I think there are two views of this in fundamentalism. The more conservative side frowns on this practice, while others seem to be ok with it. It does create some uneasiness.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Reading over the old FBFI resolutions (which I do at times to simply to remind myself that I’m not reinventing history on some of the resolutions/stands of the past) can be frustrating. If the FBFI churches/leadership as a whole approve of some of the shifts, I would rather they update or clarify the stands instead of leaving the rest of us baffled on the “marching orders”. That leads me to wondering if they even see the shifting or inconsistencies that those in the pew might see.

Anyway, thank you for reassuring me that I haven’t completely lost my mind. I guess I sound radical when at times I think that the separatists may have to separate at some point. Until then…

Sophia,

I still hold these views, but it is a reality that other fundamentalist leaders do not see these things exactly the same way.

I am not really keen on seeing Christian colleges making the shifts you mention. The problem is that there are many areas where we see little compromises slipping in to fundamentalist institutions, this being one of them, but perhaps not the most egregious. It is almost like the battle has to be fought on a hundred fronts at once, sometimes seemingly lesser areas (like this one) get less attention, and there is almost nothing one can do.

We can keep talking and writing, though, and hope to have some influence. Perhaps if enough voices are raised, some will listen and policy can be changed (or some kind of fundamentalist consensus gained).

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I agree completely with you as you say, “Consequently, some of us wonder about the wisdom of using the sanitized forms at all. Some of us think that is dangerous because it makes discernment increasingly difficult, especially for the spiritually immature” and “The shift is subtle. While we do have some good brethren who disagree and have used the cleaned up versions, there are signs that some of those who have done so are shifting further than their original stated intentions. Best to stay away from this music for now, in my opinion.”

Do you still hold to these views, and/or are you okay with the shifting that continues in our traditional FBFI institutions and churches? I understand if you’d rather not post my comment. I really just want you to know I am praying and watching for there to be a leader that will not get carried along with the shifting and provide a counterbalance voice. Many if not most FBFIish churches (that once would have amened your post) do now willingly and openly sing sanctified SG/Getty. Institutions use it in group worship settings now under the guise of “teaching discernment”. Who is it edifying? There are those who disagree and go back to listen to the unsanctified form…there are those who disagree and would still rather not be familiar with these groups songs…and are grieved at the lack of deference now shown…so much so that student bodies are being recorded singing these songs for consideration in an upcoming cd release and Getty songs are being made the focal point song of Missions Week and Christmas programs.

I would not be so disheartened if the current music philosophies didn’t continue to use the traditional reasonings for NOT using these selections. Instead we constituents and parents of prospective students are left, well, grieved and confused. Many would be like me, reading these older posts, seeing the continued shifting, and simply wondering…do you still believe and where do we go from here in responding rightly withing our churches and schools.

Hi David

Yes, I’d have to agree. The shift is subtle. While we do have some good brethren who disagree and have used the cleaned up versions, there are signs that some of those who have done so are shifting further than their original stated intentions. Best to stay away from this music for now, in my opinion.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi Keith,

well, you waited long enough that we don’t need to worry about disclaimer # 3 now.

You may be right that it is impossible to be completely consistent in associations. I don’t think that is really an argument against being careful in associations, however.

Regarding “sanitized music” and sin. Well, the point is that I do think the unsanitized versions of these songs is sin. I think the Sovereign Grace people, the Getty’s and Townends are sinful in the style of music they produce. I don’t think the poetry itself is sinful, I don’t think the basic melodies are sinful, but I think the style of the original compositions are sinful. That is the point of this discussion.

I would venture to say that most of those fundamentalist churches that do use some of this music in their churches (in the sanitized versions) would be unwilling to allow the music in the form it was originally written. That unwillingness is, I think, because most of those using it would say the original form (original style) is sinful and wrong, not just inappropriate.

Consequently, some of us wonder about the wisdom of using the sanitized forms at all. Some of us think that is dangerous because it makes discernment increasingly difficult, especially for the spiritually immature.

You know, I might eat a piece of bread that has a little mold on it. Just pick off the mold and spread the butter… a few stray spores won’t hurt. But there comes a point when that piece of bread is so moldy, I’ll just throw it out. I think that’s what we are talking about.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think that an important (maybe the most important) point of contention here is over your (and several others) concern regaring “associations.”

You wrote: “We want to be careful about associations because we are trying to train our people to be sensitive about associations.”

Many folks (keep their mouths shut fundamentalists, former fundamentalists, and non-fundamentalists) think that the way you and Minnick think about and approach “associations” in relationship to music and books is misguided at best, impossible to apply consistently, somewhat ridiculous, and very likely counter-productive.

All this talk of “sanitizing” music is also quite bizzare to those outside your presupposed universe. You guys can say all day long that you aren’t talking about “sin” in this or that area, but your informal lingo betrays that at some deep down level you actually do think it is sin — you think it is dirty. And, this is the “discernment” that will pass along to your people.

If you didn’ think it dirty, you all wouldn’t pick the euphamism “sanitized” for what is going on with this music in your circles. Instead you’d be talking about appropriateness of the music itself for the task/circumstance (blue grass is appropriate for a square dance not for a funeral, etc.). You’d be talking about maturing the taste of your congregation (not in the sense of preference but in the sense of growing toward an objective good), etc. Instead, you talk about sanitizing and associations.

Now, I do think that your son has a great point about the need for leaders to take clear — and sensible — stands on these matters. The whole sanitizing thing will make young people groan. It won’t lead them into less “sanitized” music — it will just make them think that the leadership is clueless.

Witness new evangelicalism, the young fundamentalists, etc.

Keith