Pensees: Philosophical Ponderings of a Pastor on Trends in Worship

So, your alternative is?

You and I have been on the same side in this debate before (back at Unknowning), so please don’t assume I am trying to defend one of these two [somewhat caricatured] options.

I don’t think you mean to say that the Bible does not sit in judgment on cultural expressions, do you? You wouldn’t suggest that cultural forms and expressions are neutral, would you?

Aren’t they all a reflection of one’s religion to some degree or another? If so, aren’t they subject to theological/biblical analysis?

Just to be clear, these are sincere questions, not veiled arguments. I would like to know what you think on these points.

Very interesting post, I must say. Reading some of the recent post by Scott Aniol and Ryan Martin, leaves me believing that the phrase “elitist” really does define them.

Recently I came across some interesting quotes which point to the fact that a distinction between “high” art and “low” or “pop” art is artificial. Let me share them if I may.

“The dichotomy between high art and pop art is, at best, both unhelpful and musically and historically rather naïve. Actually the historical basis of this is a rather racist argument. This distinction is really only about 150 years old, emerges during the 19th century as people try to separate themselves from the massive influx of Eastern European immigrants, and falls prey to a classic logical fallacy: just because something is popular does not mean it is of inferior quality! It may mean that it is of great quality and has connected with a large number of people for really good reasons! In addition, the attempt to make a big distinction between folk art and pop art fails to understand how popular art functions. (see William Romanowski’s recent book “Eyes Wide Open” pg. 72-75 for a wonderful discussion of this issue! Or if you want to study this even more in depth, track down Lawrence Levine’s “Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence Of Cultural Hierarchy In America”)” quoted from this article by Kevin Twit of Indelible Grace.

Kevin discusses this point in more depth under the “Presuppositions” section near the top of this article if you are interested.

Dave, I’m thinking.

Bob, I’m not interested in examining people (i.e Martin or Aniol, etc.) for the very reason that I spoke of in my post. Once we go down that trail the conversation mires in personal applications and defense. My caricatures, as Dave aptly calls them, are meant to force the conversation away from personalities and into an examination of the “moods” which are very real, though differently manifested in varying degrees in/through many individual, young, male WASPs.

It makes this conversation fairly abstract and “philosophical,” but it might help all of us who are trying to think through these things.

Dave is right. We need a viable, recognizable alternative. I would say that the alternative has to be something more than just the “same old thing.”

That being said, thank you very much for the link. I find it very intersting and contributive to my thinking.

Bob (Hayton),

FWIW, I don’t think you are representing their arguments properly, i.e., it isn’t merely a matter of high vs low art. Their point is more sophisticated than that.

Since your quote brought it up, I would like to go on record as saying that the whole racist angle of the discussion at SI and in this quote is completely ridiculous and demonstrates, from my perspective: (1) that one side of the debate doesn’t understand the other; and (2) that cultural relativism has so permeated the thinking of our day that it is virtually a presupposition for too many.

To clarify that second statement, to make moral judgments about any culture borders on blasphemy in a cultural relativist’s world, and it is almost sure to earn the label “racist” or “ethnocentrist” or some other prejorative. It was truly disturbing to see that mindset reflected on what is supposed to be a discussion board for fundamentalists.

If I arrive at the conclusion that certain cultural expressions are not appropriate, it says nothing about my general views of the ethnic or cultural group which engages in them (especially when those expressions are no longer the province of any particular ethnic group).

Playing the race card in conversations like that and this is demagoguery, not legitimate argument.

And - to go on the record myself as I ponder on a substantive answer to Dave’s questions - I do not buy the race argument either. Nor did I use that in the recent debate at SI. When I say that I find certain articles “contributive to my thinking” I mean that I find it very insightful into learning how others are thinking (which, I think, contributes to their mood). I doesn’t/didn’t mean that I agree!

I’ll answer the easy questions briefly because the answers, though short, will indicate where I’m coming from:

I don’t think you mean to say that the Bible does not sit in judgment on cultural expressions, do you?

No, I don’t mean to suggest that the Bible does not sit in judgment on cultural expressions. I am in agreement with the “essentialists” here.

You wouldn’t suggest that cultural forms and expressions are neutral, would you?

No, I don’t think cultural forms and expressions are neutral.

Aren’t they all a reflection of one’s religion to some degree or another?

Yes.

If so, aren’t they subject to theological/biblical analysis?

Yes

So, your alternative is?

This is taking me time to articulate because I’m not completely sure yet. I think I know, but part of the goal of this conversation - for me - is to force the articulation of another “mood.” Forthcoming. And I hope it gets thoroughly analyzed.

Dave said: “cultural relativism has so permeated the thinking of our day that it is virtually a presupposition for too many.”

Bingo. That was clear in the discussion, as you suggest.

Bob,

I’m working on a personal note to you. However, I think what you’re saying here—certainly in the comments section—is very different than what you said (or were perceived to say) at SI. What I mean is this: you may not buy into Scott’s reasoning, but it seemed like in critiquing that, you were leaving the door wide open for whatever kind of music floats the worshiper’s or church’s boat. (e.g. “I don’t like it, but I can’t say it’s not right.”) I’m not opposed to a solution that is less based in culture critiquing. I am, however, opposed to the “anything goes” that appeared to be the only alternative in the minds of many of the debaters.

In other words, if you reject some of Scott’s ideas, don’t give the impression that you’re rejecting some sort of standard of what is acceptable music and what is not…or that such a thing even exists.

I honestly wonder if many who said “I agree with Bob” understood you to be offering answers very different than the ones you just gave.

Food for thought, friend.

Bob,

As I told you before, the “appeal to unity” you made at SI left me with an impression that bringing in rap was just a matter of waiting for the old people to die so you could bring it in.

I agree with Chris on this one.

Bob, I’m not really sure what you’re trying to do, then. Why construct straw men on purpose? To what end?

I’m certain that you don’t agree with my conclusions. That’s fine! But where do you stand on the method? Should we or should we not parse culture for its meaning in order to compare it with Scriptural principles?

Chris, I am well aware that I have “friends” who are friends because they think they know what I am saying and “enemies” who are enemies because they think they know what I’m saying.

The reason for that is that I simply don’t buy into the “binary” thinking that I have become persuaded is part of the American culture, whether in politics, theology, debates on fundamentalism, or even among the emergent. On a side note, as “generous” as McLaren is, he shocks me with his simplistic either/or solutions. He is so American. And part of that is because, as an American, he is the product of a cultural vacuum, or perhaps more precisely, cultural chaos.

Back on track: You said, for example, “I am, however, opposed to the “anything goes” that appeared to be the only alternative in the minds of many of the debaters.”

It is precisely “the appearance of only one alternative” that I think is problematic. Many people act that the opposite of cultural relativism is the minimizing of alternatives.

My reaction to that thought is neither no or yes. It is because even to that proposition I have not limited the “alternatives” down to affirmation or denial. Because in some cases, the minimizing of alternatives is an appropriate response to relativism. In other cases, the minimizing of alternatives is in fact cultural relativism. In other words, “binary thinking” is sometimes as much a manifestation of relativism as “anything goes” thinking.

For example, I personally think that many of the authors of the EC (emerging church) manifest a very brittle, unbending, either/or (“binary”) thinking that is, in fact, “cultural relativism.”

When I go on SI and say that there may be an alternative to condemnation of John Piper, naturally everyone assumes that I embrace rap and have no care about the possible messages of various media. I am automatically lumped with cultural relativists.

That’s not true. I am, however, observing the tribe behaving like the tribe always does and I just sort of roll my eyes when I get categorized. But, even as I said in the post above, categorizations don’t necessarily define a man and I’m willing to live with that.

I do think that there is an alternative to the extremes. I also think that alternative has to be simultaneously in tune with and in conflict with culture. I do think the revived interest in culture is exciting. And my response to Dave’s challenge will be missiological in nature.

The man said he is working on a response, so it might be good to hold off a little.

The problem, at SI and its spin-offs, from my perspective is that too many people seemed more interested in sticking it to people instead of having a conversation. (Just to be clear, I am not making that comment regarding the men involved here.)

Scott, you have done a good job of laying out your views on this subject and I applaud you for it. Bob has caricatured both sides of the debate to make a point. The value of this approach is up for debate, but can I ask that we do that at another time on a different thread—it will only sidetrack what I hope could be a good discussion once Bob provides his answer.

Anyway, those are my irrelevant two cents.

Enough said! :)

I wonder if you could cite, or lead me to an example of a situation where it is clear that someone claims to be “the final arbiter[s] of what is or what is not authentic worship.”

While I am new to the discussion (here and elsewhere), I only see persons taking positions, backing them with arguments (and, yes, Scripture) in an attempt at being persuasive.

And why not? I don’t think a well structured or compelling argument constitutes totalitarianism. But maybe I am not looking in the right places just yet. Please lead me to what I need to see to better understand what you are describing.

best,

LOL. When I have already made it clear in no uncertain terms that I am not going to get into personalities, I’m not going to walk into that trap!

I have been clear that my construct does not represent any one body of people, individual, or system although I have been equally clear that the ideas are obvious. I set it up to

1/identify ideas that are in my opinion erroneous

2/show how those ideas are possibly more related than unrelated

3/expose the roots of these ideas as little more than a product of our culture

4/and thereby explain by contrast another approach to culture (forthcoming) that I consider viable.

The technique, by the way, of building the “straw man” is not wrong when I am doing it openly and honestly. For my readers of emerging church persuasion, this technique should not be new to you at all. This is what many leaders in the movement do, but dishonestly. They create a straw man they call “traditional evangelical” and then dismember it without doing their readers the service of saying that no evangelical would claim to be as they are represented.

The process of collecting ideas and categorizing them in the general vicinity of “emerging” is not unfair. That is being done all the time. Nor is it unfair to corral another batch of ideas that seem to be here and there most common among groups that are very interested in culture and peg a name to it for the sake of conversation.

I am not labeling anyone at this point. If I point to illustrations, I lose the platform of concepts and abstracts that I am trying to maintain.

Do your own reading, and you will find all the elements that I have mentioned in my post, though I doubt that you will find any one person who embodies them all.

I hope not.

(Give me a couple days. I appreciate the interest, but I know as soon as I share, it will get picked apart. So I want to take my time.)

Send it to me privately, so you do not get into personalities. It will be between you and I. I have no interest setting a trap. You are way too sensitive.

I am only trying to measure the degree to which I can trust your construct, straw man, or whatever you want to call it. I am all for generalizing. I make a good living doing it.

On the other hand, the charge I am asking about does not strike me as conceptual at all. It sounds pretty specific. It also sounds like one that should really stand on some rock hard evidence. I am very interested in it.

best,

Bob Bixby,

Thanks for clarifying that you weren’t trying to go after specific people. (I know you said something to that effect in your post, but I sort of missed it. Sorry.) I do think it is best to stay clear of being far too personal in these debates. For instance I think some of the positions of the guys I mentioned are elitist but not the guys themselves. And certainly they disagree with my assessment of their positions.

Let me join others in eagerly awaiting your “alternative” that Dr. Dave Doran so helpfully asked for.

I agree that much binary thinking exists. But in one respect I think that is okay. For instance, if the position some hold to that only one particular style is acceptable is true than no other styles are acceptable. There definitely are people who hold to some form of this belief. If it is not true, than some other styles are at the least acceptable. This does not have to mean that necessarily anything goes. It is to say that there is leeway for other styles. I hope you are catching my drift, and that I am explaining myself carefully enough here.

Dr. Dave Doran,

I must admit I am not an expert on their beliefs. I do think from what I have seen that the high art/ low art distinction—or a higher art / lower art / popular art or some such delineation—plays a big role in their beliefs. I am sure it is more sophisticated, and I agree I need to study more on this whole issue.

Personally, I think there is too much of a knee jerk reaction against the race issue. No, I most certainly do not think they are trying to be racist, but inadvertantly they are. Here is what I mean. While it is obviously true that we must “make moral judgments” about cultures, if we somehow conclude that only our culture of any has acceptable music style, I think we should take a step back. People must honestly evaluate why it is that everyone else must necessarily speak, act, and dress (in this case sing) like us. Are our thinking processes clouded by an inadvertant racism? Possibly. It seems to me that this particular claim is up for discussion and that discussion could help in thinking through issues. However, by and large, it has been rejected as unworthy of consideration.

Thanks for the interaction, however. And I do respect your position and your ministry. My brother Dave did an internship with you guys and very much was blessed by the time he spent with you all.

God bless you richly in Christ Jesus,

Bob Hayton

Bob Hayton,

Thanks for the feedback and positive comments. We enjoyed having Dave as an intern and as part of our church for the time he was here.

I think we may be operating with different definitions of racism. Perhaps mistakenly, I have understood that term to be much more negative in connotation than simply preferring my own culture or ethnic group. While I can’t recall who all said what at SI, it seems clear that some of the comments were tinged more with the charge of anti-black racism flavor.

Be that as it may, I still don’t think anyone arguing against rap or whatever is arguing that “only our culture of any has acceptable music style.” Perhaps, again, I am mistaken in my assessment, but I don’t hear the people being caricatured by Bob saying this. My take on what they are saying would include at least two prongs: (1) all cultural expressions must be evaluated (ours and others) according to biblical standards; and (2) the good, true, and beautiful is what is worthy of our God (which implies that by biblical and cultural evaluation one can arrive at this assessment).

It is the second point at which I feel the SI discussion went in the ditch, and, to be frank, the caricatures above came close. It seemed to be the view of some at SI that there is no way to distinguish the good, true, and beautiful from its antithesis. That conclusion is completely wrongheaded.

It is one thing if we all disagree about what is good, true, and beautiful, but it is something very different if we deny that such categories exist beyond our preferences.

Now, I am content to wait until the mini-Hulk gives us his missiological answer to our cultural conundrum. (Put some cool pyrographics in it and maybe you’ll get Blogspotted too.)

Dr. Doran,

Thanks for the gracious reply. I am sure not everyone would claim that only their culture is right and everyone else’s is wrong. It could seem that way, however.

And actually, I have a “Type A” fundamentalist over at my blog right now who is actually saying just that—that only 16th through 18th century European culture and 19th century English culture, and 16th through early 20th century American culture has acceptable music. He stated that Native American chants would be unredeemable as music, for instance.

And I find your distinction helpful—we disagree over what should be labelled good, true, and beautiful but agree that cultures can and must be evaluated. I might go a step further and suggest that everything does not need to be beautiful—that is one aspect of art that can glorify God, but merely conveying truth, even if ugly, can also glorify God.

I am benefitting from this and other discussions on this topic. I really do want to fine tune my position, however, as I am sure we all are to one degree or another, at this point I do think my position is quite sure—I am satisfied with it and think it is not contradicting Scripture.

Like you I will wait, and perhaps I will try to throw the name “Pyromaniac” into the discussion over at my blog and spice up my graphics! Just kidding. (I have been blogspotted before, but never with such fame as the infamous Bob Bixby—the man with no grin—has!)

God bless you,

Bob Hayton

I am still interested in a reference that might suggest the individuals in your typology consider themselves “the final arbiter[s] of what is or what is not authentic worship.” It would be fair, of course, to ask for several. But I would appreciate just one. That way I can better trust the rest of the framework as a good-faith attempt to shed light and not confuse it with a less than sophisticated, vindictive, personal attack.

best,

Bob,

You still working on your alternative or has this been tabled indefinitely?

Both. But mainly it just isn’t as high a priority as survival.

Just lots of stuff totally preoccupying me.

But… I am not going to abandon this conversation because I need it for my own elucidation.

Last month, I posted an article at my blog with a link to this article by Bob. Since then, I have gotten a number of visitors from this site. However, I have decided to delete my post regarding Bob’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