I just came across an excellent article by Kevin Bauder. Kevin gave an address at a conference of fundamentalists that he called, "A Fundamentalism Worth Saving." I was so excited by what I was reading that I was almost in tears (literally)...
Then came the "cultural fundamentalism"...
[I would strongly encourage you to read the article before reading the rest of this post. It is available at: http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm]
After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to be more concerned about doctrine and defending the gospel...
After affirming that Fundamentalism has too long been known for dividing over secondary issues...
After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to take its humanity and the humanities seriously...
After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to take learning seriously...
Kevin had me... But, then came the "cultural fundamentalism"
"This means that we will label some activities as prohibited and others as obligatory even when Scripture does not directly address them. In doing so, we run the risk of appearing to go beyond Scripture, but this is unavoidable. To do otherwise is to settle for a truncated morality that disallows us from applying biblical principles to most of what we do."
(one skipped paragraph with which I agree...)
"In short, the only way to be a historic, biblical fundamentalist is to be a cultural fundamentalist. The only alternatives are, first, to say that cultures are beyond the Bible’s ability to critique and correct, or second, to argue that fundamentalism is concerned only with doctrine and not with obedience. I doubt that any of us really wants to take either of those steps."
"The failure to deal with meaning lies behind some of the complaints of the younger fundamentalists. Take the matter of clothing. Clothing makes a statement about who we think we are and who we think others are under the circumstances under which we meet. We do not wear tattered jeans to weddings, nor do we wear tuxes to bale hay. It seems to me that a Christian leader will not wish to present an appearance that endorses the current culture of incivility. I am sorry, but phat pants, pony tails, piercings, tattoos, and studded leather are going to be of limited usefulness to one’s testimony for Christ. They are not even useful within the culture where they are accepted, for that is a culture that needs to be rebuked and corrected by Scripture. Of course, our mainstream culture also needs to be rebuked and corrected at many points. I am not suggesting that we should model ourselves after mainstream culture, but rather that we should refuse to adopt any cultural accoutrement that contradicts Christian meanings."
(All bolds are mine)
Here is where Kevin lost me.
If you read his article, you know that he makes a huge shift here. Suddenly, he gives up ground on biblical authority and moves to man-made tradition--which is not very baptist, by the way.
I have no problem arguing that human culture can be worldly. I agree that George Carlin's obscenities are inappropriate for believers. But how do you get from George Carlin dropping the F-bomb to tattoos and/or studded leather?
Look, I understand the argument: If you say that culture is neutral, and not sinful, you are a cultural Pelagianist. I agree--so long as you don't say that all culture is sinful (I think Kevin would agree with this)-Which brings us to a problem: Who decides which elements of culture are sinful?
I wish it were as easy as guilt by association. Are tattoos and studded-leather Jackets really wrong? Kevin would have fundamentalism build itself around avoiding these sins. I assume that means he shouldn't wear business suits either. After all, Wall Street businessmen are some of the most greedy, ego-driven, drug and/or alcohol addicted people in the country. I don't think we should be so quick to judge people's hearts by what we can see on the outside.
So where does that leave us? Here my answer is simple: I let the Scriptures define what elements of culture are sinful. If I can say that something is sinful from the Scriptures, I call it sinful. If I have to guess what is going on in a person's heart, or I have to use my personal taste or sensibilities as the sole criteria for judging something, I refuse to call it sinful. Unfortunately, Kevin (by his own admission) is willing to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture.
I must say, I can't help but admire Kevin--even as I disagree with him. The first half of the article is compelling. By the end of the article, he invites dialogue about what he says. That's what this post is for me. Now, I doubt Kevin will ever read this post. If he did happen to come accross it, however, I think he and I could probably have an excellent dialogue. He wants to see a fundamentalism worth saving. I want a fundamentalism worth saving. I am only sorry that our visions for a 'fundamentalism worth saving' are so vastly different.
I would strongly encourage you to read Kevin's article. Its worth reading...with great discernment. Frankly, I wish I had written the article--minus, of course, the cultural fundamentalism.
blessings,
Shu
Posts
From Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday
1 month ago
13 comments:
It's easy to dispense with positions wholesale by branding them with powerfully charged labels such as pelagianism. But in saying this, I find it sadly humorous that this issue of cultural attire was a rather hot topic back in Augustine's day and that in his "City of God" (XIX.19) Augustine nearly repeats your position word for word. His example of the Cynics is particularly instructive as they were known for deliberating acting immorally (and disgustingly) in public in order to demonstrate their release from mere human opinion. Even to mention some of their public behavior would make most of us blush in mixed company.
But enough. Here's evidently the arch-pelagian himself:
"It is completely irrelevant to the Heavenly City what dress is worn or what manner of life adopted by each person who follows the faith that is the way to God. provided that these do not conflict with the divine instructions. Hence, when even philosophers become Christians, they are not obliged to alter their mode of dress or their dietary habits which offer no hindrance to religion. The only change required is in their false teachings. Thus the peculiar behavior of the Cynics, which Varro treated as differentia, is to that city a matter of no importance at all, if there is nothing indecent or immoderate in that behavior."
To say the least, I think it's safe to say that Augustine shows little concern for the unbelieving world confusing the Christian message because of cultural trappings such as dress and hair (Yes, the Cynics evidently took a bath about once a decade whether they needed it or not . . .)
Nice piece, Shu. I would love to hear that dialogue between the two of you.
Interesting. I was quite enjoying the read until, well, I got to the same place you were rubbed the wrong way.
My thoughts were drawn to Christ. Was it a "sin" for a Jew to associate with the cultural low life? Was it a "sin" to speak to women, especially those of ill-rebute, to dine with tax collectors? Yet Christ did these things.
Did He mar his testimony? I think not.
I also enjoyed Kevin's discussion of Western Civilization and the Great Conversation. Having come from a classical school, I was introduced to the conversation and to great works and authors within it. I was given an introduction into thinking. Perhaps, it has an influence on even the name of my own blog?
In any case, I loved what he said about the conversation. 1. That, within the conversation, wrong answers have been given and that bad ideas have been posited. 2. That we are foolish to think we are "superior" because we ignore the conversation.
I think Christians have forgotten that, historically speaking, Christianity preserved the Great Convesation, even prevented it from dying alltogether. (Though, I think those within the conversation have forgetten that just as much).
Thank you for sharing this and your thoughts on it!
I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that we have become so concerned with theories and theology and arguments that we have generally lost sight of the those things of chief importance: God and people. We talk about God, but not with him enough to know His heart. What happened to the humility and love that was so evident in the writings of the New Testament? They too desired to see change in their congregations behavior, but out of a desire that their Savior, whom they loved and had walked with, would be known. Their selflessness is markedly foreign in America today. "They will know you by your love," Jesus said. I am not promoting a lack of confrontation or discipline among Christians by any means, but I believe that we have many people more concerned with appeasing people through outward actions than with getting real with the Living God. We want to see results immediately, forgetting that change is the work of God in changing hearts, not people. God is an interpersonal God who cares little for empty dogma. Outward performance does not require fellowship with God. It requires no time spent wrestling with God’s word. There’s no such thing as fast-food Christianity. As far as the author’s ideas go, the end does not justify the means. Christians must be people of the book and people of God and of grace, not law, which only serves to kill. As much as I understand where he's coming from and what he wants to see happen, you cannot shortcut a relationship. It takes time. The author states that we must risk going beyond Scripture; I completely disagree. We must be more concerned with having an true and living relationship than perfunctory religiosity. This is in actuality humanism in that it desires to see man changed rather that God glorified. God is not glorified by the appearance of godliness that denies His power. Much of what is seen in the church today is a perversion of what God intended. But as much as I agree that it is a travesty and needs to change, the “show” (outward conformity without true passion for Jesus) must stop somewhere, and it’s going to involve Christians looking bad at some point. But isn’t that where grace comes in? To provide cleansing for sin? To produce true heart conformity to Jesus? We must seek to see true humility before Jesus himself, not men. God changes people one at time, and he advances through multiplication through discipleship. God will not be mocked. We must elevate the reality of the living and omnipresent Jesus, to risk being mocked by our devotion to someone we cannot see and not to a list of do’s and don’ts. We must bring people personally before the living Christ, speaking of his love and grace, but also his holiness and justice and power, and allow Him to change people, “so that no one may boast in His presence.”
Hmmm. Seems to me like there are some words being placed in Kevin's mouth here. Does he actually call the things that have aroused your (pl.!) ire "sin"? It's obvious that he does not approve them, but I wonder if it's fair to say that he calls them sin--though several of you attribute that word to him. I think his comments are more nuanced than you give him credit for.
Dr. Decker,
I agree that Bauder never calls violation of his cultural fundamental principles, "sin." Best case scenario, he calls them "unhelpful." However, he does make some statements that certainly border on calling them sin. I quote:
"This means that we will label some activities as **prohibited** and others as **obligatory** even when Scripture does not directly address them. In doing so, we run the risk of appearing to go beyond Scripture, but this is unavoidable. To do otherwise is to settle for a **truncated morality** that disallows us from applying biblical principles to most of what we do."
I found this paragraph to be the most disturbing regarding his view of culture. I will definitely think more about the issue.
Thanks for calling us to greater clarity--and participating in this humble blog! =).
blessings,
shu
Shu,
Our mutual acquaintance, Rod Decker, has directed me to your critique. I am not terribly surprised that you don't like my conclusions. What does interest me is that you do not interact with my reasons. I can only surmise that you found the conclusions so obnoxious that you skipped past them.
Let's start at the point at which we appear to agree. You concede that George Carlin's obscenties are "inappropriate" (would you say "sinful"?) for believers (or for unbelievers?). Here is what I would like to know: just how do you reach that conclusion? What verse in the Bible tells you to avoid these particular words?
Once we're clear on this point, we may have something to talk about.
Kevin T. Bauder
Kevin,
I am very surprised that you came across the blog--and, I am humbled that you care enough to respond. As I said in my post, I figured we would be able to have an excellent dialogue on this. So, thanks for engaging.
I would encourage you not to jump to the conclusion that I found your reasons obnoxious. Far from it. I do believe that you have thought through your position--and that we have a legitimate disagreement.
I did not respond to the particulars of your argument because you were so broad-brush in using the term "cultural fundamentalism." Please correct me if I am wrong, but I read you to use the term for a whole host of issues as wide ranging as speech, hairstyles, clothing, music, etc.
To be fair to all of issues would a lot more time and space than I wanted to deal with. (although, since you seem interested, we can talk about these one at a time, if you like). What I did in my initial post, was hit the fundamental area of disagreement between our positions--the notion of going beyond the Scriptures.
For me, this is the fundamental difference between our positions. Frankly, I found it refreshing that you would come out so clearly and state the position (although I can't understand why you would be willing to hold it).
As far a language goes, I am not willing to go beyond the Scriptures--even with reference to
Speech. I will fully affirm that "No unwholesome speech" is to come out of my mouth. Yet, must be willing to deal with the fact that you and I are probably going to have a slightly different definition of unwholesome speech.
Just as a silly example, let's assign twenty different believers the task of making a list of "bad words." We will probably have a list with some interesting variety. I might have a lower or higher tolerance than others. Much of this will be determined by my culture--christian or otherwise. As a believer, I must be willing to allow some believers to have a different list than me. From my perspective, that's the Spirit's job, not mine.
Further, I must be aware of my environment and be sensitive to my audience. In some places in the U.S. the word, "fart" (I use this because it is the most neutral one I can think of. I trust that I do not offend) is a swear word. In some places, it is a perfectly acceptable word. As a mature believer, I must be willing to fit into my cultural context and allow other believers to have slightly different takes on the particular of how to apply this passage.
Please note that I am not denying the importance of wholesome speech. Rather, I am doing my best to affirm the principle of biblical authority. The tension is when good believers disagree on the particulars. Unless I mis-read your cultural fundamentalism, I would take it that you would prefer a universal list of words.
Kevin, I would love to continue this conversation. As a brother in Christ, I value the opportunity to do so. Once again, thanks for taking the time to reply to this quirkly little blog.
Blessings in Christ,
Shu
Shu,
In choosing the label "cultural fundamentalism," I am deliberately rejecting the position of those who wish to distinguish what they call "historical" or "biblical" fundamentalism from "cultural" fundamentalism. No culturally abstracted fundamentalism has ever existed and none ever will. Fundamentalism (like Christianity itself) exists only in culturally situated forms. We are forced to respond to our culture and to transform it by some combination of separatism, accommodation, imperialism, or dualism.
As a matter of fact, I would not for a moment try to justify many pronouncements of those who are commonly labeled as "cultural fundamentalists" (e.g., men should never wear beards, women should never wear pants, etc.).
But back to the seven words. Let us agree that no timeless and universal list of bad words can be drafted (and, even if it could, it shouldn't be read!). Nevertheless, you seem to have agreed, or at least concurred, that contemporary American Christians ought not to use the words on Carlin's list.
What I asked, and what you have not yet answered, is, How do you know? How do you know that these words qualify as sapros? You have a biblical principle that we are not to engage in corrupt communication; how do you know that these particular words constitute corrupt communication? To what would you appeal for evidence?
Kevin T. Bauder
Kevin,
I am more than eager to stipulate that all Christianity is culturally situated. In fact, I am relieved to read that you distance yourself from the most legalistic forms of cultural fundamentalism.
To answer your question: Although I don't actually know the seven words that George Carlin used in his routine, I would probably refuse to use them because of what they mean in the current culture.
These are obvious examples that nearly every believer would agree with. Determining the current meaing of words is relatively straight-forward.
I have two questions, if I might (not worded as questions):
Please help me understand what you mean by "to appear to go beyond Scripture." As a Baptist--and as a firm believer in biblical authority, I found this statement quite shocking.
Please help me understand how you are able to determine the meaning of earings, tatoos, or phat pants--as oppossed to words (which have relatively stable meaning). It seems to me that one would need to be God or have something like spiritual x-ray vision to exegete these with any real authority--especially in an increasingly eclectic society.
These two issues seem to be the crux of what I deem to be our disagreement.
Shu
Shu,
Sorry for the hiatus. Like you, I have a real job that I have to do.
Please be patient if it appears that I am not answering your two questions right away. We are actually on the way to an answer, but I want to make sure that I am understanding you first.
You say that you would "refuse to use" Carlin's seven words. But is that merely a matter of delicacy on your part, or do you actually think that it would be wrong for a Christian to use them (say, from the pulpit)?
Incidentally, I'm happy enough that you don't know or can't imagine what the seven words might be. Suffice it to note that they are mostly Anglo-Saxon monosyllables, having to do with bodily parts or sexual or excretory functions, and typically used as expletives.
Once we have decided whether or not it would be a sin for you to use these expletives in your preaching, we need to explore the question of how you know. Once we have done that, then I will be in a position to answer your questions.
Kevin
Post a Comment