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

[dcbii]

[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.

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.

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.

[TylerR]

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.

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.

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.

jcoleman,

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.

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.

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).

[TylerR] 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.

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,

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…….

Very thoughtful … From a church not traditionally considered fundamentalist.

Here is a church that has thought deeply about it’s music … whether you agree with it or not, it merits a sober reflection.

JPS

http://www.tenth.org/fileadmin/files_for_download/Pdf_articles/Philosophy-Theology_of_Music.pdf

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

[Jay]

[TylerR] 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.

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.

dgszweda, what makes you a CE instead of a Fundamentalist? Is it how we label you or how you label yourself. I have begun to realize more and more that when I determine which churches I am the most comfortable fellowshipping with, I have to look at both their beliefs and practices instead of what “camps” they have traditionally been associated with. (In spite of my earlier posts I do notice what music a church uses and I am most comfortable in the traditional ones- it is just that I do not view it as as big of issue as others do- preference vs conviction).

In belief and practice, some CE churches may be closer to what a fundamentalist believes (more separated and more conservative even) than some “Fundamentalist” churches. I fear though that some are afraid to fellowship with others who believe just like they believe because maybe others will judge them as compromisers who have gone outside “the camp.” I think there is a longing to just have everyone fit into nice little categories so we can have easy answers to where the boundaries are at. I think that is part of the frustration with “Northland” right now. None of us are really sure what they believe, what their practice is going to be, and where they fit.