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

I’ve noticed a tendency in this conversation to identify fundamentals in terms of doctrines. And some doctrines are indeed fundamental. Nevertheless, not all fundamentals are doctrinal in the sense of being theological.

Doctrinal fundamentals include matters like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the vicarious atonement, the bodily resurrection and second coming of Jesus, and so forth. No one has ever drafted a complete list of fundamental doctrines, and the most responsible theologians have been reticent even to try.

But the fundamentals are not limited to such explicitly theological matters. Paul states that a man who does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith (1 Tim. 5:8). This denial is not a matter of theology—the man’s doctrinal statement may be impeccable. It is a matter of practice.

Virtually every serious ecclesiologist who has discussed the fundamentals has recognized that some fundamentals are theological, but other fundamentals are practical (see Calvin’s discussion, for example, or Turretin’s). In other words, Christianity is not simply a matter of orthodoxy, but also of orthopraxy.

But something else is just as fundamental as either doctrine or practice. When the lawyer asked Jesus which was the most important commandment, Jesus responded by reciting the Shema and the Great Commandment: “Hear O Israel: Yahweh your God is one Yahweh. And you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength” (Mk. 12:29-30). In other words, right affection is the absolute center of all truly biblical religion. Orthopathy is fundamental to the Christian faith.

That being so, then whatever shapes the affections is of primary importance. The affections are shaped profoundly by the arts, two of which (poetry and music) the church is commanded to employ (Eph. 5:19). These two arts taken together constitute hymnody, and because nothing shapes the affections more powerfully than hymnody (though it is not the only shaping influence), then hymnody is of primary importance for the Christian faith.

What you sing, and how you sing it, matters just as much as what you say in your doctrinal formulations. If we can split hairs over adding a single “i” to the middle of homoousios, then we can hardly be out of line if we concern ourselves with the question of how church music develops ordinate affection. From a strict point of view, you have to take music as a fundamental issue.

Having said that, fundamentalists themselves have rarely take the strict point of view. From before the beginning of the movement they have chosen to permit the sloppy sentimentalism and individualism of Bliss, Sankey, Rodeheaver, et al. They were willing to follow the “Christianized” jazz of Jack Wyrtzen and Singspiration. They were willing to accept the religious show tunes of John W. Peterson. From the strict point of view, fundamentalists hardly seem to be in a position to object to following popular culture. They just don’t like the latest version of popular culture.

Well, neither do I, though I am not blind to the double standard. Still, no position seems as arrogant or ahistorical to me as the one that simply dismisses the question and insists that music must never be treated as a fundamental matter. You’ve not only got Jesus and Paul to argue with, but the entire history of Christian worship. Until the evangelicalism of the late 20th century, very few voices ever tried to argue that music was merely a secondary matter. That we can say such things now is, I suspect, not really an indication of our own superior insight.

KTB,

I am quite certain you have very strong feelings on these matters, yet it would seem you have found ways to maintain working relationships with those with whom you would have strong disagreements. Has this, for all practical purposes, then become merely a “secondary” matter for you, personally? If not, what would you describe it as?

Dr. Bauder, I am not convinced of this biblically. 1 Cor 15. tells us the Gospel is of first importance. Obviously not everything can be of first importance, because if everything is of first importance, then nothing is. Forgive me for my poor memory, but haven’t you argued that there are levels of theological importance?

Also, I’m really having trouble following your logic from Jesus’ Great Commandment to hymnody as a fundamental of the faith. That seems like not just a stretch, but a giant leap.

Just to be clear, I have never argued that musical styles are unimportant. However, I firmly believe they are not on the same level of importance as the fundamentals of the faith.

I know I have a lot to learn and I do not want to argue with Jesus or Paul, so please tell me exactly what it was that they said that would completely clarify this issue.

BTW, I am not at all suggesting that there should not be a line somewhere when it comes to music- I strongly prefer the traditional and am not a promoter of CCM- it is just that I cannot find what Jesus or Paul said that would show precisely where that line is at. If I cannot find scripture to show where that line is and if I only have the “leaders” to tell me or if I have to take a majority vote among fundamentalists to know, then I have a huge problem judging my brother on this matter.

If on the other hand, I have just been too proud to be taught what is taught in scripture, then I want to learn so I know where that line is at- not because of the status quo among fundamentalists- but because of what Jesus and Paul or any other writer of Holy Scripture taught.

Greg,

You are asking a very relevant question. The answer has several parts.

First, not every error is equally serious, either theologically, practically or doctrinally.

Second, there are rather sharp limits to what I am willing to do. There are plenty of instances when I simply will not sing the music that the rest of the group is singing (and I’m not specifying which group here).

Third, there are limits to my willingness to cooperate, and those limits have to do with orthopathy as well as orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For example, a while back I was contacted by the pulpit committee of a very prestigious church that wanted to know if I would allow their pulpit committee to consider me. My response was that before they even asked, they needed to know that from the very first Sunday I was their pastor, I would take responsibility for the music ministry and that their music would change radically. That was the end of the conversation.

Fourth, different levels of commitment entail different levels of culpability. There is a difference between being in authority and being under authority. One must never do evil, but one may live alongside some evils. Some evils are tolerable while others are intolerable. I know a convicted Baptist who attends or is a member of a Presbyterian church because of the intolerability of the worship in the area Baptist churches. Both alternatives are evils, but this person considers the evil of Presbyterian polity to be more tolerable than the evil of impious worship.

For what it’s worth, I do not consider everything coming from Getty/Townend or Sovereign Grace to be evil. Some of it is relatively good (though never really great). Sometimes some of it contains evil elements that can be removed. Given this treatment, I think it is theologically preferable to and esthetically no worse than what fundamentalists have done for a hundred years. Remember, CCM isn’t about when it was written. It’s about how it is done.

What I’m giving you is, of course, only a sketch of an answer.

But there are fundamentalist ministries for which I could not work, for these very reasons.

That was a very succinct answer, and though consistent with what I know of you and your principles, still good to see in “print.”

But there are fundamentalist ministries for which I could not work, for these very reasons.

This statement, though, would seem to reveal a concession for the point I have argued for in these threads- music, though important, is not a definitive component of what it means to be a Fundamentalist. Although, you also do say,

Remember, CCM isn’t about when it was written. It’s about how it is done.

Perhaps you are saying that these is a line, and that line, for the sake of these discussions, is performance style (vocal “scooping,” trapset-style drums, and general rock-style instrumentation/ presentation- though there may be other styles equally as objectionable).

Am I reading too much into your words?

Thanks for weighing in on this. I appreciate your willingness to get on and talk about this subject.

Greg (Long),

It surprises me that you would have trouble following the logic, even as condensed as it is. I would have presumed that an educated pastor would have encountered the full argument during his preparation. (I’m not saying this to be snide—I’m genuinely surprised that you want me to reproduce the whole argument.)

Let’s say I want to argue cessationism with followers of Wayne Grudem. Before I begin asserting my views in his back yard, I had better know what his arguments are, how I’m going to respond, what he’s going to say in reply, and how I’m going to answer. Before I begin issuing statements about how important the issue is, I have a responsibility to do at least this much study.

You are confessing that you don’t know the argument, or at least that you can’t recognize it from the brief summary I’ve given. And I don’t think that my summary is that far off the beam.

I’m not opposed to rehearsing the argument, but I am surprised that I would have to do so for an elder, and for one who has not been shy about pressing his opinions in this area.

So let’s start with lesson number one. Paul says that the gospel is of first importance. Yet Jesus says that the most important commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We cannot use Jesus to trump Paul, because Paul tells the Galatians that he got is gospel directly from Jesus. Yet we cannot use Paul to trump Jesus, because Paul tells the Galatians that he got his gospel directly from Jesus. So the gospel and the Greatest Commandment have to be brought into juxtaposition in such a way that each explains the other. Exactly how do you suppose that works?

JD,

Your gentle and indirect rebuke got a chuckle from me.

Perhaps that best answer I can give you is to encourage you to start with the last paragraph in my post to Greg. I don’t know how far we’ll be able to go with this discussion in this forum—after all, the moderator has already pulled down one post for being off target.

But the core of the argument lies in the importance of the Greatest Commandment. We begin by asking why it is so important to love God with all our being, and then we ask what it means for us to love Him like that. Everything else flows from this consideration.

Remember also how Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for their failure to draw out the implications of biblical texts, and how the writer to the Hebrews does the same to his readers.

Kevin

I started to reply to KTB’s last post, before realizing that he was addressing Mr. Long, and not me…

Maybe one of us should start identifying as “the Greg L. that went to Faith.” Nope, can’t do that, either… :3

I guess I could be the older one… :D

Greg (Linscott),

You’re going to get two equal and opposite answers from me on this question.

The first is that institutional fundamentalism has never been particularly selective about its music, and that even at the present moment the majority of self-identified fundamentalists probably use some form of CCM. So no, as a matter of historical record and accuracy, I don’t think that you can deny some institution the label of fundamentalist on the basis of its music.

Having said that, to suggest that music is not a fundamental issue is on a par with saying that doctrine is not a fundamental issue. Some doctrinal errors are fundamental and others are not. Some affective errors (including musical errors) are fundamental and others are not. And for that reason, I think that some non-fundamentalist institutions and churches are actually closer to the truth (for truth is affective as well as propositional) than some fundamentalist institutions and churches.

With respect to the present debate, the germane question would be whether NIU even intends to be a fundamentalist institution in the future. Given the dramatic nature of some of these transitions, the willingness of NIU to poke its past constituency in the eye, the sudden departures of key figures very recently, the appearance and disappearance of documents from their web site (most recently, the doctrinal statement has disappeared—though who knows when it may reappear), and the fact that the transitions are not limited to one area, my guess is that there’s a major repositioning going on. If so, then the way in which it is being done is not merely a theological or affective issue, but an ethical one.

[TylerR]

I should have been clearer. It is not CCM per se, but the methodological shift I believe CCM represents, that is troubling. This goes back to the traditional roots of evangelicalism, which grew out of fundamentalism. Evangelicals had different views on methods. Briefly, they preferred infiltration and reformation from within, not separation. Surely you must grant this historical reality …

Then why do “fundamentalists” today separate from the EFCA which never had a theological liberal problem and was untouched by the fundamentalist/modernist controversy?

The same goes for the BGC. These were Swedish/Norwegian groups that didn’t have the same problems Northern Baptists had!

Why separate from the Conservative Baptists? They aren’t liberal, don’t fellowship with apostates, etc.

Why separate from the Grace Brethren movement? Free Methodists? Etc, etc.

Historic fundamentalism of the 1920s to 1940s was a cross denominational coalition of Bible-believing denominations. That’s who BJC served?

So what changed? Why are we separating from others over secondary issues?

Today’s historic fundamentalists are the conservative evangelicals. There is no mistaking this.

This thread is supposed to be about John Vaughn’s observation RE Northland. So here’s my observation.

In no sense was Vaughn piling on. His comment was actually quite restrained. He was simply pointing people to the facts that answered the questions that many of them had been answering.

Remember, NIU built itself largely upon an FBFI constituency. If anybody has a right to comment, John does.

Given the dramatic nature of some of these transitions, the willingness of NIU to poke its past constituency in the eye, the sudden departures of key figures very recently, the appearance and disappearance of documents from their web site (most recently, the doctrinal statement has disappeared—though who knows when it may reappear), and the fact that the transitions are not limited to one area, my guess is that there’s a major repositioning going on.

I don’t know the details of all of the specifics you mentioned, but I would be in general agreement that the trajectory indicated by all of those things totaled together does not appear promising. My contention has been that concluding that the music alone is the indicator was overly reductionist.