Fundamentalism, Culture and Lost Opportunity
I woke up this morning thinking, “Not enough people are mad at me.” Hence, this post.
Actually, my sincere hope is to encourage, not more rage but more reflection on all sides of the fundamentalism-and-culture issue. I’m going to argue that the two perspectives that are most passionate and opposite on this question are both wasting an important opportunity. First, some framing.
Fundamentalism and cultural conservatism
The central question is basically this: how should Christians evaluate heavily culture-entwined matters such as music styles (chiefly in worship), entertainment, clothing, etc.? To nuance the question a little more: how should churches, ministries, and individuals connected with fundamentalism and its heritage view these cultural issues?
Two nearly-opposite sets of answers to this question have become prominent among leaders and ministries of fundamentalist lineage. My guess is that most people are really somewhere between these two attitudes, mixing points from each. But the two near-opposite views seem to have the most passionate and articulate advocates.
At one end of the question, we have the Kevin Bauder, Scott Aniol, David DeBruyn, et. al. axis. At the other end, representatives are more scattered (and more numerous), but recent high-visibility proponents include Matt Olson of Northland International University and pastor Bob Bixby.
At the risk of catastrophic failure in the first 300 words, I’ll attempt to fairly summarize the differences in these two perspectives at least well enough to talk about them clearly. Because we’ve already got more than enough overstatement in the mix(!), I’ll consciously aim to err on the side of understatement.
Cultural conservatism
Let’s call the Bauder-Aniol point of view “cultural conservatism,” and simplify it as the idea that everything cultural is full of meaning and that the meaning is heavily influenced by where we are in history as a society—both in the history of ideas and in the history of cultural changes associated with those ideas. In short, nothing cultural is neutral, everything must be scrutinized for fitness for use by Christians, and that scrutnity should be biased in favor of the not-recent past. To say it another way, we ought to look at cultural change with a regard for the past that increases (to a point) as we look further back. I think I can fairly say that this view sees changes in culture in the West as being mostly negative since the middle ages.
The cultural conservatives are often about as unimpressed with 19th century “Second Great Awakening” music as they are with most of today’s “CCM.” It’s a lonely place to be, because it means most of what’s being created now is junk and much of what we (and our grandparents) grew up singing in church is junk, too.
Full disclosure: I’m mostly in the Bauder-Aniol-DeBruyn bailiwick. Though I would often argue the case differently (sometimes very differently), I consider myself a cultural conservative.
Cultural anti-conservatism
The perspective I’ve identified here with Olson and Bixby has many, many representatives. And I’m sure that “anti-conservatism” is not what they would choose to call their point of view. I apologize for that. It’s my intention to represent this perspective fairly and accurately—I just don’t yet have a better handle to attach to it.
This view rejects the idea that there is a superior cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West. It associates the cultural reactions of 20th century fundamentalism with legalism and tends to see the “standards” and “rules” of that era (and the surviving present forms) as often arbitrary and ill-conceived, at best, and as a ruse for unethical exercise of power and oppression by fundamentalist leaders, at worst.
In this view, the meaning of musical styles (and clothing styles, forms of entertainment, etc.) either never amounts to much to begin with or very quickly fades into irrelevance. Since the Christian faith and the church cross millennia and know no ethnic boundaries, the range of acceptable cultural forms for Christian worship is very broad and continually changing. Further—and this is an important point—the time has come to put many (most?) of the cultural stands of movement fundamentalism in the rear view mirror (post haste!).
Why the debate is going nowhere
Just looking at the ideas at stake, it should be pretty clear why the culture debate is not a trivial one. If everything cultural is packed with meaning—and not necessarily meaning we are conscious of—and if that meaning matters to God, we have much sober thinking to do about every bit of the culture we accept and use.
If, on the other hand, cultural meaning dissipates quickly into irrelevance (or doesn’t exist in the first place) and if tradition-favoring fundamentalists merely use these matters to impose their personal preferences on people, it’s possible that the “rules” not only dishonor the God we claim but that these traditions also cripple the joyful, heartfelt and free expressions of worship God wants from His people.
These are not abstract questions that should only interest academics or “overly contentious people.”
And that means all who love the Bible and want to live for the glory of God in these chaotic times are facing in important opportunity. More in line with the scope of this essay, we who are of fundamentalist heritage have an important opportunity.
But as far as I can tell, both sides are mostly botching it. There is almost no real engagement.
On one hand, Olson (and many others—let’s be fair) is saying rules and do’s and dont’s have no relationship to spirituality or sanctification and that to believe they do is legalism. And Bixby (and, again, he’s hardly alone) is saying that the cultural conservatives are basically arrogant, condescending snobs who are heaping guilt and shame on the “the average fundamentalist,” who, by the way, is a mindless, conforming robot.
On the other hand, the case for cultural conservatism has often included a “You’re too ignorant to understand; take my word for it” subtext. Though I can’t supply examples, I’m pretty sure I haven’t imagined that (I say this as one who is very sympathetic with their position). Proponents of cultural conservativism have also shown a tendency to be brittle in response to passionate opposition.
So in different ways (by insult or by non-engagement), both sides have shown a tendency to preach only to their own choirs (or praise bands, as the case may be).
The passion is good
Let’s be clear, though: these matters are too important to consider in a completely passionless way. We’re not debating infra- vs. super-lapsarianism. (Okay, that debate’s been pretty passionate too—aren’t they all?!) So I’m not faulting either side for getting hot and bothered at times. There would be something really twisted about examining these ideas with yawns and drooping eyelids.
But that means both sides of the question should expect that the other will, at times, commit the errors that always attend passionate disagreement. We humans just can’t be worked up as we should without also being worked up in ways we shouldn’t and lapsing into overstatement, bile-dumping, walking off in a huff, etc. It isn’t good, but it is normal. Rather than judge one another by unrealistic standards, we should quickly recognize how prone we all are to “gettin’ ugly,” and open the forbearance valve wide and hard.
At the same time, realizing how sensitive and close-to-heart these matters are (and how much historical baggage is attached), we should accept the need for extraordinary self-restraint (vs. extraordinary effort to restrain the other guy—i.e., shut him up). The debate calls for understanding and persuasion, not reaction and coercion.
For my part, I’m fully prepared to grant that just about everybody on both sides (and the points between) of the “cultural fundamentalism” question is keenly interested in doing what honors God and best serves His people.
The opportunity
So what is this opportunity we’re wasting? For the sake of brevity, perhaps it’s best to put it in terms of what could happen if enough believers put their minds and hearts to it.
I already hear snickers at my naïve idealism. But this isn’t really “idealism.” Idealism confuses what ought to be with what really is. Pursuing what truly could eventually be is something else.
What could eventually be—an articulate group of leaders on each side of the question could:
- separate the debate from the meta-debate
- identify the real the points of agreement and disagreement
- have the real debate
These points require more expansion than this post permits. A few clarifying observations, though: on both sides of the culture question (and several of the positions between), argument has occurred in a manner that obscures rather than clarifies the real points of disagreement. They have poured all sorts of meta-debate into the mix, making what’s really at issue nearly impossible to identify or engage.
It’s tragic. These matters are so important. It’s also tragic because a healthy debate exposes and highlights real differences so that those trying to make a wise, godly decision are better informed. We need a healthy debate about culture and meaning.
I hope to give more attention to meta-debate and points of agreement in a future post.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 170 views
Andy and Steve,
Thanks for your input. As you may be aware, Scott just graduated with his degree only a few days ago and will now become a full-fledged professor. Things have changed for Scott this year. Forgive me for not being too quick on the trigger, but I don’t cut a guy off because he is getting his doctorate at an SBC school. We did cease his financial support about three months ago. One of my own staff is getting his Ph.D. from Southeastern. As far as his church is concerned, I just learned yesterday that he is an elder. In the recent past Scott told me that his local Baptist church was very, very conservative in worship and orthodox in doctrine. My guess is that he has to be a member of an SBC church in order to be a full-time bona fide professor. Again, these developments are very recent. I am no fan of the SBC; however, as most of us know, there are some very conservative churches doctrinally and philosophically in the denomination. There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well. I am not sure Warren is qualified to lead a Bible study. The difference between Holland and Scott has to do with music and worship styles. I never criticized Holland for his doctrine, church, or personal life. He is solid doctrinally, but I personally think he violated some key principles in worship and music at his RESOLVED conference. My difference with him was more of substance than his association with Grace, In many ways Grace is a very good ministry. JM has become quite militant in recent years. I also appreciated what JM wrote on music in his commentaries, but his practice in certain areas is broader than I would allow. I hope this clears things up.
Pastor Mike Harding
I want to thank Caleb and Charlie for their posts on how people receive music. The food analogy came up with Charlie and then Andrew too. I think it has great potential for illustrating the debate.
If music is likened to food, the following analogies may be drawn:
- The Bible doesn’t expressly forbid certain types of food (in the NT era after Mark 7, Col. 2, and 1 Tim. 4:4).
- The Bible doesn’t expressly forbid certain types of music (although there are occasions where music is associated with evil practices - Nebuchadnezzar’s Idol, the golden calf, etc.
- Too much of a certain type of food can be unhealthy.
- Too much of certain types of music can be unhealthy.
- Some food is more appropriate for “fine dining” and royal banquets, than others types.
- Some music may be more appropriate for worship than others.
What I’m trying to illustrate is that in saying one cultural form of music is of a higher aesthetic and more innately “good” than another, is similar to judging steak better than twinkies. We may think offering a twinky to a King is foolish, but is it necessarily sinful?
Yes, certain kinds of food are deadly intrinsically, and there may be some kinds of music that have an intrinsic dead-ness but that is not as apparent as with food.
My contention with music has been for a long time that the musical accompaniment, the musical form itself, divorced from words, is almost never specific enough as to its associative connotations or communicative quality, to be immoral. It almost always required additional context and most often, the addition of lyrics in order to communicate with a sufficient degree of specificity to be immoral.
Don’t have time to develop this to the degree I’d like - it merits more thought. I just wanted to add this to the discussion in some way, to see if Charlie, Caleb or Andrew - or someone else could run with it further.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well.
At the same time, Mike, as a local pastor friend reminded me recently, Dever is the one who is on record as saying that if a church articulates doctrinal specificity on matters of eschatology, they are in sin. I think Dever would be fine with Scott’s church’s statement on this:
XII. The Last Things
We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and in His eternal kingdom in heaven. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous and the eternal damnation of the wicked.
For that matter, so would many others here at SI. But from the environment in which he was raised, and what he learned under people like you, Ken Endean, and Dr. McCune, it’s a deviation. That is contrary (because it is less specific) to the dispensational hermeneutic that has led many of us to make a precise stand on things like a Pre-Tribulational rapture, a literal 1000 year reign of Christ, and God’s promises to Abraham, David, and Israel having literal fulfillment.
This is what I’m talking about when I say that the landscape is changing. Apparently, the quality of one’s liturgy can now trump doctrine for some. Apparently, potential influence can trump principled stands. Apparently, job qualifications can trump secondary separation principles.
Apparently.
By the way- I don’t resent anyone for any of this. I just think that it’s ironic for people to be making a big deal over some of the things that they do, while appearing to completely ignore others. Things are getting complicated, and yet we seem to handle some of these things in very black and white ways (like music), while overlooking others.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
I agree with you about Dever. I was simply using him as an illustration of contrast in the SBC. Scott is pre-trib, pre-mil., and dispensational I am not speaking for Dever anytime soon, nor he for me.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding]Again, these developments are very recent. I am no fan of the SBC; however, as most of us know, there are some very conservative churches doctrinally and philosophically in the denomination. There is a huge difference, for instance, between a Rick Warren and a Mark Dever. I would classify Dever as a thorn in the side of the SBC and a separatist from within. That’s where Scott will be as well. I am not sure Warren is qualified to lead a Bible study. The difference between Holland and Scott has to do with music and worship styles. I never criticized Holland for his doctrine, church, or personal life. He is solid doctrinally, but I personally think he violated some key principles in worship and music at his RESOLVED conference. My difference with him was more of substance than his association with Grace, In many ways Grace is a very good ministry. JM has become quite militant in recent years. I also appreciated what JM wrote on music in his commentaries, but his practice in certain areas is broader than I would allow. I hope this clears things up.
For whatever it’s worth - Dever’s position in the SBC (and now, Dr. Aniol’s as well) is worth encouraging and supporting. Even though he and I would disagree on eschatology (as Greg noted).
The enemy of my Enemy is my friend - especially in spiritual matters. Even when we don’t stand cheek to jowl. :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Scott is pre-trib, pre-mil., and dispensational…
Is he? One couldn’t tell from the doctrinal statement of the church where he now pastors. Compare it to to your church’s, or the FBFI’s. It’s not that hard to see. One could easily hold an amil or postmil position under that statement. Easily.
I don’t mean to sound snarky when I say this, but maybe it’s an easier pill to swallow for some of you BJU alumni. In the GARBC, for example, there is an atmosphere where you can allow some latitude on music expressions, but the way they approach the Scriptures (including eschatology) is much more defined- because they believe the case can be objectively made using Scripture. And let’s face it, whether you agree with that position or not, you can at least see how the position is drawn from their interpretation of Scripture when they’re done.
I’m not saying one’s position on musical issues aren’t based in Scripture. But the specific applications can at least appear much more subjective when one is making a case- which is why, the more I look at the landscape, I am becoming more inclined to be less rigid in my assessment of those whose practice may not line up neatly with my own in these areas. I may not adopt their approach or allow its expression in settings where I am responsible, but neither would I see it as a reason to withdraw all fellowship or accusingly question one’s commitment to holiness and personal separation.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
I sat on Scott’s ordination council at FBC Rockford, read his doctrinal statement, and signed his certificate, along with a dozen other IFB dispensational pastors. Scott has not changed his doctrinal statement to my knowledge. Being an elder in a Baptist church does not necessarily mean you are the pastor of the church. Minnick has elders, but they are not pastors per se. Whether that is the case with Scott, I don’t know.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Brenda T] Jay wrote, “What does bother me the most, however, is the idea that those of us on the ‘non-conservative’ side haven’t actually thought this through or compared our practices to Scripture.” A (seemingly) long time ago in a thread far, far away DavidO asked what biblical principles you use in evaluating music (tune, not text) and you graciously said you would spell that out. I believe he was sincere in his question and I believe you were sincere in your offer. I’m interested, too.
[GregH] Brenda, I think you ask a fair question. But here is the thing. I do keep up with RAM to a large extent. I have read Scott’s books. And I have never seen him give musical specifics in how to evaluate a tune. And he is supposedly the expert. It seems to me that it is a bit unfair to ask Jay to do something that the other side refuses to do.
I thought I had answered that question already in the original thread, but can’t find it now. My apologies. I think Brenda asks a fair question too, and I’d love to see Dr. Aniol (or another professionally trained musician) take a crack at it. As for me, I can’t evaluate the ‘tune’ itself. I don’t think we should do that, because the ‘associations’ of the music style vary from person to person, and because the music styles themselves radically vary between people in different cultures and different times. I also think, and I’m going to expand on this in what will hopefully be a future article, that the Bible gives us warrant for that kind of argument. Aaron put it best - the church of God is transcultural and transchromal (to coin a term), so styles come and go, but only truth remains.
I believe that it was Joseph Haydn’s compositions in his day that were scandalous and even caused women to faint when they were played in concert halls because of their melodies and structure. Does that happen to us now? Someone mentioned that a believer in their own church was saved out of Satan worship and could not listen to Bach (maybe Beethoven?) because of the associations - I guess the organ music was used during their ‘services’ or something. Yet I have music from both composers, and more, that I’ll occasionally listen to and enjoy (Especially if you get the $8.99 “Big Beethoven Box” at Amazon. It’s hard to go wrong with 175+ pieces of music for that cheap!). So why do we worry so much about the ‘style’? If the attitude of the composer is right and the lyrics are right, then I think that the composition will intrinsically reflect the right structure. Rap songs, for example, about illegal and immoral acts will have a style that reflects their discordance with God and His Word (because of general revelation - Romans 1).
Is that helpful?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Being an elder in a Baptist church does not necessarily mean you are the pastor of the church.
Oh, so now ecclesiology is up for debate now, too? I always thought that 1 Peter 5 made it pretty clear that an elder=pastor/shepherd=bishop/overseer. He may not be the “lead” pastor, but if he is an elder, what other role would he be functioning in than shepherding the local flock?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
You should known that elder mean’s different things in current and various local church contexts. Dever’s elders are not all consider “pastors” or at least, some are not in full time ministry paid positions in the church.
As for Scott, I suspect that his new connection will mean he won’t be gracing many independent Baptist churches in the future. Mike has already said he has made something of a break with him. Can’t be a very pleasant topic for him, he has been close to Scott and his family for a good long while.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You should known that elder mean’s different things in current and various local church contexts. Dever’s elders are not all consider “pastors” or at least, some are not in full time ministry paid positions in the church.
Actually, I’ve been to CHBC for a Weekender and sat in on an actual elder’s meeting. Their elders do all have teaching responsibilities. Mark is not the chair of the elder board. They do all have shepherding responsibility, and equal input on matters of doctrine and care of the flock. Not all are staff, but they all would pastor. If you read them on this (9 Marks and what not), that is something they make clear.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Don Johnson]Don,Maybe I read Mike wrong. I didn’t get the impression of a “break” with Scott. I thought support ceased due to Scott becoming full-time prof. Perhaps Mike would clarify. I would hope Mike would not break with Scott on his SBC connections but further refine his position on secondary separation. If IFB churches are less graced by Scott’s presence it wil be their loss and another indication of decline. Scott and I would surely disagree on some worship issues but he is a gift to God’s church. Btw, I could affirm his church’s statement on eschatology. It is balanced and biblical and leaves room for views that differ on details. To affirm more than that statement may not be sin (per Dever) but goes beyond Scripture if we make modern views, i.e., dispensationalism, a test for membership or fellowship.Steve DavisYou should known that elder mean’s different things in current and various local church contexts. Dever’s elders are not all consider “pastors” or at least, some are not in full time ministry paid positions in the church.
As for Scott, I suspect that his new connection will mean he won’t be gracing many independent Baptist churches in the future. Mike has already said he has made something of a break with him. Can’t be a very pleasant topic for him, he has been close to Scott and his family for a good long while.
…goes beyond Scripture if we make modern views, i.e., dispensationalism, a test for membership or fellowship.
Steve,
At some point, application of Scripture is made, and affects fellowship in about any church. Even though your church’s position is open-ended on Baptism (administering only immersion, accepting those who were sprinkled as infants), to some degree, you had no explicit verse to base that practice on- you had to make a call on how passages would be applied.
Dispensationalism is a system that doesn’t just dictate an eschatology- it is, in the end, a set of hermeneutic principles that inform how one reads and interprets the Bible. It affects the mission of the church- Douglas Wilson and I may share some values and ideas, but his expectations and aims as a post-millenial advocate are significantly different for his church than mine would be for the congregation I serve in. To have people with strong positions serving alongside each other would effectively mean that one or both of us would not be able to lead in a direction consistent with our understanding of Scripture and the mission of the church. I understand why you think it should be more open-ended, and can respect that- though it would effectively limit my ability to church with you.
I do think that liturgical expression can and should be a factor in where we seek out our most intimate fellowship as believers. I just don’t think it should overrule the way we read and interpret the Bible as a congregation. It’s a factor in the decision-making process, but not the only factor, or even the primary one.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
You and I agree on the use of episkopos, presbyteros, poimaino as interchangeable descriptions on the office of the pastor. I don’t make a distinction between ruling or teaching elders. Yet, in some Baptist churches they have their official pastors, elders, and then deacons. I don’t know the details of Scott’s church other than what Scott told me. I stopped Scott’s support in part because he was beginning fuller employment. However, I also knew that I could not financially support through our missions budget a Southern Baptist Missionary as such. Therefore, I had two reasons for ending the support.
Pastor Mike Harding
Mike,
Maybe it’s too early in the game here to see exactly where this is coming out. As I said, it seems to me we are in the middle of a shifting landscape. Your attitude seems to be different in the case in question in Fort Worth, where applied principles of interpreting the Scripture are somewhat more ambiguous and fluid than the liturgy, than they might be to someone like Joel S., who we have established in previous discussions is probably more in line with where you are doctrinally (or at least his church is), but allows more fluidity in liturgical forms. Would you be responding the same way if Scott had remained a committed conservative musician in a dispensational environment like Grace Community Church? Maybe you would. I’m asking.
This is where I am struggling, frankly. It almost seems to me that making worship forms the defining priority in determining church fellowship often end up demonstrating a disregard for new and immature believers, at least practically speaking if not intentionally. People leave congregations or drive long distances to find specific forms and expressions they believe are true and right and God-honoring, but often neglect to consider the effects their departure will have on those they leave behind. They can tolerate things like paedobaptism, divergent views on the significance of communion, and many other issues, as long as there is reverence and solemnity.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion