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.
- 172 views
[Mark_Smith]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 be honest, this has never happened in the over 20 years that I’ve been an inner-city missionary. For instance, in our context, secular hip-hop is so identifiably different than Christian hip-hop that everyone (except those on the outside of hip-hop culture) can tell the radical difference between the two.
Now before that, I knew a few people that had been saved out of a sinful lifestyle that included Rock music with their drugs, alcohol, and sexual immorality, but they were discipled by fundamentalists to identify and reject all rock music as evil, which contributed to leading them to this conclusion.
[Mark_Smith]It is often interesting how a certain context is overlaid upon CCM. Granted, it is a very real context to some, and so people need to be careful on a person-to-person level not to cause one to stumble. It is not a one-size-fits-all kind of context however. It is CRITICAL to recognize that.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?
Further, there is a big difference between “causing a brother to stumble” and “irritating a particular preference”. I think that too often the two are equated/conflated, and the finding out process of what is happening comes through communication and grace-filled, loving questions.
One point that seems to require mentioning is the often ignored opposite end of the “weaker/strong” brother issue and Romans 14. Often, it is assumed that the stronger is the one who is “ok” with CCM, and that person needs to defer to the weaker, who can’t handle CCM. Therefore, the congregation should move toward the more traditional. However, it never seems to get noted that some have a rather problematic context overlaid upon the traditional. Whether right or wrong, some cannot get past the unnecessarily condemnatory and judgmentalness of their upbringing; and so they cannot worship with the traditional music. It literally causes them to stumble because of the very real context associated in their brains with that type of music. So then should not the church opt for a more contemporary worship approach in deference to the weaker brother?
In view of some of the speculations about Scott Aniol’s current work and theology, I have taken the liberty of getting a few clarifications from him. What follows is what Scott said to me, with his permission to share it as I saw fit.
*******************************************
1. I am personally a pre-Trib, pre-Mill, traditional dispensationalist.
2. I have made very clear for years, and as recently as two weeks ago, what I believe to be the relationship between doctrine, music, and separation, and as that recent article demonstrates, I believe this to be the traditional fundamentalist position. I have not changed on this, nor do I think men like Harding (or you) have changed on this. Fundamental doctrines (virgin birth, inspiration and inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, etc.) are non-negotiable, and I would never choose to be part of a church where these doctrines are denied just because they have good music. So whomever it was in the thread that made a comparison with joining a Catholic church because they have good music was making a false comparison. I also believe secondary doctrines (eschatology, etc.) are important, and my ideal would be to be in a church in which there was full agreement on these matters as well. However, given a choice between agreement on secondary doctrines or agreement on worship/music philosophy, I would choose worship since it more directly affects me and my family on an immediate, deep level than some other secondary doctrines. With my understanding of these relationships, I consider myself a consistent separatist, fundamentalist in the best sense of those words.
3. I have no problem with a church putting pretribulationism, premillenialism, and dispensationalism in their doctrinal statement. I actually prefer it. However, I also am comfortable with a church that decides to leave those issues more flexible, and that is well-within fundamentalist practice. In fact, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, which many fundamental Baptist churches use as their statement of faith, leaves that issue open.
4. The church of which I am a part is not a reformed church. We have Calvinists and Arminians (the real ones!), Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians. Again, personally this is not my ideal, but I will unapologetically affirm that we chose our church over others that had dispensationalism as part of their doctrinal statement because of our agreement over worship philosophy.
5. As of February, I am an elder in our church. I/we believe that elder, pastor, overseer are the same office. I/we disagree with MacArthur’s artificial distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders, and I/we disagree with Dever’s artificial distinction between staff elders and lay elders. The five elders in our church are equal, with the founding pastor serving as a lead elder, understanding the regular order of things (seen, for example, in the economic trinity) to necessitate one primary leader among equals.
6. I recognize and appreciate the difficulty some fundamentalists may have with the fact that I am teaching at at Southwester Baptist Seminary. It has already hindered some fellowship with a few churches, and while I am saddened by this and disagree with their decision to break fellowship with me, I understand their reasons and appreciate their caution. I made this decision with much prayer and counsel from men like Pastor Harding, who enthusiastically encouraged me to teach at Southwestern. He told me that while it may cause some to break fellowship with me, he didn’t think it would be many, and my decision to teach here would in no way hinder my relationship with him or with FBC Troy. He even consulted his deacons who shared that sentiment.
7. The nature of the SBC, the cooperative program, and the relationship between churches, the national convention, and the state convention is something much more complex than I think most on this forum understand or appreciate. For example, my church gives a very small amount of money to the national convention each year so that students and faculty at SWBTS can attend, and our church is not even a member of a state convention. For me, that was significant in our decision to join.
[Jay]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.
Yes, but here’s the rub: you seem to define music as simply a matter of conscience. The other side, as I am sure you are aware, does not. Therefore we are talking past one another in this equation.
The solution is to prove conclusively that music has no moral component whatsoever. Then and only then can it be simply a matter of conscience.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Re: the explanation about Scott Aniol’s membership in an SBC church.
I look in vain for any retraction of the call for fundamental Baptists to separate from the SBC in the 65+ years worth of FBFI resolutions here. Although, it was 12 years ago when they last addressed the SBC. A group that warns against giving “unqualified approval of” the Together For the Gospel conference does not appear ready to encourage fundamentalists to join SBC churches. This is pertinent, since some of the participants in this discussion are board members of the FBFI.
The fact that someone who is raised in fundamentalism and intends to still minister to fundamentalist churches, and continues to be associated with other fundamentalists through a prominent ministry, and still feels free to become a member at a SBC church and teach at an SBC seminary is indeed a big change.
From my vantage point on the sidelines, I think it is a positive thing. But I do wonder at what seems to be an elevation of the music issue above doctrinal areas that used to be the most prominent points that would prevent cooperation between fundamentalists and their evangelical/SBC brethren.
To quote from Aniol’s post on this linked in Bauder’s post above,
It is for this reason that I view differences in philosophy of culture as more limiting to cooperation than differences in secondary doctrines within the realm of orthodoxy. This perspective is no longer limited to Evangelicalism — there are plenty of Fundamental churches that I could not cooperate with since we do not share this philosophy. But one’s philosophy of culture is important because culture affects everything, especially the gospel.
An attachment to traditional music is consistent with historic fundamentalism, and perhaps even, to a degree, a separation philosophy that is more open and nuanced, more situational and less programmatic. But certainly this attitude toward the SBC seems to be a shift and a change. I think it is good, I just wish there was more openness to allow for more variety of musical expression in our pursuit of a tangible unity that exalts the Gospel in everything.
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.
For what it’s worth, to piggy back on my previous post, Aniol’s being in a SBC church and teaching in a SBC seminary will potentially lead to a greater influence for his positions and be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. I think that mentality of influence the evangelical movement by critique, and thoughtful interaction - and cooperation at times, is a good strategy.
It does sound similar to the strategy of the new evangelicals however, in some respects. Aiming to influence others, stepping out of your orbit into theirs… that can be a form of compromise with error. Obviously the problems in the SBC are not as severe as the problems with liberal theology.
Personally, supporting T4G and The Gospel Coalition, seeking greater unity within conservative evangelicalism, praying for and working with conservative (doctrinally) churches in one’s area would be a way to bring fundamentalist emphases such as opposing the encroachment of worldliness and stressing the need and role of ecclesiastical separation out into the evangelical sphere. This would be a good thing if more of this could happen.
The variations of separation and non-cooperation that Bauder has emphasized is a good thing and I do wish that fundamentalism would continue down this path. Reminding the wider church of its rich legacy of traditional worship would be good too.
All of this seems like a change from the fundamentalist modus operandi of years gone by however.
Not sure how this ties in to the culture bit, I fear I’m rambling a bit. But others had brought up this point too….
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.
Thanks for posting this, Dr. Bauder, and Scott, for letting him. I want to say in the beginning, though I do not think I could take the step Scott has church-wise, I do not think that he is now off limits or denied the faith or anything like that. I would like to respond to one statement:
The nature of the SBC, the cooperative program, and the relationship between churches, the national convention, and the state convention is something much more complex than I think most on this forum understand or appreciate.
I can appreciate what Scott says here. What I would counter with, though, is why the complexity in this specific instance is offered to encourage the reader to give Scott and others in the SBC (or moving that way) latitude or breathing room, but the way we handle musical choices is often presented much more black and white, when it really can be just as complex as navigating through the convention system (if not infinitely more so). A pastor with conservative leanings going into an existing church could face pressures from older saints whose idea of traditional is essentially the Gospel Song genre, and pressure from younger saints to make the music more “relevant” by adding variety in instrumentation and singing the stuff they hear on the local Christian station, and the only thing they have in common is that they both think the pastor’s choices are “boring” (not that I speak from experience or anything… Purely theoretical, here… :) ). I won’t even start with the complexity one can have when people from foreign cultures are assimilated into an American congregation. And that is theoretically just within a local assembly. Once you start going into existing partnerships with missionaries, church associations, youth camps, men’s and ladies’ retreats… Well, it can vary depending on who’s making the decisions for the given meeting, but how you handle the variety can be “complex.”
I can also appreciate the priority he sets in the article linked in his second point. But to stretch his “dish” metaphor a bit, it seems to me that if the liturgy becomes a defining point of separation at certain levels, what you can easily end up with is establishing those choices based on the fancy china you use for Sunday meals. The rest of the week, people are making their own choices, and they are eating a lot using plastic sporks and styrofoam plates, or bypassing utensils entirely and wolfing down sandwiches with paper napkins as they drive. What I’m saying is just because there is tight control of the music in Sunday services doesn’t guarantee those choices will inform the practices and forms people use and partake of during the week.
All that being the case, my main concern in this case is not with Scott and his choices, but how others are handling their relationship with him. It appears to me that there is some latitude extended to him by people who would not match Scott’s apparent comfort with doctrinal ambiguity, who would not extend the same latitude to someone who had more agreement with them on doctrinal matters, but was more comfortable with a degree of music/cultural ambiguity.
At best, the issues to me appear complex enough where I would argue there should be similar latitude extended to someone like Scott as there would be to someone like Matt Olson, at least as far as “who the real Fundamentalist” is. I would even go so far as to say that I would probably find it easier to partner with someone in say, a common missionary endeavor if someone were coming from a church whose worship was somewhat more progressive, but whose approach to the interpretation of Scripture lined up with ours, than I would a missionary who was planning to plant a church like Scott’s. I know not all would agree with me on this (not even Bob Bixby, whose statement of faith has the same ambiguity Scott’s does on eschatology), but in the end, I believe that if we cannot agree at the local church level on how we interpret the Scriptures, all the rest of the arguments we have (including about worship) will be somewhat subjective, anyway.
Well, now that everyone now hates me, I’ll withdraw into my little cyber-corner…
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Aniol’s being in a SBC church and teaching in a SBC seminary will potentially lead to a greater influence for his positions and be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole.
That’s interesting. Why would exposing a broader swath of evangelicalism to “a Christ-less view of worship” (or whatever you recently called it) be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole?
[DavidO]Aniol’s being in a SBC church and teaching in a SBC seminary will potentially lead to a greater influence for his positions and be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole.
That’s interesting. Why would exposing a broader swath of evangelicalism to “a Christ-less view of worship” (or whatever you recently called it) be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole?
I am just too busy to read all of the comments on all these threads. Could you point me to the statement made by Bob about “Christ-less view of worship.” He made that statement about who? Scott Aniol?
Andrew Henderson
Here, at Fundamentally Reformed.
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2013/04/25/superior-affections-yet…
The use of “religious affections” in quotes several times indicates who he’s referring to. Bob got the Christless view of worship accusation from the other Bob.
[Brenda T]http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2013/04/25/superior-affections-yet…
The use of “religious affections” in quotes several times indicates who he’s referring to. Bob got the Christless view of worship accusation from the other Bob.
Thanks, Brenda. I will read the article when I grab a little time. Appreciate the response.
Andrew Henderson
Sorry David, I didn’t see your comment before I posted mine. Bob’s article was also posted at another site.
http://theaquilareport.com/superior-affections-yet-a-christ-less-concep…
[Don Johnson] Yes, but here’s the rub: you seem to define music as simply a matter of conscience. The other side, as I am sure you are aware, does not. Therefore we are talking past one another in this equation.The solution is to prove conclusively that music has no moral component whatsoever. Then and only then can it be simply a matter of conscience.
Don,
I’ve never argued is that music has no moral component, so I’m not sure why you are putting false statements in my mouth. I believe that this is now the second or third time I’ve had to ask you to stop misrepresenting me, and I’d appreciate it if you would do so. As a matter of fact, I agree completely with DavidO, who said, “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.” I said that before.
I’ll concede that maybe Colossians 2 isn’t the best passage to use, but there are other biblical passages - not just my ideas - that would seem to support what I’m saying. So I’d appreciate it if you could interact with Romans 14:1-13 and others that I’ve cited, as I asked Aaron to.
When you get done, perhaps you can explain how modern music does not fall into the rubric of Colossians 3:15-17 or Ephesians 5:18-21. Please keep in mind that I’ve already argued that most modern music is worthless and that I have theological problems with some songs, so you don’t have the option of saying that I’m accepting all music carte blanche. I asked Dr. Aniol that question a few days ago, and he never responded either.
Now you said that “God created sound, and fallen man creates music. Big Difference”. I’d like to see where you get that from in the Bible. That’s on you, not me, to prove. Furthermore, there are several Biblical verses that tell us to make music.
*
Mark_Smith - If you’ve already decided that I’ve compromised myself and will be leading others down the ‘slippery slope’, then I really don’t see any point in engaging with you anymore on this. Your mind is made up, so there’s no point in us tying up the thread with endless argument. I’ll respond to your last set of questions, and after that, I’m done.
Yes, I understand that freedom for me might lead you back into bondage. So don’t listen to it (Romans 14:5, 23). That’s fine with me.
It’s not my job as a Christian to police (read: control) what other Christians do or how they dress when they’re on their own. It’s not even my job to discipline them for the way the dress if they were in a church I pastored. All I can do is encourage them to think harder about it as we study what it means to ‘lead worship’ - they have to make those decisions on their own as the Holy Spirit informs their conscience through the study of the Word. I’ve never argued - and would argue vociferously against - listening to Beyonce or Bieber, and I don’t know (or care) how many musicians credit the Beatles. If the Beatles were going to be in my church, I might.
"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
This quotation seems to be the pejorative term used by Bixby and Hayton of RAM.
What does that really mean? None of the songs RAM endorses preach the gospel? That can’t really be it, can it? Or is it the gospel style of music that they want RAM to endorse. Can they define what they mean by “gospel music” a little more?
It unfortunately sounds like all the other gospel centered buzzwords of today.
Discussion