The New Fundamentalism of “Religious Affections”

[Greg Long]

Can you give me the post #, or better yet, quote the statement Bob made that this is the “mindset of collective fundamentalism”? I’ve found at least two times Bob said exactly the opposite of what you said he said, but I can’t find any such statement, so please help me.

Actually I was wrong, to some degree, he went even further than collective fundamentalism to an even larger broad over-generalization which makes his statement all the more offensive:

And as for race baiting, us white conservative Christians make it impossible to raise any questions about race ever in such conversations. When is it right to say there may be some race-issues here? Why is it that whenever anything is spoken to us and our group we can never admit that it is valid to explore whether there are race-issues? That and prominent schools in fundamentalism have long held to no interracial dating and other race-problematic postilions. There are still fundamentalist schools with such rules!

When every culture’s music except for one (that of 18th/19th century Western music) is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause. It may not be, then again it may be an inadvertent elitism.

So allow me to amend this by not being correct enough. Not only does Bob indict collective fundamentalism but he indicts all of “white conservative Christians” with the claim that their culture’s rejects music expect that which is 18th/19th century Western music and this is based on a singular statement by a man at his blog that this is what he, alone, believes. Atrocious scholarship, still, and wholly lacking in integrity when making such characterizations.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Realizing this was sometime back but having been reposted by Jay, I will respond to this in part.

[Jay]

Of course you paint all “rap” with a broad brush. How could you make any differentiation at all? You have no idea that there have been at least 5 distinct eras in rap’s brief, thirty-plus year history. Of course you see rap as a profane medium. What has your exposure been? The only exposure some of you have had is when you’ve walked into the room and caught your teenager watching MTV and told them to cut it off. Or when a car pulls up next to you blasting rap music at an obscenely high level- to the point where you can’t even hear the music in your own car!

Of course you view rap music as “aesthetically bankrupt”. Your ear is not trained to hear the brilliance of the cadences, rhythms and structure of the songs performed by the best Hip-hop lyricists. You haven’t been exposed to the multisyllabic poetic forms of the best rappers that would put some of the best hymn writers to shame, in terms of verbal dexterity and lyrical complexity. All you hear is a loud beat with profanity being shouted over it!

Of course you believe that all rap is “intrinsically erotic in composition”. (By the way, I’ll refrain from telling Curtis that presumably older, caucasian men found what he did at Piper’s church to be erotic. That might be more information than he needs) What are your examples? You’ve only been exposed to the crass, over-sexualized rap songs that typify much of the popular secular rap. Your conclusion is absolutely reasonable, based on how uninformed you are.

I’ll be honest with you guys - this cut me to the core. I can’t discuss rap because I know little about it. So I do wish that guys like Shai would come and participate more, because it’s wrong for all of us to sit here and condemn someone for doing something that we don’t understand. And that was my point a few posts ago…Shai is a believer, and ought to be treated as such, even if I don’t understand or disagree with him.

Shai

Let me help you.

How do you know I do not know there have been 5 distinct rap eras (you should be clear that some people argue for 4 or did you not know that and some argue the date of its genesis or did that pass you by too)? You don’t know that which is normally called presumption, a form of arrogance.

But what principle are you arguing? That being informed of the eras of something makes it viable, preferable or appropriate for worship? I guess that means it is time for us to learn the eras of punk rock so we can introduce that into worship…oh wait some not so bright people already have. Maybe we just don’t appreciate its pleasant art form, eh? Your argument is irrelevant at best and fails prescriptively (you do understand what that means, right?). Knowing the eras of something does not validate or invalidate it.

But from there you wish to assert with more presumption, that I see rap as profane. Well, Shai, let me help you again. If you are going to represent the arguments of your opponents, do so thoroughly. You see, Shai, not everyone considers it profane, though some, somewhere, might. Some find it simply crude and base as an art form and at best used for the context of entertainment and not worship. It is called a principle, not simply categorizing as you wish to claim as the wholesale rejection of rap for worship. And theology, Biblical wisdom combined with various principles of music lead many to this view, not merely the claim it is “profane” though I am sure it would make your arguments against others much easier were it all so simple.

And still your presumption does not end. Now you wish to claim my only exposure to rap is someone “blasting rap music at an obscenely high level- to the point where you can’t even hear the music in your own car”(your unqualified retort is to those who reject rap as a form for worship, hence if you had anyone other than the whole in mind such as a part of the whole who do not embrace rap for worship, you failed to qualify that), this is presumption #3. Your arrogance is spilling over, Shai.

Maybe, just maybe, some people who reject rap as a viable form for worship not only understand its history and have followed it but have done so before you ever did. And maybe, just maybe, many of us have heard enough of it in its many forms to understand it is a an entertainment genre, not a worship form. But that would go against your narrative, eh? It appears you wish to create a straw man which you can easily blow down. Wrong. But keep telling yourself those who oppose it do so for uninformed reasons, that is much easier to deal with than the reality of the matter.

Now on to your claim that my ear isn’t “trained to hear the brilliance of the cadences, rhythms and structure of the songs performed by the best Hip-hop lyricists”. Well, I read your recent attempt at brilliant lyrics with pretend words such as “biz” and “Peeps”. Brilliant, so Yeats like.

So maybe, Shai, some people are actually trained at the art instead of making up rules and words as they go along and possibly some people have been trained to recognize superior, excellent and high forms and rap simply fails this on its best day. Rhyming at an elementary level with an elementary cadence isn’t what many call brilliance, though you might and it is not because they do not recognize its brilliance, rather they are recognizing the absence of such brilliance. But again, that narrative might not fit yours so let’s leave that possibility out, eh? I grant that you rhyme and have a cadence and for this you wish to have brilliance assigned? Good grief.

Now to the claim that it is because people believe that rap is “intrinsically erotic in composition” as the cause for rejecting it as a form for worship and even lesser, as good art? Really? Is that possible? Have you considered it might be? Or let’s just pretend that such a possibility simply cannot exist without any research, eh?

I have never said that, maybe others have but maybe it is true. How about interacting with their arguments and support instead of simply being upset that such a postulate exists and is asserted. Surely they have arguments and support and are not merely asserting what they say. When and where are you interacting with these? It behooves you to move beyond being offended by things which do not agree with your view.

But let’s erase this context just for argument’s sake (though it, in true discovery must be debated), rap is still, on its best day, simple rhymes and simple cadence and for that you do not get brilliance assigned.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Greg Long]

Can you give me the post #, or better yet, quote the statement Bob made that this is the “mindset of collective fundamentalism”? I’ve found at least two times Bob said exactly the opposite of what you said he said, but I can’t find any such statement, so please help me.

Greg,

Actually I was wrong, to some degree, he went even further than collective fundamentalism to an even larger broad over-generalization which makes his statement all the more offensive:

And as for race baiting, us white conservative Christians make it impossible to raise any questions about race ever in such conversations. When is it right to say there may be some race-issues here? Why is it that whenever anything is spoken to us and our group we can never admit that it is valid to explore whether there are race-issues? That and prominent schools in fundamentalism have long held to no interracial dating and other race-problematic postilions. There are still fundamentalist schools with such rules!

When every culture’s music except for one (that of 18th/19th century Western music) is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause. It may not be, then again it may be an inadvertent elitism.

So allow me to amend this by not being correct enough. Not only does Bob indict collective fundamentalism but he indicts all of “white conservative Christians” with the claim that their culture’s rejects music expect that which is 18th/19th century Western music and this is based on a singular statement by a man at his blog that this is what he, alone, believes. Atrocious scholarship, still, and wholly lacking in integrity when making such characterizations.

[Greg Long]

Alex, just so you know, Shai Linne was not responding to Alex Guggenheim, but to specific people who made specific statements on a specific thread that was about 7 years ago.

[Greg Long]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Greg Long]

Can you give me the post #, or better yet, quote the statement Bob made that this is the “mindset of collective fundamentalism”? I’ve found at least two times Bob said exactly the opposite of what you said he said, but I can’t find any such statement, so please help me.

Greg,

Actually I was wrong, to some degree, he went even further than collective fundamentalism to an even larger broad over-generalization which makes his statement all the more offensive:

And as for race baiting, us white conservative Christians make it impossible to raise any questions about race ever in such conversations. When is it right to say there may be some race-issues here? Why is it that whenever anything is spoken to us and our group we can never admit that it is valid to explore whether there are race-issues? That and prominent schools in fundamentalism have long held to no interracial dating and other race-problematic postilions. There are still fundamentalist schools with such rules!

When every culture’s music except for one (that of 18th/19th century Western music) is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause. It may not be, then again it may be an inadvertent elitism.

So allow me to amend this by not being correct enough. Not only does Bob indict collective fundamentalism but he indicts all of “white conservative Christians” with the claim that their culture’s rejects music expect that which is 18th/19th century Western music and this is based on a singular statement by a man at his blog that this is what he, alone, believes. Atrocious scholarship, still, and wholly lacking in integrity when making such characterizations.

Thank you for admitting that at no point in this thread did he “indict collective fundamentalism.”

Look at my statement I said quite emphatically “Not only does Bob indict collective fundamentalism but he indicts all of “white conservative Christians”…wait you quoted it, you’re just playing games now but how ironic you would misrepresent what I said in your alleged concern for properly citing what others say.

@Alex - you have proven that you’ll speak louder and longer and more forcefully than anyone else in the thread. Anyone who doesn’t take your position, even if they aren’t speaking to you, are revealing their “arrogance.” Whatever I have to say won’t measure up to your lofty standards, so I won’t interact with you from this point on in the discussion.

Back to Bixby. If you haven’t already, you should read his post from yesterday: The “Lutheran” Inside Me and Sinning Boldly as a Congregation.

Really good stuff, gives an insight into where he is speaking from in this whole debate.

For anyone that wonders where Alex is coming from, here is a bit of insight.

Alex prefers the polemic style style of arguing which essentially means aggressive. If he comes across as arrogant, ornery, belittling, and nasty, don’t judge him because that is the polemic way. Normal generally accepted standards of decorum, decency and respect are not applicable when arguing in the polemic style. It is not necessary to actually know anything when arguing in the polemic style either. If you don’t know something, you can compensate by saying it more forcefully, arrogantly and condescendingly.

“It is not necessary to actually know anything when arguing in the polemic style either. If you don’t know something, you can compensate by saying it more forcefully, arrogantly and condescendingly.”

Welll then I must say he has shown himself to be an expert in the polemic style of argumentation.

Now that we have established Alex’s style of debate, you are free to engage or not. However, this thread is not about Alex, so if we could get back to our regularly scheduled programming…? That would be peachy.

Just ignore Alex.

My point isn’t that all of fundamentalism is racist. It is that some think along the lines of a culture that affirms the Bible [namely Western, European culture] produces inherently better musical forms. That position could be open to the charge of racism - it would certainly be good to explore if that could be lurking around the assumption that only particular worship forms (which tend to be the musical patterns of White Europeans) are acceptable for worship around the world.

My point is that it isn’t “playing the race card” to question the race side of the equation in all this. Someone else asked for proof that this mentality exists - that this group or others actually are about European music forms as opposed to others. I tried to demonstrated that this very thing seems to be hinted at in some of RAM’s writings and opinions stated by real people.

And that’s why I think we need to discuss the topic of racism specifically. That’s also why I think that if I were to impose my musical style on another church - let’s say a church in Mexico - I could be open to a charge of racism. Because I am, by fiat, demanding that they alter their styles and worship to do what I think is best according to my culture.

And that’s why I found the Shai Linne post so challenging.

[Bob Hayton]

@Alex - you have proven that you’ll speak louder and longer and more forcefully than anyone else in the thread. Anyone who doesn’t take your position, even if they aren’t speaking to you, are revealing their “arrogance.” Whatever I have to say won’t measure up to your lofty standards, so I won’t interact with you from this point on in the discussion.

This (from Thabiti Anyabwile) is about 6 years old. However, it’s worth considering. He remarks that in various types of discussions and debate

… race is trotted out as an (and sometime the) explanatory factor to be considered… . We assign certain social and cultural customs to ‘race’ as an explanation of difference. And we even huddle to worship in racial enclaves, insisting oftentimes that ‘race’ explains preferences in everything from music to preaching to fellowship choices… . For once you enter into ‘race as explanation’ for whatever you’re discussing, it is almost certain that you will never emerge with a solution premised on anything but ‘race.’ In other words, you can’t solve problems associated with ‘race’ by thinking about them racially.

He then goes on to list about 14 things that are not explained by or not caused by race including “educational achievement,” “musical preferences,” and “church preference.”

No one from RAM is forcing anyone to do anything. No one from RAM is demanding that others force anyone to do anything. Instructing people about worship and the affections from a biblical perspective/standpoint is not racism. It is unfortunate and unhelpful that the blogger who sparked this thread in the first place inserted race into the discussion/debate about the affections and music.

[Brenda T]

This (from Thabiti Anyabwile) is about 6 years old. However, it’s worth considering. He remarks that in various types of discussions and debate

… race is trotted out as an (and sometime the) explanatory factor to be considered… . We assign certain social and cultural customs to ‘race’ as an explanation of difference. And we even huddle to worship in racial enclaves, insisting oftentimes that ‘race’ explains preferences in everything from music to preaching to fellowship choices… . For once you enter into ‘race as explanation’ for whatever you’re discussing, it is almost certain that you will never emerge with a solution premised on anything but ‘race.’ In other words, you can’t solve problems associated with ‘race’ by thinking about them racially.

He then goes on to list about 14 things that are not explained by or not caused by race including “educational achievement,” “musical preferences,” and “church preference.”

No one from RAM is forcing anyone to do anything. No one from RAM is demanding that others force anyone to do anything. Instructing people about worship and the affections from a biblical perspective/standpoint is not racism. It is unfortunate and unhelpful that the blogger who sparked this thread in the first place inserted race into the discussion/debate about the affections and music.

Teaching about worship and affections does not have to be about racism. But in the past, it clearly has been about racism in some instances. No question whatsoever. It is a healthy thing to evaluate whether racism is affecting our theology of music and with the past history of fundamentalism, it is not an issue to be ignored. Fundamentalism has hardly been at the front of rejecting racism. BJU for example did not admit African Americans until several years after the SC state schools and a few decades after Billy Graham fought the battle to welcome them at his crusades.

The fact is that many conservatives do make decisions about what is right or wrong in music based on what feels right to them and that feeling is largely conditioned by their culture. To think that the “whiteness” of fundamentalism is not influencing that conditioning is just naive in my opinion.

[Brenda T]

No one from RAM is forcing anyone to do anything. No one from RAM is demanding that others force anyone to do anything. Instructing people about worship and the affections from a biblical perspective/standpoint is not racism. It is unfortunate and unhelpful that the blogger who sparked this thread in the first place inserted race into the discussion/debate about the affections and music.

Hi Brenda. Back in February of this year I went to the country of Liberia on the continent of Africa. While there I had the privilege to worship with the people of God in a number of different Christian, Gospel-preaching, Christ-exalting churches.

While there I was struck by the incredible difference in worship style from what I am accustomed to here in the United States.

I think race and culture are germane to the discussion particularly as it involves the teachings of the RAM guys regarding the subject of music and worship in the church. Here’s why… I can worship with those brothers and sisters without silently critiquing the form and somehow hoping that I will get the opportunity to “teach them a more excellent way.” I can appreciate the differences realizing that God probably likes the variety of offerings He receives from God’s people all over the world. In fact, maybe they ought to come and teach us?

See, to me this is why this matters. As Alex alluded earlier with his comments, I see these guys teaching from a mind-set of cultural elitism i.e., our culture and “forms” of worship produce “superior affections.” White missionaries have taught black nationals for generations “a better way” to worship the Lord, not because they wanted to simply expand their black brother’s horizons in the area of worship, but because they believed in their hearts that the African form is an inferior form that promotes inordinate affections - too rhythmic, too sensual, too ______________… fill in the blank yourself.

If we aren’t elites in this area, then why aren’t we flying some of our African brothers and sisters here to the states into the fundamentalist churches and have these Africans teach a workshop about worship? That will never happen, will it? Not unless they’ve already been convinced of the European forms by some white missionaries years earlier. But, we will be happy to go teach them how we think they ought to be worshipping.