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

but, to be clear, is cigar-smoking a sin for you to contemplate doing, as regards your conscience? Is that what you mean by “conviction?” If you said that, forgive me…

Dan, here’s the point of all this:

There are certain Christians today (me, Mike Harding, John Vaughan, or whomever) who believe that certain musical forms are inappropriate for worship at best, and displeasing to the Lord at worst.

We believe this, not out of personal preference (i.e. we don’t like it), but out of conviction that it is so, and we have based our convictions on (what we believe to be) reasonable application of God’s all-authoritative, all-sufficient Word.

We (or I, at least) am quite open to anyone disagreeing with my interpretation of Scripture or how I apply Scripture to musical choices. I welcome discussion on these matters. Anyone who reads me honestly will have to admit that I welcome such discourse. That doesn’t mean I will agree, of course. But if someone is willing to say, “Here is why I think the form of rap is fitting with biblical principles” (for example) I am more than willing to hear him out.

Yet you are denying us even the right to claim that we have these convictions based upon Scripture. You insist, rather, that we admit that our judgments are based on personal preference alone. Folks like you are unwilling to disagree with us on the basis of our interpretation or application; rather you shut down any discussion by claiming that the Bible doesn’t say anything about musical style or that we are defending preference.

So which is the more charitable option? (a) Take us at our Word that we have with all honestly attempted to rightly apply the Word of God and have based our judgments on those applications, and therefore engage us on that level, or (b) insist that our convictions are baseless and based on preference alone?

If this whole debate were founded only on preference, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we should allow each to have his preferences (you prefer steak? I prefer tofu! eh, who cares!)

But at least allow us the right to hold (what we truly believe are, at least) biblical convictions and engage us on that level.

[SamH]

but, to be clear, is cigar-smoking a sin for you to contemplate doing, as regards your conscience? Is that what you mean by “conviction?” If you said that, forgive me…

Wow, you’ve really got some good questions… Well, let me answer this for you as honestly as I know how - “I’m not sure.” :-)

I really believe that much of this for me has been how my conscience has been trained over the years. Having grown up in fundamentalism where drinking, smoking (of any sort), movie attendance, pants on women, etc., were regularly preached against, I’m quite sure that some of my conviction is based in this upbringing.

I know that Romans 14:23-24 tells me that “whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Yet, I know that the human conscience can be trained, and even at times, retrained according to correct knowledge and input from the Word of God. This has happened in my own life over the years as I’ve grown in Christ and my understanding of His Word. For example, I used to really think that translations of the Bible other than the KJV were sinful and wrong. Yet, with study and training, sitting right next to you in many of those classes I might add :-) I learned differently. My conscience was retrained according to correct knowledge.

Yet, I have to admit, I can remember the first NASB I bought… There was this twinge deep down inside… Yet, I knew that I was freed from a wrongly trained conscience in this matter. So, did I sin when I first bought that NASB and experienced that “twinge?” Did I fail to act in faith at that moment? I don’t think so.

I really do see this matter of music in a similar way. For some of us, we have heard certain things railed against all our lives, even when there is so little Biblical support the positions. My plea is for us to recognize this and show grace to our brothers whose consciences are different than ours in this debatable area - musical style/genre.

Dan,

You’re being a good sport here; I see that Sam has also begun to engage you in a thread of questions. Hopefully, we won’t have too many scenarios going simultaneously.

Let me also add that, from the distance of social media, I greatly admired the way that you and your ministry handled the controversy with James MacDonald. Whatever else may be said in this conversation, I want to insist publicly that you are a separatist, in the best sense of that term. You’ve had to take a strong stand in a way that some of us, who have largely stayed within a certain theological neighborhood, have not.

Now, back to our illustration of preaching styles. I definitely agree with you that there are a host of preaching styles that are compatible with faithful shepherding. I also agree that cultural expectations play some role in framing the kind of styles likely to be acceptable in a given church.

I want to press this discussion in two different directions. First, the principle, and second, the institutional.

First, are there any styles of preaching (this is an intentionally ambiguous term) that you would consider utterly out of bounds for a preacher? Or, to be more specific, are there any styles of preaching that you would consider to be utterly out of bounds given a specific passage? So, for instance, say the stand up comic preaches Isaiah 53, or the hollerin’ preacher preaches 2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (the God of all comfort)? Ought they modify their styles for these sermons? Who says? On what grounds are we to say that a hollering style isn’t comforting? Or that comedy is not, for some, a faithful way to contemplate the substitutionary atonement?

Institutionally, let’s offer another hypothetical. Suppose that Detroit Seminary, after years of having one direction of homiletics instruction, decided to hire a staff evangelist to promote the school who was of the hollerin’ evangelist style. Indeed, Dr. Doran has decided that the best way to reach a new generation for Christ is to adapt to the current culture of extra-combatant talk-radio personalities. He’s not going to change the theological positions of the seminary (except for a tweak here and there which appeals to the new constituency), just the method of delivering the message. Now, I’m not suggesting that you’d sign the next resolution against Detroit Seminary. I wouldn’t either; I’m just not a resolutions kind of guy. But I imagine you would be deeply disappointed with the direction of the school. You might even decide that, given their new direction, there are schools you’d more highly recommend than them. And you’d be doing so, it seems to me, for reasons of style.

Now, I would be right with you. I would be arguing that this new approach to homiletics, because of the way in which it communicates, is at cross-purposes with the message that they’re trying to proclaim. It seems to me that my move here would be consistent with my principles. My obvious question to you, then, would be: “What would your response be to the new Detroit Seminary? And again, on what grounds?”

[Scott Aniol] Yet you are denying us even the right to claim that we have these convictions based upon Scripture. You insist, rather, that we admit that our judgments are based on personal preference alone. Folks like you are unwilling to disagree with us on the basis of our interpretation or application; rather you shut down any discussion by claiming that the Bible doesn’t say anything about musical style or that we are defending preference.

If I had two small kids that were quarreling and each demanding their ‘right’ to the toy they owned, I’d take it away and put them in separate rooms for a while until they calmed down. Then I’d have to have a long talk with them about loving others and setting aside their selfish demands.

Just saying.

But once again, Jay, your analogy implies that we have not based our judgments on what we truly believe to be reasonable application of Scripture. Your analogy is demeaning and uncharitable to those who hold convictions about music.

[Scott Aniol]

Dan, here’s the point of all this:

There are certain Christians today (me, Mike Harding, John Vaughan, or whomever) who believe that certain musical forms are inappropriate for worship at best, and displeasing to the Lord at worst.

We believe this, not out of personal preference (i.e. we don’t like it), but out of conviction that it is so, and we have based our convictions on (what we believe to be) reasonable application of God’s all-authoritative, all-sufficient Word.

We (or I, at least) am quite open to anyone disagreeing with my interpretation of Scripture or how I apply Scripture to musical choices. I welcome discussion on these matters. Anyone who reads me honestly will have to admit that I welcome such discourse. That doesn’t mean I will agree, of course. But if someone is willing to say, “Here is why I think the form of rap is fitting with biblical principles” (for example) I am more than willing to hear him out.

Yet you are denying us even the right to claim that we have these convictions based upon Scripture. You insist, rather, that we admit that our judgments are based on personal preference alone. Folks like you are unwilling to disagree with us on the basis of our interpretation or application; rather you shut down any discussion by claiming that the Bible doesn’t say anything about musical style or that we are defending preference.

So which is the more charitable option? (a) Take us at our Word that we have with all honestly attempted to rightly apply the Word of God and have based our judgments on those applications, and therefore engage us on that level, or (b) insist that our convictions are baseless and based on preference alone?

If this whole debate were founded only on preference, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we should allow each to have his preferences (you prefer steak? I prefer tofu! eh, who cares!)

But at least allow us the right to hold (what we truly believe are, at least) biblical convictions and engage us on that level.

Scott, I’m really not trying to be uncharitable to you or others in this matter. In fact, I believe that you believe that your convictions are based on Scripture alone. And you believe that these convictions are not the result of your personal preferences, which have been shaped by your background, upbringing, and personal experiences.

But, having said that, I also believe that your personal convictions in the matter of style/genre of music have the same type of Biblical support that the personal conviction of “a woman ought not to wear pants” or “Christians ought not to go to the movie theater” has. I’m not saying that you ought not to have convictions.

But I am saying that those convictions that must be arrived at principally ought to be held with much charity. Much grace must be shown towards those who have drawn different conclusions. Why? Because if God wanted us to know specifically that we should all only be singing in the Southern Gospel genre, He would have specified this to us. But He didn’t and this is undeniable.

So, instead of labeling others as using “worldly methodology” and participating in “sinful practice not adorning the Gospel of Christ,” I’m urging grace and charity towards those who see it differently. I’m urging a willingness to partner in the Gospel knowing that we probably have many secondary matters where we won’t completely agree. Please, stop elevating this secondary matter of the preference of specific musical style/genre to what it has become - the true fundamentalist litmus test.

[Scott Aniol]

Dan, here’s the point of all this:

There are certain Christians today (me, Mike Harding, John Vaughan, or whomever) who believe that certain musical forms are inappropriate for worship at best, and displeasing to the Lord at worst.

We believe this, not out of personal preference (i.e. we don’t like it), but out of conviction that it is so, and we have based our convictions on (what we believe to be) reasonable application of God’s all-authoritative, all-sufficient Word.

We (or I, at least) am quite open to anyone disagreeing with my interpretation of Scripture or how I apply Scripture to musical choices. I welcome discussion on these matters. Anyone who reads me honestly will have to admit that I welcome such discourse. That doesn’t mean I will agree, of course. But if someone is willing to say, “Here is why I think the form of rap is fitting with biblical principles” (for example) I am more than willing to hear him out.

Yet you are denying us even the right to claim that we have these convictions based upon Scripture. You insist, rather, that we admit that our judgments are based on personal preference alone. Folks like you are unwilling to disagree with us on the basis of our interpretation or application; rather you shut down any discussion by claiming that the Bible doesn’t say anything about musical style or that we are defending preference.

So which is the more charitable option? (a) Take us at our Word that we have with all honestly attempted to rightly apply the Word of God and have based our judgments on those applications, and therefore engage us on that level, or (b) insist that our convictions are baseless and based on preference alone?

If this whole debate were founded only on preference, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we should allow each to have his preferences (you prefer steak? I prefer tofu! eh, who cares!)

But at least allow us the right to hold (what we truly believe are, at least) biblical convictions and engage us on that level.

This is more than a little ironic, isn’t it? Scott Aniol, Mike Harding, John Vaughn, et al. treat music style as a separation issue — the current target of their pillorying being NIU. But when challenged on the absence of a biblical basis for their “conviction” (or even a direct, non-treatise-length line of reasoning from Scripture to their “conviction”) and on their consequent separation/criticism of fellow Christians who don’t agree with their “conviction,” they ask to be treated charitably. Whaaat?

You wrote:

There are certain Christians today (me, Mike Harding, John Vaughan, or whomever) who believe that certain musical forms are inappropriate for worship at best, and displeasing to the Lord at worst.

We believe this, not out of personal preference (i.e. we don’t like it), but out of conviction that it is so, and we have based our convictions on (what we believe to be) reasonable application of God’s all-authoritative, all-sufficient Word.

Your whole post expressed my feelings exactly. Well said.

It seems to me that Jay would be insisting on what could compare to an Evangelical Free position, with Scott rigidly insisting on a pre-trib, pre-mil dispensationalist approach- only with music and worship instead of Eschatology.

Which leads me to wonder (out loud)- Is there coming a day where something like a denomination will form around a conservative theology of music and worship? Bauder has observed (and I think to some degree rightfully so) that essentially “doing church separately” can actually result in greater unity than one or both having to surrender their conscience and beliefs for the sake of others’ contrasting beliefs.

GregL:

Is there coming a day where something like a denomination will form around a conservative theology of music and worship?

I certainly hope not! Talk about missing the forest for the trees … !

Thanks, Dan, and I very much appreciate the tone in which you have engaged in conversation here. Thank you, brother.

But here’s the thing: if you think our convictions are misapplications of Scriptural principle (like forbidden women to wear pants, etc), then tell us why; don’t just tell us our convictions are baseless, tell us why. Show us how we have misinterpreted Scripture. Show us how we have misapplied Scripture.

The issue really isn’t one of application, because you (and others!) deny that Scripture even applies to musical style. That’s really where the debate lies.

I, on the other hand, believe that the Bible speaks to everything, including musical style.

So, at the end of the day, we are quite likely never going to agree, not just on application, but on method!

Scott,

You know that we have nearly the same position on music and worship. Let me, for a moment, play progressives’ advocate.

The argument is going to be this: we cannot show you why you conservatives are misapplying Scripture, because you have not (in any concise way) shown us how in the world Scripture does apply.

Now, your last statement is one that I think we can all agree on: the disagreement is one of method. In other words (as was mentioned earlier in this thread), we would want to insist that some of the terms in Philippians 4:8 have definite application to musical styles. We would also say that, as with all matters of application, we must go outside the text of Scripture to connect the application. This is the move that I suspect is at the heart of the problem.

EDIT

Let me add this, as a second foundation-level concern in this discussion: what is clear or obvious in Scripture is often a dangerous, slippery standard for whether something is correct. I say this, because what we find obvious in Scripture is so often influenced, if not determined, by what we expect to find in Scripture. We all have experienced this, at one point or another. What this means is this: those who insist on a simple and concise defense of conservatism, in a day in which conservatism is not the bent of the culture, are asking for something that might be impossible. It is akin to the Arminian who asks for two simple proofs that Calvinism is true, or vice versa. You know how that conversation is going to go.

when someone is disobedient, but treat him as a brother — limited fellowship.

The purpose of separating from the disobedient brother (context is a person who refuses to work) is for them to feel shame for their sin so that they eventually repent and then to be restored. So because I listen and even utilize Christian hip-hop within our inner-city ministry, those who will treat me as a disobedient brother for doing so, are you trying to shame me into “repentance?” So that I stop doing what I believe based on my careful study of God’s word(viewing culture and music through the lens of Creation, Fall, Redemption and the final Consummation), agonizing prayer, and godly council about music, and my rejection of “functional dualism?”

___________________________

http://www.utmgr.org/blog_index.html

So, Mike, are you equating progressives with the devil?

I agree, of course, which is my point. There’s probably not going to be a consensus here because we disagree on method.