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
[Bob Hayton]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….
In the end, it’s all just so much hypocrisy. When fundamentalists want to maintain associations with those who join the SBC, it’s okay. When you or I want to maintain relationships with those in the BGC, it’s not.
It is pure hypocrisy on Harding’s part as revealed in Bauder’s post about Harding’s endorsement and encouragement of Scott.
So here’s how I see it. Not to practice secondary separation is a sin except for Harding.
NIU is sinning in its associations; Harding is not.
Got it.
[Kevin T. Bauder]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.
*******************************************
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.
It wasn’t that long ago when SharperIron skewered Matt Olson for saying that he prayed about the decisions that he had made. I couldn’t believe how many fundamentalists who believe in prayer ripped Matt Olson for saying that he went to God in prayer before making changes at NIU.
Let the ripping begin.
Personally, I think it is good that Scott prayed. Isn’t it wonderful that through prayer God led Scott to teach at Southwestern even though he knew this would be breaking his long held understanding of secondary separation?
This thread proves one thing: Musical choices and corporate worship “style” is the CHIEF fundamentalist litmus test. It trumps all other concerns. I’ve been saying this for years and I’ve personally experienced it. And now, its out in the open for everyone to see for themselves.
[Dan McGhee]This thread proves one thing: Musical choices and corporate worship “style” is the CHIEF fundamentalist litmus test. It trumps all other concerns. I’ve been saying this for years and I’ve personally experienced it. And now, its out in the open for everyone to see for themselves.
Dan, there is no doubt that music is a hot-button issue, but it is hardly the chief litmus test. We are also concerned with associations, doctrine and other issues. Music happens to be one of the most argued points of departure, it seems, at least this week… but look back over the SI archives and see where alcohol and other standards were the argument of the week.
But those who want to go down a different path on music shouldn’t be surprised if there is resistance.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Alex Guggenheim] Over-generalization, hysteria and exaggeration is also of concern.
Agreed. And these three have been seen especially in the last months by those attacking Northland and Olson in particular…
[Don Johnson][Dan McGhee]This thread proves one thing: Musical choices and corporate worship “style” is the CHIEF fundamentalist litmus test. It trumps all other concerns. I’ve been saying this for years and I’ve personally experienced it. And now, its out in the open for everyone to see for themselves.
Dan, there is no doubt that music is a hot-button issue, but it is hardly the chief litmus test. We are also concerned with associations, doctrine and other issues. Music happens to be one of the most argued points of departure, it seems, at least this week… but look back over the SI archives and see where alcohol and other standards were the argument of the week.
But those who want to go down a different path on music shouldn’t be surprised if there is resistance.
I respectfully disagree, Don. And, I think the evidence is clear in this thread by statements that have been made by the “Beethhoven Crowd.”
Additionally, it is this chief litmus test that has enabled members and even leaders within the FBF/BJU orbit to participate with Hyles-types, even speaking at Hyles’ pastors’ conference over the last several years. Remember the threads about Hamilton speaking there? My point is simple and seemingly self-evident in all these discussions. I realize that these decisions can be somewhat complicated and nuanced in ways, however, when the cards are down the actual, real, undeniable reality is that this issue trumps other doctrinal matters and associational challenges. It was clearly stated in this thread by Aniol himself by way of Bauder.
However, if you disagree with my statement, that’s fine. But, my guess is that it rings absolutely true for those who have been watching this happen for years, and especially, if one has been on the receiving end of this de facto separation.
Not Beethoven. Just sayin’. :D
Additionally, it is this chief litmus test that has enabled members and even leaders within the FBF/BJU orbit to participate with Hyles-types, even speaking at Hyles’ pastors’ conference over the last several years. Remember the threads about Hamilton speaking there? My point is simple and seemingly self-evident in all these discussions. I realize that these decisions can be somewhat complicated and nuanced in ways, however, when the cards are down the actual, real, undeniable reality is that this issue trumps other doctrinal matters and associational challenges. It was clearly stated in this thread by Aniol himself by way of Bauder.
Worth repeating.
It’s also worth repeating that it wasn’t until NIU let go of most of its musical faculty (which I personally think it was due to budget squeezes) and then later on changed it’s music program that most people started attacking the school as ‘compromising’.
"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 and Dan,
I’m not going to deny (in this post) what you’re affirming here, but I think that the Northland example may illustrate why the music issue tends to be the breaking point for so many. The reason is this: it’s public and obvious, in a way that many other things just aren’t. Other doctrinal issues and positional moves are, just by their very nature, often more abstract and nuanced. Music is right there, on the stage. I do suspect that this at least contributes to the “red meat” character of the discussions that cite music as a key indication of ministry philosophy.
You can’t deny that there have been concerns about Northland by the more traditionalist fundamentalist crowd (FBF, etc.) at least since the name change. We’ve observed (and discussed) the name change, the “we’re not changing but we’re changing” announcement, the new guest speakers in chapel and the classroom, and the ambiguity about the doctrinal statement on the charismatic movement.
But there’s something about posting a video of the new campus band that is just, in some ways, a more obvious thing than these other moves. This seems to me to be true regardless of what one thinks about issues of style of music.
Again, this isn’t a defense of all that’s been said in objection to NIU (or anyone else). It’s simply an observation that the level of protest raised by the change in music might not be entirely because music is the dividing line, but because music is obvious.
Dan,
As I said before, Scott and I are in complete agreement doctrinally and philosophically. Once Scott made the decision to teach at SWTBS, I told him that my financial support would end for the reasons I have already stated. Scott has been a member of our church all through his childhood, teenage years, college. He then became the assistant pastor of FBC Rockford. He started RAM and I financially supported him for years. I had no problem with Scott receiving his Ph.D. from SWTBS, a theologically conservative seminary, and teaching there while he was still pursuing his degree. Scott has joined the best church available to him. His church has intentionally not joined the Texas State Convention and makes a minimalist contribution to the Cooperative program. I do not, never have, and doubt ever will endorse the SBC. Yet, I recognize that there are separatists from within the SBC of whom Scott would be the most separatistic of any I know. Since Scott and I have had a relationship for over twenty years, I did not deem it necessary for me to end it. There is nothing doctrinally of substance or philosophy between me and him that would force me to end that relationship. When I expressed my disagreement with speakers at NIU (Ware, Holland, Janz, Conn) or with CCM concerts and traveling CCM bands, it was over substantive disagreement doctrinally or philosophically. I love, admire, and respect Scott a great deal. It grieves me that he was not able to find a place of vocational employment in my circles of influence. Nevertheless, I believe Scott will make the best of his situation and influence thousands of people toward serious and reverent worship. I don’t fault other men for not using Scott if that is what they choose to do. I understand exactly where they are coming from and respect their position. I have enough information about Scott that I thought (and think) in good conscience I could still maintain my relationship with him, barring the financial support.
Pastor Mike Harding
Michael - good point! Thanks for bringing that up.
JoelCS-
Thank you Jay!
I had not seen your post. Please be patient with my posting. I write from Germany, and am for that reason at least “a day behind” the discussion - although six to eight hours ahead of US time.
I am on board as far as your first second statements - and biblical support for them! I think the concern of many (such as Mark Smith - and myself) is, that in our understanding of Scripture a stated goal and some guidelines to that (those) end(s) do not equal reaching those ends. The Bible is replete with examples of worship, which was acceptable to people, yet abhorred by the LORD (Cain, Saul, late Judean Worship in OT, etc.) For that reason it is imperative for us to follow biblical mandates that what we do in the Lord’s name is, in fact, pleasing to HIM! (Psa 19:14: Prov 10:32; 21:3 vis a vie Isa 58,5; Jer 6:20.) People do, as a matter of fact, offer worship to the LORD, which He finds repugnant.
The New Testament brings many similar exhortations to us: Rom 12,1-2; 14:18; Eph 5,10; Heb 12:28; 13,21.
For that reason your arguments 3-5 help no one to come closer to the biblical exhortations! They seem to assume that cultural musical expression can be imported as acceptable spiritual offering, because the Bible does not say which “form” “style” should be used. I think the one(s) who employ argumentation that musical form or style is wide open for spiritual use have an obligation to explain how their music is “acceptable” (“euarestos”, “euarestws” in Verses above.) - not to people - rather to the LORD.
If we are commanded to make spiritual choices that are pleasing to the LORD, the goal must be attainable.
I would like further explaination about your last two points.
If I could modify your second to last point: Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God.
I would change your last phrase: … praise in a manner pleasing or acceptable to God.
Proper music can and will be governed by Scripture alone, because languages and cultures vary widely from age to age and throughout the centuries.
I take it by this sentence, that you mean to say that musical style and form is culturally conditioned and therefore relativized. If so, it seems that you assume the culture at any point in time neutral and therefore useable. I understand the biblical term “world” to be roughly equivalent to the “culture” of the unredeemed.
Perhaps this point is where the contention lies.
As a missionary in Germany, to a German congregation I find your last point patently false!
Scriptural principles both stated and derived apply in each culture. Of course, derived principles are only applicable in as far as they are biblically accurate! The spoken language has nothing to do with the applicability of scriptural principles.
You have already stated in your statements 3-5 that you do not find scriputal principles pertinent to musical form and style. By those statements, you have relegated the applicability of the Bible to non-musical realms. Perhaps you should re-think the possiblity of whether God’s Word might be relevant to musical style, form - to any extent.
In Germany there has been “acceptable” and “not-acceptable” music through the years. Many musical models, forms, styles are imported from USA and Great Britain. We have exactly the same issues here. And face the same “cultural” pressures.
While we do sing hymns from the 12th century to the present, there were some musical adjustments I needed to make as a “conservative” American Christian. Some of their music was more conservative than was I! I had no or very limited exposure to music in a minor key. Now I find that the minor key can express and underscore truth in ways the major key cannot! I have also discovered that there have been major shifts in cultural expression in German hymnody. Some of the hymns of the past are way to emotionally expressed for the German spirit today. Change must not be complete! Hold on to that which is good!
The Word of God is not culturally bound.
Thank you for your imput!
Joel
Hey Joel-
Appreciated the nudge to keep that other thread on track. I think (and I really do think this) that we’re almost 95% in agreement, but there is one section in bold that “makes all the difference” (to borrow from Frost).
Second bolded section first - I agree with you that all human cultures (greek - kosmos) come from fallen and sinful man, who is completely and utterly incapable of doing anything that would please God on their own and apart from Him or His Work through the Spirit’s enabling. As a result, there are no human cultures that can please God at all. They are not neutral - they are opposing God. I’m fairly sure we’re in agreement there. :)
The first bolded section is the key, and I agree with most of it - the difference is the part I underlined and the part you added. I do not understand how the ‘conservative’ side gets from ‘pleasing to the Lord’ to ‘this is what it must sound like as a result’ from Scripture.
First, I believe, as I said before, that man is inherently musical. It’s hard-coded into our being. When we are excited, we break into song. When we mourn, we sing dirges. That’s the human experience, and it’s a good thing. There is a reason why God tells us to sing songs that would be pleasing to Him, and I’ll not bore you by rehashing Colossians, Ephesians, and the other pertinent passages.
Secondly, the part that is underlined is the key. By what authority can we determine that ____________ musical style is that which pleases the Lord?
That, I think, is where the issue lies, and I want to revisit it later when I have more time.
"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,
Thank you for your response!
My day here is almost to its end. So I will have to keep my response short.
I also think we have a large spanning agreement!
As for your major question “By what authority can we determine that ____________ musical style is that which pleases the Lord?”
I firmly believe “The Bible is the ONLY rule for faith and practice.”
That does not mean that you and I will draw the same lines. It should, however, mean that we base our decisions on sound biblical reasoning.
Romans 12,1-2; Ephesians 5,8-13 (esp. V. 10) are enough authority, as far as I am concerned. And both passages put the Believer and the Culture under the scope of pleasing the LORD.
What must be, can be done!
The LORD says we must live in this manner!
Joel
I came across this video today and thought it might be a profitable addition to the discussion on music and musical style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FisGnT8MtY&feature=youtube_gdata_player"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
Now that Scott Aniol is a Southern Baptist, we need to find a replacement. Maybe Kauflin can come and do a music seminar at _______ Church or _________ Christian University. Oh, that’s right, he’s one of those guys.
Just trying for a smile.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Discussion