Aniol; The Beethoven Group & the promotion of music over doctrine and separation
According to sources available here at SI - Scott Aniol is now serving as an elder at an SBC church and he is teaching at an SBC seminary. In one of the thread’s Kevin Bauder passed on several thoughts from Scott - who was interacting with various voices here on SI and elsewhere.
For the record Scott is part of an informal group of friends who share in certain belief’s in the area of music, worship, etc….Several of these men I studied with either at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary or Central Baptist Theological Seminary. What I know about my friends in the “Beethoven Group,” is that there is actually some degree of diversity as to how they go about “doing” ministry. I’ve posted my hesitation with some of their approach “here and there” in the past - which really isn’t my focus on this thread. In the end there is actually a surprising amount of thought with these men I actually appreciate and even agree with. I’ve wanted to attend their annual conference at Scott Williquette’s ministry in the Rockford area for sometime. My good friend Bob Bixby who minister’s near Scott W. often goes and I’ve wanted to attend with him one of these years. I again thought about trying to do that this year - but I’ll be ministering in Alaska during this years conference. Perhaps next year.
My point - So I read with partial amusement Scott’s defense of his moving into the leadership of two SBC ministries. I was amused because when I and other more “type B” fundamentalists have noted some of the same kind of thing’s Scott noted about certain conservative ministries and men and even “groups” in places like the Southern Baptist convention - we have not received much by way of personal endorsement from our friends within the BG orb. For the record I’m OK with not receiving much emotional support from my friends in the BG group. Please consider - now that one of their “all-stars” says almost the same kind of thing we have - because Scott maintains a certain “methodology” of music - Scott’s association with certain evangelicals are to one degree or another “acceptable!” - which is to say Scott get’s to keep his “membership card.”
My other point - there is something strange here Vern!
So for the record - this has nothing to do with my view of Scott. Frankly I respect any brother who has studied as hard and demonstrates a love for God and a commitment to worshipping our Lord in a way that glorify’s God. I applaud Scott for the massive amounts of courage that clearly it took to make the move he made. Here’s another reason I am encouraged by Scott’s move - it means Scott is in no one’s pocket. He absolutely had to know this would mean there would be some ministries that would be closed to him simply because of his new association with the SBC. Yet he did what he believed God wanted him to do. OK - that’s attractive. I love it when men are who they are and let the chips fall where they will. I know what it’s like to minister with or in a way that you know this individual or that individual, this ministry or that ministry will not appreciate - yet you are compelled to do what you believe you must do because of the mission/ministry/task God has given you to do. Bravo Scott - Straight Ahead!
My last point - I’m trying to figure out what I say to my friends in the BG. I’m confused here.
Part of me wants to say - congratulations! you finally got it! It is possible to have brothers who believe and practice just like you in a group that doesn’t call itself fundamental and yet they act, smell, etc…..just like a historic fundamentalists. This is what Matt Olson also believed up at Northland and I think a few of you guys were not so well pleased (to say the least). But Hey - as my mentor Dr. Singleton once said to me, “Joel…..no one is consistent!” So even though you don’t like Matt, Bob, myself and a growing host of others - I’ll just be grateful that you keep your arms open to Scott - who is now either a Type B or Type C fundamentalist strangly enough! (I’m laughing with delight as I write that last line - This means I’m going to have to get Scott’s cell phone - we’ll become best friends now! Outstanding!). So this is a good first step for my A-/B+ friends in the BG - You can do this. There are more “good people” out in the big bad world of the SBC or even the larger militant wing of evangelicalism. Baby steps!
The other part of me wants to say - you people amaze me! You were the ones that have said in the past fellowship, cooperation and associations need to be consistent with the implications of doctrine and secondary separation. But now because “Prince Scott” here now will be ministering actively inside the “ethos” of at least a wing of the evangelical world - because Scott shares a certain “methodology” with you - you will ignore the doctrinal and practical implications of his different approach to the approach you men have taken in the application of secondary separation.
So I can live with your approach here - how can you live with your approach?
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - if you guys in the BG world need some coaching on how to gently move into Type B or Type C fundamentalism - I’m sure Bixby or myself would be happy to lead a workshop in next year’s BG conference there at Williquette’s. Just offering an olive branch - with lots of juicy olives. Actually I can help you learn how to move gently into these worlds. Bob will help you learn how to move not so gently into these worlds.
- 111 views
Took me a while to figure out what “BG” means.
I don’t think it works as a handle on a group… I would estimate that 95% of the people I know who favor high selectivity (with traditional bias) in worship music have no use at all for Beethoven (other than Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee… which has some problems in the lyric authorship, department I hear).
But I’ll give you one thing: Scott’s involvement with SBC is interesting. I’m sure he doesn’t want to be a “watershed,” but in some ways, it might turn out that way.
For a long time, many of us have sensed that the evangelical landscape, so to speak, has changed and is still changing, and the associational lines are nowhere near as clear as they once were. So for people like me, these developments are interesting… but not much more.
(The reason is that I am no longer a stakeholder in how all this turns out.)
Anyway, FWIW, there is so much space between “no holds barred” contemporary worship and Beethoven… and just about everybody is in that space, not at at either of the poles.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
don’t know Scott Aniol from Adam. He wrote a few books and has a website…what difference does it make to me if he teaches at a SBC seminary and is an elder at an SBC (well for one thing, the SBC church I attended certainly had NO elders! Those Calvinists have been awful busy;-)). I also read John MacArthur books, though I certainly don’t agree with several of his positions. Just because I read Scott’s book and agree with some things doesn’t mean I’m going to invite him over for supper and invite him to preach in my pulpit!
Increasingly, nobody knows who Beethoven was. So in the interest of “awareness” (we all need more of that, right?)…
I also should probably add, in response to the thread title, that nobody I know is elevating music over doctrine. That is, the closer you get to the conservative/traditional pole, the more doctrinally serious the advocates tend to be. And the flipside tends to be true at the extreme end of the anything-goes-CCM attitude: not doctrinally astute.
So… in my experience, when folks say “elevating music over doctrine,” this is a way of characterizing folks who do not isolate doctrine from practice in that particular area, as so many nowadays are wont to do.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Maybe I’m just a hick from the middle of nowhere, but I had no idea who Scott Anoil was until two weeks ago. I”ve been to his website. Yay.
I’m sure he is a great guy, but he might as well be named Fred Smith for all the influence his position has had on me. Just saying …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler,
Scott has written books, he has spoken at MBBC, and Camp Joy as well as other places. I had him present in my church, and I know has presented in many Fundamental churches. He may not be a household name, but he is not a nobody either.
I also had the privilege of serving on his ordination counsel.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
I’m not saying he is a “nobody” or denigrating his integrity or ministry, but I am saying that there are plenty of people who really have no idea who he is. He doesn’t represent their views or speak for them. The minor flap over his SBC connection is irrelevant to me. I don’t know him or his ministry. You might as well ask me about “Pastor Frankenstein from Duluth” (I hope there is no such person … !)
Sometimes the blogosphere may cause us to lose our perspective. A whole lot of people have never read him or come across him. If I weren’t on SI, I don’t know if I would have ever heard of him. So the rumblings about his musical stance and the SBC connection are, well … irrelevant to me.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
people acting like some “big name” controls their ministry. Really, who cares what Scott Aniol thinks. If you agree with him, great. He reinforces (or helps frame) what you believe. If you don’t, move on. As one blogger jested, to me (and hopefully to you!) there is no “pope of music in Greenville”. As a minister or believer you decide what goes on in your life and ministry. Of course, you consult the Word and have people you trust…but some guy you heard in a meeting or whose book you read, they have no irresistible influence on you. You do what you believe the Word of God directs for your life.
Hopefully that isn’t too obvious is it?
congratulations! you finally got it! It is possible to have brothers who believe and practice just like you in a group that doesn’t call itself fundamental … you people amaze me! You were the ones that have said in the past fellowship, cooperation and associations need to be consistent with the implications of doctrine and secondary separation. But now because “Prince Scott” here now will be ministering actively inside the “ethos” of at least a wing of the evangelical world … you will ignore the doctrinal and practical implications of his different approach to the approach you men have taken in the application of secondary separation.
I think you may have misunderestimated the the diversity of inclination of those inside the B(ach)G about some of these things.
[TylerR] Maybe I’m just a hick from the middle of nowhere,
I lived in WI (Watertown) for 27 years and had never heard of Pleasant Prairie until after I moved away, so I think I can confirm this for you.
:D
Guys, for those of you trying to understand Joel’s post, it should probably be noted that this development is much more interesting to those of us who grew up in the BJU/Maranatha/PCC/FBF/Wilds Christian Camp-type of orbit.
We’ve heard continuous sermons through the years about the importance of consistent separation and we’ve seen these ministries distance themselves from good brothers because of the types of issues raised in this thread.
Here’s one example: I can still remember like it was yesterday sitting in a room at Bethel Baptist Church in Schaumburg, Ill during an annual FBF meeting back in the late 1990s. Since I was the youth pastor at that church at the time I was invited to be a part of a special luncheon for the young “up and comers” in Fundamentalism (of the FBF variety) at the time. The special speaker for the luncheon? Dr. John Vaughn, pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Taylors, SC and, I think, he may have been president of the FBF at the time.
So, what information were we given at this meeting? What encouragement did we receive as young “up and comers?”
* Never compromise in the area of separation
* The SBC is a compromising organization and any connections mean you’ve compromised
* John MacArthur is especially onerous. Stay away from MacArthur because he is a compromiser. (This point was made so strongly that Dr. Vaughn literally told us that he refused to use or have any MacArthur commentaries on his shelves because he didn’t want to begin to think and sound like him as he preached. I would be curious to know if he changed that position).
I could go on, but the point is that those of us who grew up in this and heard these kinds of things continuously, and have experienced being dis-fellowshipped from, find this type of new accommodating attitude to be quite interesting, to say the least.
Frankly, I’m glad to see it, but I’m afraid that it won’t be applied evenly because as I’ve said before in other threads - music style/genre in the worship environment of a church has become the chief (de facto) fundamentalist litmus test for this particular group of fundamentalists.
Thanks Joel. I, like you, find these developments equally encouraging and puzzling.
Mark and Tyler, thanks for taking the time to let us know that you don’t know what Joel is talking about, but since you are both new to SI, let me help you understand that plenty of the rest of us do.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I’m not a hypocrisy hunter like some of you.
What I am saying is I have never even discussed Scott Aniol with anyone outside of this forum. It has never come up. Has the FBFI or BJU or some other group given blanket “absolution” (continuing the pope of Greenville theme…) to Scott for going to SWBTS and then staying there and becoming an elder there?
All I have seen is Mike Harding, who I don’t personally know, explain why he cut his financial ties with Scott but thinks he is still OK doctrinally. Even Mike knows most IFB people will distance themselves from Scott. So what is the problem? Help me learn oh great masters of all things fundamentalist….
Tempest in a Teapot as far as I can tell.
[Mark_Smith] I’m not a hypocrisy hunter like some of you.
Mark-
It’s not a matter of ‘hunting’ hypocrisy. It’s yet another example of the leaders in Fundamentalism teaching many of us for years one thing, and now all of a sudden, they’ve made changes without explanation and apparently believe that the rules they taught us are different now. The disconnect is obvious and disconcerting to guys that grew in the strict circles of FBF/BJU separation. Dan McGee noted the discrepancy well, and I grew up with the same teaching.
It’s just as confusing and disconcerting to us as the ‘sudden’ changes at NIU were for many ‘conservatives’.
"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
I admit I am not connected to the “players”. Who has endorsed Aniol other than Harding (and he withdrew his financial support)? Is Scott hailed as a hero at BJU? Is he a frequent speaker at FBFI meetings? etc.
[Mark_Smith]I admit I am not connected to the “players”. Who has endorsed Aniol other than Harding (and he withdrew his financial support)? Is Scott hailed as a hero at BJU? Is he a frequent speaker at FBFI meetings? etc.
Mark,
A year ago Scott was a featured speaker at the annual Wilds Music conference, which hosts music directors from Fundamentalist churches from around the country.
This conference has almost exclusively BJU faculty and staff, or Greenville area musicians of the BJU-variety, teaching in the main sessions and workshops. This conference has really become one of the main mouth-pieces for the dissemination of the BJU philosophy of music.
Well, I suspect Scott is respected as a music authority. Given that many fundamentalists, as seen on this forum, openly mock those that stand for traditional songs in worship, it is not surprising that a person like Aniol would be involved under the condition that it is stated clearly that he works and worships at an SBC school/church. It is seemingly harder and harder to find younger men holding the line in the music realm. You can call that hypocrisy if you like, but to me it indicates how split fundamentalism is on the music issue.
What has made Scott stand out to many is because he has made a valiant effort to approach the music discussion in a principled way, defending conservative ideals without many of the broad, sweeping generalizations and overt institutional loyalty that often marked the efforts of others in “our circles.” He is also a young man- and stands out because he is a stark contrast to others in his generation. Scott’s establishing himself in the SBC is very recent. He had been pursuing a degree at an SBC seminary, but now, upon completion, he is remaining there to teach and accepted a pastoral position as an elder in an SBC connected congregation. He still is where he has been on music, but the concern is that though he remains personally committed to principles he held in the past, the positions other than music appear to be more negotiable as far as determining whom he will partner with.
Now, I have appeared hard on my friend here- so I want to state clearly that I do consider him a friend, and I do still happen to hold to the same principles (generally) that he would articulate in music. I do happen to think, though, that my friend has made a move that undermines what he is trying to say, at the very least to others of his generation who have grown up under Fundamentalist upbringing and are seeking to cast off the taboos that constrain them. It gives the appearance that its simply a matter of being selective with which taboo you cast off. I cannot affirm his decision.
At the same time, I do understand that the decisions he was faced with are not the same as ones I have faced. I believe that in his mind and heart, he has made a decision that he believed would best serve articulating the principles that need to be be taught and proclaimed. I wish him well, and pray that he is able to do so effectively. I still plan to keep recommending his resources, as I do with other selected men in the SBC.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Mark_Smith]Given that many fundamentalists, as seen on this forum, openly mock those that stand for traditional songs in worship, it is not surprising that a person like Aniol would be involved under the condition that it is stated clearly that he works and worships at an SBC school/church.
Mark -
Please document the ‘open mocking’ of traditional songs in worship. I’d be interested to see evidence.
"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
many … openly mock those that stand for traditional songs
Please document the ‘open mocking’ of traditional songs
Note the request does not match the claim.
(Although the actual claim probably ought be documented when made.)
OK, fine…you win, DavidO.
Mark_Smith, please document the following claim:
Given that many fundamentalists, as seen on this forum, openly mock those that stand for traditional songs in worship, it is not surprising that a person like Aniol would be involved under the condition that it is stated clearly that he works and worships at an SBC school/church.
"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
All I am going to say is I have been actively reading SI for 5 weeks. I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time in doing it. The reason is that I was struck by how many people claimed a IFB heritage but are now going their own way, especially in the music realm but also with Calvinism (not trying to start anything with the C word but I do think it is connected!). I call it as I see it. Many are overtly rejecting the traditional music because they think they have a better way. OK, that is your prerogative, but please pay attention to what fire you are cozying up to. Perhaps the reason I like traditional music is I wasn’t raised in IFB. I didn’t experience any hypocrisy. I didn’t think Bob Jones Sr/Jr/III was a demi-god. I have danced at church, I’ve spoken in tongues, given prophecies, etc…and now am back to the Word of God.
[Mark_Smith]All I am going to say is I have been actively reading SI for 5 weeks. I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time in doing it. The reason is that I was struck by how many people claimed a IFB heritage but are now going their own way, especially in the music realm but also with Calvinism (not trying to start anything with the C word but I do think it is connected!). I call it as I see it. Many are overtly rejecting the traditional music because they think they have a better way. OK, that is your prerogative, but please pay attention to what fire you are cozying up to. Perhaps the reason I like traditional music is I wasn’t raised in IFB. I didn’t experience any hypocrisy. I didn’t think Bob Jones Sr/Jr/III was a demi-god. I have danced at church, I’ve spoken in tongues, given prophecies, etc…and now am back to the Word of God.
Mark, Mark, Mark…..
I didn’t grow up in the IFB. I grew up in the GARBC (another stripe of fundamentalism) which had some churches that rejected CCM and some that didn’t. I and others that are arguing for the use of CCM are not rejecting traditional music. It is you that is rejecting a genre of music, not us. I love the hymns. And because of my classical training background, I also love Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. I try to expose my inner-city students to them as well. But I will not reject something that I believe God has declared good (I Timothy 4:1-5). Statements such as “please pay attention to the fire that you are cozying up to” comes across quite condescending like I haven’t really haven’t learned any Biblical discernment. I don’t think you would like me to assume that because of your convictions against CCM that I believe you are cozying up to the doctrine of demons because you are rejecting something that God declared good! (I Tim. 4:1-5) I believe I would be overstepping my bounds by assuming that you haven’t really thought through this text in regards to music styles.
It appears as though the “good” thing(s) in that passage are “creatures” as in animals created by God and to be eaten. And, the people Paul is talking about are apostates.
Joel, for my own understanding of your position, could you fill in the blanks for how you arrive at using that passage to state that CCM is/was created by God and declared “good” by God?
Isn’t the music genre exclusively for me….its the charismatic association. People that would NEVER let a charismatic preacher in their pulpit will seemingly happily sing a song written by one.
While you’re waiting on Joel, perhaps you could interact with what I wrote at you request a few days ago?
"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
[Brenda T]It appears as though the “good” thing(s) in that passage are “creatures” as in animals created by God and to be eaten. And, the people Paul is talking about are apostates.
Joel, for my own understanding of your position, could you fill in the blanks for how you arrive at using that passage to state that CCM is/was created by God and declared “good” by God?
I have argued this in other threads such as this. http://sharperiron.org/comment/50438#comment-50438
Thanks Joel, I didn’t previously notice your explanation on a different thread. Thanks for the link.
Jay, I’m sorry I don’t recall you making a request of me. Could you repeat it please or point me to where it was?
Joel (T),
The issue isn’t simply music, or separation, or employment. It is that conservative Christianity that is marked by Aniol, Martin, DeBruyn, Bauder, and others does not fit in well anywhere. It is hard enough to find a church to worship that doesn’t use either CCM or the music of revivalism, that consider themselves Baptist and separatist. They are few and far between (at least 2 in MN, 1 in Colorado, 1 in NC, 1 in MI, and probably a few others here and there). There may not be any other churches in the area in which Aniol feels comfortable. There are few institutions that will hire conservatives either. They often feel marginalized. So if they find jobs, churches, or pastorates, they take them where they can. They don’t fit well in older fundamentalism. They don’t fit with the younger group or conservative evangelicals.
Musically, fundamentalism is heading in three directions - the status quo (going away very quickly), towards a more progressive worship (probably the majority), or back towards a more traditional, “reformed” (use of the psalter, hymnody, etc) worship service (a small minority).
It is hard enough to find a church to worship that doesn’t use either CCM or the music of revivalism, that consider themselves Baptist and separatist. They are few and far between (at least 2 in MN, 1 in Colorado, 1 in NC, 1 in MI, and probably a few others here and there).
Nobody in our fellowship, or “circles,” uses CCM. There are more of “us” out there than you might think! You may have hit on something, however, with your characterization of us being in the minority. I wonder how far in the minority we are, but I doubt it is as dire as you suggest. Food for thought.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler, you missed the second part:
…or the music of revivalism,
This is much more common in Fundamentalist circles, where such music is typically thought of as “the good ol’ hymns” Finding a church that avoids both is what Mr. Watson is referring to. It’s not going to be easy.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Christopher,
I think you make very good point when you say these guys are limited (in a sense) to have all that they want in a ministry. They have a certain kind of musical “idealism” - and I don’t mean say that in the pejorative sense of the word. They truly have a set of “ideals” that drive them. The target they have painted is so narrow - unless they start a ministry or take one over and are able to convince everyone of their approach - they will have to simply live as best they can here or there. You are also probably right about the three sub-groups as you define them. Hey Christopher - you should work up a taxonomy on that - everyone will love you! :)
Straight Ahead friend!
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;
[CAWatson]But shouldn’t that make them ask themselves some hard questions? If your standards for acceptable Christianity are so “high” that almost no churches fit the bill, even among those that have perfectly acceptable biblical doctrine, something seems wrong.Joel (T),
The issue isn’t simply music, or separation, or employment. It is that conservative Christianity that is marked by Aniol, Martin, DeBruyn, Bauder, and others does not fit in well anywhere. It is hard enough to find a church to worship that doesn’t use either CCM or the music of revivalism, that consider themselves Baptist and separatist. They are few and far between (at least 2 in MN, 1 in Colorado, 1 in NC, 1 in MI, and probably a few others here and there). There may not be any other churches in the area in which Aniol feels comfortable. There are few institutions that will hire conservatives either. They often feel marginalized. So if they find jobs, churches, or pastorates, they take them where they can. They don’t fit well in older fundamentalism. They don’t fit with the younger group or conservative evangelicals.
Musically, fundamentalism is heading in three directions - the status quo (going away very quickly), towards a more progressive worship (probably the majority), or back towards a more traditional, “reformed” (use of the psalter, hymnody, etc) worship service (a small minority).
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
But why do we need to look outside of the Bible to determine what musical styles are appropriate for God’s people? Why are we making the Bible insufficient for matters of practice by requiring extra knowledge that comes from another teacher?
"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
Greg and Jay (and Christopher),
Excellent thinking guys - I think you are dealing with the core reasons why some of us who otherwise find ourselves in sympathy with the ethos of many of these men in the BG - struggle here.
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;
I really missed the boat on my last comment. My apologies … !
More coffee next time!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler - your response was fine. Your good bro - the back and forth is healthy and you weren’t rude at all.
but hey if you want to look for an excuse to enjoy more coffee - help yourself!
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;
But why do we need to look outside of the Bible to determine what musical styles are appropriate for God’s people? Why are we making the Bible insufficient for matters of practice by requiring extra knowledge that comes from another teacher?
Who doesn’t use people, ideas, forms etc. outside of the Bible to make musical decisions? It seems like everyone does. People who think hip hop is appropriate tend to tell those who think it’s inappropriate that they are simply uninformed about or out of touch with the hip hop culture. The Bible doesn’t tell them to use hip hop, they make that choice based on influences outside of the Bible, even though they may use the Bible to construct their texts. Didn’t Shai L. come on here a few years ago and chide people for being uneducated about hip hop?
[Jay] But why do we need to look outside of the Bible to determine what musical styles are appropriate for God’s people?
Jay,
Two questions suggest themselves to me in light of the above along with your previous statements. Unfortunately, I don’t have Jim’s facility with bullet points. Please note that these questions refer to music.
1. What Bible verse states that forms used in New Testament worship matter?
2. Why do you believe that forms used in New Testament worship matter?
Greg,
Most of the conservatives (that I know) are in churches in which they are not totally comfortable with the standards/philosophy of ministry. It is simply a reality of life. However, because we believe in the importance and primacy of the local church, we serve quietly, not wishing to cause problems. You may observe that we occasionally won’t sing a song - but we don’t make a big deal about it. Some have chosen to act more publicly in their expression of conservatism. Others have taken pastorates of less conservative churches in an attempt to move them more conservative. Some have met resistance. Some have brought complete change to those churches. Others are moving more slowly with their change (considering the average age of their congregation is over 60). But most of us either have lived with or currently live with some “acceptable levels of evil” (a phrase sometimes used) within the church. Others have left and found more conservative churches when the disagreement grows too large for us to stay. But generally, we don’t like to cause problems.
But why do we need to look outside of the Bible to determine what musical styles are appropriate for God’s people?
Because you have to. It’s the same reason you need a dictionary to know what speech is appropriate for God’s people. Until you know what a word means, you don’t know if it is appropriate. This is why, in conversation, we often ask people “What do you mean by that?” It is a necessary part of life and communicating.
Why are we making the Bible insufficient for matters of practice by requiring extra knowledge that comes from another teacher?
This is a key misunderstanding of the sufficiency of Scripture that doesn’t work even superficially. Think about your own English translation. You have it and trust it because you rely on “extra knowledge that comes from another teacher.”
- First, you trust textual critics (regardless of your persuasion about the proper text) to sort through the various manuscripts. The Bible doesn’t tell us which manuscripts to use, nor even how to determine that. The principles come from outside the text and require knowledge that isn’t found in the text.
- Second, the definitions of words used in translation are not found anywhere in the text of Scripture. You have to go outside the text to find out what the words mean, and then go back to the text to find out what the text means. This requires a knowledge of language and culture then (at the time of writing), a knowledge language and culture now, and what “now word” best represents the “then word.” This cannot be done by your understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.
- Third, you trust the sentence structures of your English because you rely on people who learned Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and English from somewhere outside the Bible and then bring that knowledge to the Bible. Until you know the various grammatical forms and syntactal structures, you can’t translate. Yet in order to learn this you have to go outside the Bible, if for nothing else, at least for the receptor language. You see, the Bible tells us nothing about English grammar; you can only learn that from extra knowledge that comes from another teacher.
So your own presuppositions about sufficiency have no way to even give us a Bible to be considered sufficient.
So the question for you is this: Why do you presume that one of the most ubiquitous form of communication in our culture suddenly is exempt from this need to know what it means in order to determine its propriety for anything?
I think this discussion will always suffer and never progress when people maintain a low view of sufficiency such as espoused here.
Discussion