"We have not done this perfectly, but we believe we are headed in a biblical direction that is focused on pursuing God’s pleasure."

[Jay]

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments made - for music or whatever - are made as though people like myself are subversives, who are suspecting, now that we are in ‘positions of power’ (although I’m not) to introduce pop culture into churches because that’s been our whole interest and goal.

It strikes me as both disingenuous and uncharitable to argue this point,

You are arguing against what you think others are saying, not, as far as I can tell, with what they are actually saying.

[JoelCS]

My concern centers specifically around your last statement @ this middle position “Today it is held by TGC and T4G.” Because I was just listening to D.A. Carson’s 2007 GC presentation: “The Plans and Purposes of the Gospel coalition” (8/28/2007). Carson clearly states that he understands the Gospel Coalition to be in the Evangelical Center of 50-60 years ago represented by C.F.H. Henry, Billy Graham, as he then was, H.J. Ockenga et.al. He further states that the Carl F.H.Henry Center was a major contributor to the beginnings of this movement. In his presentation he specifically names T4G as a cooperative fellowship. In fact, their meetings are on opposite years in oder to promote one another.

Joel,

Actually, I don’t think that this is an either-or. You have to ask yourself what Carson meant by that statement. The answer is clearly not anything resembling cooperative evangelism. Knowing Carson, I think it’s much more likely that he was looking to people like Ockenga, Henry, Carnell, etc., as the intellectual and doctrinal center of evangelicalism—which, in fact, they were. Remember, the neoevangelical movement did not begin with a theological deviation, but an ecclesiastical and practical one. The doctrinal deviations came a decade or more later.

Kevin

[Don Johnson]

[Jay] It seems to me that a lot of the arguments made - for music or whatever - are made as though people like myself are subversives, who are suspecting, now that we are in ‘positions of power’ (although I’m not), to introduce pop culture into churches because that’s been our whole interest and goal.

It strikes me as both disingenuous and uncharitable to argue this point,

You are arguing against what you think others are saying, not, as far as I can tell, with what they are actually saying.

I would disagree with that. This is what Chuck Phelps said:

With the statements of Spurgeon and Niagara in mind, it is without doubt revisionist history to seek to divorce “cultural separation” from historic fundamentalism. Personal separation predates fundamentalism and flows through every pore of genuine Christianity. Attacking personal separation by calling it a new name fails to deal with the fact that our faith requires personal separation. Those who attack personal separation without interacting with Scripture may garner a following but they do not promote true biblical faith that interacts with culture and the holiness of God.

It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism.” It’s about consecration as evidenced by and through personal separation! Article #48 of The Fundamentals is simply entitled “Consecration.” (Note: The Fundamentals are the articles that birthed “fundamentalism.”) It is evident to all who will read this article and others in The Fundamentals that historic fundamentalism understood and interacted with biblical instruction concerning personal separation. Those who seek to divorce personal separation from historic fundamentalism are revisionists who demonstrate an appalling ignorance of and perhaps even cavalier arrogance toward true biblical Christianity before the birth of fundamentalism, during the formation of historic fundamentalism and flowing from historic fundamentalism.

For the genuine Christian, “personal Separation” predates “fundamentalism.” It is rooted and grounded in our call to holiness (I Pet. 1:15-16; I John 2:15-17). Even the word “church” (ekklesia, “called out”) is embedded with the necessity to separate. Sadly, there are those who want to make a movement called fundamentalism defend separation and forget that separation is defended by and declared in Scripture.

Phelps is clearly arguing those of us who do not support traditional/conservative music are ‘revisionists’ that are ‘ignorant of’ or even ‘cavalier’ in our approach to Christianity. No one arguing for a non-traditional style (at least that I’ve read here) is disparaging ‘separation’ en toto. Certainly not me.

Or perhaps I should quote Scott Aniol, who argues that those of us who do not hold to classical/traditional music should be equated with those who are ‘indifferent’ to the gospel, and who believe ‘relevance’ is the key to reaching the lost. Let me quote him directly in his very helpfully titled article “Should differences over music philosophy hinder cooperation between Christians?”:

So a very simple answer to the question would be that no, music philosophy is not a separation issue of the same kind of level as heterodoxy or flagrant, known sin.

But if we extend the definition of “separation” to include limiting cooperation over lesser issues, then the question becomes, Is music/worship philosophy a significant enough issue to warrant the limiting of cooperation?

We’re talking very practical situations here, like, will I encourage people to go to that church’s ministry conference, will I recommend a particular college or seminary, or will I link arms with that person or ministry?

I would argue that music/worship philosophy may limit cooperation in some circumstances because of the deeper philosophies of culture that lie beneath music/worship practice…

…It is in this agenda that the Christian progressive philosophy of culture rises to prominence. Whether it was a particular philosophy of culture that birthed their agenda, or an agenda that influenced their philosophy of culture is perhaps unclear, but the links between the agenda and the philosophy are unmistakable. The New Evangelicals, unlike their Fundamentalists brothers, saw culture as neutral — something to be assimilated into the Church in order to engage the world with the gospel. Relevance was key to gospel propagation…

Instead of viewing “the world” as significantly influencing the culture around them, New Evangelicals limited “worldliness” to only those vices explicitly condemned in Scripture. Therefore, culture around them was no longer critiqued with careful discernment; it was now welcomed with open arms as the best means to reach the world.

…I would also argue that this agenda and this philosophy of culture will inevitably lead to doctrinal compromise. One cannot assimilate the world without being influenced by the world. That this has happened in Evangelicalism is without question. One of first doctrines to go was inerrancy, followed soon by justification by faith alone in Christ alone… (emphasis mine)

So those of us who support a different musical style for worship are seeking ‘relevance for gospel propagation’, ‘welcome culture with open arms to reach the world’, and who will inevitably wind up in ‘doctrinal compromise’. Aniol also specifically and explicitly links ‘progressive’ music with the new evangelical disaster of the mid to late 20th century. But, no, that’s not a serious criticism at all…not in the least. It’s obvious that I must be misunderstanding what he’s saying. :)

If you believe in and defend ‘cultural’ fundamentalism / traditional music / conservative music (or whatever you personally want to call it), that’s fine. You should, however, realize that the ‘non-traditional’ side isn’t antinomian or flippant in our approach…unless you want to argue that people like Bob Kauflin don’t take music seriously (which is a whole different set of problems). Or you can elevate music to a new fundamental, which I don’t think you really want to do, either, but where your side seems to continually end up at.

Those Chuck accuses of revisionism are those who say that so-called “historic fundamentalism” never took a stand against culture.

Likewise, Scott is arguing that it was a tenet of the New Evangelicals to view culture as neutral.

The term indifferentist refers to those who think that the philosophy and direction of New Evangelicals didn’t matter. They were indifferent to the outcome of that philosophy.

You are arguing that they are calling you subversive. That is hardly the argument, but it fits your scenario and makes a nice straw man to knock down. Don’t be surprised if others point that out when you try it, though.

Don,

Thanks for clarifying. I read both of them the same way that Jay did.

[Don Johnson]

The term indifferentist refers to those who think that the philosophy and direction of New Evangelicals didn’t matter. They were indifferent to the outcome of that philosophy.

Does the person who popularized the term have any say in how it is used? That person was J. Gresham Machen. For Machen, an indifferentist was someone who was indifferent to the role of the gospel as the demarcator between Christianity and non-Christianity. For Machen, a New Evangelical would have been an indifferentist (anachronsitically—the term neoevangelical did not come into use for a decade after Machen’s death). No one who refused Christian fellowship to unbelievers, however, would have qualified as an indifferentist.

You can alter the meaning of the term if you wish. If you do, however, you’ll just be depriving us of a good word that denotes a specific thing. It’ll become another vague pejorative like, like, well—like neoevangelical had become to some fundamentalists.

Kevin

My excuse was relying on memory, trying to remember what I had heard and read from you.

Yes, OK, Machen meant the New Evangelicals by the term. However, I question whether it is a good word for us to use. I suppose you prefer it to new evangelical because NE is a pejorative as you say. But indiffentist is very obscure. It isn’t the term the NEs used of themselves, and it obviously didn’t catch on, or else we would all be quite familiar with it.

On the other hand, if you keep saying it often enough, maybe we’ll get it and use it!

I think the rest of my point to Jay stands without that paragraph … at least I hope it does!

Don,

the word has value precisely b/c of “new evangelical“ ‘s plummeting value—no one has horribly misused and misapplied it yet. I’ve been labeled new evangelical, and even liberal for everything from using the NASB, not having what others thought was an “altar call”, and preaching & practicing the doctrines of grace. Also, it does seem that Kevin has made use of this word not only for the non-misused/misapplied nature of it, but also b/c of its historic reference, and (though obscure to you) its lack of vagueness. He did not only say new evangelical was pejorative, but vague.