The Now Irrelevance of Cultural Relativity

Read parts one and two.

Perhaps you've seen a two year old standing at an open door.  He wants to go outside.  He looks around to see if anyone is watching.  He's not supposed to go outside.  He's been told not to.  He looks around again.  He steps out; just stands there.  Looks around again.  Steps forward a little ways.  Looks around again.  No one is saying anything.  And now he starts to move out to where he wants to go.  No one is stopping him.  Since no one says anything, he's free to do whatever he wants.

What I just described is what is happening today regarding cultural relativity.  The people who once would say anything about music or dress or entertainment aren't saying much to anything anymore.   Let me bullet point what I'm talking about.  Before I do, however, first should be said that things have changed dramatically in this regard.  The standards on cultural issues are very different today.   Some might say, and probably correctly, that this ship has already sailed.   But here's what I'm talking about:

Bob Jones University announces something new on music -- it doesn't separate over music like it did before.  Here is what is new at Bob Jones:

Although the answers will be based on biblical teaching that is valid for all believers at all times, we recognize that these answers involve the application of those teachings to our specific context and institutional mission. Other institutions, congregations and individuals may apply them differently based upon their own earnest efforts to reflect scriptural principles within their respective contexts and in keeping with their unique institutional, congregational or personal missions.

While biblical truth is nonnegotiable, application in specific cultural and institutional contexts may differ.  In particular, since music is such a dominant cultural force in the contemporary West—to a greater degree, apparently, than it has been throughout most of history—application of biblical principles in this area is likely to be controversial, touching strongly held opinions across a spectrum of choices.

Do you understand the change here?  Music, which was nonnegotiable is now negotiable, in their own words.  Graduates of BJU and others in that orbit will get the signal.  You're not in trouble any more over music.   You can walk two steps out, a few more, and then just go wherever you want (like the two year old above).   It's been relegated to something less than biblical truth, a mere application to a particular cultural context.  I'm not saying that Bob Jones has the right music standard.  I'm saying that they had held to a particular one and would separate over it.  The new reality has precipitated this change.

Most were interpreting it as a position stated right at the time when things were moving to the left at Northland, to show strength. For BJU, this isn't a strong statement, but a capitulation on music.

The president/chairman of Religious Affections Ministries teaches at a Southern Baptist Seminary and joins a Southern Baptist church.

Scott Aniol has lost credibility.   His materials are good, but he doesn't separate over worship music, because he is part of the "ministry," which cooperates with what has already waved the white flag on cultural issues.  The cooperative program of the SBC of Texas shares with Baylor University among others.

Mike Harding, a prominent voice in the United States for traditional or conservative music, will not separate from Scott Aniol over his SBC fellowship and recommended that he take that route.  Not only is there the liberalism still harbored in the SBC, but the open position on all forms or types of worship music, even at Aniol's seminary.

The president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary questions the feasibility of music standards.  He wrote this:

When rock and roll came out, it clearly represented a shift in the culture toward ungodliness, so it was uniformly rejected. Now, after five decades of music variations and three of "Christianized" versions of it, the united front within Fundamentalism seems something less than united. When long hair was the cultural symbol of rebellion, there was a pretty clear consensus that it was not proper to follow the fad. Now, when some of the fads don’t include long hair, defining a worldly hairstyle is far more difficult. I could go on, but I think you can see my point.

Some Fundamentalists are clamping down on these pop culture issues and are making the case for the same applications that worked 40-50 years ago. The net result of this is that they appear to be arguing for an Amish-like response to culture. Their goal seems to be the preservation of a pre-60s Americana, not the production of godliness in the 21st century. Mistakenly arguing that "your standards can’t be too high for God" they keep staking out positions that can hardly be defended biblically. Anything that looks or sounds new is suspect for that very reason. While I agree with the desire to pursue holiness, I have serious questions about the biblical and theological orientation of this wing of Fundamentalism. There is serious confusion about the differences between biblical principles (which are timeless) and contemporary applications (which are time bound). This confusion often leads to division over differences of application, not principle.

That statement says we're not going to do anything about this anymore.  Northland and Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary have given-up the cultural issues.   This statement says they're going to be okay with Dave Doran.

John MacArthur moves the rock band of the Resolved Conference to the "worship" of his Shepherd's Conference.  Youth culture meets the adult pastors.

The explanation was:  "This is a special program for that one conference, the Resolved Conference, which doesn't even exist anymore."  When I watched the live stream of the Shepherd's Conference, I notice that the youth culture is in prime time at the most conservative of the conservative evangelicals.  Many, if not most, maybe all, are all for it.  Whether someone agree or disagrees that it is right, it is a change.  It has happened.

One more, Wayne Van Gelderen Jr., speaks at the Spiritual Leadership Conference in Lancaster, CA and Paul Chappell preaches at the Holiness Conference in Menominee Falls, WI.

I thought the worship and music were more important to the Van Gelderens.  This says that it is relative.  You can move to where Paul Chappell is and you'll be fine.  This is new.  Worship is ranked lower than revivalism.

The acceptance and promotion of rock music at Northland has spurred recent thought about cultural relativity in fundamentalism.  I have heard some comparing Northland to Maranatha on change.  They have exalted Maranatha for staying consistent and strong, when everyone else is changing.  I read that, but if you do not think Maranatha has changed, then consider this picture.  Those are Maranatha girls.  Most evangelicals and fundamentalists think this is cute.  I say it's one of the best arguments for the same-sex marriage supporters, that is, there is no separate male and female role anymore.  By the way, there is no Bible verse that says that women can't play football.

Cultural relativity has become irrelevant.  If churches capitulate, should it surprise us the world is in the condition it's in?

Does it make any difference?  Evangelicalism dropped out on the cultural issues long ago, but certain well-known of them are signaling, as I read it, that they see this now as a problem.  You can  read it in David Well's trilogy.   You hear it from John Piper here (at the 20 minute mark).  He says:

I think that the explosion of...I don't want to just say contemporary worship music and contemporary worship forms, a very rock-oriented...whether or not the ethos generally associated with that on a Sunday morning can sustain the gravitas of the glory of God over the long haul.

Thanks for telling everyone now, John Piper.   He could have said a lot in his final sermon as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, but he chose to say the following:

If you entice people with wealth, ... ease, health, chipper, bouncy, light-hearted, playful, superficial banter in your worship service posing as joy in Christ, you will attract people, oh yeah, you can grow a huge church that way. But Christ will not be seen in his glory and the Christian life will not be seen as the calvary road that it is.

Piper isn't alone.  Al Mohler has taken a turn in his understanding of the relationship between beauty, truth, and goodness (read this series and then his interview with Roger Scruton).  Mohler writes:

Roger Scruton, a well-known British philosopher, has suggested that worship is the most important indicator of what persons or groups really believe about God. These are his words: “God is defined in the act of worship far more precisely than he is defined by any theology.” What Scruton is saying is, in essence: “If you want to know what a people really believe about God, don’t spend time reading their theologians, watch them worship. Listen to what they sing. Listen to what they say. Listen to how they pray. Then you will know what they believe about this God whom they worship.”

My haunting thought concerning much evangelical worship is that the God of the Bible would never be known by watching us worship. Instead what we see in so many churches is “McWorship” of a “McDeity.” But what kind of God is that superficial, that weightless, and that insignificant? Would an observer of our worship have any idea of the God of the Bible from our worship? I wonder at times if this is an accidental development, or if it is an intentional evasion.

Beauty is inextricably tied into goodness and truth, and beauty connected the same with worship.  You lose one and you lose the other two.  Mohler has that realization, maybe Piper too.  And fundamentalism has followed the evangelical path of cultural relativity.  Once that train has left the station is there a possibility of return?