The Battle of Big Daddy Weave and Modern Music

[Mike Harding]

Greg,

Believe it or not, the FBFI endeavors not to be quick on the trigger. I just saw Tim a few days ago at the hospital visiting Dave Doran’s son who was hit by a semi-truck. The personal relationships developed thru the years certainly enter into these decisions. I have interacted with Johnson briefly, but he wouldn’t know me from the man on the moon. Minnick has spent time with Johnson and engaged him with his elders at Mt. Calvary. Johnson probably is as close to us as anyone I know in the CE world. Come anyway and tell ‘em Harding sent ya, then duck.

Mike,

Again, I appreciate the efforts and sentiment here.

I just want to observe that intentional or not, your perspective just expressed only fuels the perception that the FBFI and Fundamentalism in general works on the “good old boy” system. Tim Jordan doesn’t cause as much alarm as Phil Johnson, even though Tim is arguably on an outward bound trajectory while Phil is increasingly more conservative, because Tim’s essentially “our boy.”

Well, that may work for you “older guys,” but, nothing against Tim Jordan, but I have more connection with John MacArthur and Phil Johnson than I do with Tim. I’ve heard Tim Jordan speak three times in my life, and went to one conference at Lansdale. That’s it. On the other hand, I have read countless numbers of MacArthur’s books (edited by Phil), listened to MacArthur on the radio off and on since I was a child (my dad and grandfather would get his tapes in the mail), and as an adult regular read his Pyro blogs and taken advantage of The Spurgeon Archive. I have had personal communication with Phil a few times over the years online, and always found him to be accessible and personable. If I need a resource on dealing with the Charismatic movement, I am going to start with Phil/John. Again, I don’t mean to disparage Tim, but I have no connection with him.

I would also observe that Tim Jordan would be just as much a threat to Established Fundamentalism as Phil, if not more so, because he is “inside.” I understand he’s a friend (or the friend of friends). But I can tell you this: I doubt very much Phil is going to address music issues to our men in September. He’ll hit hard on some things, but generally speaking, we aren’t bringing him in to rock the Fundamentalist boat. I’ve only heard Jordan speak three times, like I said, but every time, he’s intentionally pushing the envelope or pressing those controversial buttons. I have no problem with that, but I’m just saying it seems quite inconsistent to me.

[Greg Linscott]

Alex O.,

I understand what you are saying, in a way. My intent in this thread is not to debate on the specifics or convince anyone of a specific music position. I would just observe that sexual sensation is not the only sense people experience. Even with pop songs, they won’t generally be playing The Carpenters at professional sporting events. Certain kind of music is chosen to generate certain responses. That’s all I’m going to say.

Oh! you are into that “response/invitation” crisis method through music in a church service?

The sensuality/sexual were always presented as the same so I don’t know how you can attempt to deny the identity?

Oh! you are into that “response/invitation” crisis method through music in a church service?

Nope. Haven’t given a walk the aisle invitation in more than 10 years of ministry.

I can’t speak for everyone or what you were presented, Alex- and I am not going to develop this with you. Just saying that sensuality is broader than sexual arousal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensual

“Response” = scripted worship? you know using certain selections at scripted places in the order of a church service. some selections meditative others rousing and so forth?

I like to use the Bible when thinking about what should go on during a meeting of a local assembly. any melody can be sanctified.

I think alex o is trying to talk about one of the main issues.

and it does need to be talked about.

does music have it’s own power? (I’m reading about this now in the Paul Jones book that Mike Harding recommended.)

I don’t think the answer is simple, but i would like to say that mainly, i think that music can’t, in itself, cause sin inside a person.

I suppose if someone is bent on sinning first, music could fuel that or not, but it is still … so very subjective.

anyway, I’m trying to say, alex is trying to talk about something key in this music discussion, so pardon his style, and try to talk about it.

It’s a legitimate topic to discuss. I’m just more interested in if there is room in Fundamentalism for more than one conclusion, rather than debating which specific conclusion is superior.

It’s a legitimate topic to discuss. I’m just more interested in if there is room in Fundamentalism for more than one conclusion, rather than debating which specific conclusion is superior.

“It’s a legitimate topic to discuss. I’m just more interested in if there is room in Fundamentalism for more than one conclusion, rather than debating which specific conclusion is superior.”

Fundamentalist institutions will kick folks out because of certain music. Churches and preachers are divisive about music others Christians use. It needs to be said: any melody can be sanctified. It is a yes/no issue.

[alex o.]

It needs to be said: any melody can be sanctified. It is a yes/no issue.

vitaliy, my husband, plays the guitar. Before he was saved, he played guitar and he had a really sinful lifestyle.

So when he became a Christian, he was in church, and a guy/the pastor was playing guitar and the way he stroked the keys (the playing style) reminded him all of his sinful life, the drinking, parties, etc. And he couldn’t focus on worshipping God.

So he talked to the pastor about it, and the pastor said two things (Vitaliy says this was very important):

1) you are not allowed to play this way b/c of your conscience

2) don’t judge others for doing it; we for example have grown up in Christian families and have none of those associations with that type of string stroke.

So Vitaliy did this. Even when people complained about his playing style (he picked individual strings instead of stroking), he said, I’m sorry, my conscience doesn’t let me play that way.

but after about 2 years of this, he noticed the whole issue of the ways the strings were stroked disappeared. He had no issues listening to it/ playing it and worshipping God.

This is one example.

Fundamentalist institutions will kick folks out because of certain music.

Alex,

Regardless of whether I agree with the nuances of your position, what I’m interested in discussing is whether or not an institution can allow for positions like you and Joel S. are articulating without ceasing to be “Fundamentalist.” Certainly, NIU is now at the point where there are not doing what you refer to in my quote, whether or not they did in the past. Some are questioning whether that alone constitutes a departure from Fundamentalism. I don’t personally advocate their recent actions in this arena, but I do support the idea that they can take the positions they do without abandoning their Fundamentalist credentials (whatever those might be).

Anne appears willing to discuss what you want to pursue, though, and maybe others will follow. I have no desire to develop that again. If you and others do- please, by all means. Me, I will continue to support your right to do so. :)

Perhaps this issue could be re-cast in this light - do we tolerate music in our everyday, personal lives we would never tolerate in our corporate worship? We all do things at home, in private or around our family that we would be embarrassed for other church members to see.

Are there different standards for personal vs ecclesiastical music? My inclination is to say that, for many people, the answer is “yes.”

The comments in the Schaap sentencing posting thread:

“But it’s probably just as well to give the fundamentalist preachers and their acolytes a venue like SI to hold forth. They wouldn’t last long here, and I don’t want them here. Better to let them hold forth on Sharper Iron, where their corruption is protected from the objections of decent people. It provides a portal in which the internet world can read the silly defenses of Fundamentalism for its incredible wickedness and corruption for themselves.”

Neither Bauder, Doran, or Linscott will debate the point that “melody in itself is morally neutral.”

I believe its time to separate from this fuzzy thinking. After all, every *builder* has a Bible and God is their judge.

[alex o.]

The comments in the Schaap sentencing posting thread:

“But it’s probably just as well to give the fundamentalist preachers and their acolytes a venue like SI to hold forth. They wouldn’t last long here, and I don’t want them here. Better to let them hold forth on Sharper Iron, where their corruption is protected from the objections of decent people. It provides a portal in which the internet world can read the silly defenses of Fundamentalism for its incredible wickedness and corruption for themselves.”

Neither Bauder, Doran, or Linscott will debate the point that “melody in itself is morally neutral.”

I believe its time to separate from this fuzzy thinking. After all, every *builder* has a Bible and God is their judge.

So what of that do you believe applies to Doran et al? Because that’s quite a slam!

• corruption?
• [in] decent people?
• silly?
• incredible wickedness?

[Jim]

[alex o.]

The comments in the Schaap sentencing posting thread:

“But it’s probably just as well to give the fundamentalist preachers and their acolytes a venue like SI to hold forth. They wouldn’t last long here, and I don’t want them here. Better to let them hold forth on Sharper Iron, where their corruption is protected from the objections of decent people. It provides a portal in which the internet world can read the silly defenses of Fundamentalism for its incredible wickedness and corruption for themselves.”

Neither Bauder, Doran, or Linscott will debate the point that “melody in itself is morally neutral.”

I believe its time to separate from this fuzzy thinking. After all, every *builder* has a Bible and God is their judge.

So what of that do you believe applies to Doran et al? Because that’s quite a slam!

• corruption?
• [in] decent people?
• silly?
• incredible wickedness?

Quite a slam? You are right Jim. The slam is fuzzy thinking theologically and being in direct lineage of those who are overlords and control freaks institutionally.

Rhetoric without substance so far.

[TylerR]

Perhaps this issue could be re-cast in this light - do we tolerate music in our everyday, personal lives we would never tolerate in our corporate worship? We all do things at home, in private or around our family that we would be embarrassed for other church members to see.

Are there different standards for personal vs ecclesiastical music? My inclination is to say that, for many people, the answer is “yes.”

In and of itself the song sounds like a modern rearrangement of the hymn. It makes a nice special. HOWEVER…the problem, as you full well know, is that this version now has a Sovereign Grace association. While you dismiss it as legalism, and cultural opinions, etc., SGM is a charismatic organization. So, many fundamentalists would avoid it.

I didn’t see that one coming. The “you’re a hypocrite” attack;-)

Jay, do you think it really matters if some guy in 1850 was a modalist, or if some one was sprinkled as a child in 1910? Does that affect any 21st century citizens life? No.

But, you sing charismatic tradition songs, and people begin to associate with that theology…maybe YOU won’t, but people out in the pew might. Charismatic theology is a main issue today. Fundamentalists should be excluding themselves from that tradition in official church capacities.

[Mark_Smith]

In and of itself the song sounds like a modern rearrangement of the hymn. It makes a nice special. HOWEVER…the problem, as you full well know, is that this version now has a Sovereign Grace association. While you dismiss it as legalism, and cultural opinions, etc., SGM is a charismatic organization. So, many fundamentalists would avoid it.

Mark, I’m just wondering if you will now separate from Scott Aniol now that it is well-known he’s an Elder at an SBC church and teaching at an SBC seminary? Since you’re making an argument for non-use of music based on associations, then it seems in order to be consistent you must now apply this to Aniol, no?

might I ask what you mean by “separate” — this is just for my own personal understanding; not to make a point or anything.

By “separate”

Do you mean not read his blog?

Do you mean not listen to any music he records?

Do you mean not read his books?

Do you mean not invite him to speak at your church?

Do you mean publicly shun or criticize?

Maybe it’s none of those things; maybe it’s all of those things. But, I truly am interested in understanding what you mean.

In this case I mean by separate that I will not sing songs written by charismatics or published under a charismatic label in church. Endorsing as SGM does that ALL of the 1st century gifts are in operation today…that is not a small thing is it?

I know MANY charismatics, as you might guess from my history. Most I consider true believers. I eat lunch with a few. Talk with them, etc…but I wouldn’t endorse going to their church or do what they do.

I agree I wouldn’t sing the songs as you outline from a modalist, etc. I was addressing the common attack against my position that tries to get me in a corner over some obscure author in a hymnbook. The details of a songwriter from years ago are not as relevant as the modern ones since there is more of a direct connection to what is acceptable today.

For example, most sing (including me) A Mighty Fortress is Our God, but Luther had many theological positions I disagree with as he was coming out of the RC system.

I have no desire to “control” what someone else does in their own free time. Our job is to live a biblical, holy life on our own.

Mark, I understood what you meant by “separate” I just don’t yet understand what Dan meant by it when he asked if you were going to “separate” from Dr. Aniol.

Mark, the reality is that you would have to separate from MOST of the songwriters of the hymns in most hymnals today if you were to apply that same standard (excepting perhaps, Majesty Hymns..then maybe just MANY, not MOST). It’s not just some obscure song by some obscure writer.

But I will say Mark, that I actually agree with you to some extent. I agree that you have to be careful with contemporary associations if they are well known. I understand your hesitation about Hillsong music, although not as much with SGM because they are much more evangelical, biblical, and theologically accurate in their music.

If Joel Osteen wrote a great worship song with tremendous lyrics, I would be very hesitant about using it in church. :)

I’m just saying you can’t throw music out simply because of associations.

I do think that the remove offered by time (centuries) makes a difference, at least as regards the theology of the hymnwriter. I’m not talking about expressly erroneous theology contained in an actual hymn; texts containing bad doctrine ought be changed or tossed (if unsalvageable).

But most congregants don’t know Francis of Assisi from Nicholas Zinzendorf as far as their theology goes. I have issues with some of what both believed but I don’t think anyone is going to be drawn away from the truth by an overdeep interest in them.

The same is not true, however, of SGM, to pick one name out of the bucket. I’m not saying that all SGM songs ought be off limits, but I do think we should recognize that a congregant can probably friend an SGM artist on Facebook, follow them on Twitter, be under their teaching in a concert/conference setting, etc. Their movement is much, much easier to connect with (and cooler!) than, say, the Franciscan order.

So I don’t think turnabout is exactly fair play here.

This article might be of interest regarding the association discussion going on here. (Thanks David for bringing it to my attention via a post at another blog that shall remain nameless at this time so as to avoid riling people up).

Here’s a quote from the article:

If, as in Charismatic and Pentecostal theology, you have an encounter with God by his Spirit in any or all parts of the gathering—the music (especially the music), a direct word from God, the prayer, the dramatic, artistic performance, or the empty spaces between—then the encounter you have with God in his word is relativized. As has been the case for some time, the use of music and the theological grid it’s placed in serves to diminish what ought to be central in a Christian gathering. Despite having top-notch songwriting and excellent musicianship, the music is cast as a means of encountering God that reduces the impact of God’s word in relating to him. At best, the Bible is just one way amongst many in which you can hear from God… . I cannot in good conscience commend fellowship with Hillsong. I can’t recommend that anyone go and make this their church. I can also understand why many churches decide not to sing their songs, given that singing them profiles Hillsong and gives a tacit endorsement to their movement. The fact that there are good things about the movement and good people in the movement is not really the point; the gospel message championed by the church is distorted, and in the end being part of that is not the way that we love or care for people.

Brenda, I agree that there are major issues with Hillsong, read about them here: http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2007/01/the-surprising-face-of-hillso…

But there is a tremendous amount of difference between Hillsong and SGM, and this is reflected in the music each publishes.

Greg, yes I saw a couple comments earlier where you mentioned you had some issues with Hillsong. I’m sure you’re not the only one from the pro-CCM crowd who has reservations about them. The irony is that these latest Sharper Iron debates about music seem to be responses to NIU and their newly-formed worship band that is featured playing a Hillsong song. People who have issues with Hillsong apparently don’t have issues with NIU playing a Hillsong song. (I’m not necessarily referring to you; just making a general observation).

NIU version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAQwKi665XM

Hillsong version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWem1xprUMc

That is interesting. I guess if I were in Northland’s shoes I wouldn’t have chosen a Hillsong song for the music video to release to the world to show them them change in musical direction at Northland, especially given the related controversy over charismaticism. It’s not even that great a song, lyrically or musically.