The New Fundamentalism of “Religious Affections”

[Bob Hayton] When every culture’s music except for one (that of 18th/19th century Western music) is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause.

Again, this is simply not what is being advanced by those Bob criticizes.

[Bob Hayton]

And as for race baiting, us white conservative Christians make it impossible to raise any questions about race ever in such conversations. When is it right to say there may be some race-issues here? Why is it that whenever anything is spoken to us and our group we can never admit that it is valid to explore whether there are race-issues? That and prominent schools in fundamentalism have long held to no interracial dating and other race-problematic postilions. There are still fundamentalist schools with such rules!

When every culture’s music except for one (that of 18th/19th century Western music) is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause. It may not be, then again it may be an inadvertent elitism.

Exactly. Every time it is brought up, people try to shut it down. Exactly when does it become a legitimate issue to bring up?

I know 2/3 of the board members personally … these guys are no where near racists.

And I know another 2/3 from their writings and ministries.

Let’s not go overboard on this!

Greg, Bob H, Romans, Countrymen:

Demonstrate the pertinence or drop it. I’m white, I admit it. And I also don’t discount that my very white Wisconsin fundamentalist (almost Hylesian) upbringing has influenced my views. But I simply do not reject every culture’s music other than 18th/19th century Western. It isn’t true.

Numerous missionaries have come to our church and played portions of quite lively indiginous music from their overseas ministries and I’ve found it delightful and appropriate. Conversely, one missionary played a video of them attempting to teach an overseas choir a fundamentalist praise chorus and I found it an unseemly attempt at transplanting (an icky iteration of) Western culture where it just doesn’t belong. I have read other guys at RAM articulate some of these things.

So please listen more closely to what people there are saying. So many of the criticisms given are of things that were never said or intended by what was said. It gets tiring.

GregH, thanks for pointing out what I missed. I guess I still don’t see it as “hammered” but so be it. Also, I apologize for making it sound like I was saying it was out of bounds. I just meant that it wasn’t a focal point to Bob’s argument or to a majority of the comments about his blog post. Since it was mentioned at the tail end of his essay it almost seemed more like a postscript and that’s unfortunate, because it’s the last thing reader’s see.

[DavidO]

Greg, Bob H, Romans, Countrymen:

Demonstrate the pertinence or drop it. I’m white, I admit it. And I also don’t discount that my very white Wisconsin fundamentalist (almost Hylesian) upbringing has influenced my views. But I simply do not reject every culture’s music other than 18th/19th century Western. It isn’t true.

Numerous missionaries have come to our church and played portions of quite lively indiginous music from their overseas ministries and I’ve found it delightful and appropriate. Conversely, one missionary played a video of them attempting to teach an overseas choir a fundamentalist praise chorus and I found it an unseemly attempt at transplanting (an icky iteration of) Western culture where it just doesn’t belong. I have read other guys at RAM articulate some of these things.

So please listen more closely to what people there are saying. So many of the criticisms given are of things that were never said or intended by what was said. It gets tiring.

I specifically said that I did not consider them racists. But on the other hand, it is 100% certain that their worldview (as well as mine) has been partially shaped by racist influence. You do not have to look very far to find it. I could start quoting people but we all know it anyway and it would just get embarrassing. In the past, there is no question that some of the conservative aversion to some music has been that it is from Africa and therefore inferior.

Whether that past racist thinking influences the debate today is not clear but I think it ridiculous that it is somehow off limits to even suggest it should be explored.

[Jim] I know 2/3 of the board members personally … these guys are no where near racists.

And I know another 2/3 from their writings and ministries.

Jim - I know one of the board members personally as well. They’re not racists. I never said they were. Bob pointed out that they were white american evangelical fundamentalists. They are. So his “accusation” is actually a statement of fact, not an epithet, which defeats the whole charge of being a ‘racist’.

There’s enough loaded emotions and argument in this topic without calling Bob a racist and making it worse. Let’s be civil here.

My whole point is that they are trying to force people to use their cultural idea of worship and apply it to everyone. I disagree with that. If I forced Christians to worship with only Chris Tomlin or Newsboys songs (now that I know they’re still around), I’d be guilty of the same thing.

The Bible gives no credence to the idea that a local assembly is to reflect a certain racial demographic, ever. In fact, and sadly, all the material Jay used is to be employed quite the opposite of how Jay did.

Jay uses it to push a demand for anthropocentric demographics but, in fact, the Word of God and the protocol for the NT church is that we not measure anthropological demographics but spiritual demographics, saved and unsaved. We do not deliberately or subconsciously affirm racial identity in the church, only outside of it in anthropological settings.

As to the use of Rev 7:9-12, it is a grotesque hermeneutic that attempts to interpret this as some kind of demographic demand on the NT church. Bizarre to say the least but typical of modern Race Based Special Interest Theology which is an abomination.

[Bob Hayton]

but to complain that form is not to be taken seriously and cannot be a valid issue is to depart from historical and considerate theology and practice in Christianity.

That isn’t what Bixby is doing.

Is this genuinely representative of most fundamentalists? The answer, of course, is no.

He isn’t speaking of most fundamentalists. Read the comments over on his post for more clarifications.

And as for race baiting, us white conservative Christians make it impossible to raise any questions about race ever in such conversations. When is it right to say there may be some race-issues here? Why is it that whenever anything is spoken to us and our group we can never admit that it is valid to explore whether there are race-issues? That and prominent schools in fundamentalism have long held to no interracial dating and other race-problematic postilions. There are still fundamentalist schools with such rules!

When every culture’s music except for one (that of 18th/19th century Western music) is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause. It may not be, then again it may be an inadvertent elitism.

And yet they would tell the African-American grandmother that sings her soul out to Jesus with Black gospel that she is diseased in orthopathy. She cannot feel rightly because she uses a form that is not classical European.

Of course I see that is of no bother to you, eh? But then, Bob, I have noted to you at your blog a year or two ago that I observe you to be led about by your disaffections from fundamentalism as well so this is not surprising your defending this and silent about its offensiveness.

Now let’s go to your claim that “us white conservative Christians make it impossible to raise any questions about race ever in such conversations”. To that I say it is a narrative that is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Who are you to speak for “us white conservatives”. I say there are plenty who wish to talk about. You want to talk race? I have a 5 part series, An Examination of Protestant/Evangelical Race Based Special Interest Theology. I talk about it all day long. As well, I have an article Reformed Blacks of America: A Closer Look at What is Really Being Promoted, A Christocentric Ecclesiology/Theology or Racially Narcissistic Afrocentrism? You would be Surprised and it is Coming to a Reformed/Calvinist or Evangelical Church Near You.

What I suspect, however, is that what is really meant is that the white conservatives you know or think you know or know of are not willing to accept a narrative you and those with your view wish to hoist upon them. However, I cannot speak for “them” but I can speak for me and anyone else who shares my view.

As to interracial dating, it has been dealt with. The Bible neither commends nor condemns it. That is something as a matter of wisdom and at worst schools that forbid it did so based on either wisdom or to the social disdain of their surrounding state. There is no prominent school in fundie land enforcing this. You are reduced to histrionics.

Finally your absurd narrative that music only from Western 18th/19th century is accepted and we better make sure our reasons for not accepting others is not racially positioned, how offensive and arrogant an assumption. Not surprising.

Your narrative is not honest regarding those who hold to the fundamentals and example after example of music outside of this scope being utilized by such groups is prima facie. You are representative of a toxicity that needs confronted, one that finds racism behind every corner. Such directives of making sure racism isn’t present assumes the worst from the outset.

What about Bob? - So Bob is one of my best friends in life and ministry. We don’t always see “eye-to-eye” - but we almost always see “eye-to-eye” in these various discussions.

That being the case I thought I would try to further explain a few points of friend Bob here - without spoiling what Bob says - which one can easily do when one tries to translate “Bob.” My attempt here is to first “explain Bob” and then I’ll “expand Bob.”

By the way - my defense of Bob is not to suggest that I would attack the BG (Beethoven Group - the name I give to the friends Bob has in mind) exactly the same way as Bob does. I am direct, but I do so with an attempted flair of humor here, a faint of brotherhood there, an offer of marshmellow, etc…… Bob - that’s not really his style. Bob takes more of the “Mad Max” approach to fighting fundamentalist angst. And for any of you who want to tangle with Bob “person to person” explaining that he has built a straw man or that he is/was mean-spirited and everything else that some of you have said……you ought to take that up with Bob personally - really you should. Let me know how that works for you.

By the way Bob really doesn’t get “hammered” - some have tried - but they’ve needed a new hammer afterwords. But go ahead - swing away!

1. Explaining Bob -

This article was primarily aimed at what I over the years have affectionately called “the Beethoven Group.” IM view - Bob was “spot on” (to barrow a phrase from Greg) about the various issues with our friends in this sub-movement. BTW - it might surprise some of you to know - Bob actually appreciates much about these men - it’s simply this area that Bob brings attention too that in his mind is especially problematic.

The “Beethoven Group” is made up of a group of men who are reformed, who would be pretty militant in their understanding of secondary separation and a certain commitment to set of sub-cultural “worship norms.” This is the group of men who are hard to grade with the Tetreau scale - I want to call them Type A because of their militancy with music and other subcultural deals - but these men are usually pretty good with the text, they are usually careful with their theology and some of them have some connections with Type C guys (militant evangelicals). So I call these guys A-/B+ guys. That’s not important - at all. What marks them out in this discussion is that these men have philosophically built a set of musical standards which they argue come out of various theological implications of Who God is, or how you worship God, or how one must define “good.” It doesn’t stop here - also included in these “fantastic” discussions is not just the right way to view God in the worship or singing of Him/to Him - but they way we should “feel” about God. So you need to make sure that not only do you have the right lyrics - the right music - but also the right “feelings” in worship. So they explain how one should define good (especially in the area of esthetics, etc…..) and how “good” shows up in a way that honors God and is consistent with certain “regulative” principles that Local NT Churches should honor by way of worship, music, etc…….

What I know is that actually there are some concerns of these men that Bob and I would agree with. I know for a fact that many of us reject much of the “pop-evangelical music” that characterizes much of modern day worship. So what about Bob?

Many of us who would not agree with everything the BG has to say, would agree that too often modern-day Christian music from the larger world of evangelicalism is missing - in either truth, theology, or even it’s “trappings.” Well - that’s some of what the BG is about - but they take it to a whole new level. They remind me of the deists who took out all the miracles of the NT. Instead a BG guy if he could get his way - would rip out 300 pages of a 400 page hymnal. And if one of those “unworthy” hymns missed the purge - well, when we come up to that song because the lyrics are not worthy of the words, in our integrity we’ll just stand their and boycott by not singing that song. Well - when the pastors and rest of the membership sees that brother BG wasn’t singing - because he certainly is the expert in all things “hym-ish” - we come and find out why this 301st hymn should be cut from said hymnal.

What seems to be fueling Bob’s response here in part is the idea that the BGroup’s approach should be codified as “absolute truth” and “universal” for all or for certainly “the best” fundamentalists. To Bob … apparently these guys come off as arrogant and elitists in this area of music in specific and ministry in general. Bob mentioned that many of the young men enamored with this approach have very little experience in real-life, pastoral ministry (w. the obvious exceptions of guys like Harding and Bauder - who are getting up there!) So my guess is Bob isn’t really bothered by the way these guys do music or worship ministry in their church - he just doesn’t want that sort of thing to end up in your church…..and the thing he really doesn’t want to end up in your church is the attitude of the BG. Furthermore, to Bob’s point - these men are not the experts - they are merely “pseudo-experts.” Bob is just calling out that the self-appointed music emperor(s) are indeed naked.

2. Expanding Bob -

OK - what I really like about what Bob has taken the time to write - is to expose much of what is behind the recent “angst” over NIU and others of us who dare to not believe/practice that which has become “functional absolutes” within the fundamentalist sub-culture. What Bob is showing you here - is that just because you have a group of so-called smart guys - who look good - are theologically “with it” here or there - does not mean that everything they have to say about what should be “normal” or “universal” should be accepted as thus. Especially when they come at you primarily with philosophical arguments - and not exegetical ones.

OK - I think that’s all I’ll say for now - Go get em’ Bob!

Straight Ahead!

jt

and I couldn’t do a thing about it—he forced me! Compare the absurdity of this to the reality of more conservative members being pushed (“encouraged”) by pastoral leadership to accept new music or to move on…

[Jay]

My whole point is that they are trying to force people to use their cultural idea of worship and apply it to everyone. I disagree with that. If I forced Christians to worship with only Chris Tomlin or Newsboys songs (now that I know they’re still around), I’d be guilty of the same thing.

Joel:

If you wish to act as Bixby’s translator, please advice him that he should identify who he is speaking to! I took it that he was speaking to fundamentalism in general. Apparently he had a single ministry in mind. Even at that, I think he came acrosss as very angry and downright enraged.

Many of you here apparently know the man and understand where he coming from. I don’t know him. All I saw was a very angry man who built up straw men and tore them down with wild abandon. No matter your position, this is not a helpful or constructive way to dialogue.

If I wrote a similar screed, railing against the CCM, using the same tone and straw men to impugn the motives and intent of those who advocate it, would it be received favorably here? I doubt it. I would be rightly criticized.

[Section removed because it quoted a post that was deleted. Moderators are aware of the details (Jim Peet)]

SamH:

and I couldn’t do a thing about it—he forced me! Compare the absurdity of this to the reality of more conservative members being pushed (“encouraged”) by pastoral leadership to accept new music or to move on…

Which is why I brought up Scott’s comments about ‘rights’. We need to stop worrying so much about what I want in a worship setting (hymns OR CCM) and start worrying about what others want or what God wants. I’m pretty sure Paul had something to say about that in Philippians 2.

This topic is not about what I kind of music I want or don’t want in my church service. It shouldn’t be about that. It’s about what does God want - and my answer to that is Ephesians 5:19-21. God wants spiritual songs, hymns, and psalms. Arguments based on ‘my rights’ or ‘my culture’ or ‘my beliefs in this area’ are selfish.

Who are these men who would do this?

[Joel Tetreau]

Many of us who would not agree with everything the BG has to say, would agree that too often modern-day Christian music from the larger world of evangelicalism is missing - in either truth, theology, or even it’s “trappings.” Well - that’s some of what the BG is about - but they take it to a whole new level. They remind me of the deists who took out all the miracles of the NT. Instead a BG guy if he could get his way - would rip out 300 pages of a 400 page hymnal. And if one of those “unworthy” hymns missed the purge - well, when we come up to that song because the lyrics are not worthy of the words, in our integrity we’ll just stand their and boycott by not singing that song. Well - when the pastors and rest of the membership sees that brother BG wasn’t singing - because he certainly is the expert in all things “hym-ish” - we come and find out why this 301st hymn should be cut from said hymnal.

[TylerR]

Joel:

If you wish to act as Bixby’s translator, please advice him that he should identify who he is speaking to! I took it that he was speaking to fundamentalism in general. Apparently he had a single ministry in mind. Even at that, I think he came acrosss as very angry and downright enraged.

Many of you here apparently know the man and understand where he coming from. I don’t know him. All I saw was a very angry man who built up straw men and tore them down with wild abandon. No matter your position, this is not a helpful or constructive way to dialogue.

If I wrote a similar screed, railing against the CCM, using the same tone and straw men to impugn the motives and intent of those who advocate it, would it be received favorably here? I doubt it. I would be rightly criticized.