The New Fundamentalism of “Religious Affections”

[Brenda T]

This (from Thabiti Anyabwile) is about 6 years old. However, it’s worth considering. He remarks that in various types of discussions and debate

… race is trotted out as an (and sometime the) explanatory factor to be considered… . We assign certain social and cultural customs to ‘race’ as an explanation of difference. And we even huddle to worship in racial enclaves, insisting oftentimes that ‘race’ explains preferences in everything from music to preaching to fellowship choices… . For once you enter into ‘race as explanation’ for whatever you’re discussing, it is almost certain that you will never emerge with a solution premised on anything but ‘race.’ In other words, you can’t solve problems associated with ‘race’ by thinking about them racially.

He then goes on to list about 14 things that are not explained by or not caused by race including “educational achievement,” “musical preferences,” and “church preference.”

No one from RAM is forcing anyone to do anything. No one from RAM is demanding that others force anyone to do anything. Instructing people about worship and the affections from a biblical perspective/standpoint is not racism. It is unfortunate and unhelpful that the blogger who sparked this thread in the first place inserted race into the discussion/debate about the affections and music.

Greg Long wrote,

“Race,” even if you argue the author “inserted” it into the discussion was hardly his main point

I agree, that’s why toward the beginning of this thread I wrote

it [race] wasn’t a focal point to Bob’s argument or to a majority of the comments about his blog post.

I’ve been trying to steer this discussion away from race — several times — that’s why my last comment included a quote from Thabiti stating that race doesn’t play a role in musical preference.

GregH:

I’m aware of the history of certain fundamentalists. My comments on this thread are dealing with the present. Also, I’ll admit to being confused when you use race, culture, and skin color interchangeably.

Dan:

Those sound like good questions for the “RAM guys” as they’ve been called. They would be very cordial in addressing your questions and concerns and I hear they even have a blog. [insert smiley here]

As I listen to the debate:

I Corinthians 4:3-4

As I view the debaters:

Acts 19:15

FWIW, while not being a fan of rap music, I find it an interesting form of poetry and I find Shai Linne gracious. I don’t know Bob Bixby personally, but I think he makes some valid observations about situations that I’ve experienced. He’s at least proved that fundamentalists don’t handle criticism very well.

[Brenda T]

Greg Long wrote,

“Race,” even if you argue the author “inserted” it into the discussion was hardly his main point

I agree, that’s why toward the beginning of this thread I wrote

it [race] wasn’t a focal point to Bob’s argument or to a majority of the comments about his blog post.

I’ve been trying to steer this discussion away from race — several times — that’s why my last comment included a quote from Thabiti stating that race doesn’t play a role in musical preference.

GregH:

I’m aware of the history of certain fundamentalists. My comments on this thread are dealing with the present. Also, I’ll admit to being confused when you use race, culture, and skin color interchangeably.

Dan:

Those sound like good questions for the “RAM guys” as they’ve been called. They would be very cordial in addressing your questions and concerns and I hear they even have a blog. [insert smiley here]

The disconnect I am having here is I am not sure why RAM people or people who subscribe to their philosophy have the right to say “it’s not racism and it should not even be discussed.”

Of course they want to dismiss the idea that there is anything racist about their teaching. But I don’t think anyone would deny that their position could at least possibly be related to racism. I want to be clear that I am not saying it is, but it is completely disingenuous to deny the possibility.

One more time, my reason for bring up the history is to say that racism has been a factor in this debate for a long time and still is in fundamentalist circles to this day. It is naive to deny the possibility that it is still a factor in this debate especially when those RAM guys are not too far removed from some of that racist influence.

By the way, I think the idea that race does not play a factor in musical preference is dubious (I could be wrong—I would love to see the research). But regardless, it is somewhat irrelevant because races for the most part do have their own cultures. I am not sure how far you can go in blaming everything on a culture rather than the associated race to avoid the racism accusation.

I will say it one more time. I am not arguing those RAM guys are racists. I am arguing that the topic belongs on the table.

I personally think that this extends beyond just fundamentalism, but is also inherent in the very core of our own culture. We as many others view their particular culture as better. And that extends into other areas of our life. We are often taught in our history text books that people around Columbus’ time believed the world was flat. This is false. Eratosthenes of Egypt predicted the circumference of the earth and was off by less than 2%, and that was in 256 BC, but due to many views that a Euro-centric view was more correct, it has been propogated throughout our current text books. One of the biggest impacts on my thinking has been reading the books 1491 and 1493, written around new evidence of the new world. We are often taught that the Europeans were far superior to the small tribes of Indian savages in the New World. When actually it was quite the opposite. America was filled with Indians (more than 95% died in less than 5 years after the first settlers arrived. It was the Europeans who were smelly and didn’t bathe, had unruly kids, had ineffective and inferior weapons. In fact in most measurable aspects the Indians were far superior, far healthier than the Europeans. But our written history has preferred our euro-centric view. Just as it does music and other elements.

You’ve shared your disconnect. I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. I hope I have not mischaracterized you during this discussion. Now, I’ll share a disconnect I’m having.

The whole idea that race and/or culture binds, molds, directs, etc. a person to a certain style of music has, well, holes in it. I’m not saying this is your view about cultures and music. However, the intimation (made by Bixby) that “Black grandmother and Burmese refugees” can’t help liking or preferring the types of music that they do is dubious in my mind. I’ll simply provide some examples and then step aside.

On the one hand you have Dr. Ben Carson, an African American, who grew up in a time and place that should have made him prefer Motown. But, as a teenager he wanted to compete in a quiz game show so he immersed himself in classical music. His friends thought he was nuts. After a while he found that he liked this music. He met and married an African American woman who was a classical musician. They have 3 boys who with their mother perform classical string music as the Carson 4.

On the other hand, you have Eminem, a white guy who grew up similarly to Ben Carson (teen mom, absent father, Detroit) but he became a rapper or hip hop artist.

Then, on the other hand [I feel like Tevye with all this “one hand” and “other hand” stuff] you have Condoleezza Rice, an African American, who grew up in the segregated south but from a young age was a classical pianist.

Lastly, on the other hand you have the Beastie Boys, a group of white guys who made it big with hip hop/rap.

According to the race and whatever culture accompanies that race, the four examples I listed above should not have liked the music that they ended up liking. The music simply doesn’t match up with whatever music it is some people have decided pertains primarily to certain races. I have other examples from different countries (and their accompanying culture/race) but will stop for now.

Apparently, according to some, white guys who tell everybody that certain elements of culture are unscriptural, ungodly, etc., are racist if their evaluation of culture condemns elements of culture that differ from the authentic expressions of other races. Really?

To quote the relevant passage again:

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. They could not rejoice with the Burmese refugees that get up in our church from time to time to sing with a guitar and a crude rhythm instrument praises to God in a redeemed form of music that is reminiscent, yes indeed, of the pagan world they left behind. And because Black grandmother and Burmese refugees are unfamiliar with their prescribed iconic forms, Black grandmother and Burmese refugees are hindered in their worship. Along with most regular white people in places like Rockford.

Isn’t the premise behind this statement that musical form is tied to race?

On the other hand, if musical form is tied to culture (quite different from race), then there can be elements of the culture that reflect the image of God better than other elements. It seems to me that this is where the real argument lies. It’s not a matter or race at all.

Being new to the site and with a busy weekend, I haven’t been able to post my thoughts until now. I’d like to take the time to break down Bob Bixby’s post, but I just tried to do that and wound up hitting the backspace key and deleting the entire thing. I don’t have the energy to stick it out another hour, so I’ll just address one topic.

Where did we come up with the phrases, “Redeemed form of music” or “redeeming the culture”? These catch-phrases used to justify CCM among other things are un-Biblical in precedent (I don’t find the Jews embracing/”redeeming” the culture of any of the Fill-in-the-blankites in Caanan), theology (something about “come out from among them and be ye separate”) or Biblical terminology. How did they become accepted?

I know some point to Colossians 1:15-20. Truth is, the word redeem or its derivatives aren’t found in the passage. The word “reconcile” is used and it doesn’t mean the same thing as “redeem” last time I checked (I must not be one of the anti-intellectual fundamentalists to which Bob referred - Oh, Goody!). But I digress. Somehow, apparently, “reconciling the culture” just doesn’t have that relevant ring to it. Furthermore, what are the “all things” found in the passage? The construction “ta panta” is not general. It refers to four specific entities within the context. Applying this passage to music/culture requires a bit of creative interpretation, certainly one not strong enough to justify borrowing from pop culture to further the work of Christ. Just sayin’.

One final point - there’s been some discussion about whether or not Bob Bixby painted the RAM guys and by default us apparent sycophants who breathlessly hang on their every word with the racist brush. Can any of the DoB (Defenders of Bob) crowd interpret this - “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. They could not rejoice with the Burmese refugees that get up in our church from time to time to sing with a guitar and a crude rhythm instrument praises to God in a redeemed form of music that is reminiscent, yes indeed, of the pagan world they left behind” - using the normal, grammatical method come to any other conclusion than a blatant accusation of racism? If not, should I apply the allegorical method to the rest of his post?

Night, all!

[KD Merrill]

One final point - there’s been some discussion about whether or not Bob Bixby painted the RAM guys and by default us apparent sycophants who breathlessly hang on their every word with the racist brush. Can any of the DoB (Defenders of Bob) crowd interpret this - “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. They could not rejoice with the Burmese refugees that get up in our church from time to time to sing with a guitar and a crude rhythm instrument praises to God in a redeemed form of music that is reminiscent, yes indeed, of the pagan world they left behind” - using the normal, grammatical method come to any other conclusion than a blatant accusation of racism? If not, should I apply the allegorical method to the rest of his post?

Night, all!

KD, I’m not accusing anyone of racism. Really, I’m not. However, the real question to ask is this, “As I’m sitting listening to this offering by those Burmese refugees, am I silently hoping that some day I’ll be able to send them to a RAM Music Conference where they can sit under Scott’s teaching to learn a more excellent way? And, am I hoping that eventually by God’s grace, these poor, Burmese refugees will get some training in this area so that they can make a musical offering to God that stirs up “ordinate affections” rather than the base, sinful, “inordinate affections?”

Or, can I just sit there, be blessed, and realize that God is honored in their offering? And perhaps, maybe…..just maybe, I ought to sit there and realize that these Burmese Refugees know something about worshipping God that I NEED TO LEARN MYSELF? Probably we don’t have anything at all to teach them about “proper ordinate affections” in worship because what they have offered to God is accepted by Him as long as it honors Christ and fits within the spectrum given to us in Col. 3:16.

Cmon Alex,

There are many songs of Shai Linne’s that don’t have the slang that you refer to. They are quite brilliant as poetry. Taking one song, even if it is his latest, as the representative of his “brilliance” ironically comes across on this site as creating a strawman, the very thing that you accused him of. Also, in your “rhetorical” response to Shai Linne, you claim that he makes assumptions of those who disagree with him who believe the music is inherently erotic in composition. Many on that post generalized and stereotyped beyond even what the RAM people do…. There was even one person that called all rap, “rape set to music.” His response was more than appropriate.

[Joel Shaffer]

Cmon Alex,

There are many songs of Shai Linne’s that don’t have the slang that you refer to. They are quite brilliant as poetry. Taking one song, even if it is his latest, as the representative of his “brilliance” ironically comes across on this site as creating a strawman, the very thing that you accused him of. Also, in your “rhetorical” response to Shai Linne, you claim that he makes assumptions of those who disagree with him who believe the music is inherently erotic in composition. Many on that post generalized and stereotyped beyond even what the RAM people do…. There was even one person that called all rap, “rape set to music.” His response was more than appropriate.

Two points stand out here.

1. Your evaluation of Linne’s work as brilliant is an opinion based on what various criteria I do not know but it is still, an opinion. No one has derided the right to this opinion, what has been challenged is the opinion itself and you and others seem taken aback or offended that not only is there an opinion otherwise but one which is quite unfavorable and that it is argued with certainty and with principles. You may not agree with them but what appears to be happening for many is an incredulity of response as if nothing but an affirmation, in the end, can exist for this genre.

2. People are going to say extreme things but Linne postures as ridiculously as those against whom he characterizes by painting those as objecting to him to be only from such arguments. It does not matter what many people in a comments section say, they are not the arguments of RAM and that is what issue is with Bixby and here, Linne. But even if you find what you or Linne consider extreme views you simply do not get to reject them because your senses are offended, you are still required to interact with the arguments upon which those views are based and rebut them.

Linne makes no advancement in providing postulates and then proofs, he makes accusations and assertions that are not supported with interaction either with those rebutting or even with much investigation himself other than anecdotal observations which magically are always favorable to his point of view. He is heavily invested in one side and became so early in his Christian life which is very unwise, I suspect it is a form of ego-investment which is not all that uncommon for new believers who take positions on matters early in the Christian walk before a fully developed theology.

Dan,

My criticism is directed at Bob Bixby’s clear and scurrilous charge of racism in his original post and those on this thread who claim that he wasn’t accusing Fundamentalists of racism. An objective, literal interpretation of Bob’s words prove that he indeed was. I understand that’s not the main point of the thread, I’m not accusing others on here of making the same charge. But please, enough of this kabuki theater claiming he didn’t accuse Fundamentalists of racism.

It’s just not even remotely honest.

Doug

[Alex Guggenheim] Andrew It is called slang. But we will play dress-up and call it informal to make it as pretty as possible . And you and Shai wish to call this brilliance? I suppose you considered dividing fractions to be the work of geniuses. The praise of base and deconstruction as achievement continues onward. LOL.

Why is slang bad? Yeats used Irish slang in some of his works. In fact for many classical writings, it is sometimes the slang the generates some of the quality in the work. What would Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn be without slang? What would Shakespeare be without some period slang. To denigrate slang, supports a cultural elitism that appears to be prevalant in this thread. I am not even sure, why we as Christians are arguing over this to begin with. The very term culture, is humanistic and it could be argued that all culture is evil, since it is learned behavior acquired from social influences, none of which has God at the center. We are to interact with culture, but to argue over which culture is better, is to me plain silly and total misunderstanding of man’s culture in reflection to God’s Truth. Culture will always be in conflict with God, and trying to determine which one is best, is at best an argument of which culture is the less evil. I would have to agree with Don that this is less about a focus on race and more a focus on culture, of which attitudes around race are obviously embedded. While we may say this leader or that leader in fundamentalism is not racist, the truth is that the vast majority of fundamentalism is Caucasian suburban Americans, that grew up in suburban homes, with a lack of understanding of the world that needs a Christ. (How is that for generalization?)

I think of it more as ethnocentrism than racism. But one problem a few American missionaries of our ilk have had in the former Soviet Union is music. According to Tchaikovsky, native Russian music is based on the minor key. (with tongue planted firmly in my cheek) And we all know how ungodly minor key music is. More on this when I get back to my books.

I commend for your reading the Compositional style section of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky