The New Fundamentalism of “Religious Affections”

This is absolutely spot on and I could not agree more.

To be fair, I do not think that these people have actually said that those who don’t agree with them are dumb. (At least a quick word search in their archives of “dumb” does not immediately reveal evidence of this.) It’s just inferred. The new wave of fundamentalist intellectualism is just like the old wave of fundamentalist anti-intellectualism. Its tactics are the same. They’re not as attached to the term “fundamentalism” as the previous generation because they’re much more sophisticated in their thinking. They like “conservative” better. But they are still very much the same. Instead of making you feel like you’re a heretic by virtue of the fact that you diverge ever so slightly from their opinion on all matters, they make you feel like a dummy for diverging from their opinion on just a few matters. And dumb people just don’t get how holy God is.

They make you feel like your worship is second-rate, that you’re a half-wit if you can’t grasp their casuistry, and that you are guilty of heteropathy. They don’t shun you by running you out of their circles; they shun you by talking all about any position that differs from theirs as worldly and ignorant. They’ll talk with you by talking down to you. They’ll even go to church with you because they must. (There are so few churches that get what real worship is all about, after all.) One of their own boasts of simply refusing to sing with his congregation when the driveling bauble of simpleton worshipers he must associate with sings songs beneath his standards of orthopathy. Having the religious affections of a person grateful to be making a joyful noise with the blood-bought, covenanted people of God doesn’t overcome his devotion to form. Like Michal peering through the lattice of the upper window, they scorn the bad form of joy-driven God-lovers dancing among the people.

The queer Mozart’s Laudate Dominum (Psalm 117) makes me fall to my knees every time I hear it. I dream of the day we can do it in church!

But the point that I insist upon here is that the movement was cold and dead from the beginning, having the “form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:5). Good form and right feelings can be damnably misguided.

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one…

God did not delight in the very forms that He had ordained when the forms became an opportunity for wrong affections. “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or goats” (Isaiah 1:10). Let Jesus talk about religious affections: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.” Let Paul talk about religious affections: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them” (1 Corinthians 9:19). Here’s Jesus again when the worship and ministry police disapproved of his style: “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” (Matthew 11:19).

But when form has become so important to you that you celebrate men who refuse to sing with the blood-bought covenanted people of God whenever they sing poetry that is less than the very best, it is you and not the boy with the guitar that is on the slippery slope. God sanctifies music just like He sanctifies His people; with His Word. Indeed, He sanctifies everything in one way: with His Word and prayer. “Everything created by God is good, and nothing should be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, since it is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Jesus Himself is the ultimate Word that listens to the repetitive and simple chants of boys and, because of His mystical union with us and ours with Him, turns that which comes out of the mouths of intellectual babes praise!

Yes!

Wow, scathing. What is Bob talking about when he refers to the fruits of their teaching in his own city?

I agree that these guys are the new version of the old music “experts” though on the surface, more sophisticated. The one thing they do way better than Garlock and company is avoiding getting specific about their music “rules.” Those guys will skate around and do contortions to avoid getting specific because they know that as soon as they do, they start looking ridiculous. Or elitist. Or Eurocentric. Or racist…

I agree, excellent post. I appreciated this part:

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.

He’s very direct but I think you need to be. Not that everyone who prefers traditional music thinks this way, but the danger is present and needs to be warned against.

I just read Bixby’s post. I suspect he is a good man who was badly burned, and is quite hostile to fundamentalism as a movement. He erects straw men based on the unfortunate, un-Biblical actions of those on the extreme, dictatorial, right-wing fringe of fundamentalism.

He is not somebody I plan on paying any attention to, unless he shows signs of calming down. I’ve read two posts by him. I can almost picture him frothing and spitting at the keyboard in fury as he typed each of them. There is none of that coming from the separatists at SI regarding NIU or other contentious issues issue.

I am honestly puzzled at why anyone gives credence to the man. He evidently has a large axe to grind, and he has apparently posted himself at the grinding wheel for the long haul. Good luck to him. I’ll steer clear.

Tyler,

Bob is not arguing against extreme right-winged dictatorial fundamentalism. He is arguing against a certain conservative educated wing of fundamentalism that stereotype and make faulty assumptions about those that seek to engage culture that differ than their preferences/Biblical convictions of music, while coming across quite arrogant towards these same people. Maybe I’m wrong, but I felt Bob used a polemic style of argumentation to get his point across. Alex G. often uses the same style. I used to get frustrated and offended at Alex because it seemed at first uncharitable. But the more that I read his posts and a few of his blog posts, he used this type of argumentation to emphasize his point………

TylerR, I’ve appreciated your recent interaction with the material on Sharper Iron (and your submitted articles) regardless of my own point of view. Your interaction with Bob’s blog article seems, however, less helpful than I’ve come to expect from you.

• You claim Bob is bitter. We are, unfortunately, familiar with this particular approach to disagreement. “I suspect he is a good man who was badly burned, and is quite hostile to fundamentalism as a movement.”
• You claim that Bob is guilty of faulty argumentation. I would encourage you to document this claim. “He erects straw men based on the unfortunate, un-Biblical actions of those on the extreme, dictatorial, right-wing fringe of fundamentalism.”
• You are concerned about his tone, but perhaps that doesn’t justify attributing “frothing and spitting” to a brother you have evidently never met.
• You question the discernment of those who value what Bob has to say. “I am honestly puzzled at why anyone gives credence to the man.”

Again, I’ve appreciated your contributions. I’m not sure what happened here.

I think God actually wants us to work out these details - music, clothing, entertainment, personal habits - in the process of spiritual growth and sanctification. But it is an individual journey; and what’s more, my path to holiness ain’t necessarily your path, and just because the destination is the same, that doesn’t mean we all must hop on someone’s theological version of Route 66 and carpool and shout “He who is not with me is against me” out the windows.

[TylerR]

I just read Bixby’s post. I suspect he is a good man who was badly burned, and is quite hostile to fundamentalism as a movement. He erects straw men based on the unfortunate, un-Biblical actions of those on the extreme, dictatorial, right-wing fringe of fundamentalism.

He is not somebody I plan on paying any attention to, unless he shows signs of calming down. I’ve read two posts by him. I can almost picture him frothing and spitting at the keyboard in fury as he typed each of them. There is none of that coming from the separatists at SI regarding NIU or other contentious issues issue.

I am honestly puzzled at why anyone gives credence to the man. He evidently has a large axe to grind, and he has apparently posted himself at the grinding wheel for the long haul. Good luck to him. I’ll steer clear.

Sorry, TylerR, I don’t see what you do. Perhaps because I know Bob well enough, I know that your supplied graphic is most uncharitable & verbal characterizations are far from accurate.
Furthermore, when I read his article after reading your comments, I couldn’t help but compare Bob’s to the countless diatribes I’ve read over the years from various “reputable” fundamentalist sources (and I’m not talking about the loonies, either!) and found Bob relatively mild. He didn’t personally attack anyone by naming names, flamed no one, didn’t resort to name-calling, didn’t lift things totally out of context — all tactics used in the many “open letters” and “yellow journalism” articles that have come across my desk. I wish (sort of) some of those truly caustic pieces were available to place alongside Bob’s. The contrast would, I think, speak for itself.

I am wondering if Tyler is familiar with the specifics of those Bob is addressing. It might help if the context was understood. The Religious Affections guys have not had as vocal a presence at SI as they did a few years ago. Who knows… maybe this thread will mark an exception… :)

By the way- I understand where Bob is coming from. I think he’s over-reaching, but there are observations he’s made that bear consideration.

At the same time, I think it is good for Fundamentalism (whatever that means these days… :) ) to have those who come from the intellectual end of things. I think you also need those who are driven by compassion and service (like I know Bob to be).

I may try to interact more specifically (either here or at Pen-seeze :) )with what Bob has said, but it’s looking to be a busy day here.

I posted this on Bixby’s site:

Pastor Bixby,

I heartily agree with the general thrust of your article. I would like to point out, though, that fundamentalism has always had an odd mix of anti-intellectualism and fawning for (the trappings of) intellectualism. It has always been important for big-church fundamentalist pastors or educators to get the doctoral degree, even if that meant nothing more than an honorary certificate or a sham PhD program. Likewise, remember all the arguments by Garlock and friends about syncopation, plants, backmasking, etc.

The issue, then, is not anti-intellectualism or pro-intellectualism, but securing a monopoly on intellectual capital. The anti-intellectual rants are to scare the congregants so they don’t listen to OUTSIDE expert opinion; the pro-intellectual posturing is to dazzle them into thinking the speakers know what they’re talking about. As always, it boils down to control.

You are right about the Tractarian/Pusey ideology. My second master’s degree is from a Catholic university. I have many colleagues that follow Hans Urs von Balthasar’s aesthetic approach to Christianity, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s preference for highly traditional, aesthetic liturgy. Even Latin Mass is making a comeback on aesthetic/traditional grounds.

In my opinion, the RAM guys are trying to appropriate insights from this movement and graft them into a culture which is somewhat alien. Not only American evangelicalism, but the whole Reformed church out of which evangelicalism sprung has a rather different aesthetic approach. Zwingli simplified church decoration and removed music. The Puritans ripped out organs and insisted on simplicity in music. Congregational singing as opposed to trained musicians required a kind of egalitarianism.

So, I think it is right to raise the question to the RAM people, “You say you are taking us back, but back to where?”

We should not be surprised that there exists in our era contention over proper sensibilities toward God. The truly alarming thing would be if there were none.

I saw this link to an article at Smithsonian.com yesterday at Tim Challies’ blog- Eight New Things We’ve Learned About Music.

Based on MRI scans, they found that when people listened to music they liked, the limbic and paralimbic regions of the brain became more active. They’re the areas linked to euphoric reward responses, the same ones that bring the dopamine rush associated with food, sex and drugs.

Folks,

Perhaps we’re reading different articles! I don’t know the man, but he seems pretty angry about something. If I didn’t enjoy interacting with those I disagree with, I wouldn’t be here at SI. I don’t mind if he disagrees with fundamentalism, but why in the world is he so hostile?

His entire article seems to be interacting with the legalistic excesses of some while castigating the rest of us at the same time. Would anybody here appreciate an article on a left-wing evangelical which broad-brush scorched the entire movement, to include D.A. Carson, Al Mohler and everybody one else as spineless theological illiterates? Would any of you listen to me?

I honestly want to know why Bixby’s article should be heard. His tone is rude, condescending and his characterizations of fundamentalism are incorrect. I am surprised at the favorable reaction.

Pkease help me understand. Maybe I’m just missing something …