Well, it has been interesting to hear of the younger fundamentalists defending rap in the church. People tell me that I should not be surprised.
This rap thing has created quite the stir. In the response, came this comment by Pastor Bob Bixby of Rockford, Illinois. The important part for this article was this remark:
I sat through a session on music in culture in a fundamentalist church not too long ago when it struck me with force where these proponents of “high” music were in error. It was so remarkable, I turned to the pastor next to me and said, “These guys have a low view of God!” It is ironic because they’re talk was constantly about how worship must uphold a high view of God. As John Frame argued, to promote your style as “higher” is tantamount to placing a sheet of paper on the ground and bragging that you are closer to the sun than everyone else.
Pastor Bixby confirmed that he had Scott Aniol in mind (Kevin Bauder and John Makujina also spoke at this conference, if my memory serves). I found his “low view” comment somewhat confusing.
First allow me to address the implicit charge that those who find it necessary to articulate the proper ways to worship by necessity have a low view of God. This is not convincing.
Let us imagine that you go to England to appear before royalty. Their demand that you address Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth with dignity and decorum–is that because they have a low view of the Queen? Does it matter how you address her?
Consider another example. We know that the bare words, “Hello there” seem fairly innocuous. But what if those words are addressed to your wife by another man and he says it with a “seductive tone”–Hello there. Would your insistence that men not address your wife in this fashion stem from a low view of your wife?
I know I am surely exasperating your patience at this point, but I have one more example. When you insist that your children address you or your wife with respect, is this because you have a low view of fatherhood or motherhood? In fact, what is respect? Can we dare to call certain actions of children to their parents (above not caring for their elderly parents [1 Tim 5:8]) disrespectful? Are we presuming on Scripture when we name certain actions not explicitly set forth in Scripture disrespectful?
Did God have a low view of himself when he consumed Nadab and Abihu?
Second, I want to address this idea that all worship is essentially equally low compared to God since everybody is pretty much on the same level anyway, and that it is therefore a fool’s errand to critique other’s modes of worship. This charge is seen in Pastor Bixby’s citation of John Frame above.
We all recognize the transcendence and greatness of God. He is wholly other. But I do not believe that Frame and Bixby’s proposed conclusion, that all expressions of worship are equally “distant,” is the right one from this doctrine. It seems that this position would promote a kind of apathy in approaching God, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.
What about preaching styles? What about the person who preaches like it’s a stand-up routine? What about the preacher who expells flatus or belches and performs other disgusting and revolting acts while he preaches? We are all meagerly attempting to preach the oracles of God–who is to say that these antics while preaching are taboo? If one said that one “style” of preaching was better than another, would it not be “tantamount to placing a sheet of paper on the ground and bragging that you are closer to the sun than everyone else”?
Could this “transcendent” line of reasoning also apply even to theological truth itself? In fact, theological liberals, who are no friend to orthodox Christianity, have made just this observation. John Hick believes that “the God-figures of the great theistic religions are different human awareness of the Ultimate.”* He says,
Not only Christianity, but also [the] other world faiths, are human responses to the Ultimate. They see the Divine/Sacred/Ultimate through different human conceptual “lenses,” and they experience the divine/sacred/ultimate presence through their different spiritual practices in correspondingly different forms of religious experience. But they seem to constitute more or less equally authentic human awareness of and response to the Ultimate, the Real, the final ground and source of everything.**
In other words, if we cannot say one form of worship is better than another, why should we not say that one expression of truth is no better than another? Do any of us really fully know the transcendent God? Can of us comprehend him? Then why should we deem one theological axiom as any better than another? If you were to say your “theology” is “higher” would it not be “tantamount to placing a sheet of paper on the ground and bragging that you are closer to the sun than everyone else.” I know the standard objection here will be that evangelicals hold the Scriptures to be authoritative. Yet I think my point still stands, for theology is the fruit of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, a step beyond the explicit Scriptures themselves. The moment you say that your interpretation and theological conclusions are true over another’s, you are guilty of the same error of which Pastor Bixby accuses us. In other words, who is to say that Athanasius was closer to the sun than Arian?
In sum, this “they have a low view” argument simply does not work.
________
*John Hick, “A Pluralist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 39
**Ibid, 44-45.
Immoderate 
Very well written, Ryan, and well reasoned.
Well said.
Ryan,
You do bring up a good point in regards to having reverence for God as our royal King. He is the King. And for that, we must bow before Him in reverence and awe.
However, God is so much more than simply a King. He is also a Savior. And for that we must hope, rest, and trust in Him.
He is also our Satisfaction. And for that, we must thirst for Him as a deer pants for the waters.
And He is also our Husband (Eph. 5). And for that, we must love and submit to Him as a bride does her husband.
I do not want to single you out for having a low view of God. I think we all do. But I think that you and Scott in particular are promoting an incomplete view of God in that you focus on His Kingship, while dismissing His Husbandship.
God is transcendent and “other” than us. But He has also drawn near to us in Christ. He is seperate from us. And yet He seeks intimacy with us through Christ. So I would encourage you to continue to hold strong to your conviction of God’s majesty. But you should also remember that there are many other aspects to God as well. And each aspect of God demands a response that is specific to that character trait.
Rick-
You need to keep in mind that God isn’t a ‘husband to us’ exactly like a husband is to his wife here on earth. If you deny this, then it is quite easy and probably necessary to admit Rap into the church’s liturgy. But then again, I’m not sure Rap quite captures that either. Mr. Voice’s rap might be something close, on a very superficial level.
I prefer that my wife not approach me in a crass or irreverent way, but with respect and dignity. And she has politely reminded me that she prefers the same (alas, I am the only offender).
I can’t imagine my wife approaching me crassly on our anniversary. Shouldn’t it be something special?
Shouldn’t our worship be something special?
Rick, I have no problem with viewing God as immanent, and believe, with you, that this an important consequence of the incarnation. The thing, the Bible never tells us to address God flippantly or disrespectfully. Indeed, we are told just the opposite with explicity, clear, plain statements: “let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29). Thinking of Jesus Christ as the Husband of the church in no way necessitates rap. In fact, the only reason I even spoke to the “transcendent” aspect was because that is something Pastor Bixby brought up in the original post. [just a note here, I can’t believe I am actually right now arguing that rap is not appropriate for the church]. The fact that the Psalms speak of God’s “wings” does not mean that I treat him like a bird. Even in heaven, when Christ is worshipped as the Lamb that was slain (we will all be singing God’s song then, to be sure), the spirit of worship does not change–it is still filled “with reverence and awe,” as it had been with Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the rest of the prophets and apostles.
But there is another problem with your remarks, if you’ll bear with me. You assume that these mannerisms inherit in contemporary worship are legitimate ways of addressing other people (like Husbands, etc). This could not be farther from the case. The people who “Praise and Worship” never address anyone with the strange hyper-exuberance with which they supposedly address God. Nor is it proper for a man to ever (ever!) address his wife in the way the rappers look at their “women.” Why should it be any different when we are addressing God? No, I take that back. Should we not address God–this is God, mind you–with an infinite degree more reverence and majesty than we do our wives or our wives do us?
For more on this subject, see Tozer’s excellent comments here.
I appreciate these thoughts as well.
Excellent post, Ryan. Thanks for taking the time for writing (what is for many) the obvious.
And now I vent a little. Reading the thread you referenced was frustrating. I think the reason several “type A fundies” didn’t show up for that debate on SI is that many were incredulous (as I was) that the issue was even given enough credibility to warrant a post, much less serious discussion (see J.A. Oliver’s after-post). Rage or laugh, there is no rest.
I kept asking myself what CA verbalized, Why doesn’t someone put this thread out of its misery? Instead, there was more fostering of discussion, then extension to some 30 pages, a guest spanking from a “Voice” sycophant for our ignorance about this latest fleshly offering from the box of genres, and then the coup de grace: a chastening of old fundies for not bringing their “A” game to convince the young and worldly evangelicals (to borrow a Pickering chapter title).
Mercy.
You guys do bring up some important points. I do want to preface this discussion however by saying that I am not attempting to promote the use of rap music in the church. I’m just trying to address what I believe to be an incomplete representation of God and our response to Him on your part.
Lilrabbi said that God is not a Husband to us exactly like a husband is to his wife on earth. I agree with this statement. But I think we would agree that there is some coorelation. We just need to study what exactly it is.
I think that the key passage to understanding this concept is Ephesians 5:25-32. At the end of the passage, Paul says, “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”
In this passage, Paul quotes the original declaration of marriage in Genesis. The bond of marriage includes “holding fast to” and “becoming one flesh” with your partner. And he says that the mystery of marriage is that marriage was created to illustrate Christ’s love for the church. I believe that God did not merely decide in Ephesians 5 to draw some similarities between the two as if He was just throwing a random illustration in there. Instead, I believe that back in Genesis, God created marriage for the purpose of foreshadowing Christ and His bride. No wonder Paul calls this such a profound mystery!
Marriage is a mere foreshadow of Christ and His bride. That is why I wholeheartedly agree with Ryan when he said, “Should we not address God with an infinite degree more reverence and majesty than we do our wives or our wives do us?”
Because marriage is a forshadow of Christ and His bride, the respect I have for my wife must be just a forshadow of the respect I have for Christ, the love I have for my wife must be just a forshadow of the love I have for Christ, the passion and affection I have for my wife must be just a forshadow of the passion and affection I have for Christ.
Correct me if I am wrong. But you guys seem to believe that there are certain aspects of marriage that parallel the bride of Christ, and not others. But I believe that every aspect of marriage is just a mere foreshadow of the relationship we have with Christ. Do I understand how this works? Of course not. There are alot of unanswered mysteries surrounding this concept that none of us will ever know until we see Him in heaven. But we cannot deny that this mystery foreshadows Christ and His bride.
With all of that said, I do not wish do belittle my wife in any way, including sexually. And we should also not belittle Christ and treat Him flippantly or crassly either.
There is alot within the P&W and CCM movements that is nothing more than man-centered emotionally-driven whiners. So I do reject much of what goes on within those movements.
However, my concern with you guys is that you come across as presenting an incomplete view of God, and as a result, your worship response is incomplete as well. We cannot allow the abuses of others concerning an aspect of God deter us from worshiping Him for that aspect and in response to that aspect.
The key for us is not to find balance, as if we glorify Him less reverently so that we can worship Him more joyfully. But rather, the key is to be faithful to each characteristic of God.
There is an attitude of prostration in reverence, fear, and awe (Heb. 12:28-29; Rev. 1:17; Ps. 95:6). And there is also an attitude of celebration (Ps. 150; 100; Ps. 95:1).
Psalm 2:11 says that we “rejoice with great trembling.” Matthew 28:8 says that worship is with “fear and great joy.”
So all of that to say that we need to emphasize both aspects of God’s character. And as we seek to discover how we should worship Him in our homes and churches, we should give each other more charity and freedom to apply these truths to our own contexts. Making hard, concrete, specific, restrictive rules for everybody is something that should be done very carefully. And it seems to me that you guys tend to do this more often than you should.
God calls this a mystery. So let’s give each other a little more freedom to discover how this mystery applies to worship. That does not mean that we should all allow rap music in the church. But you guys should give some of us more freedom than you do.
No.
The thought that comes to my mind in reading this is simple. If it truly reflects a low view of God to specify details about worship and note that certain styles of music are, or are not, acceptable, exactly what do we say about Moses, Christ, and Paul describing what kind of worship is acceptable? Do we assume that our Lord had a low view of Himself? Do we then chastise Malachi for conveying His complaint about the ruin of the Temple, years after the return to Jerusalem?
By your lights, why wouldn’t we need to give everyone more freedom than we do? Why are you the only one that gets more freedom?
I’m not quite sure how to take some of your responses.
Todd just simply said, “No.” What are you referring to? You’re simply saying “no” doesn’t really help me at all. I’m not going to form my beliefs based on your word. I gave all kinds of scripture. And you just answered, “no.”
Bert, I’m not sure if you are posting in response to me or to Bixby’s comments. If you are responding to me, then I would once again say that I have not accused you of having a low view of God, just an incomplete representation of Him. Regarding what is acceptable worship, I think it is clear from 1 Peter 2 that our worship is made acceptable in Christ, not through our ability to figure out the only right style. This does not negate our need to obey what God has revealed to us. That’s obvious. But my concern is to obey what God has revealed to me, not what Scott Aniol and Ryan Martin have revealed to me. And I’m not quite sure what Malachi’s complaint about the ruined temple has to do with my concerns. I’m not saying that it has nothing to do with it. If it does, please share with me how.
Lilrabbi, I never said that I am the only one that gets more freedom. Where do you get that idea from what I said? We should all give each other more freedom to apply God’s Word to our own situations.
If you guys really have such a great handle on God’s Word, then please share with me from it how I have handled it incorrectly. But don’t just respond by saying “No,” and “Why are you the only one that gets more freedom?” Making sarcastic statements like these while refusing to engage the Scriptures that I have brought up and refusing to bring up your own Scriptures does nothing to further my discipleship.
Rick, I kid.
Rick,
Where did you get your idea of what joy is? I notice that you concede that reverence and awe is a part of worship, but then seem to think that reverence and awe is not a part of joyful worship, and, not only so, but then add a new concept never recorded in Scripture–“celebration.” I have no problem whatsoever saying that these things happen at the same time, that you can be joyful and reverent, as is demonstrated in the other passages you cited–Ps 2:11 and Matt 28:8 are my view exactly. This is the spirit John Newton expressed at the cross in his hymn, “In evil long I took delight,” where he said his spirit was filled “with pleasing grief and mournful joy.”
You say that our worship is filled “hard, concrete, specific, restrictive rules,” where I say the yoke of our Lord is easy to bear. I find the hymn tunes and chants of the ancients beautiful and majestic and simple and reverent. This is no burden to bear. It is not hard. To insist that God is not to be worshipped erotically (you’re not arguing this are you?–it seemed like you nearly were) is no more than what the Bible itself says. Nor are our rules “specific or restrictive.” In fact, I am quite open to all manners of ancient and even modern hymns and songs from all sorts of different Christian traditions. I do insist that we not worship in ways that degrade God. I do insist that we not mix entertainment and worship. I guess if that’s what you mean by “restrictive,” I am guilty as charged. The holiness and majesty of God trump everything. I do not make the rules here, and am happy to follow those the Scripture points me to.
In short, I assume your concerns are genuine, but they simply do not represent the reality of where we are at. We are not presenting one side of God, but God as he himself has revealed himself. If you were to consider being a conservative, I would tell you that the climes are beautiful here–the air is better. We don’t need electricity to worship. We’re not as concerned with silly trends and fads in evangelicalism. Things are simpler on the conservative side; they are more reverent; they are more serious. Run from the entertainment trendy silliness and simony being sold by the world-run pagan-controlled Christian record labels and publishing houses! Run back to the ancient faith that Christianity is. You will be happier when you don’t feel like you have to make God trendy. The glory of worshipping God with reverence and awe, with joy and great trembling, with great fear and joy, dissolves the shallow highs and cheap thrills of Christian rap and P&W.
Todd’s no was eloquent, and the eloquence was appreciated.
Rick concluding: “But you guys should give some of us more freedom than you do.”
Todd: “No.”
After a long post to hear a simple and serene reply refreshes the soul. Is there much of that on blogs? More art and less argument on blogs would make them far more tolerable.
Was it an argument? No. Just a statement of rejection, a note of disapproval. He was not trying to argue. Nor was he saying there ought not to be reasoned arguments.
Was an argument needed? No.
There is the tedious notion about that everything out to be argued in prolix paragraphs. And Todd is usually very patient about arguing things out. Perhaps it didn’t help you, Rick, but I found it did help me.
Pingback: The People Clapped, He Sat Down, and the Fundamentalists Went Wild « Fundamentally Reformed
Rick, not you, but Bixby and the original question. If one accuses Makujina and Bauder of having a low view of God because they would restrict the music styles in worship, then we must simultaneously proscribe the Scriptures because they do the same. I really don’t want to go that way!
But if I may use your note as an invitation to respond to your points, we probably can apply the same passages I was referring to to your argument, specifically 1 Corinthians 11-14. In it, Paul clearly speaks to a certain level of propriety in worship–just as certainly as Peter notes that our sacrifices are made acceptable through Christ.
To neglect either is to render an “incomplete representation,” as you put it–and thankfully to point that out is not an insult, but a reality. After all, doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13 point out that we see as through a mirror, dimly?
The plea for freedom is telling.
Freedom? Surely there is no fear of arrest for rapping “worship.” Surely there is no fear of physical reprisal.
No, the plea for freedom is a plea for us to turn a blind eye. It is a plea for us to remain silent. It is a plea for us to be friendly or even to cooperate with those who blaspheme.
To that plea, I firmly and irrevocably say, “No.” I will not turn a blind eye to it. I will not remain silent. I will not be friendly nor will I make common cause with blasphemers.
This whole conversation is like trying to convince a girl that she is blaspheming when she says, “Oh my G__!” over and over when her mascara runs — and she argues that she is really a Christian and this is her way of professing her faith. It is futile and absurd and confounding.
How utterly dreadful. We are in ruins.
Pingback: Blogdom of Fundamentalism Explodes « Living Worship
Last month, I posted two articles at my blog with links to this article by Ryan. Since then, I have gotten a number of visitors from this site. However, I have decided to delete my post regarding Ryan’s involvement with the rap music debate. I apologize for any offense I may have caused. And I would ask for you to read my explanation at http://rickpidcock.wordpress.com/2006/11/26/living-worship-on-my-blog/. Thanks, Rick