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.
- 169 views
I think I have handled the situation appropriately.
Pastor Mike Harding
I think I have handled the situation appropriately.
Mike,
I never said you weren’t. I’m just asking if it would be handled differently if the church in question were more ambiguous in its music methods and more specific in its doctrine/eschatology.
It’s a simple question.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Mike Harding]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.
Mike, thanks so much for the response. I appreciate it very much. I wish that I had more time to respond. I certainly think it is great to have Scott Aniol speak at a conference on worship. I hope that nobody would decide to not have Scott in to speak simply because he teaches at a conservative evangelical school. He has a PhD in the subject and needs to be heard and interacted with. I am also glad that you made it clear that the difference between Rick and Scott in your mind is one more of substance (music and worship styles) and not necessarily his association with Grace Community. But I wonder of you are not an exception in that regard in your circles. I remember a few years back having a friend questioned by a fundamental organization about his associations. My friend had been part of a group putting a conference on several years before in which Rick Holland was invited to speak. It set off at least a little bit of a firestorm. My friend was seeking support from this fundamental organization and they wanted to know if he would ever consider having a conservative evangelical in to speak again. He told them that he would consider that on a case-by-case basis. He did not get the support. Perhaps there were other reasons as well. I do not know. But the fact remains, they considered ever having a conservative evangelical in to speak was a problem, not because of music or worship styles, but association. I think that some are just tired of seeing the perceived double standards of some in this area.
There is no need to respond. I know that you are very busy. Appreciate again your kind response. Grace and peace.
Andrew Henderson
[Greg Linscott] 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.
Recently, I have come across two different examples of friends who have started attending a Catholic church so they can have music that is conservative/traditional. It obviously is a big issue to them, and neither of these people would be necessarily fundamentalist at all. It just speaks to how powerful this issue is to some.
For my part, I can’t believe they would go to that degree to find music they like - but perhaps it gets back to what Caleb was talking about. They just have a certain filter through which they evaluate music which makes it very difficult for them.
That being said, I think that doctrinal issues, and the teaching in Scripture about loving the brethren and welcoming one another, should challenge us to be accepting of a variety of styles and forms and seek to minister to a variety of generations and people types in and through a shared, blended worship style. That makes sense to me, but obviously there will be a need for churches of a traditional bent, given the differing conscience that exists among people on this issue. I can respect that and would wish those churches would respect the ones that try to be blended and reach out to others in different styles - all the while taking worship seriously, not practicing an anything goes approach, and seriously trying to use a variety of styles in a skillful way to bring glory to God and minister to the sheep.
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.
Greg,
I am with you when it comes to laying it all on the table doctrinally. I have a very long doctrinal statement on my church website. Many SBC churches including the dispensational ones use a common basic confession of faith. One of my staff who is receiving his PhD from Southeastern confirmed this to me. Next time I talk with Scott I will ask him specific questions. I just rejected a man in my own church for missionary support because he is now post-trib. I don’t endorse any SBC church, including Capitol Hill, but I realize that some are much better than others. I think Scott is in one of the better ones, but that is no endorsement of the church or the SBC on my part. Doctrinally, I like JM for the most part. Some differences on limited atonement, overstatements on the Lordship question, and church polity are noted. I think JM is personally conservative on music and worship. He reflects this is his morning worship service. Other places in the ministry seem to be quite different. It disappoints me when I hear about it.
Pastor Mike Harding
I see some merit in the music and food analogy.
I remember reading some arguments a while back from a music and language analogy.
In both cases though, it’s possible to use the analogy to support either a conservative and more restrictive view of what’s suitable for worship or a less conservative, more permissive view.
Analogies tend to be like that.
One one hand, if music is like food, the “dish” can be far from perfect and still nourish. On the other hand, the dish can taste, poison you or just not nourish at all because it isn’t really food, just empty calories. You could even argue that it’s possible to prepare stuff and call it food and eat it like food but it doesn’t even have calories, much less nutrients. Then there’s a clash over whether it’s even right to call it food.
But FWIW, I think the whole debate is better off looking past music at culture-and-meaning and culture-and-results/impact on people. But it seems like when the discussion moves away from the more sensational particulars and digs into principles, it gets boring to most people. I’m not sure what that says about us…
So to be more interesting (maybe), what might be most useful about music=like food and music=like language is that, either way you go, it helps us see the situation as not being as binary as many seem to suggest.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks for the thoughts, here.
I do find it interesting, though, how significant of a difference your responses seem to be with music versus doctrine. I realize that both are serious, but as I read your responses, musical deviation seems more serious than finer points of doctrine.
As important as music is to me, I’m not sure I’d be there. As we look to the future, who knows? Maybe it won’t really matter, since all of the best and brightest will go SBC anyway (/mild sarcasm). I’m under no delusions that the recent NIU debacle will be the last time the topic will be raised in Fundamentalism in my lifetime. And I guess that’s why I keep asking. As the landscape continues to shift, to some degree we who still remain in Fundamentalism (and I intend to, both principally and in my relationships in formal organized fellowships) have not only got to figure out how we relate to our immediate forbears, but to their children, many of them whom seem to be leaving for the greener grasses of conservative evangelicalism.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]As the landscape continues to shift, to some degree we who still remain in Fundamentalism (and I intend to, both principally and in my relationships in formal organized fellowships) have not only got to figure out how we relate to our immediate forbears, but to their children, many of them whom seem to be leaving for the greener grasses of conservative evangelicalism.
Greg, I am on the road so only have intermittent access and limited ability to comment here. I am sure that is a good thing!
On this point, I personally don’t think the problem of “many … leaving” is really related to fundamentalism as such. In fact, from the evangelicals to the Catholics and almost all points in between, you can find concerns articulated about the loss of young people. I don’t know if this is unique to the present day - when I was growing up we heard the term “generation gap” constantly in the media of the day. Nevertheless, it seems to me that present day “religion-ists” are all declaiming the loss of young people and anxiously looking for answers.
Quite frankly, I don’t think we can let the perceived loss of young people become a driving force in our decision making. We need to be certain of truth, proclaim the truth (in as winsome a way as possible, I grant), and trust the Lord to build the house.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
…one question I wrestle with is something like what we are talking about something we consider a “loss”?
I mean, I graduated from a small Christian day school in Maine- senior class of 5. Three of us are either pastors or married to a pastor. One of us is living openly as a lesbian. That’s a loss. Someone leaving an IFB church for a conservative SBC one? I gotta say, if that is one of my daughters in 10 years- well, I think I can live much better with option 2.
And even here, I’ve had some young twenty-something couples from more conservative evangelical backgrounds coming to and joining our church, because we’re the best option available compared to what they’re used to. There’s overlap, whether we especially aim for it or not, even.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Don said:
Quite frankly, I don’t think we can let the perceived loss of young people become a driving force in our decision making.
I agree. But the exit of young people from fundamentalism is a reality.
Five or six years ago in my quest for a place of service I visited a large number of fundamentalist churches from Virginia to New England. In all of them there was an absence of the 21-34 year-olds. On a suggestion from a friend I visited Capitol Hill Baptist Church in D.C. and saw that nearly 3/4 of the congregation was made up of that younger generation. There was a lot of congregational singing, no praise band, an active church planting program, an hour long expositional sermon, and genuine joy. I am now involved in a church that was planted five years ago and is self-supporting. We have a membership of about 60 and have been blessed with the addition of over 20 children by birth or adoption. The median age of the church is probably in the high 20’s to low 30’s. There stories regarding their journey to our church is worth listening to. Fundamentalism needs to interview them and take note of their answers. And they’re not here for the music, or because they don’t have to wear suits and ties.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I see some merit in the music and food analogy. I remember reading some arguments a while back from a music and language analogy.
In both cases though, it’s possible to use the analogy to support either a conservative and more restrictive view of what’s suitable for worship or a less conservative, more permissive view.
Aaron,
I’m not trying to be condescending or rude; please understand that before I go any further.
That being said, if there’s a reason why the food analogy shouldn’t work (when it’s clearly a reference to Romans 14:1-13) in regards to music, I’d love to hear why from you or anyone else. It’s a passage that I deal with in the article I’ve been putting together.
I was reading in Colossians this morning, and this passage struck me as being applicable to the discussion, although the Colossian heresy was just a little different from music preferences.
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (Colossians 2:20-23).
"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
Jay,
I know you’re addressing Aaron, but I hope you’ll allow me to “butt in”. :)
Music “doesn’t perish with the using”. It isn’t digested and eliminated. It imparts a sensibility and understanding (admittedly not propositional) to the hearer. It demonstrates an approach. Colossians is not applicable here.
As for Romans 14, well, in a local church service anyway, what would be the prescribed ramification of that passage when one portion of the congregation objected to a certain music due to reasons of conscience, while the rest thought it ok?
[DavidO] As for Romans 14, well, in a local church service anyway, what would be the prescribed ramification of that passage when one portion of the congregation objected to a certain music due to reasons of conscience, while the rest thought it ok?
DavidO,
I’ve answered this several times now, but the answer is very clear according to Romans 14. You can not and must not offend a believer by forcing them into things that they are not comfortable with. Paul is very clear that at that point the ‘stronger’ (more free) brother is to lay aside his ‘liberty’ for sake of conscience (v. 13-16). On the other hand, the ‘weaker’ brother is not to use his conscience as an excuse to manipulate the church congregation (v.3, 5-10). That goes for both ‘cultural Christians’ and the ‘modern music Christians’.
What I object to is people coming back to the ‘stronger’ believers (because I do believe my position is stronger) and imposing artificial strictures regarding the form of worship for those of us who have moved beyond them. Remember that I’m not arguing against conservative music - we still use it in our congregation, and I’m happy with that. This isn’t a zero-sum game where you must win and I must lose.
I would disagree with you that music is excluded from the Apostle’s arguments in both Romans and Colossians, and I should also note that I was specifically interested in the bolded portion of Paul’s writings that I cited.
For this: “It imparts a sensibility and understanding (admittedly not propositional) to the hearer. It demonstrates an approach. Colossians is not applicable here.”
Yes, it does, which is why I have no problems with songs like this:
My soul is anchored to Heav’n’s holy veil,
For Christ, the Great High Priest,
Died in my stead.
Hold fast! God’s promise will never fail.
We are His,
For Christ has risen from the dead.No man or angel can keep me from Him.
(Chorus)
My hope in heaven is steadfast and and firm.
Though trials and suff’ring come,
Death cannot win.
So we live in light of our great King’s return.
Your steadfast love
Will lead us through the tempest.
Grace and strength are ours.
Your faithfulness
Will see us through the storm
And give us hope to carry on.In faith, my ransomed soul will ne’er depart
From Christ, my Savior who freed me from sin.
Rejoice! This confidence is sealed in our hearts
By the Spirit who empow’rs us from within!
or this:
There’s a day that’s drawing near
When this darkness breaks to light
And the shadows disappear
And my faith shall be my eyesJesus has overcome
And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won
He is risen from the deadAnd I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles’ wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will riseAnd I hear the voice of many angels sing,
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
And I hear the cry of every longing heart,
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
And I hear the voice of many angels sing,“Worthy is the Lamb!”
And I hear the cry of every longing heart,
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
“Worthy is the Lamb!”
for starters. Now would I use them for congregational worship? Probably not. But I can use them to corral my fleshly affections and re-point them to the Savior, His Work, or any of a few other things.
"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
Going off topic for a second here -
I saw this Kickstarter project yesterday and figured I’d note it somewhere on SI.
The page notes:
Josh Bauder began this project in November 2011, motivated by the belief that there are many great hymn texts “out there” that are theologically rich and poetically competent, yet under-used and under-appreciated. His endeavor has been to revive these hymns by writing new tunes.
I have no idea who Josh Bauder or Deo Cantamus are, but I wanted to put it out there for anyone who might be interested. The project’s aim is to set existing choral hymns to fresh music, which is a very worthy goal.
"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
Josh is Kevin’s son. He’s a great guy, very intelligent and a talented, skilled musician and composer.
It’s a very worthwhile project to support, IMHO.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion