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
Deo Cantamus is directed by a member of Fourth Baptist
Here are videos of their program last month and of previous programs.
http://m.youtube.com/#/user/DeoCantamus/feed?&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2FDeo…
[Jay]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.
or “more spiritual” or “more mature”
It is a reference to the relative lack of sensitivity or reaction from one’s own conscience. If you have a “strong” conscience the item in question doesn’t bother you. If you have a “weak” conscience, it does.
The terms have no bearing on the spiritual value of the position, they are descriptive of the conscience.
Please note that consciences can be misinformed and even seared.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Just to clarify, I wasn’t saying Romans 14 wasn’t applicable. And the portion of the Colossians 2 you bolded, I think it’d be a mistake to apply verse 23 outside of what it refers back to, namely the things listed in verse 22.
As for this:
Yes, it does, which is why I have no problems with songs like this …
Why, when we are discussing music (notes, melodies, song styles, etc.) do you keep switching over to lyrics? I’m (we’re?) making an intentional distinction between the two in this conversation.
It is a reference to the relative lack of sensitivity or reaction from one’s own conscience. If you have a “strong” conscience the item in question doesn’t bother you. If you have a “weak” conscience, it does.
The terms have no bearing on the spiritual value of the position, they are descriptive of the conscience.
Yes, that’s what I said. Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts. It would, however, be a cause for separation as Mike Durning and others on SI have said; it would offend their consciences to sit under or use that music. Many here on the site can’t imagine the possibility of using that kind of music. So I am totally confident that I’m ‘stronger’ in this specific area.
I used to be concerned about making sure that the music was traditional and I would have separated over it. Now I’ve moved beyond that…which is not intended to be a humblebrag. That’s part of why I thought Col. 2 was appropriate and had bearing.
Yes, consciences can be misinformed and seared. I’m not talking about that at all, and I’m fairly sure that you don’t mean to insinuate that mine is seared.
"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 said:
“Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts.”
Jay, some are like me…recovering Charismatics. When I hear so-called CCM (I really don’t like that term), I have to struggle with old issues of worship. See, to some fundamentalists, using CCM is perceived like a calf being freed from a stall. For those of us who used to be out in the wilderness of emotional driven worship/Christianity, CCM is all that was wrong with what we left…
For the record, I have no problem with new songs. What I don’t like is the culture that almost inevitably comes along with so-called CCM. Next thing you know the ties go…then the dress pants. Finally, guys are wearing shredded jeans and knitted caps up on stage while jammin’ with Jesus. I’ve seen it all before and I am purposed to not go there again!!!
As “freed up” fundamentalists when you hear a guitar riff in some CCM song, you think “how cool”. When I hear one, the next thing I know I am humming the intro riff to Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away”…or something like that. It is a lot like alcohol. If you never had a problem with it, it is a fun occasional pleasure. To those who grew up listening to Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Metallica, etc…it is an avenue to that old life we left behind.
Watch for land mines on that path to “freedom”.
Maybe one of the first questions to answer is whether or not music is in the category of adiaphora like meat is. Is it essential to the faith? Does it fit into the “take it or leave it” category? Does it have no effect upon the person?
It seems that both sides of the music debates agree that music does affect the person, that God’s Word commands us to sing to Him, and that it is not something we can simply cast aside and do without.
Regardless, if music is like meat, remember that Paul said he would never eat meat again if necessary. He didn’t say he would only abstain when the “weaker” were in his presence or within earshot.
[Mark_Smith] For the record, I have no problem with new songs. What I don’t like is the culture that almost inevitably comes along with so-called CCM. Next thing you know the ties go…then the dress pants. Finally, guys are wearing shredded jeans and knitted caps up on stage while jammin’ with Jesus. I’ve seen it all before and I am purposed to not go there again!!!
There’s an adage that comes to mind…something about “baby with bathwater”?
I can’t argue against that. Pastor and I’ve individually talked our own musicians in our church about getting on stage in inappropriate attire, and that is specifically covered by our church’s music policy as well. I believe that there are times when Pastor has changed the music on the fly because someone showed up in inappropriate attire. I can’t, however, argue that music is bad because people don’t dress right to play for the church. It grieves me when I see anyone leading worship in jeans or a collared shirt in an inappropriate setting. I would probably never go to ‘concert’ for a band, simply because I’ve been to other secular concerts and have all kinds of association issues with those contexts. My wife and I noticed that one of our favorite groups came to a nearby church, but we decided not to go because we didn’t think that a church was the right setting for a ‘concert’.
I think it is possible to accept the music without adopting the entire package. There’s a lot of lousy, doctrinally weak songs that I reject. There’s a lot of inappropriate leadership and performers. There’s a lot of stuff that I think is flippant or worldly in it. But I don’t think that labeling all the music as ‘worldly and sinful’ does anything to help anyone else.
I *do* think, however, that a lot of kids and young adults are excited to be able to participate and lead worship and sing the songs that they do and they simply haven’t thought hard or at all about how to do what they want to do. I don’t think that I’ve ever run into a musician at our church that was just “hey, I need to be comfortable to play” and blew off concerns about their dress. The ones I’ve talked to have received the admonition well and we’ve gone away ‘at peace’. That is a heart issue, not a rule issue.
And I’ll go one further - one can ‘lead worship’ in dress pants or suits and be far from God or lead people away from Him by using doctrinally compromised songs. So maybe the solution is burqas for everyone? :)
"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
Have fun…the trip to the bottom is slipperier than you think. Try not to take anyone else with you!
As I said above. To you, this music is “freedom”. To me, it is a return to the things I left behind.
I forgive you, brother. Looking forward to meeting you in Heaven on That Day.
Philemon 1:3
"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
The point is to remember that what is freedom to you is a return to bondage for others. Get it? Also, the CCM crowd is so sure that they are freer. Are they?
Also Jay, you say you monitor what the people on the stage do. Make sure they are dressed appropriately, etc. But what about at home or in the car? You start down this road, and people will think they are free to listen to “harder” music. They develop a taste for the style. Eventually, some will think that your freedom allows them to listen to secular rock/pop music.
It is one thing to allow a guitar, drum set, and a bass on stage to sing a few little “praise songs”. At first it seems so liberating. Everyone feels good about the “worship”? But what happens out in the parking lot? People think it is ok to listen to Beyonce, or Bieber, etc…
As a silly aside, do you know how many CCM musicians list the Beatles as a positive musical influence on their lives?
[Mark_Smith]As “freed up” fundamentalists when you hear a guitar riff in some CCM song, you think “how cool”. When I hear one, the next thing I know I am humming the intro riff to Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away”…or something like that. It is a lot like alcohol. If you never had a problem with it, it is a fun occasional pleasure. To those who grew up listening to Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Metallica, etc…it is an avenue to that old life we left behind.
Watch for land mines on that path to “freedom”.
Have fun…the trip to the bottom is slipperier than you think. Try not to take anyone else with you!
As I said above. To you, this music is “freedom”. To me, it is a return to the things I left behind.
Mark,
I am glad that you are convinced in your own mind that CCM is wrong. I have no problem with that. (Romans 14:5) The problem starts when you assume that your temptation of a slippery slope with CCM automatically applies to other Christians in their walk with Christ and pursuit of holiness. Then it becomes dangerously close to a logical fallacy. By the way, I did grow up on some of the same music that you did. When I truly began following Christ, I eventually switched to Christian Rock and for seven years wrote songs, played keyboards, and sang in a Christian Rock band. A guitar riff or a drum beat never reminded me of my old life when I was in rebellion against God. However, as I mentioned in another post, I did have a problem with certain venues that we played that seemed to encourage idolatry (of the artists), which was why I stopped.
My point is to say that freedom for some is a return to bondage for others. If you are ok with it, fine. But what about someone out in the congregation that it trips up?
By they way, I am setting aside all of the other issues with CCM and sticking with this one for now.
To those who hold the music-is-like-meat argument it seems that one would have to say that meat is a type of food just as jazz is a type of music. Paul did not say he would never eat any more food, if necessary, but he did say he would be willing to never eat any meat.
[Mark_Smith]I’m glad you included the word “almost” because it is certainly not inevitable. I used to believe these kinds of “slippery slope” arguments until I found out there are churches who use contemporary music who don’t fit the stereotypes.Jay said:
“Modern music doesn’t bother me, and I will use both types in different contexts.”
Jay, some are like me…recovering Charismatics. When I hear so-called CCM (I really don’t like that term), I have to struggle with old issues of worship. See, to some fundamentalists, using CCM is perceived like a calf being freed from a stall. For those of us who used to be out in the wilderness of emotional driven worship/Christianity, CCM is all that was wrong with what we left…
For the record, I have no problem with new songs. What I don’t like is the culture that almost inevitably comes along with so-called CCM. Next thing you know the ties go…then the dress pants. Finally, guys are wearing shredded jeans and knitted caps up on stage while jammin’ with Jesus. I’ve seen it all before and I am purposed to not go there again!!!
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Discussion