In Daniel's day, the idolatry was blatant and clear. I wonder today how many even SEE this idolatry you speak of, diss.

Mat. 6:23 "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!"

Lk.11:35 "Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness."

This is not your church. What IS your church?

"I’d brought a book with my clipboard"

I'm curious about the book and the clipboard. What book, why clipboard?

Clipboard for taking notes of a discussion, and the book was Hoodwinked, by Jack Cashill, Nelson Current, 2005.

ISBN: 1-5955-5011-9

(An exposure of the lies by the cultural elite, specifically the sexual revolution, multiculturalism, anthropology, marxism, environmentalism.)

That looks like a good book.

Yeah, yeah, the book looks just great.

But, Dissidens, what church (or what sort of church) do you attend?

DGus
Why is the church one attends so important to you?

Joe

Joe:

I don't know what "so important" may connote here, but there are any number of reasons why one would want to know the church affiliation of someone who publishes criticisms of churches. It helps to show the context of the criticisms; it provides a window on the broader view of the critic; it gives a sometimes helpful concrete counter-example to the thing he criticizes. In addition, I am curious.

But let me confess some irritation at your question. I can't know your reasons for asking, which may be sincere curiosity (which would be fine); but "Why is X so important to you?" is a classic deflection of a question that one seeks to avoid. The strategy is to turn the discussion toward the motives (and, if we can hoke them up, the pathologies) of the questioner--sort of like if, instead of answering your question, I had said, "Joe, why are you so eager that my question be avoided?", or "Joe, why are you threatened by questions about church affiliation?" See? It just wouldn't be right. So I answered your question.

In a blog context like this, an intervening question can turn a thread away from a subject, but I'm hoping that won't happen here, and that instead my question will be answered. So I'll repeat it:

Dissidens, what church (or what sort of church) do you attend? Thanks.

Joe,

As I know you know, the word church can refer to a) a spiritual body consisting of all confessing members, b) a particular denomination within that body, and c) a local church. We can all hope that the irrelevance of his question will become apparent to him with the passage of time.

DGus is not interested in context; he needs help categorizing me.

This is the guy who fantasized about my father’s motives in serving the Mystery Tea and who speculated about the significance of the three-second stare. I was going to let him stew in his own imagination.

Now that's actually interesting: Dissidens is bashful about his church, or his church-going (or his non-church-going?).

Dissidens, categorizing you wasn't really my felt need. You have actually categorized yourself adequately so far, to my perception. What I wanted was more information about your current church (local and/or denominational), since you spend so much time criticizing things related to visible Christianity.

If one were to criticize, for example, vacuous hymns or hymnals--and Lord knows there are valid criticisms to be made--I think it would be only fair that he say what hymnal he thinks adequate. Otherwise, he's just taking potshots.

It is of course relatively easy to criticize. Certainly my own church (both my congregation and its denomination) is susceptible to legitimate criticism--in its hymns, its preaching, its catechesis, its architecture, and what not--just as I myself could be subjected to withering criticism, about my upbringing, my family, my personality, my education, my hangups and blindspots, whatever. Someone whose only undertaking was to criticize my church or me could have a field day, taking potshots.

Actually proposing positive practical goods is more difficult. But it is imperative. A church needs a hymnal, for example, and the persons tasked with choosing it can't content themselves with criticizing bad hymnals; they have to pick one to put in the pews. But no actual hymnal can be perfect; it will inevitably leave out excellent hymns the exclusion of which can be mourned, and it will include hymns that some will reasonably consider inferior. Therefore, the minute one says "Not that hymnal, but this one", he opens himself to scrutiny. No matter what hymnal you propose, someone else can criticize or even simply sneer at its inclusions and exclusions. I.e., one can always take potshots. For this reason, one may be tempted only to criticize, and never to commend. That wouldn't be acceptable, in my opinion.

To elevate the issue from hymnals to (local) churches-- Each congregation is subject to criticism, some more than others. If we criticize their faults (which is fair), or if we even opine that Ichabod is written across the doorway (which is sometimes needful), we must be able to say what we recommend Christians ought to do about attending church. If the critic's own answer were "One should commit himself to no church, but slip in and out of the margins of various congregations as a perpetual critic," then he should say that; and in my opinion it would inform his hearers that his view is merely negative, offers no real help, and should be rejected.

If the critic's own answer were "One should commit himself to no church, but slip in and out of the margins of various congregations as a perpetual critic," then he should say that

DGus, is it even possible for one who "sits apart" to commit himself to a congregation?

Yeah, dissidens. Quit forcing your blog onto people's computer screens offering valid criticism they can't refute.

And if you want to say that we have sustained irreparable damage, give us also a five step method to repair the damage.

And go to church while you're at it.

What was I thinking?!

Clearly I didn't think through this blog thingy very well.

Perhaps a non-church illustration will help DGus understand dissidens. What is the point of an external auditing company? External auditing companies must 1) not be on the payroll of the company they audit; 2) must tell the company all the mistakes the company has made. They do not 1) tell the company how to fix the problems (that would be the external consultant's position); 2) and they better not fix the mistakes (see Enron).

MR

MR
Maybe your illustration is closer to reality than just an illustration. It would seem that the Church has become a for profit enterprise, the Wal Marts and Kmarts, and Macys of Christiandom competing for customers and customers with big pockets.

MR, external to what? Christianity? If not, then isn't your auditor still holding stock in a congregation?

Dear Curious George: I don't assume that a Christian dissident would "sit apart" from EVERY Christian Church or group. For example, I have wondered if the name "Remonstrans" implied an affinity for the Dutch "Remonstrants" (who, as I understand it, could be called "dissidents" from Calvinism); and various posts here show some admiration for the Moravians (whom there's reason to admire).

Dear Unk: The proprietors will have to tell us if they share your view, which seems to be that when someone publishes a public blog with the capacity for receiving comments, no unfavorable or opposing comments or pointed questions should be posted. A blog-with-comments could have such a rule, but in my modest experience it would be very unusual. The apparent point of your ironic "Quit forcing your blog onto people's computer screens" is that people who think Dissidens shouldn't post such things don't have to read them. But we're not discussing whether he should post such things (and I'm not complaining that he posts them); we're discussing the implications and ramifications of what he posts. And, by the way, if you don't like my comments, just let me know and I'll stop forcing them onto your computer screen. (See how beside the point that is?)

Dear MR: Hello again. I'm no accountant (and if you are, correct me if I'm wrong), but a CPA examines a company pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). There are public rules oriented toward the positive good of requiring the publicly traded company to accurately and helpfully report its status and activity. The auditor operates under (and cites) published standards that he applies to the company. You can tell, objectively, whether or not the auditor is actually performing a serious critical function contributing to good accounting. He doesn't just walk into corporate HQ and say, "I don't like your architecture. Your logo stinks. Your president is a jerk. Oh, and your accounts receivable are a mess." That is, instead, the voice of a dissident shareholder. (In churches, such people often think of themselves as "prophetic".)

Dear Dissidens: I have no doubt you thought through this blog thingy just fine. It's operating swimmingly. You seem, however, to have acquired some friends eager to shout down dissent (and isn't THAT ironic) and to protect you from questions.

Just to be clear-- You and your co-proprietors criticize hokey evangelism methods ("I Found It") but decline to describe good evangelism, criticize inferior hymns but decline to name a good hymnal, and criticize churches but decline to identify yourselves with any (visible) church.

I think I understand you.

Actually, you don’t understand.

[Me] Yes, I do understand you.

[Dissidens] No, you don't.

[Me] Yes, I do.

[Dissidens] No, you don't.

[Me] Wait. Now we're talking about me again, which is usually my favorite subject, but somehow we got off my intended topic: What is Dissidens' view about ANYthing, beyond elaborate negations. Dissidens wants to pick at Christianity--especially Fundamentalism, which presents a target-rich environment--but doesn't want to say where one might join him in church, what to sing in church, how to worship, or how to evangelize. To read this blog, music is something one listens to on the gramophone, and church is someplace one visits not with prayer book but with clipboard in hand.

That can't really be your attitude. So I'm wrong and you're right: I DON'T understand.

Tolja!

"And if you want to say that we have sustained irreparable damage, give us also a five step method to repair the damage."

In his usual precise and fun way, Unk has pointed out the problem with your thinking DGus. Perhaps a more radical change is needed than we are willing to admit.

On a similar note, my brother is putting in his two weeks notice as a web and publication design consultant with a fundamentalist institution because they don't want to change anything, even though they hired him to change much. Interesting.

Dear Lilrabbi: Are you any relation to Kohlrabi?

Yes, Unk is as witty and wise as Sanballat. But you'll have to help me see the "problem with [my] thinking" that he has pointed out. His comment implies that I had asked for the proprietors of Remonstrans to propose a solution for the problem(s) they bemoan. A proposed solution would be welcome, but that's not what I called for. I have asked, instead, questions that survive even these counsels of despair--i.e., What should a Christian believer do in the meantime, since we find ourselves in the Great and Irreparable Apostasy--spiritual Charlton Hestons on a religious "Omega Man" soundstage. So to speak.

You say, "Perhaps a more radical change is needed than we are willing to admit." Fine. So spell it out. It can be a "five step method", or 25 steps, or 1, or much vaguer than that; the proposed change certainly doesn't have to be simple, or mechanical, or worldly, or unspiritual.

Or, if one sees the problem but confesses he does not see the solution (which is fair enough), then the question is: What do we do in this, our post-apocalytpic world? Mock the mutants? That's all? Well, some of us have children to raise. We don't have the luxury of musing while disaster plays itself out. And anyone with any love for lost souls has to do what he can to rescue the perishing.

For the record, however, I think this "irreparable damage" hypothesis is founded on parochialism, ignorance, and narrow-mindedness. The chief fallacy inherent in Unk's comments is its disregard of Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. In Unk's perception, Hell DID prevail, and now there is no visible Church, and there can be no visible Church--just an electronic network of sardonic believers awaiting the Eschaton.

Church History is pockmarked by foxholes that were dug by earnest believers who were trapped in their own little time and place, and who were sure that theirs was the Last Day, the Time of the Great Hunkering Down, in which nothing is to be done but brace oneself for the Cataclysm. Alas, we have effectively lost 18th Century European Music! Whatever shall we do? Christianity can't survive without it! Alas, we have strayed from 16th-Century Swiss theological novelties! and the Faith is therefore lost!

Nay. Lift up your heads. The thing is not so small as that. The thing is not so brittle as that.

And I saw the gates of hell, large and terrible, looming over the horizon, heading swiftly across the plain, scattering churches in their aweful wake.

I hope Jesus will benefit from your correction.

No relation.

I'm here to learn, I'm afraid I don't have much to add. One thing I'm trying to figure out is this: Dissidens, in your opinion, why is fundamentalism inherently bankrupt culturally? Perhaps you've said it and I have missed it.

lilrabbi:

Let me see if I can help.

First of all, let’s return to the word I actually used rather than the ones DGus has insinuated into the discussion—hoping I will defend statements I never made. I never said fundamentalism was culturally bankrupt. I don’t believe that. I wish it were merely bankrupt. I would sing an entire oratorio, with repeats, if it were just bankrupt.

(Incidentally, I didn’t limit it to fundamentalism; I include all of evangelicalism.)

I do not say it is bankrupt, I say it is apostate. That’s different. That’s worse. There is some remedy for bankruptcy; there is none for apostasy. I speak of cultural apostates, not cultural paupers.

One can become bankrupt through no fault of his own; apostasy involves culpability. This apostasy is a rejection of, a discarding of what was once held to be good, true and beautiful in favor of something that is merely desirable.

I have given examples (more, actually, than is probably good for the conversation) of what I mean. http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2005/07/21/p148 I am challenging people to compare typical and representative examples from the past to the palaver of the present, in particular, examples of art, homiletics and devotional literature.

And for those of our readers who may not feel particularly fond of culture I have posted Not My Church, Not My God as analogous. The church didn’t used to talk such rubbish about God, but the successors to that church do.

And what I say about this “gospel tract” I say also about its cultural baggage. We do not speak the right words about God. We are not saying the right things about God. In fact, it is not just different; it is a contradictory. God is very much not what R. Larry Moyer says he is.

As some of us go kicking in the doors and striding manfully into geezerhood, we see not just a repudiation of the good, true, and beautiful, we see a loss of even the memory of a time when transcendental virtues actually formed religious sensibilities. The only squabble we see is between worldliness and nostalgic worldliness. It’s Lawrence Welk and Pillar in a Battle of the Bands.

And we are not thrilled about it.

Does this help your understanding at all?

Dissidens: Not that it matters, but so far as I know I never attributed to you the phrase "culturally bankrupt", as opposed to "culturally apostate". (But let me admit that this dire distinction doesn't interest me overmuch. It's a mistake I would have been capable of making.) I did use the word (in your "Point of Clarification" thread) in referring to a "bankrupt ecclesiology". I guess I could have said "apostate ecclesiology", too, now that you mention it, but that's not the concept that came to mind.

In that other thread, I am asking you to defend (or explain) statements that you HAVE made. I've even used quotation marks where appropriate:

"The churches that exist for us today have not retained the essence of the Christian religion."
"The Church of Rome was corrupt and unreformable."
"[T]he Church of England was corrupt and unreformable."

But to refresh your recollection, on this thread I have been asking you to say what sort of a church you attend, and what hymnal(s) you recommend. And I could add: What's a "gospel tract" that you do recommend for inclusion in a church lobby?

Dissidens,

That does help. I agree with you. Many (at least some) do (believe it or not!). Could you not point any one well known theologian with whom you would agree? Is there not one church that portrays the transcendant beauty that you love? One in particular that comes to mind - RC Sproul. What do you think? Know much of him?

Dissidens wants DGus to "stew in his own imagination" because he "fantasized about [Dissidens'] father’s motives in serving the Mystery Tea and ... speculated about the significance of the three-second stare." Having never posted before, I'm not guilty of any such crimes. So, if I were to ask the same questions as DGus, and even if my motives for doing so include (among other things) a desire to "categorize" Dissidens, would I warrant a meaningful response?

Let's try - Dissidens, what church (or what sort of church) do you attend?

lilrabbi:

“Could you not point any one well known theologian with whom you would agree?”

No, not entirely. They are all wrong at some point. I am the only one who is right about everything. : ) Even my wife is a bit shaky on some minor points.

“Is there not one church that portrays the transcendant beauty that you love?”

Nope.

I like some of what Sproul has to say. It’s been a long time now, but the last time I heard him he preached a good sermon at Willow Creek; corrected them on their erroneous view of how people “seek God”. Willow Creek never changed, of course.

But, Sproul is reformed, so we part ways there.

curious:

It is a non-aligned evangelical church.

lol - do you agree with your non-aligned evangelical church? Or are you in the same miserable state as the rest of us? Is this why you don't tell us of your church - because it isn't a good one either?

"But, Sproul is reformed, so we part ways there." Same here.

Lilrabbi: What is this "miserable state"? You attend a church that isn't good enough for you?

lilrabbi:

Well, let me put it this way.

Our situation is a little like the terrorism problem: if you insist we are at war, you have one set of options, if you insist this is a law enforcement problem, you have an entirely different set of options.

American Christianity has been badly fractured for a long time now. Everyone knows it, but most don’t want to admit it in the open. Look at what has become of the holiness movement: they have gone from a movement sincerely seeking a holy walk to the most hideous collection of cranks and crooks imaginable. Look at the Black church: who, among our grandparents and great-grandparents, would have put up with guys like T.D. Jakes in their day? You got churches marrying and ordaining queers. You have fundamentalists making a raucous noise about their separatism as though they don’t have decades worth of sexual and political embarrassments to answer for. They have cows over soft rock while embracing the theater. How in the world would they explain that to Pascal? Was there ever an alternative theory of dramaturgy that Blaise could have reviewed? No. It was nothing more than the inexorable drift into error.

Period.

Where I attend, I spoke with one of the pastoral staff; we touched on this problem. I called it the freakshow that is American Christianity. He explained that their church was not connected to any outside religious organizations, suggesting they had nothing to be embarrassed about. I am too new to the situation to call him out on that; perhaps I’ll wait to see what publisher they get their materials from and what mission boards they work with.

But the essential problem remains. And because I am interested in the essential problems, I don’t want to make my specifics the subject of this discussion. If that is what Remonstrans readers want, there are plenty of other blogs. Try SI, they have a BJ sophomore over there working on the problem.

There is an interesting book out there worth reading. The Coming Evangelical Crisis, edited by John Armstrong, 1996. A collection of opinions on, sorry guys, a crisis that is already here. Been here. A whole list of notable guys: Mohler, Jr., MacArthur, Jr., Sproul, Horton… Some of them mere opportunist, sectarian gasbags, some of them honest and conscientious shepherds of the flock. But my point in bringing them up is this: each one places the reason for evangelicalism’s problems on its failure to maintain those distinctives unique to their own ministries.

In one sense that is so natural it seems unobjectionable. In another sense it is frightening. We will never fix problems that don’t appear to be problems to those who need to fix them. I believe the problems are far more profound than is being perceived. And what’s more, there is an institutional inertia that works against all the proposed solutions.

So, this is a long answer to a short question. Yes, I think the “miserable state” is universal. That’s number one.

Number two is, try to imagine fundamentalists repudiating the theater along the lines of historic orthodoxy. See that happening? I don’t.

Try to imagine broad evangelicalism (including fundamentalism) repudiating pop music for use in worship. Imagine their articulating some rationale along the lines suggested by Abraham Kaplan. See that happening? I don’t.

Try to imagine queers being projectile vomited out of the church like Jonah. See that happening? I don’t.

Try to imagine the Black church repudiating its policies of racial and social resentment. See that happening?

Looks to me like a bunch of blind men trying to identify an elephant that is trampling them.

"Lilrabbi: What is this "miserable state"? You attend a church that isn't good enough for you?"

DGus, I thought most would catch bulge in my cheek that was my tongue. Although, I DO agree with what Dissidens is saying. I also agree with what some of the "YF's" say, but I'm clearly not one of them. All that to say, I'm reserving judgement because I got some learnin' to do. (note: a lot of the the 'YF's' are saying is similar to what Dissidens is saying, though much more subjective)

Also, as you've noticed, it isn't helpful to offend Dissidens when trying to get answers from him. Don't argue when asking questions. Even if it means writing in a sort of detached agreement.

"But the essential problem remains. And because I am interested in the essential problems, I don’t want to make my specifics the subject of this discussion."

This makes good sense.

Dissidens, I think I do see what you are saying about what the problem really is. I see the elephant, I'm just trying to understand him better at this point.

When its all said and done - when one understands the problem so well as you do...what is the next step? Can it be made right at all? I'm not comfortable with problems that don't have solutions:P

I really don’t see a solution. Take the phrase you quoted: “You attend a church that isn't good enough for you?"

This has never been about churches that aren’t good enough for us, it’s been about churches that are not good enough for their own founders. I have been scrupulous in not setting my ideas out for consideration; I’ve refused to make recommendations; all I’ve done is say, “Look at St. Augustine, look at Pascal, look at the sort of stuff put out by Bernard of Cluny, Lehms, Tozer, Guyon, Arnold, Eliot… Can you [“you” collectively] all not see your own apostasy? You yourselves are the prodigals in this story.

It will be assumed, if not suggested, that I am merely a crank who is unhappy with the fact that no one is writing any good music for the harpsichord anymore. (But I can live with that.)

The issue is where these problems leave us. I think the problems have no solution. Better men than I have come to that conclusion before me, and once again I fail to be original—and I don’t even know T.S. Eliot’s feelings about the harpsichord.

Do an experiment. Pick some kind of music you really, really hate. A Lawrence Welk “champagne arrangement” of Puff the Magic Dragon, some rap, a raga by Ravi Shankar, Bach’s Art of the Fugue, I don’t care what it is. Pick something you really loathe and picture it being imposed on you at church for worship.

That is our state of affairs. That is why churches have split over music. Churches have multiple services to accommodate this discomfort. Ask those people why they do it. Muse over their answers. We have some pastors challenging people to return next week for something less offensive.

It’s comedic.

And it is not just music. As I’ve said, there is a shelf of books out there already decrying the decline in orthodoxy. Wells has declared that there is no place for truth in the evangelical church. He’s right.

Charles Swindoll took John MacArthur, Jr., to task for being too much of a legalist. In one sermon following the London bombings he compared them [legalists] to terrorists; not BigMac by name, but the implication was not lost on the attenders.

It is not one thing; it is everything. And it all falls under the heading of culture, what Weaver called the metaphysical dream. We don’t have one in common. It does no good to say we have a common Bible.

There are herds of preachers out there who will tell you what to do, and if they can’t find a verse to support it they will tell you it’s there “in principle”.

Every serious critic I know recognized, from Aristotle on, that certain artistic forms serve to purge dangerous passions by exciting them in our hearts. One would think that these preachers could have detected some slight principle at work here. Then all of a sudden they didn’t. This is like the dog that didn’t bark; The Mysterious Case of the Missing Principle.

Principles are in the eye of the beholder.

I persist in the belief that there is no solution, only a strategy for passing on to the young the things of value that may remain:

1. equip them to touch beautiful things (making obedience in worship possible)

2. prepare them to think for themselves in order to meet the piffle–pushers of the day, whether they are Bob Jones, Kevin Bauder, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Paul Crouch… Institutions (and their leaders) never admit they’ve done wrong. A certain independence of thinking is a necessity, and believe me, I know there are horrible risks there as well. Just look at what it did to fundamentalism.

3. give them an appetite for true worship


It will not be what we had. Not ever again. Those things will remain in the minds of most as “museum pieces”, harpsichord worship; they will never be “able to relate to them” as the phrase has it. All we can do is keep what we have; we cannot get back what we lost.

Some problems don’t have solutions; some problems we merely recognize to exist so we can order our affairs accordingly.

So there is something we can do. I don't like the idea of only being able to bemoan everything:P I agree with nos. 1 & 3, but #2 I'm not sure about. I have failed thus far to grasp your gripe with Dr. Bauder. I know you disagree with each other, have for some time, and that he has a deep respect for your thinking. Beyond that, I don't see the where you two actually disagree. Care to expand on this?

FWIW, I love harpsichord. I went to a concert and fell asleep, but while I was awake it was great!

Well, don’t misunderstand me. I am not trying to make this a personal attack on any of the men I listed as examples. It’s not about me versus a personal opponent or a professional rival; it is about the nature of the problems we are discussing. If there is a strategy for us to follow, it necessarily requires us to confront the obvious.

If things need to improve along the lines we are discussing, we are, by the very nature of the case, going to find ourselves opposed by our own institutions. That’s just the way it is. And that is relevant to addressing the problem.

Look at the ministry of Fourth Baptist, listen to WCTS, look at the ministry of BJU, my alma mater… I’m not trying to be selective in any hostile way; I’m just being pragmatic.

Think about it this way: if you oppose the theater in any traditional Christian way, [the position I hold as outlined here] what fundamentalist school is in line with the classic Christian position? None that I know of. Certainly not BJ, not Northland, not Clearwater, not Lansdale, not Maranatha, not Pillsbury, none of the schools I went to. I have friends who loathe the theater yet teach in fundamentalist institutions with drama ministries, attend churches with drama ministries. Where is the separation in that?

Listen to the music at WCTS or Pensacola’s radio. Pure pop music for worship. They will defend it as sacred pop, but it is pop.

If Kaplan is correct, and I’m not assuming that anyone here agrees with me (or him)—but just for the sake of the argument, if Kaplan is correct, then these institutions and their leaders who perpetuate the practices, will stand in opposition to your efforts to eliminate entertainment in worship.

Try telling your young people not to go to movies, explain to them why the church has opposed the theater, including Sophocles and Shakespeare, and then entertain their objections when they cite examples of “good, solid, separatist Christian theater”.

How are you going to get them down on the farm once they’ve seen gay Paree?

I’m not advising that we tar and feather anyone, delightful as that may be, I’m saying that a certain independence of thought is necessary. You will be standing alone.

I am suggesting that matters are now so desperate that to cling to a historic position will require backbone, that we will never get anywhere by lining up in Greenville, Minneapolis, Ankeny, Cedarville… you name it.


As far as bemoaning everything, can I recommend a month’s reading of Jeremiah and Lamentations?

: )

Well, the harpsichord can be boring, and we can know why it is boring.

(The harpsichord is a string instrument, the piano is a percussion instrument, clearly you are a rocker.)

No, seriously: the harpsichord is an instrument that plucks strings, and next to the piano it is a relatively crude instrument mechanically. You have far less control over sound production. Not a lot of control to exert over a note when all you can do is prick a string with a quill.

So you don’t have the color and the expressive capacity on the harpsichord. It’s hard to “be awash in sound” with all the range and nuances of a Chopin on the piano. You have to appreciate the architectural characteristics of a composition.

It takes a special focus of attention.

"I’m just being pragmatic."

AHA!! I knew it since the first.!:)

"we will never get anywhere by lining up in .... Ankeny"

Finally some recognition!

But seriously, I bring up Bauder because his thoughts on the issue are what I am most familiar with. Either I'm misunderstanding you or Dr. Bauder. I don't see what the real difference is. Maybe it is that he has read the MANY other books in the Bible that aren't title Lamentations or Jeremiah? lol

I really DO like harpsichord. I stumbled across it when I bought a Bach cd, and it was full of the stuff. I admit, I liked that rythm. Those guys do stuff with their fingers I can't even do with two sticks, a snare, toms, and a double bass pedal! But my tastes been redeemed (I wish I had never been exposed to, let alone involved in such rubbish - I say that in all seriousness).

I'll be attending a weekend conference which Dr. Bauder is speaking at. Maybe I can grab him for a minute or two and ask him what your difference is - if the other 700 men don't tie him up all weekend.

: )

My niece is an alumna, that's how I found out how rotten things are. ; )

And please stop stumbling across harpsichords, they are delicate instruments.

Your niece? What is her name? Maybe I know her...

Maybe I know you? That would be weird, because you are extremely weird.

You'll have to forgive my recent rash of questions - they were all genuine, but I found that you've addressed most of them before. I've been going through the archives.

So who's your niece? Hmmmmm? Who are you? You have my email, I assume, so you can email this extremely private info to me if you want. I probably won't tell very many people. (Because very many people probably won't care!) lol

She thinks I'm weird too.

That's why I don't give out her name, if she gets popular she will be telling more people that I'm weird.

hah!

RE "Do an experiment. Pick some kind of music you really, really hate. A Lawrence Welk “champagne arrangement” of Puff the Magic Dragon, some rap, a raga by Ravi Shankar, Bach’s Art of the Fugue, I don’t care what it is. Pick something you really loathe and picture it being imposed on you at church for worship."

I recently discovered that this is especially offensive when done at the Lord's Table.

How do you keep from being cynical about church (in the sense of Plato's "form" of church, not its shadows), Dissidens? How do you teach the young to love Christianity (the "form" of Christianity) when you have nothing tangible to which you can point (other than literature)? How can you teach support of your local pastor and leaders and church, when there is very little you can support? How can you desire to congregate, when congregating is grievous?

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing you. Rather, these are questions with which I wrestle constantly, especially at the Lord's Table. How can I keep my heart from turning numb concerning worship?

How can you participate? That's what I keep thinking. And I think of Innisfree.

Unk:

Not sure I understand. Innisfree as in Yeats's Lake Isle of?

neoclassical:

Yup. Been there lots of times.

This is one reason I mention the second point I’ve given on this blog. This battle has been lost; it’s just that simple. You will find people that talk a good game about form&function or separation from the world, or “worship’s not being a form of entertainment”, and then turn around and impose it on you not realizing that their own “solution” is merely a subset of the entertainment industry and totally unworthy of God or worshiper.

Here you are trying to contemplate and appreciate and admire God for his unsearchable riches, which are, literally, unsearchable, and as we run the search they are injecting this audio novocaine. Go figure.

“prepare them to think for themselves in order to meet the piffle–pushers of the day”

I remember going into seminary chapel while the organist was doing his prelude thing. I had every reason to feel out of place; here I was with Bible in hand when it was clear that it was my roller skates that were most appropriate. I had one prof take me to task for not singing in the song service: a gentle reminder to “get with the program”.

What can I say? It will test your wisdom and grace.

How do I keep from being cynical? I’m not sure I have an answer for that. Some people are pretty sure I am cynical. : )

I just modulate my responses given the situation. Try to be gentle with the innocent, pointed with those in leadership and remonstrative with the factious hypocrite.

Yeats, yes. He was on the run from modernism. At least I think so.

Dissidens,

I mean, cynical in my own heart. How can I keep from being calloused about spiritual things in the midst of such triviality? And, if I am successful at keeping my heart from this, how can I can I help others keep from this also?

Look at the ministry of Fourth Baptist, listen to WCTS, look at the ministry of BJU, my alma mater.

Dissidens, you went to BJU? When were you there? (I might have known you.)

Sorry, no, that wasn't intended as an appositive. I meant "Look at Fourth Baptist, or WCTS, or BJU, or my alma mater."

Those who claim to lead bear a special guilt and therefore get pride of place, but the movement as a whole is guilty.

Neoclassical,

Well, it’s simple. It’s not easy, but it is simple.

There is no cynicism in faith. At the one moment where cynicism would have seemed most appropriate, there was none in our Lord. And if there was none in him then, there can be none in his followers now. Jesus did not naively mislead us; he is our example in this as well.

God wrenches, twists, extrudes, torques, exploits, bends, turns, and warps all things for good, including this willfulness. We must believe this. If we have been given some measure of understanding in these things, we are obligated to exercise faith that God works these for his purpose just as he does all our other acts of infidelity. If we have some greater sense of this horror, let us have a greater hope of God’s amendment.

Remember that we are angered by the circumstances of our worship, not the object of our worship. How can we permit ourselves to become cynical in that? He hasn’t abandoned us. Him we still love, and worship truly.

Faith, hope and love.

All the sweeter will be “the song of them that triumph, the shout of them that feast; and they who, with their Leader, have conquered in the fight, for ever and for ever are clad in robes of white.”

Let’s share his anticipation of that day.

You're right.

The horrible music situation being imposed on me just happened at church recently, and I had a very hard time with it.
After I posted what I did I talked with a few friends about this, and our conclusion was that perhaps our present dissatisfaction is just meant to point us to the kingdom, where the Lord's Table will be perfect. I do long for that time, now more than ever, particularly when I consider that there is no hope for the circumstances of our worship.

It's just hard to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

What is your alma mater, Dissidens?

I know it's hard, neo.

But we suffer together and are glorified together; not all Christ’s sufferings were physical. Now we can understand (and share) something of what he suffered in entering a world only to be rejected for what he was and spurned by men who sought only a satisfaction of their desires.

We can shoulder some of that suffering with him.

Dissidens: No answer yet, eh? Maybe I'm getting the silent treatment again. Well, maybe I'm too easily entertained, but I find this a little interesting.

First, you said, "Look at the ministry of Fourth Baptist, listen to WCTS, look at the ministry of BJU, my alma mater."

Oops! Was this a slip?

When asked, you said, "Sorry, no, that wasn't intended as an appositive. I meant 'Look at Fourth Baptist, or WCTS, or BJU, or my alma mater.'"

But you won't say what IS your alma mater. To me it seems very artful. The original statement and your restatement are rather different from each other. The later statement SOUNDS like a denial, but on a close reading it does not actually deny that BJU is your alma mater. Almost Clintonesque, unless you'll clarify, and make it plain--"I did not attend high school or college at Bob Jones"--in which event, I'd take your plainly spoken word for it.

Did you disapprove of those Shakespeare plays they do? the operas? Did it vex you to have to attend them?

I’m sorry, DGus, it’s just very hard for me to take you seriously.

See if you can parse this:

I have never attended any school of any kind connected in any way with Bob Jones University. I have never been on the campus of Bob Jones University, I have never been in the city limits of Greenville, SC.

I have not attended the Wilds, or any other camps or playgrounds connected with the Bob Jones franchise.

I have not attended any of BJ’s plays or operas or chapels, (or any of their various other hoedowns), but if I had, I am certain I would have been “vexed” by their pathetic incompetence and noxious pretensions.

The closest I ever came to any of these horrors were the years I spent in seminary when my wife taught at a Christian school run by a church captained (I refuse to say “pastored”) by a BJ graduate and board member. It was there my wife was required to attend a showing of Sheffey and a Wednesday evening “prayer meeting” which featured a student production of Arsenic and Old Lace.

I did accompany my wife on those occasions, more for her protection than any anticipated cultural benefit.

I do not approve of any plays, whether by Shakespeare, Miller, Chekhov, Ibsen, Goldsmith, (or others which I have seen), nor do I approve of any plays or operas which I have not seen.

I will also say that I am prepared to submit to a lie detector test.

Dissidens: Like I said, your plainly spoken word suffices. But the lie detector would be enormous fun. What a good idea.

Consider posting a thread sometime explaining your opposition to the theater. I would find this genuinely interesting, and possibly even helpful. When I saw the recent movie version of "Phantom of the Opera", I began to wonder about the moral effects of spectacle, even of apparently morally neutral spectacle. (If you've discussed this at any length before, I've missed it.)

You have briefly cited the "traditional" (or was it "classic"?) Christian opposition to the theater, and it is quite true that the early Church Fathers, Eastern and Western, detested it. However, (a) I don't peg you for someone who treats extra-Scriptural Holy Tradition as authoritative, and (b) as I understand it, the theater that they criticized was scandalous, bawdy, even explicitly anti-Christian, whereas modern drama really grew out of the distinctly Christian, evolving medieval phenomena of the pageant, the passion play, the miracle play, and the morality play. After that, wasn't it the Puritans (and their various descendants, and maybe their RC cousins the Jansenists) who opposed the theater altogether? but you place yourself outside that tradition.

To my perception, most non-Puritans regard the genre as capable of abuse OR good use, and think that there can be such a thing as a good play. I gather, though, that you think the genre itself is bad, and (if so) that's the point I'd like to know more about, if you're willing. How does one damn the theater without condemning fictitious narrative generally--and Jesus' parable-speaking in the bargain? --David

a) You peg me wrongly, and b) you understand it wrongly.

Well then, by all means set me straight.

Well, it seems to me one does not start with what the Fathers, Puritans or non-Puritans thought. They may have interesting things to say, but one doesn't start there.

Nor does one suppose, erroneously, that modern drama evolved from Christian sources. (Tragedy actually sprang from conspicuously pagan sources.)

“The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know what it is—what it was intended to do and how it was meant to be used.”

That would mean becoming conversant with Aristotle’s Poetics (or its antecedents).

I gather you're not enlisting Aristotle as an enemy of the theater, since didn't he admire OEDIPUS REX? So I infer you take the essence or definition of drama from Aristotle, and then apply Christian principles to it. That's a solid approach. (St. Thomas Aquinas would surely approve.) But I last read Aristotle more than 25 years ago, and I can barely recall things like catharsis, and the three "unities". I'm certainly willing to learn about drama from Aristotle (and would be grateful to learn your distillation of Aristotle), but as a Christian I'm especially looking forward to the Christian analysis.

Isn't this worth a new thread?

I don’t care if Aristotle is a friend or enemy of the theater. All I need is a definition.

I’m not sure this is worth a new thread. First, we already discussed it somewhat.

Second, no one is going to change; there are no reasons that will trump the love and commitment the modern church has to the theater.

Third, I think there is a real moral risk involved in pretending to discuss ideas one never intends to follow through on. I fear this will be like the great anti-CCM charade: people with certain preferences rising up and fabricating arguments to justify their prejudices and missing the point entirely.

This may sound defeatist, but the theater is here to stay. The best I can hope for is that a) Christian theater remains as banal and unappealing as it now is, b) the spiritually sensitive will learn from the past and look to the care of their own souls and those of their families and flocks. I mean really, we have pastors getting their porn off the internet. I know two shepherds who’ve had their cultural sensibilities shaped by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. What can guys like that contribute to this discussion?

How could they possibly be allies in any fight I would wage? I mean we are commiserating even now over the state of our worship.

There are things we will never fix. Like the idolatries of Israel and Judah, we embrace them when they appear innocent and can never shake them when we finally observe the consequences. The land is polluted. The most I can hope for is that some begin to sense the seriousness of our cultural choices when there is a battle to fight.

This is the aggravation behind this whole series of posts. Any opposition to the theater has to take place at the cultural level, as was done in the past. Theater is, after all, a cultural artifact. It is our brilliant evangelical leadership that led us down this path. Now we hope to fix the problem as a fragmented subculture?!

We have our hands full with impure worship in the church. Do we really think we will get the TVs out of our homes and movies off our computers?

DGus,

Aristotle's teacher spoke (in the mouth of Socrates) of "hobgoblins." referring to a type of argument. Dissidens should read Gorgias again. Keep pressing him. He has yet to answer some very critical questions. Two examples should suffice: 1) ART, 2) CULTURE. If he were to align himself with the Western Intellectual tradtion in an explicit way on either score (definition of art and/or culture), then he may know that his arguments prolly would self-destruct. Ergo, he avoids the really tough philsophical questions, perhaps to keep the game going? I dunno. If he does not align himself with the Great WIT, well.....you draw your own conclusion. Don't let him off the hook; he needs your help. This blog is bound to be good therapy for him.

CD

CD: I am too ingorant to appreciate your hobgoblin reference, to understand your Gorgias reference, or to offer therapy (via blog or otherwise) to anyone. I have post