Recent Posts
Jon Pratt and Emmanuel Malone We welcome back Emmanuel Malone as he answers three more [more]
Our task as churches is to make disciples, and this happens when we use the [more]
The discussion of beauty among Christians is often stymied before it starts. Some of this [more]
Jon Pratt In the most recent Nick of Time essay, Kevin Bauder introduced the subject [more]
Every church has as its mission the making of disciples, but how does that happen? [more]

Missions and the antithesis

This entry is part 8 of 16 in the series

"Missions and Music"

Read more posts by using the Table of Contents in the right sidebar.

Last week, I spoke at the Preserving the Truth Conference in Troy, MI. Of the three points that I made in my presentation (notes, audio), one is especially relevant to the discussion of missions.

The antithesis, then, presents us a goal: to explore and articulate a Christianity that is Christian all the way down. The postmoderns have all made us self-aware enough that we recognize the impossibility of this goal; we cannot escape the assumptions of our inherited cultures. I maintain that we can frame the discussion in terms of tendencies: a right understanding of the antithesis compels us, as a matter of first priority, to develop a distinctively Christian answer to all questions. Those who mitigate the antithesis, by ignorance or by appeal to common grace, follow a different impulse: to articulate Christianity in a manner consistent with some element or another of unbelieving culture.

While we must reject as inconceivable a Christianity that is no way shaped to the concerns of people, I suggest that we go wrong to the degree that we allow concerns of common ground to dominate our approach to the faith.

This statement is foundational to any claim I make about music and missions. The common accusation, in any discussion of music and missions, is that the attempt to change the worship practices of those to which we are bringing the gospel is imperialism. And such a charge would be true, if I were advocating bringing a culture change to a group of people on the basis that we just like our culture better.

But that is not my claim. What I’m trying to do (and I am truly open to discussion on these points) is answer this question: if we were to develop a fully Christian approach to fill-in-the-blank, what would it be like? So, for instance, what would a worship service, based on as-fully-Christian-principles-as-we-can-possibly-determine, be like? That’s the question I’m seeking to ask as a matter of first priority.

This article on the problems at Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral has been circulating these past couple of days. The irony of it coming from Christianity Today is one that I won’t exploit now. Regardless, it offers a clear example of the problem of blurring the antithesis between belief and unbelief, of making the finding of common ground higher priority than developing a fully Christian approach to ministry.

Some are tempted to hit the man while he is down, but this is unwise. Robert Schuller is not the problem—contemporary evangelicalism is. Schuller was only leading the parade of those who believe they are responsible for making the gospel relevant. The lesson is not that Schuller got it wrong or that his theology is out-of-date; it is not that we just need to find a better, more current point of cultural contact. The lesson is that our attempts to find and exploit a point of cultural contact inevitably end in bankruptcy.

Series NavigationPreviousNext
Michael Riley

About Michael Riley

Student of theology, apologetics, and Christian affections. Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Wakefield, Michigan.

2 Responses to Missions and the antithesis

  1. Interesting that you target common grace in your argument. However, in Genesis 4, we see aspects of culture (development of music, raising livestock, living in tents, making tools out of bronze and iron) coming from the ungodly line of Cain (example of common grace) If these cultural developments had taken place in the godly line of Seth, I might be able to buy your anti-thesis argument applied to music. But it came from the son of a wicked, arrogant, and violent man. This ungodly line sank into such a downward spiral of sin until God had to destroy the earth with a flood because of the widespread depravity and violence.

    Sin and its depravity of course is an issue that many evangelicals do not take seriously when it comes to music and I commend you and Scott for highlighting it within the context of music. However, it seems as if you and Scott have a truncated view of the doctrine of Creation with the Image of God in Man and Common Grace after the fall of man when it comes to these music issues. Correct me if I am wrong, I just haven't seen a developed view of Creation and God's image (Gen 1 and 2) from either one of you, which is surprising since God's image in man is so foundational to what the Bible speaks about culture. However, I have seen alot about the fall and man's depravity. Fundamentalists that are trying to preserve cultural conservatism that do not start off with a robust view of creation and what constitutes God's image, followed by a robust view of the fall and the depravity of man as well as a proper view of common grace will have a distorted view of culture, which flirts dangerously with Christian Gnosticism.

  2. If I may offer a comment on this: I don't think anyone denies that man can create good musical forms. We certainly believe that, and those who believe in cultural neutrality obviously believe that.

    So I think that's why you perceive an emphasis on depravity and antithesis in these discussions; what we are arguing against is the prevalent view that ALL music is inherently good (or neutral) by virtue of its very existence. We're not emphasizing common grace because both sides agree that there is such a thing as good music.

    Thank you, though, for pointing out the wonder of God's image in us and his mercy in showing grace to all men in various ways.

Leave a reply