nature of the ministry and temperament of the Pastor, etc.

Tyler,

As an attender of an 'conservative evangelical' / 'fundamentalist' church, we do not mimic secular music for evangelism.  That may be your experience or idea of what non-Fundamentalist churches do; it may be what you are told by traditional music advocates, but it is not our music philosophy.  Never has been and never will be (as long as Pastor, our deacons/elders, and I have something to say about it).

I'll be happy to provide a copy of our church music policy to any who ask.

 

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

TylerR's picture

Editor

You wrote:

 In other words, it was over the implications of doctrinal differences, and their level of significance.

Yes and no. I'm writing an article on this issue, so I'll wait to address this point.

This why I would also contend that the best case to be made would be a departure from their stated doctrinal principles (which overtly stated opposition to the Charismatic movement), as well as a lack of honesty in how they have communicated (or not communicated about) their changes in "application" (to use the term of another poster).

I agree about a lack of honestly about their position.

I am concerned about Charismatic connections and the potential conflict with their doctrinal statement

I believe, however, NIU simply must clearly define their goals and where they see themselves going so we can all stop speculating. This will all be moot if they would simply take a stand somewhere. As I said before, their ministry philosophy seems to be trending evangelical. If they want to go there, then make the decision. If they don't want to, then make that clear as well.

I honestly tire of discussing this issue. I feel like we're going in endless circles. I'm going to turn my attention elsewhere now.

 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Joel Shaffer's picture

Tyler,

 

As an attender of an 'conservative evangelical' / 'fundamentalist' church, we do not mimic secular music for evangelism.  That may be your experience or idea of what non-Fundamentalist churches do; it may be what you are told by traditional music advocates, but it is not our music philosophy.  Never has been and never will be (as long as Pastor, our deacons/elders, and I have something to say about it).

I'll be happy to provide a copy of our church music policy to any who ask.

Same for our church.......

Andrew K.'s picture

TylerR wrote:

You wrote:

 In other words, it was over the implications of doctrinal differences, and their level of significance.

Yes and no. I'm writing an article on this issue, so I'll wait to address this point.

This why I would also contend that the best case to be made would be a departure from their stated doctrinal principles (which overtly stated opposition to the Charismatic movement), as well as a lack of honesty in how they have communicated (or not communicated about) their changes in "application" (to use the term of another poster).

I agree about a lack of honestly about their position.

I am concerned about Charismatic connections and the potential conflict with their doctrinal statement

I believe, however, NIU simply must clearly define their goals and where they see themselves going so we can all stop speculating. This will all be moot if they would simply take a stand somewhere. As I said before, their ministry philosophy seems to be trending evangelical. If they want to go there, then make the decision. If they don't want to, then make that clear as well.

I honestly tire of discussing this issue. I feel like we're going in endless circles. I'm going to turn my attention elsewhere now.

 

Toward finding a new Looney Tunes' Avatar? I find it conspicuous you are avoiding Elmer Fudd. Wink

神是爱

TylerR's picture

Editor

I have considered Elmer Fudd, but I am leaning towards Daffy Duck next . . .

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

dgszweda's picture

Jay wrote:

TylerR wrote:
I do contend that CCM is indicative of an evangelical approach to ministry, in that it mimics secular music. It is more appealing to contemporary audiences because there is a corollary between the musical style of CCM and secular music. I contend this is reflective of the historic evangelical philosophy eschewing militant separation at the expense of love - to greater or lesser degrees depending on the nature of the ministry and temperament of the Pastor, etc.

Tyler,

As an attender of an 'conservative evangelical' / 'fundamentalist' church, we do not mimic secular music for evangelism.  That may be your experience or idea of what non-Fundamentalist churches do; it may be what you are told by traditional music advocates, but it is not our music philosophy.  Never has been and never will be (as long as Pastor, our deacons/elders, and I have something to say about it).

I'll be happy to provide a copy of our church music policy to any who ask.

 

 

This is a good point, as I am a member of a CE church that is not in the fundamentalist circle, and we do not mimic secular music as well, although we may sing a CCM (lite) song once in a while.  We would not allow the NIU group Redeemed to minister in our church, although many members and elders may listen to them and/or go to one of their concerts (or whatever they would call them).  We have not only a fairly strict and concise music philosophy, but also a very concise and detailed way in which we conduct the church services, neither of which resemble what we would even consider the looseness of fundamenalist church services.  I think sometimes fundamentalist (of which I still feel I sit in that camp to some degree), paint conservative evangelical churches into one camp, which as a member now for a year and interacting with other CE churches fully realize is not anywhere close to the situation.  Just as it is in fundamentalism.

Jay's picture

I'm increasingly amused by the anti-modern music arguments that have no actual basis in reality.  I am sure that someone out there thinks that they could take a song from the Billboard Top 100 and make a Christian song out of it, but I don't know of anyone who's ever tried.  At least, who tried and was brave enough to say it.

One would think that if you're going to argue against something, you would know at least a few of the actual arguments employed by your opponents.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Pages