[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on Ideas Have Consequences, citation #1.
lilrabbi has left a new comment on your post "Ideas Have Consequences, citation #1":
Okay, at the end of your comment, I think we are getting to the point.
You and others are seeing that Fundamentalism has a culture that is rapidly growing outdated. It is not news for me to say that already is and has been outdated for some time. But is "culture" something that is 'datable'?
Pop culture is, by its nature, constantly changing with the whims of every graduating highschool class. Pop culture is commerce-based and it changes yearly, even monthly. Why?
Real or serious culture is not so easily outdated. Why?
My view of aesthetics is based in the Imago Dei. Everything that is good, true, and beautiful is so because it contains or reflects a goodness, truth, or beauty of God.
Here is the key: Serious or real cultural expressions express something eternal. Pop culture does not and is incapable of doing so.
What has that to do with Fundamentalism's problems? Fundamentalism adopted expressions from its pop culture several generations ago.
What many Young Fundamentalists are shooting for is something that is more relevant - something that speaks to people today. They are doing what Fundamentalists did some time ago. They are borrowing and adopting from the Popular Culture of their time.
I was talking to a pastor tonight and I tried to tell him that I see what you see. That Fundamentalist worship is WORSE than what the YF's want. BOTH are adoptions of popular culture (a shallow substitute), but at least one is relevent to us today. We just don't "get" fundamentalist pop. It seems sappy and silly to us. At least we can identify with current pop, right?
I see what you see, and I agree with you that what the YF's want is better when you think of it like that.
But neither is very good. This is what Machen and Tozer tried to tell the fundamentalists in the first half of the last century, and fundamentalists followed the likes of Billy Sunday (read: Mark Driscoll) and J. Frank Norris (perhaps no modern comparison:P) instead of Machen and Tozer.
Fundamentalism has a culture that has been cultivated over the past century to be what it is today. It is full of domineering personalities, politics, and sappy archaic 'artistic' expressions for worship.
As far as worship - lets get back to something more serious-more eternal-so that we can eventually (or our great-grandkids can eventually) begin to produce artistic expressions that transport souls to eternal things.
And, again, if you have any doubt that real culture cannot just be put on like a new coat, look into the word. Cultivation takes time and effort.
Posted by lilrabbi to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 9:30 PM
Okay, at the end of your comment, I think we are getting to the point.
You and others are seeing that Fundamentalism has a culture that is rapidly growing outdated. It is not news for me to say that already is and has been outdated for some time. But is "culture" something that is 'datable'?
Pop culture is, by its nature, constantly changing with the whims of every graduating highschool class. Pop culture is commerce-based and it changes yearly, even monthly. Why?
Real or serious culture is not so easily outdated. Why?
My view of aesthetics is based in the Imago Dei. Everything that is good, true, and beautiful is so because it contains or reflects a goodness, truth, or beauty of God.
Here is the key: Serious or real cultural expressions express something eternal. Pop culture does not and is incapable of doing so.
What has that to do with Fundamentalism's problems? Fundamentalism adopted expressions from its pop culture several generations ago.
What many Young Fundamentalists are shooting for is something that is more relevant - something that speaks to people today. They are doing what Fundamentalists did some time ago. They are borrowing and adopting from the Popular Culture of their time.
I was talking to a pastor tonight and I tried to tell him that I see what you see. That Fundamentalist worship is WORSE than what the YF's want. BOTH are adoptions of popular culture (a shallow substitute), but at least one is relevent to us today. We just don't "get" fundamentalist pop. It seems sappy and silly to us. At least we can identify with current pop, right?
I see what you see, and I agree with you that what the YF's want is better when you think of it like that.
But neither is very good. This is what Machen and Tozer tried to tell the fundamentalists in the first half of the last century, and fundamentalists followed the likes of Billy Sunday (read: Mark Driscoll) and J. Frank Norris (perhaps no modern comparison:P) instead of Machen and Tozer.
Fundamentalism has a culture that has been cultivated over the past century to be what it is today. It is full of domineering personalities, politics, and sappy archaic 'artistic' expressions for worship.
As far as worship - lets get back to something more serious-more eternal-so that we can eventually (or our great-grandkids can eventually) begin to produce artistic expressions that transport souls to eternal things.
And, again, if you have any doubt that real culture cannot just be put on like a new coat, look into the word. Cultivation takes time and effort.
Posted by lilrabbi to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 9:30 PM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home