Cultural Fundamentalism or Cultural Evangelicalism?
Image
From Theologically Driven. Posted with permission.
Over the past decade it has been popular to distinguish between “cultural fundamentalism” and “historic fundamentalism.” Cultural fundamentalism is regarded by its critics as very, very bad. It consists of folksy/outdated traditionalism that has drifted from its quaint, innocuous origins and has entered a bitter, skeptical stage of life—complete with theological errors of a sort that typically attend aging, countercultural movements. Historic fundamentalism, which focuses more on basic theological issues, fares a little bit better, but only a very little bit. Critics puzzle over those who accept this label, marveling that anyone would risk associative guilt by lingering near those nasty cultural fundamentalists: “Why not get with the program,” they ask, “and become a conservative evangelical?”
Part of the reason, I would venture, is that conservative evangelicalism itself appears, to all but those blinded by its euphoria, to be yet another cultural phenomenon—a new iteration of a broader movement (evangelicalism) that, let’s face it, has a track record easily as jaded as that of fundamentalism. True, the conservative evangelicals of today are a bit more conscious of theology and mission (that’s how the life cycle of ecclesiological “movements” begins), and their culture is more up-to-date; but it’s just a matter of time until the present iteration of evangelicalism grows old, propped up only by the same nostalgia that today keeps Billy Graham crusades and Bill and Gloria Gaither homecomings on cable TV (except that these will be replaced, for a new generation of elderly evangelicals, with John Piper recordings and Keith and Kristyn Getty sing-alongs that allow folks to relive the glory days).
Recently Darryl Hart, a notable critic of conservative evangelicalism (a.k.a. the “New Calvinism” and “Young, Restless, and Reformed” movements), wrote a scathing exposé of today’s culture-heavy evangelicalism. Speaking specifically to his own confessional concerns, he made the obvious point that the major attraction of the “New Calvinism” and the “Young, Restless and Reformed” movements wasn’t primarily theological (the “Calvinism” and “Reformed” part) but cultural (the “New, Young, and Restless” part). Calvinism, he observed, has been faithfully preserved for centuries in confessional churches (like the OPC of which Hart is a part) that guarded it far more carefully than the confessionally unconstrained evangelicals ever could. No, the major attraction of the “New Calvinism,” Hart opined, was that it offered something that the Old Calvinism didn’t, viz., “the sorts of celebrity, technology, mass crowds, and enthusiasm upon which the young sovereigntists thrive.” The “Gospel Allies” (a derogatory label Hart uses for the conservative evangelical movement) deliberately denigrate the Old Calvinists for one prevailing reason: They’re not new. And since they’re not new, they have little appeal for the young and restless crowd. The “Gospel Allies,” on the other hand, stay new by brokering alliances with cool, edgy, avant-garde, and (mostly) Reformedish celebrities like Driscoll, McDonald, and Mahaney, who, granted, might fall over the edge with which they flirt—but it’s worth the risk.
So what comes next? Well, if history is our guide, the generational cycle of cultural ecclesiology will soon move to its next phase, what I call ecclesiastical “niche-making.” The fundamentalist version of this is well documented. The 1940s and 50s revivalist culture (the best snapshot of which is found in its music) was all new and fresh and culturally edgy in its day. But now it is the realm of churches populated by 80-year-olds who can’t figure out why there are no “young people.” It’s happening again with the Patch the Pirate generation. Patch and Company were all the rage in the 1980s and early 1990s, but now they’re old news. Still, by publishing their magnum opus, Majesty Hymns, a coalition of Patch-culture churches lives on, populated mostly by those who were parents of small children during the 1980s. Now they’re beginning to wonder why the “youth group” is so small.
But evangelicalism is no different. Visit the various evangelical churches in your neighborhood and you’ll find Gaither churches, romantic but theologically vacuous churches from the golden age of CCM, and now Getty/Townend/SG churches (hint: this is where that missing generation has gone). I have little doubt that this cycle will repeat, because there is little in place to break the cycle. The pattern for all of these groups has been to push the cultural envelope until they create their niche, then settle down to enjoy it.
The possible conclusions, then, appear to be twofold: some churches will (1) do nothing and become culturally backward, ingrown congregations that reminisce together until they eventually die of old age, while others will (2) transition to the next cultural cycle and thrive for another 25 years or so. But is this the way it’s supposed to be? I think not.
The answer
The answer, I would suggest, is faithful ministry in confessionally bounded churches committed more to the spirituality of the church than they are to the socio-political and cultural relevancy of the church. By striving, self-consciously, to be as culturally transcendent as possible, I would argue, we can cultivate timeless, transgenerational bodies that do not need to reinvent themselves every quarter century to remain solvent. It will not be easy—after all, culture has told us for a hundred years that this is not the way church is done. But it’s definitely worth the effort.
Mark Snoeberger Bio
Mark Snoeberger is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as Director of Library Services since 1997. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. from DBTS and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. Prior to joining the DBTS staff, he served for three years as an assistant pastor.
- 145 views
[Larry]Larry Nelson, would you encourage pastors and leaders to have no respect for the culture of a particular church in choosing music or other aspects of corporate gathering?
I would encourage pastors and leaders of churches to not blindly allow arbitrary, man-held standards to supersede biblical standards and precedents.
Since this thread is (ostensibly) about church culture(s), my whole point in the illustration above is that we must be very, very careful that the culture we wish to perpetuate (or inculcate) is Biblical, and not merely a reflection of our own history or tastes.
The Psalms, in numerous places (and in other books of the Bible as well), speak of worshipping God in lively, joyous, noisy, boisterous ways. What right do we have to turn up our noses at that?
You made my point. To a Baptist, both individually and ecclesially, confessions are “free association” because of a prior commitment to autonomy. To a Protestant they are not.
Thanks Ted. Your point appeared to be that confessions were a bugaboo to Baptists. If your point is that confessions are the basis of free association because of a prior commitment to autonomy, I agree. That doesn’t make them a bugaboo (at least as I understand bugaboo).
If there is a biblical basis for local church autonomy, then the Baptists are correct. So the point is not about confessions, but about autonomy. Is local church autonomy a NT idea, or does that NT teach some sort of non-apostolic authority over a local church? And that question is off the topic of this post.
I would encourage pastors and leaders of churches to not blindly allow arbitrary, man-held standards to supersede biblical standards and precedents.
As would we all, I presume. But the question was whether you would encourage a pastor to disregard the culture of a particular church in choosing music or other corporate worship practices?
And to add another question in light of your second response, can something be both biblical and a matter of personal or congregational taste or preference? Can a congregation decide to have a particular type of worship “culture” in which they reject other types of worship cultures?
Hi Larry,
Your point appeared to be that confessions were a bugaboo to Baptists.
I meant a bugaboo in this - confessions confuse Baptist, because they want the gravitas that comes from confessions but their ecclesiology prevents formalized submission to them, since,
1) they are the creation of numerous church leaders who bind themselves and their churches in some degree to the confession. But Baptists refuse to be formally “bound” to any external document. The Reformed Baptists are going through this and you can read of the tension on Tom Chantry’s blog: http://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/holding-communion-together/. These Baptists can’t come to agreement on how to be connected through an association if has no power to discipline an erring pastor or church. Nor is there, I believe, a biblical solution forthcoming given their commitment to a Baptist ecclesiology, and these are smart and godly men.
And,
2) confessions require some formal level of connectionalism if they are to be taken as actually defining ecclesial faith and duty, which is anathema to Baptist autonomy. When men who are subscribed to a confession are alleged to go astray they are arraigned by trial in church courts, and if found guilty, prevented from again ministering among that denomination. But the Baptist alternative is just to drop out of the association, citing autonomy and majority rule as their right to do so. Thus confessions, to Baptists, have no sanctioning or disciplinary power over either the church or the minister. Therefore, they aren’t confessions of faith and duty, but free associations that may be used or not used depending upon each church’s choice.
Thanks, Ted.
I meant a bugaboo in this - confessions confuse Baptist, because they want the gravitas that comes from confessions but their ecclesiology prevents formalized submission to them, since,
As a Baptist, I want to be on record as saying I am not confused in the least by confessions, and have no idea why we can’t formally submit to one. I, in fact, have formally submitted to one and am under threat of censure and discipline if I reject it or teach against it.
1) they are the creation of numerous church leaders who bind themselves and their churches in some degree to the confession. But Baptists refuse to be formally “bound” to any external document.
Isn’t this a bit incorrect? First, I amo not sure what the alternative to an “external” document is. But a Baptist church affirms a confession of faith. In our case, it’s the New Hampshire Confession. We don’t refuse to be bound by it. It is a summary of our understanding of what the Bible teaches.
2) confessions require some formal level of connectionalism if they are to be taken as actually defining ecclesial faith and duty, which is anathema to Baptist autonomy. When men who are subscribed to a confession are alleged to go astray they are arraigned by trial in church courts, and if found guilty, prevented from again ministering among that denomination. But the Baptist alternative is just to drop out of the association, citing autonomy and majority rule as their right to do so. Thus confessions, to Baptists, have no sanctioning or disciplinary power over either the church or the minister. Therefore, they aren’t confessions of faith and duty, but free associations that may be used or not used depending upon each church’s choice.
I am not sure how you are using “ecclesial faith and duty,” discipline, etc. You are correct that an association has no auhority over anything other than the association. But so what? One of the early issues in the NAE was whether subscription to a confession or creed was binding and whether denial had any consequence. They decided it wasn’t and didn’t. You are correct that a confession has no sanctioning or disciplining power for Baptists. It doesn’t for any one else either. The only thing that can “sanction” or “discipline” is a body of people. And that is true for Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. The difference is over which body has authority over whom.
In Baptist theology (what we believe the NT teaches), the “church court” is, ironically enough, the church. When someone is tried and found guilty, they are prevented (in most cases) from ministering in the body governed by that church (i.e., the church itself). Again, the difference is over the authoritative body. Does the NT teach a non-apostolic authority over a church that is over the church? I don’t see it. It’s one reason I am a Baptist.
[Larry]…the question was whether you would encourage a pastor to disregard the culture of a particular church in choosing music or other corporate worship practices?
If the motivation was that the pastor was seeking to instill a biblical culture rather than a temporal culture, then yes; why not! Be a biblical shepherd, and guide the sheep based on Truth.
[Larry]And to add another question in light of your second response, can something be both biblical and a matter of personal or congregational taste or preference? Can a congregation decide to have a particular type of worship “culture” in which they reject other types of worship cultures?
Every church, everywhere, at some point in time adopted a particular worship culture. In practice, this virtually always means that they have adopted the worship culture/style native to their country, their region, their denomination, that they have been raised with, or what have you. (And as we so often see, these are subject to change.) Yet Something has influenced the style/culture of worship in every case. Taste & preference are inherent, and unavoidable.
Worshipping in a Nigerian church will have a different feel that worshipping in a New Zealand church. Hawaiian worship will be different than Hungarian. Worshipping in my church in a suburb of Minneapolis/St Paul I’m sure is different from worshipping in Mali (or Miami or Mazatlan, for that matter). In any case, I would pray that true worship emanates from the heart of the worshipper, and is not contingent upon what tempo is being used, or what type of instruments are being played. (If one says that they experience difficulty worshipping God in the presence of drums & guitars, but not so in the presence of a piano & a violin, I would ask what exactly is that person worshipping?)
“Reject” in your question is the word that troubles me. Must one’s use of a particular worship style or culture be a rejection of someone else’s? You might choose to not use the style of worship or instruments that Psalm 150 speaks of, but must that entail a rejection of that style or those instruments? Must it entail the inflammatory, God-dishonoring “worship wars” that plague the church today?
Hi Larry,
I, in fact, have formally submitted to one and am under threat of censure and discipline if I reject it or teach against it.
To submit to a confession means also to submit to others who interpret that confession, but Baptists affirm the right of private interpretation. Connectionalism, which sustains strict confessionalism, is born out a broader check and balance system than congregational polity.
If 5 other pastors claimed you violated the NHCF by performing some labor for profit on Sundays (Article 15), so what? No trial, just allegations. And so long as your friends in your church go along with your explanation of an alleged rejection of Article 15, what of it? You have church next Sunday, and maybe later on find a confession that’s easier on the Sabbath, thus showing you weren’t really under the prior confession. It was always provisional and incidental to your life in the church, iow. But to be provisional is the opposite of being confessional. Its to be situational with faith and duty. Thus you adopt the very thing a confession condemns.
To be formally bound means to subscribe not only to the doctrines asserted in the document, but also to submit to broader penalties and sanctions if violated. You are looking at confessions through Baptist eyes only, (i.e., Statements of Faith) but not seeing yet the inherent inconsistency with church autonomy and a confession developed by numerous churches. NHCF is the work of one man, and is adhered to one church at a time.
I’m not a confessionalist, nor do I advocating connectionalism. Neither are in the NT, and so i return to my original post on this thread, the ultimate question of the sufficiency of the NT for eccelsiology. In contrast I’m a biblicist, meaning exactly this: that every doctrine and duty for churches is clearly taught in the NT in both precept and example, thus providing an internally consistent canon that can be submitted to by all churches. You can read about it here.
a confession has no sanctioning or disciplining power for Baptists. It doesn’t for any one else either.
Someone has said that music is the language of the emotions, which I think is correct. Music functions therefore as an expression of the cognitive understanding regarding spiritual things of the individual and local body. It would seem the more a service is characterized by music, whatever style, the shallower the understanding will be: they will just be banging the drum (so to speak) of what they understand.
Undoubtedly, Christians need to express themselves in worship whether it be in praise or the Lord’s Supper. It will take a skilled pastor to find the correct balance of teaching and expression.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
I’m curious about how your position as a biblicist is functionally any different from the position Larry seems to be affirming. You say that submission to a confession means submitting to broader sanctions and penaltie of the document is violated, but isn’t the same thing true with respect to the NT? Who, other than yourself, has the authority to sanction you if you violate the clear teaching of Scripture?
Hi Paul,
I tried to make the comparison in my example of 5 pastors confronting him. In a network of churches bound by a confession, those 5 would be able to remove him, or his church, from their network. In a Baptist environment, he can just refuse to listen to them, for they have no authority over him.
In the NT, confrontation for sin is either within the church or from outside elders (3 John 1:1, 10-11). My church is not merely “given sanction to confront ” as a confession may grant. It is commanded by Christ Himself to confront me according to the precept of Mat. 18:15-17 when I violate its commands. If people in the church do not do this, they directly disobey Christ and will suffer His consequences for not walking in obedience. They are culpable since the Holy Spirit has given all churches multiple examples of confrontation of erring church leaders in the epistles and from Christ himself in Revelation.
For a substandard comparison, look at how men in the RCA compromise Christ’s teaching in Mat. 18 with those who perform and affirm homosexual behavior and marriages: (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/03/15/an-overture…). They use something never inspired by God to confront sin - parliamentary procedure, instead of Mat. 18. Those procedures are not revealed in Scripture, so we are back to the same basic choice:
We ought to believe the Bible is sufficient to teach people as unbelieving and slow of heart as us, sufficient truth, revealed in both precept and example, and that it teaches us all we need to know for doctrine and duty in ecclesiology.
Or say we do, but employ methods and procedures adopted from the world.
Ted,
To be formally bound means to subscribe not only to the doctrines asserted in the document, but also to submit to broader penalties and sanctions if violated.
But those sanctions are typically not in the confession but in the body or agreement by a body. You simply want to see a bigger body (i.e., outside the church) than the NT has (i.e., only the church). The issue is not whether someone has the authority to sanction or discipline one who violates a confessional agreement. The issue is who can sanction or discipline. In the NT, you never have anyone other than an apostle or a local church doing that.
In contrast I’m a biblicist, meaning exactly this: that every doctrine and duty for churches is clearly taught in the NT in both precept and example, thus providing an internally consistent canon that can be submitted to by all churches. You can read about it here (link is external).
I think we have drawn some sufficient doubts about whether you believe this in the past, and those issues are still unanswered. But this actually raises a good point.
I tried to make the comparison in my example of 5 pastors confronting him. In a network of churches bound by a confession, those 5 would be able to remove him, or his church, from their network. In a Baptist environment, he can just refuse to listen to them, for they have no authority over him.
You talk about whether or not five pastors can sanction me for something. The answer is that they can, and were I a part of their network, the could remove me from their network. Yet consider yourself. More than five pastors have questioned you on multiple occasions about your teachings and you have yet to respond by changing your views. Is that because you have no authority in your life? Or because you recognize a different authority? Isn’t it the latter? Can we really say that you are not under authority because you don’t respond to certain challenges?
The fact that Baptists recognize a different authority than Presbyterians do (or some other group) does not mean that a confession or creed is confusing or useless or inconsistent, or that a Baptist pastor is not under authority. In Baptist life, confessions do exactly what they are supposed to do.
If the motivation was that the pastor was seeking to instill a biblical culture rather than a temporal culture, then yes; why not! Be a biblical shepherd, and guide the sheep based on Truth.
Why is guiding the sheep based on truth contrasted with respecting the cultural traditions of a body of believers? Should we not do both? Should really insist that a church that has historically practiced a more formal, conservative worship start clapping hands and playing cymbals?
I would pray that true worship emanates from the heart of the worshipper, and is not contingent upon what tempo is being used, or what type of instruments are being played.
Doesn’t this contradict your earlier statement? If true worship emanates from the heart, is changing the expression of it to another expression really going to change that? If people are worshipping truly “from the heart” (whatever that means), why change anything?
And back to the original point, why should a lot of people in the church be forced to change for a newcomer to the church?
Must one’s use of a particular worship style or culture be a rejection of someone else’s? You might choose to not use the style of worship or instruments that Psalm 150 speaks of, but must that entail a rejection of that style or those instruments? Must it entail the inflammatory, God-dishonoring “worship wars” that plague the church today?
I think we should avoid God-dishonoring worship wars. I imagine everyone does. In fact, I don’t know anyone who thinks we should have God-dishonoring worship wars.
And yes, at one level, all use of a worship style (or style of anything for that matter) involves some level of rejection of something else. The question is whether or not that is a prejudicial rejection. On that count, adoption of a worship style doesn’t have to be prejudicial, but it can be.
I think it wise for a pastor to carefully consider the culture of his congregation in his leading. There may be other biblical ways to go about something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it another way.
Who said anything about insisting that anyone change? My point is that it shouldn’t be forbidden, in particular when there is biblical example and precedent for what we today would call a “contemporary” worship style. How is it forbidden, you ask? Let’s imagine that just about any IFB church (or IFB-supported college) in just about any IFB circle decides to employ a drumset in their song service. A plethora of other IFB churches will immediately denounce them, and (formally or informally) separate from them. (in fact, we really don’t have to imagine it at all. Just look at what happened to Northland when guitars & drums first appeared there.) If you’re not misinterpreting what I’m saying, there is no contradiction.
Pastoral leadership doesn’t necessarily involve changing a culture in the sense that it must stop using one worship style & start using another. I’m not advocating that (and perhaps I didn’t make that clear). I’m happy for the diversity. Pastoral leadership should, though, correct the errant judgmentalism that can manifest itself in the IFB world as “our worship is better than their worship” (an attitude that Jim referred to further up this thread). It fosters a huge credibility gap when fundamentalism maintains such an attitude, and when people read, say, Psalm 47 or 150 and reach the conclusion that what they’re seeing encouraged and/or modeled for worship in the Bible looks a lot more like the church down the road than their own.
If you believe that using one worship style is necessarily a de facto rejection of others, that’s your decision. It is a reality that different worship styles appeal to different people to the exclusion of others, but one’s worship shouldn’t be affected by external forces or conditions, it should emanate from within. Paul could worship God under any conditions; his worshipful attitude was seemingly imperturbable. Can you picture Paul ever thinking, “I can’t freely & fully worship God because there’s a drumbeat.” (I hope your answer is “No.”)
And with that, I’m off to vacation, so I’ll have to let this thread be…
[Jim]I am very conservative with worship music and am a member of a church that is as conservative as I.
What I see is a “our worship is better than their worship” among some in our circles.
We attended a fine Bible church while on vacation - pastored by a grad of TMS (MacArthur). What we found:
- Casual dress
- A small combo band ( guy on a guitar, another guy with a small drumset, and a pianist). The lyrics were displayed on screen
- The worship was absolutely Christ glorifying - the lyrics were theologically rich
- The message was over 50 min long (I’m used to about 30 min)
My wife remarked that there would be some in our circle who would find the music abhorrent … but only because of their closed-mindedness and prejudices.
This small church didn’t have the depth of music ability and # of attendees to field a choir. But it was worship
Hi Jim- I’m a little late here but reading your comment triggered my memory of a Chesterton quote:
“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
Discussion