Continuing to listen to some messages from a fundamental Baptist Church that is evidently having some tensions over music, I’m not surprised that a plea to “unity” is one of the strongest arguments used to defend a more progressive philosophy of church music.
What is apparent to me, however, is that if these folks were really concerned about church unity, true conservatism is the perfect answer.
By definition, conservatism is wary of the novel and seeks to preserve what is truly good. Conservatism always has a “waiting period” for things that are novel. An application of such conservative principles would naturally lead to unity on the issue of music.
In other words, it is very easy to brow beat those who have concerns about pop music in church and use “unity” as a defense. But doesn’t the charge work both ways?
But what is also very apparent as I listen to these messages is that these folks are frantically defending certain practices and styles that they have already chosen.
© 2009, Scott Aniol. All rights reserved.
Related posts:
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
9 Responses to True conservatism will always lead to unity.
Leave a Reply
Donate
Our Sponsors
Not nearly as much tension as you think evident or would like to invent in order to gain a hearing for your views. How refreshing that you expertly know what is so apparent and what the best course of action is for the church. You must have lots of experience in planting and/or pastoring churches to have such a ready answer. Have you listened to our music? Have you been to our church? “Frantically defending certain practices…” That’s funny, ridiculous and ignorant, but funny. It must be great to have time to listen to these messages. A toast to the bearers of the banner of true conservatism.
Steve Davis
I’m a little surprised that you got an attack from Dave Doran on this one. I think you are saying that conservatism gives the church the best opportunity. It is the highest common denominator. I think Doran misses it. We’re talking about a local church situation, not an agreement with someone like a Dissidens, who actually seems to stay purposefully ambiguous sometimes on what he is talking about. In a church, there was an agreed upon standard that was right, honored God. People change, move, and now there is disunity. No one has a problem with the previous standard. We can all agree that it is highest common denominator. Conservatism says stick with that standard. The cause of disunity comes from those wanting the new standard. If the old standard was wrong, then it should be given up completely. The new standard doesn’t say it’s wrong. It just wants to broaden the standard. So keep the old standard. Everyone can agree that it is right.
And then the question comes: why the new standard? Why broaden? Were we wrong before?
So I agree with the conservatism issue regarding unity. And yet, I think, Scott, the best way is to establish that the conservative way is correct.
Eh, I probably did over-speak a bit, and I was using a bit of hyperbole. Conservatism certainly won’t always lead to unity because Doran is right, people are sinners.
But you’re right Kent in what was my primary point. These folks are browbeating their people by saying, “Stop complaining that we’re using more progressive music! We need unity on this!” But they fail to recognize that a more conservative approach would certainly make unity a lot easier. Pleas for unity should work both ways.
I also agree that to point to Dissidens was a straw man argument. Dissends doesn’t agree with anyone, but that has nothing to do with conservatism. In that very thread someone pointed out that in years past he had said exactly what I was saying, so that proves he was just being contrary to be contrary. It’s his nature, I guess. Nothing to do with conservatism.
Doran is defending his friend, so I understand why he did it. Ironically, Doran himself has presented the best definition of what conservatism is and why it is biblical than anyone I’ve heard. Doran is truly conservative, I believe. He draws applications slightly differently than I would, but I’m not so concerned about exact applications. I’m concerned about an appreciation for what has come before and a distrust for novelty.
The ministry that produced these sermons can in no way be described as conservative. Just because a ministry doesn’t use rock music (yet) doesn’t mean it’s conservative. I’ve heard the pastor of this ministry say publicly that he has no appreciation for church history; that he doesn’t even know if he owns a church history book. That’s very revealing.
If someone really studies church history, wrestles through the issues, and comes to certain applications that I think are unwise, I can respect that. But a desire to be relevant is not conservatism. And to insist on “unity” in defense of this kind of progressivism is a bit hypocritical, in my opinion.
Scott, where is the Doran post. And are you recanting your past effusive praise of Dssidens? Here is a quote from you about him. “Dissidens is like a master chef. If all you’re used to is cotton candy and bubblegum, then you’ll look at what he offers and say, “Don’t waste your time.” If you’re accustomed to lying in the gutter drinking boos, then you’ll glance in the window and say, “He can’t offer me anything.” Even if you decide to go in now and then and nibble on his feast of prime rib and pork chops, you won’t have sufficient opportunity to appreciate its worth, and you’ll shuffle back to your junk food. If he yells, “Your diet is killing you! Here is food that will be a source of nourishment,” you will scoff and sneer.
Take the time to indulge in what the master chef offers, for it is a spread of wisdom from the Word.”
[...] for my own benefit since I’ve certainly been guilty of this from time to time (perhaps recently, in fact). I think discussion and debate over these issues is important, but we must fairly [...]
Wow! I didn’t realize that my statements are being archived somewhere! I’m not sure when or where I said those things, but it sure does sound like me! :)
I’d still stand by what I said, but perhaps with a few caveats. I find a lot of what Dissidens writes to be quite insightful and helpful. But in all honesty, the man just simply likes to be contrary. The thread Doran linked to was a perfect example. Diss and I were going back and forth over whether getting rid of special music for a time would solve any of the worship/music problems. He was arguing that I was ridiculous for even suggesting such a thing. However, as one commenter points out later, he himself had once made this very same suggestion on his own blog! So that just illustrates the fact that he’s just contrary some time.
But the point I was making above was that for Doran to use that as an example of how no one really knows what conservatism is was kind of silly.
Don’t get me wrong; I do appreciate Doran’s subtle critique of my somewhat hyperbolic statement.
It would seem to me that you need to be more careful with your endorsements. Dissidens may be right on some things just like a broken clock is right twice a day. But he is wrong on the bigger issues (the way he treats others, his cynicism, and so on) and anything out of his mouth is suspect. He is the one “lying in the gutter drinking booze.” A “master chef”? Come on…
I agree with you, and I’ve said so many times. Thanks.
[...] Doran has challenged a statement I made recently about conservatism and unity, and then followed up to address some of the comments after [...]