John Vaughn (FBFI President/CEO): "one thing is clear: this video ends the fiction that 'Northland has not changed.'”

32576 reads

There are 236 Comments

Mike Harding's picture

Greg,

 

I'm speechless.  That's what you get when you fuse a picture of Jerry Falwell and Patch the Pirate.  I knew that moment of levity would get me into trouble.

Pastor Mike Harding

SamH's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:

You just proved my point!  The only ones that still make that connection of rock music and rebellion and free love in our culture are the fundamentalists.....

 

 

Google Billy Connolly and Christian Rock--and get a recent glimpse into what lost people think of the use of at least one genre of music: "rock". I won't post it here,

but I

              don't

                          think

                                       he's a fundamentalist...

 

SamH

mmartin's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:

You just proved my point!  The only ones that still make that connection of rock music and rebellion and free love in our culture are the fundamentalists.....

 

The only people who say that are the CCM types who use that type of argument to marginalize conservatives. 

 

That quote is absolutely horrible!  It is almost as bad as Jason Janz' quote in Pensees about music that it has "such minimal actual impact on a person’s sanctification."  Truly, people that attend a Madonna or Kid Rock concert come away singing "Jesus Loves Me" all the way home.

 

I just did a quick Google search for things Rock Stars (and I do not mean rock stars just from the 60's either) say about their own music and the influence it has on themselves and other people.  I've already heard plenty, just wanted to verify. 

 

Both Joel & Jason need to get out more if they actually believe what they are saying.  I honestly can't believe I read those quotes.

 

Found this quote about music.  Guess who said it?

". . . . is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe.”

Pope Benedict XVI

 

Who knew Benedict was a stuffy ol' Fundy.

Joel Shaffer's picture

I was gonna retire from this post, but since I didn't communicate well a few posts ago, I will attempt to clarify some things.

Billy Connoly-----Age 70

Pope Benedict XVI------ Age 78

Those that are younger do not associate rock and roll with drugs, free love, and rebellion like their elders.  As an insider because I am a former Christian Rock musician, I think I can make this statement with some credibility.  Should I have used only?  Probably not.   But culture and its associations does rapidly change (especially in such a information age) and some associations that were blatantly obvious 50 years ago are now different.   

mmartin's picture

The age card?  Really?  Is that the best you can do?

 

Yes things are different now from 50 years ago, but Kudos on the false argument.  True, it may not have the same "Rebellion" or "Fee Love" label as in the 60's, so I guess your point is valid on a minor technicality. 

 

Who cares if you are an "insider" or a former Christian Rock musician.  You have to be either willfully naive or completely out of touch if you don't see today's rock music as being filled with all manner of excess and debauchery - regardless of the label or lack thereof.  Today's whole world knows this . . . except for many CCM folks who apparently have their head in the sand. 

 

My arguments here are not digs against CCM music per se and the praising of fundamentalism.  It is; however, an argument against the incredibly silly arguments from the CCM side of the isle.  I see too many non or anti fundamentalists pointing their fingers at fundamentalists saying how they are either wrong or out of touch, but then they can't even argue on the simplest of levels.  Then when challenged about it they try to weasel out of it by - playing the race card, or (not Joel Shaffer.) saying listening to CCM is OK because they didn't start using pot, after listening to it, etc.  Why should people care about CCM folks' points when they can't even be honest about what you are saying? 

mmartin's picture

Last point,

 

No wonder this whole music issue is such a mess.  When we've got people like I noted above who preach and teach in effect say, "Music is a minor issue, it doesn't matter.  That whole rock music thing that it is bad and full of rebellion, that was 50 years ago.  It isn't like that anymore.  My kids think it is wholesome.  And music doesn't really help with your sanctification.  It is just this silly thing that fundies have a hang-up about."  In the case of a president of one particular ex-fundamentalist college, "Music just isn't worth taking a stand for anymore."  How intellectually dishonest can you get?

 

Folks, just come out and say it.  Don't do this stupid, trying too hard to be rationale, dance around the issue.  Just be frankly honest and say, "Yes, I like Rock Music.  Yes, as a matter of fact we are starting a rock band so we can be more attractive to the younger generation because they are our market.  It was a business decision.  Yes, Christian Rock came out of the same kind of music the world uses to sing about drugs & sex.  Yes, music is not ammoral and always conveys a mood or atmosphere.  Yes, we are taking the world's music but using it for good"

 

It isn't that hard - 

 

-if you are willing to be honest about it.  

Andrew K.'s picture

mmartin wrote:

The age card?  Really?  Is that the best you can do?

 

Yes things are different now from 50 years ago, but Kudos on the false argument.  True, it may not have the same "Rebellion" or "Fee Love" label as in the 60's, so I guess your point is valid on a minor technicality. 

 

Who cares if you are an "insider" or a former Christian Rock musician.  You have to be either willfully naive or completely out of touch if you don't see today's rock music as being filled with all manner of excess and debauchery - regardless of the label or lack thereof.  Today's whole world knows this . . . except for many CCM folks who apparently have their head in the sand. 

 

My arguments here are not digs against CCM music per se and the praising of fundamentalism.  It is; however, an argument against the incredibly silly arguments from the CCM side of the isle.  I see too many non or anti fundamentalists pointing their fingers at fundamentalists saying how they are either wrong or out of touch, but then they can't even argue on the simplest of levels.  Then when challenged about it they try to weasel out of it by - playing the race card, or (not Joel Shaffer.) saying listening to CCM is OK because they didn't start using pot, after listening to it, etc.  Why should people care about CCM folks' points when they can't even be honest about what you are saying? 

No silly arguments from the other side? Because I seem to remember something about killing plants, boiling eggs, and Israel dancing to rock while Moses was up on the mountain...

神是爱

Greg Long's picture

mmartin wrote:

Last point,

 

No wonder this whole music issue is such a mess.  When we've got people like I noted above who preach and teach in effect say, "Music is a minor issue, it doesn't matter.  That whole rock music thing that it is bad and full of rebellion, that was 50 years ago.  It isn't like that anymore.  My kids think it is wholesome.  And music doesn't really help with your sanctification.  It is just this silly thing that fundies have a hang-up about."  In the case of a president of one particular ex-fundamentalist college, "Music just isn't worth taking a stand for anymore."  How intellectually dishonest can you get?

 

Folks, just come out and say it.  Don't do this stupid, trying too hard to be rationale, dance around the issue.  Just be frankly honest and say, "Yes, I like Rock Music.  Yes, as a matter of fact we are starting a rock band so we can be more attractive to the younger generation because they are our market.  It was a business decision.  Yes, Christian Rock came out of the same kind of music the world uses to sing about drugs & sex.  Yes, music is not ammoral and always conveys a mood or atmosphere.  Yes, we are taking the world's music but using it for good"

 

It isn't that hard - 

 

-if you are willing to be honest about it.  


Mmartin, it is ironic that someone such as yourself who objects to the rhetoric used by evangelicals against fundamentalists has dramatically ratcheted up the level of rhetoric in this thread by your name-calling: naive, ignorant, stupid, dishonest, etc. As your brother in Christ, I urge you to tone it down.

Let me "come right out and say it": our church uses contemporary music primarily for none of the reasons you listed above. Are you saying I am being dishonest?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Joel Shaffer's picture

mmartin wrote:

Last point,

 

No wonder this whole music issue is such a mess.  When we've got people like I noted above who preach and teach in effect say, "Music is a minor issue, it doesn't matter.  That whole rock music thing that it is bad and full of rebellion, that was 50 years ago.  It isn't like that anymore.  My kids think it is wholesome.  And music doesn't really help with your sanctification.  It is just this silly thing that fundies have a hang-up about."  In the case of a president of one particular ex-fundamentalist college, "Music just isn't worth taking a stand for anymore."  How intellectually dishonest can you get?

 

Folks, just come out and say it.  Don't do this stupid, trying too hard to be rationale, dance around the issue.  Just be frankly honest and say, "Yes, I like Rock Music.  Yes, as a matter of fact we are starting a rock band so we can be more attractive to the younger generation because they are our market.  It was a business decision.  Yes, Christian Rock came out of the same kind of music the world uses to sing about drugs & sex.  Yes, music is not ammoral and always conveys a mood or atmosphere.  Yes, we are taking the world's music but using it for good"

 

It isn't that hard - 

 

-if you are willing to be honest about it.  

If you have followed all of my posts, I have been entirely honest and vulnerable about everything including  my motives for CCM and hip hop.  I have even shared some of the pitfalls that I've experienced (such as idolatry) and admitted fault when I have overstated or overgeneralized within my arguments. Questioning my motives, misrepresenting my arguments so that it seems as if I don't believe that music matters within our sanctification, accusing me of being naive towards certain cultures (which is quite hilarious since I spent 7 years as a CCM musician traveling on weekends all over Michigan and over 20 years living in the inner-city as an urban missionary among the hip-hop culture), and accusing me of pragmatism (to reach the younger generation) is not only completely untrue, but also it is frankly below the belt.    

I am bowing out for good because this conversation is going nowhere........

 

____________________________________________

http://www.utmgr.org/blog_index.html

Andrew Henderson's picture

Mike Harding wrote:

Rappin with Qoheleth, hmmm?:  "There's a time to win and a time to lose, a time to wait and a time to choose--- a bop ba da lu bop, zis bam bou!" 

 

Mike,

Hilarious. I actually think you have created a whole new genre of music here. They have already combined country/rock and opera/rock. You have somehow just combined rap and Little Richard. Who knew that could even be done?

Andrew Henderson

Jay's picture

mmartin wrote:

No wonder this whole music issue is such a mess.  When we've got people like I noted above who preach and teach in effect say, "Music is a minor issue, it doesn't matter.  That whole rock music thing that it is bad and full of rebellion, that was 50 years ago.  It isn't like that anymore.  My kids think it is wholesome.  And music doesn't really help with your sanctification.  It is just this silly thing that fundies have a hang-up about."  In the case of a president of one particular ex-fundamentalist college, "Music just isn't worth taking a stand for anymore."  How intellectually dishonest can you get?

Folks, just come out and say it.  Don't do this stupid, trying too hard to be rationale, dance around the issue.  Just be frankly honest and say, "Yes, I like Rock Music.  Yes, as a matter of fact we are starting a rock band so we can be more attractive to the younger generation because they are our market.  It was a business decision.  Yes, Christian Rock came out of the same kind of music the world uses to sing about drugs & sex.  Yes, music is not ammoral and always conveys a mood or atmosphere.  Yes, we are taking the world's music but using it for good"

It isn't that hard - 

-if you are willing to be honest about it.  

MMartin - 

That post above is what makes this discussion so incredibly frustrating.   The people here that have been honest about what they are doing and why are usually the 'pro' CCMers like myself, Joel Shaffer, and others.  As I noted before, the arguments that the 'traditional' side presents for why the 'modern musicians' are wrong are the arguments that are borderline dishonest.  

No one on SI is arguing that the music is not important.  
No one on SI is arguing for sloppiness with lyrics.  
No one on SI wants rock music because it's 'our market'.  
No one on SI is arguing that our songs should be styled on 'drugs and sex'.  
No one on SI is arguing that music is ammoral (sic).

It might do you, like Scott, some good to go back and do some reading on what we're actually saying before you write us off as disobedient brothers or whatever.  If you're serious about changing minds on this very important issue, knowing what we say might be a good start.

"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

SamH's picture

Joel,

I agree with you to some extent, but a few things (and you do not need to respond because you've retired--this subject is indeed tiring):

  • Clearly, the church is not only made up of younger people, and when younger people do things which older people find offensive to their conscience in a worship or church setting, the principles of togetherness from Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19 (and their surrounding contexts) should rule. These passages help in a clear way to tell us "what kind of worship God likes"--He likes worship in which every believer present can join in. These passages should rule in such a way that worship would be considered something of a fail if consistently the leaders of the church felt it acceptable to trample on more conservative consciences by allowing the younger ones to do something which was attractive to them.
  • Simply because Billy is old doesn't mean the demographic who think of rock (and related genres) in the way he does are old too. Apparently you are meeting different young people than I am, who see the music differently. Whatever "rock" means today to most of the youngers I meet, they know what it is, and if questioned carefully they can tell you why they like it--and their reasoning is often not "because it helps me glorify God".
  • Since you bring up association, are we certain that every one of the young people are (are not) associating a certain genre of music as you describe? And do they have to associate it with free love, drugs, etc. in order for their associations to still be wrong? If the olds make the associations, but the youngs aren't making such associations, should we allow this kind of divisiveness into the local church? And I am not attributing anything to any school leader, but should the olders/conservatives just live or deal with the differences if their consciences are bothered? If they feel like they need to leave because what they are experiencing is a pattern that leadership does not want to change, is it right to force them to such a point of decision? Would this not be considered to be an ecclesiological/doxological fail?

Joel Shaffer wrote:

I was gonna retire from this post, but since I didn't communicate well a few posts ago, I will attempt to clarify some things.

Billy Connoly-----Age 70

Those that are younger do not associate rock and roll with drugs, free love, and rebellion like their elders.  As an insider because I am a former Christian Rock musician, I think I can make this statement with some credibility.  Should I have used only?  Probably not.   But culture and its associations does rapidly change (especially in such a information age) and some associations that were blatantly obvious 50 years ago are now different.   

 

SamH

mmartin's picture

I am not doubting anyone's sincerity in their desire to serve in their church and serve the Lord.  My comments were part geared toward specific comments made here on SI and, Jay, what I've heard in my experience by people both recently and in my lifetime.

Most definitely the traditional side of this issue has their fair share of poor arguments as well, Andrew.   I never stated otherwise. 

Yes Greg, I'll take it at face value that you are being honest about your churches position.  Great!  Now if many other people, on both sides of this issue, would follow suit we could have a healthier discussion, but unfortunately that is severely lacking. 

Jay, you said, " . . the arguments that the 'traditional' side presents for why the 'modern musicians' are wrong are the arguments that are borderline dishonest."  Agreed 100%!  But that argument goes both ways including much of what I've seen here lately on SI (see below).  Correct?  SamH above re-states again much of my entire point.

When I read above that "The only ones that still make that connection of rock music and rebellion and free love in our culture are the fundamentalists....." when that is patently false on multiple levels even if you take out the word "only."  When I read this week a well known speaker say that music has "such minimal actual impact on a person’s sanctification," which of course is ridiculous.  When NIU is saying one thing and many, many people other than me are saying NIU is not being honest.  When many churches use music entertainment based worship methods to bring in more people (NOT thinking of anyone specific).  When I have personally seen young impressionable people lead away from their traditional heritage by leaders and speakers who have made similar comments while publicly thumbing their noses at traditional organizational leadership giving those young people an unbalanced and incomplete understanding of music and what it means to live the Christian life.  (To be clear Joel, I am NOT accusing you of this, but I have personally seen this happen.)  When I see parents heartbroken over their children rejecting their heritage and all too often without humility (because of the noted influential leaders) going to new evangelical churches.  (Before you nail me something about how if the kids now are out of the house they are adults, etc., I get all of that.  But, I hope you understand my point.)  When a family member who grew up in fundamentalist circles but now attends an evangelical church gets snide comments from people in that world, "Oh, so you must be a recovering fundamentalist."

 

I then am supposed to think what . . . . .  

 

I stand by my comments.

mmartin's picture

Just a couple more thought to further illustrate my point.

Some years ago when I was involved with a certain conservative organization. There was going to be a Steve Green concert in the area and the people in the organization were explicitly told not to go to the concert. Well, many people went anyway including several in leadership positions. Those leaders and students did not obey their authority, but rather flaunted their "Liberty."

I have personally seen many people (both students AND adults) in that group openly mocky and ridicule their conservative heritage and the leadership they willingly put themselves under.
In the case of NIU, as someone else stated NIU is perfectly content to poke their traditional constituency in the eye. In other words NIU saying to the very people who for decades have provided their love, support, finances, and students with which NIU built their program and buildings, "Thanks, but we are now going to go play with Big Daddy. If you don't like that, you can just leave the chapel service and go off and pray by yourself, but we are still going to rock on anyway." (Dr. Olson's non-apology apology.)

Then I read many of the subtle dig comments and outright false comments about traditionalists both here in this very conversation string and in other recent blogs & sites. In other words the same prideful attitude I saw 20 years ago is still very much alive and well.

So, When I think of the pro-CCM and evangelical crowd, it isn't hard for me to reasonably see just arrogance. Right? I know that isn't the case with all of CCM and evangelicalism so I will not make a blanket statement. But, do you get my point?

Why would I want to leave a group that many say is judgmental and lacking in grace to be a part of a group that is judgmental and lacking in grace???

At the end of the day I don't give a rat's tail about how NIU is "going back to true historical fundamentalism" or all that spin. I see them kind of flaunting their new direction without regard for the very people and resources they used to build their program.  What good is all that new "love for everyone and unity" when they can't even display a basic gracious attitude? 

So, Joel, Jay, Andrew, & Greg, why don’t you get your side’s act together before you tell me to calm down?  (I don’t actually mean it like that, but am saying it to make a point.)
 

So Yes, I most definitely stand by my comments.

Greg Linscott's picture

I almost thought you were addressing me, mmartin. But I see you must be addressing Mr. Long.

Regardless, when I read this line:

When I see parents heartbroken over their children rejecting their heritage and all too often without humility (because of the noted influential leaders) going to new evangelical churches...

...it actually made me remember, for some reason, one of the professors I had at Faith. It was the very end of his long and distinguished teaching career, and I remember that we had Ken Ham in to do a special emphasis chapel series (or maybe it was the Bible conference that year). Of course, Ham was speaking on topics related to Young Earth Creationism. I remember hearing that professor getting quite upset after the services one morning because of the way Ham had derogatorily spoken of proponents of the Gap Theory, which he, as a Scofield Bible-style dispensationalist, was an adherent of.

Now, I am a YEC myself- as was about everyone I knew at Faith in both the student body and faculty, with the exception of this prof. Still, I wonder- was he justified in lamenting how his Fundamentalist children (of a sort, anyway) had rejected their heritage of accommodating people who held his position as they had in his heyday?

Well, the general consensus would be "doesn't matter... truth is truth." And I think that is for the most part a good consensus. 

For someone who has (thoughtfully) arrived at music convictions- should they worry very much about whether they jettison tradition if they believe their decision to be right? I mean, what about those who abandon elements of Fundamentalist musical tradition to become more conservative (say, those who would abandon the schmaltzy sentimentalism of "In The Garden")? Or is that okay if they are moving in a more conservative direction?

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

mmartin's picture

Greg Linscott,

 

Fair question.  The issue with me is not that these people left fundamentalism, it is how.

 

If you feel your decision is right, then do it, but do it with the very grace you say the other side claims to emphasize and not with the same judgementalism you distain.

 

BTW, that attitude goes both ways.

Joel Tetreau's picture

Brother Martin,

This is my first interaction with you directly. I think I know who you are - if you are connected to the Martin family I am aware of we have a mutual "relationship." I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to meet you in person over a cup of coffee. These conversations typically go better when we know each other. I am a loving guy at heart and I often mix humor in with a point - if you don't know that about me - it's easy to miss-read this or that.  

One of the advantages I have with some of the guys that have been with SI for a long time is that we all have shared "history." There are many nuances to your writings that reveal you haven't been with us a long time. That's not a shot just an observation. Just to bring you up to speed here:

1. It isn't a given that what you think of as fundamentalism is what the rest of us here thinks is "fundamentalism." Like for me "fundamentalism" is historic orthodoxy that is militant. Militancy can take place either in a separatist form or a "stay-in-and-fight" form. So you may want to read a few of the various threads that have been written here to understand where the bulk of us stand on that.......or not.

2. You've made statements where you come off just assuming that all good fundamentalists believe like you - without any Scriptural support. So, this is no longer 1980 ...... the consensus is no longer that good music has no beat to it. The majority of us (which doesn't make us right - the fact that it is the majority) - but the majority of us believe that there are "liberty" issues within the music discussion.

3. While many would want to argue (because we fundamentalists like to argue - and we are good at it!).....it really is my hearts desire to see traditional fundamentalists and contemporary fundamentalists learn to get along.....at least to some degree.

4. So - you might disagree that a contemporary fundamentalist is a real thing - so the majority of younger men in ministry who still are connected one way or another to fundamentalism are either fully "contemporary fundamentalists" or they lean much closer to that approach to fundamentalism than the more traditional fundamentalists. That reality shows up pretty regularly here at SI. So if you can handle that and still keep your sanctification - welcome aboard!

5. I would say you are right - the younger guys - the more contemporary brothers - we (and I'm a wierd contemporary fundy - because in some ways I am still very traditional and in some way I am very contemporary) ....... are too often "sharp," "militant" "arrogant" against men like yourself who reflect a more traditional approach. Now to defend them/us for just a second or two - the men holding your approach have been too often rude and frankly ungracious for decades with either "other" strains of fundamentalism or even younger men honestly working through "issues." Here at SI we have heard of those stories of older more traditional more conservative leaders being nasty and I mean sinfully so with those of us who are not as "whatever" - so in a sense you men may be getting back what you sowed. On the other hand you are right - and if the different - not-as-traditional approach to fundamentalism is better as some of us say - then our approach should be more Biblical - more Christlike - more patient - more gracious. Amen and amen. You nailed us my brother - outstanding and true!

6. There is an immediate urgency to the present "civil war" between traditional fundamentalists (I call them Type A) and the contemporary fundamentalists (I call them Type B and Type C) - In one sense the present angst that we are "working at" or "working through" reminds me of the great schism. You remember - yep the bishop of Rome excommunicated the bishop of Constantinople and then the bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the bishop of Rome. I think you traditional fundamentalists are ready to excommunicate we contemporary fundamentalists over music, and other issues. At the same time we contemporary fundamentalist have either had it or almost had it with you conservative guys because you men if you are not careful will actually be guilty of heresy - being schismatic over man-made standards and traditions - which means we more contemporary fundamentalists will have to mark you as disobedient and encourage others to stay away from you. Now what makes this hard for you guys is you used to have the numbers - that's over. We outnumber you by quiet a bit. What's also hard is that your sons or daughters are rejecting your views and they are in the main agreeing with the B or C approach to ministry. That makes this now personal.

7. Most of us here don't see our differences with your standards or the standards of various ministries as rebellion but rather obedience. Obedience to a Holy Spirit lead, Scripturally informed conscience. If an institution has a standard and that standard is not consistent to Scripture - and yet you treat that as consistent with the same level of authority as Scripture the best I can say about you is you remind me of a pharisee. Now I don't know you are a pharisee - you might simply be a stronger or weaker brother based on Romans 14. But if you take a liberty issue and demand that the rest of us follow your idea to be a legitimate fundamentalist - you probably are a neo-pharisee.

8. At SI no one cares about your rank or degrees, or frankly your experience. The field is equal here. We will try to speak respectfully but frankly our commitment is to the text of Scripture and to the ethos of historic fundamentalism. So if you aren't used to having brothers come back at you with at least the same vigor as you come with them - you might want to make sure this is the field where you want to play. We love each other here but no one cares what you think of us - we care what God thinks and we are willing to grind it out for sake of truth and the cause of Christ.

9. If you are as traditional as I think you might be - you and I will get to know each other well. Please know I love you in the Lord and I'm grateful for God's past and present using you for His Kingdom's sake. Please know I will do my best to disagree with you agreeably and I will work hard not to assume motives. This note is just to help bring you up to speed as to the way many of us view things - and it's cool that you may not see them this way. Sometimes traditional men once they really understand the way many of us view things determine it's really hard to slug it out day after day. But some of the guys like Don and Mike and a few others here - they sort of like slugging it out day after day. They remain gracious (in the main) and because they have the skin of a rhino and the heart of dear brother - it works for the rest of us. Furthermore I would say we contemporary fundamentalists are stretched in a good way when the traditional guys give us thoughts about this or that.

In the end I think we need each other and I also think that SI has provided a great service to demonstrate internal to fundamentalism and even to the wider audience of evangelicalism that we can be careful, thoughtful, Biblical, gracious, passionate and open to being "entreated."

Forgive the length of the epistle - I try not to do that often - but once in a while I have to launch one.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Rob Fall's picture

how the FBFI leadership has reacted to such matters in the past,  Brother Vaughn was fairly restrained in his post.

Since the man is the FBFI's president, it is well within the scope of his responsibilities to make a comment.  If he hadn't commented, he would have been derelict in his duties.  Now, I realize many here don't like his comment, but such is life.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Karl S's picture

I had relegated myself to just "lurker" status on this discussion, but in reading your further comments, I am beginning to wonder exactly what you mean. You threw out I Tim 4:1-5 originally, to which I questioned whether you wanted to apply that passage to this issue considering the context.

(Despite my earlier comment linking the passage context to Acts 10+11, I can see these verses as forward-looking to Gnosticism - might be a better view - but this doesn't change the application of the passage to the issue at hand)

I wasn't offended that you didn't respond to that directly. However, in reading your further comments, I'm seeing an interesting thread in your logic:

"...So obvious to me that you are denouncing an aspect of God's creation that he declared good..."

"...I am responsible before God to protect those under my care from such dualistic thinking that declares certain things bad what God created good..."

"...You men if you are not careful will actually be guilty of heresy - being schismatic over man-made standards and traditions - which means we more contemporary fundamentalists will have to mark you as disobedient and encourage others to stay away from you"

"If an institution has a standard and that standard is not consistent to Scripture - and yet you treat that as consistent with the same level of authority as Scripture the best I can say about you is you remind me of a pharisee...if you take a liberty issue and demand that the rest of us follow your idea to be a legitimate fundamentalist - you probably are a neo-pharisee."

As I noted in my previous comment, the type of person Paul is speaking about in I Tim. 4 are unbelievers. They are teaching the "doctrines of demons". When you are accusing "traditional fundamentalists" of committing the errors described in this passage (as you did in the first two quotes above), in effect you are saying we have "departed from the faith". Because of your subsequent statements, I'll ask again: Is this really what you mean?

In the third quote, you bring up heresy. Seems to point toward that conclusion...

In the last quote, you basically equate someone taking a dogmatic stand on music with a Pharisee. Not being "pharisaical" - but an actual Pharisee. Since those were the men who demanded Jesus'  death, and since those where the men on which Christ pronounced the "woes" in Matt. 23, inquiring "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?", this is a pretty heavy accusation.

So then, if I were to say to you that I disagree with your application of I TImothy 4, and furthermore that I would teach and preach that the stylings of the rock/hip-hop genres of music are fleshly and sinful, and that I would separate from those who consistently include such styles in worship, would you then mark me as a heretic, a Pharisee, and an unbeliever destined for hell?

 

mmartin's picture

I assure you, Joel, I am not any Martin you may know.  Not that that matters, just saying.

Just so happens I've got my big boy britches on so no need to "Brother" this "Brother" that.  I don't mind a healthy argument.

You may have been charitable in your comments toward me, but that doesn't change what I've personally experienced or read, as I said, in both my present and past about the frequent attitude of non-traditionalists and/or pro-CCM folks towards traditionalists & fundamentalists.  This includes comments here in this very SI discussion and elsewhere by several visible and semi-prominent speakers/leaders.

My thoughts and comments are not as complex as as what you expounded and extrapolated upon with your post.

Joel Tetreau's picture

So Brother Martin,

I actually know of two other "Martin" families in ministry and I've now been able to discern one way or the other - you are neither. So that's wonderful - the comments I think are still applicable to my first greeting to you. I call you brother Martin because I thought your last name was Martin and I did not know your first name. So in a case like that I try to seldom be transparent "Dude- what's your first name?" No - I do what the best of leaders do - we fake it! "Brother!" "Wow!" I was thinking of you the other day." So I promise once I know your first name - I'll drop the "brother" thing.  

Yo Karl - to be honest I wasn't implying anything in regards to what you said. I don't even know what you said. I was simply stating that those that have an man-made extra Biblical standard and then demand that everyone be committed to said standard just as they should be to the Scriptures are a kind of new-pharisaism. I'm not trying to say that's you. Just was part of the larger discussion at the time. My apologies if you felt targeted. Be warmed and filled!

Have a lovely evening everyone - Have a great Lord's day tomorow - Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

BillSmall's picture

I've noticed that many of those who speak so authoritatively in their opposition to contemporary music styles usually prefer to quote rock musicians, self proclaimed experts and the pope instead of sharing thorough exegesis of applicable Scripture. Could it be that the New Testament is deafeningly silent on specific styles preferred by God and that He is pleased by styles from a large variety of cultures and sounds? 

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Bill,

I agree that scripture needs to be brought to bear, and I think it can. However, isn't also negligent to ignore the statements of the creators and primary practitioners of this type of music when discussing it?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

BillSmall's picture

I do not think that the statements of a few practitioners equals thorough research, and I seriously doubt if those statements represent the thinking of everyone else in the industry. I doubt if you would take the word of these practitioners when speaking about other subjects, but you find it helpful to quote them when they support your thesis. The reality is that music with a back-beat is not associated with drugs or sex by the vast majority of everyday people who hear those musical styles every day. If you listen to talk radio, watch the news, go to a sports activity, eat out at a restaurant, go shopping, watch the news, or go virtually anywhere in this country you will be hearing music with a back-beat. To the generation growing up in the 60's or 70's, it probably seemed like the music of sex and drugs because of association. However, those growing up in more recent times make no similar connections and see no similar associations. It is just music that sounds nice and not music that is sensual. Today it is the music of Sesame Street, Veggie Tales and the local Putt-Putt place ... not the music of drugs and sex.

 

This is a cultural issue and not addressed directly by specific texts of Scripture, and I see no scriptural reasons why older believers should impose the restrictions of their youth on the youth of today under the assumptions that everything has stayed static. 

BillSmall's picture

Who will separate from John Vaughn if I can prove he has changed as well? Here's the proof. He is posting videos and using the internet to get out his message. He wasn't doing that twenty years ago, so he has changed. Let's separate from him. 

Dan McGhee's picture

Future FBFI Annual Gathering? I can envision...

...with Matt Olson's re-instatement as the President of NIU, Dr. Vaughn leading the FBFI board in writing a new, meaningless, "FBFI - Resolution" regarding the sad, downward, trajectory of Northland. After the resolution is read to all the members, they will then have the honor of introducing Scott Aniol, Elder and member of an SBC church, to speak on the subject of "God-honoring" worship and music in the local church. 

 

Mark it down, folks.

Pages