It’s now a month or two ago that Aaron Blumer, the owner of the blog-forum, SharperIron, wrote the fourth, and, it seems, final installment of a series in which he criticizes the content of the book, Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT). I’m going to evaluate that fourth post paragraph by paragraph and in certain cases, line by line (link to the introduction to this post).

Aaron starts by saying that biblical doctrine is derived from Scripture. Exactly. We wish that would be the basis for Aaron’s position, instead of his “dispersed text” view that says that we apparently have the words dispersed among all the available manuscripts. We don’t know what they are or even where they are. But, he would insist, we have some basis to know that we have enough of the Bible to obey God. This would mean that he is also saying that the very words are not what God sees is important to mankind’s receiving of His message.

As he continues in his introduction, you do want to pay attention to a certain feature of Aaron’s presentation. He writes in the second paragraph that “God assures us that His Word will endure forever and will not pass away.” Catch the singular “Word.” Not the plural “Words.” If you say that God assures that He will preserve His “Word” for us on earth, then you can still not have all of the very Words and not know where they are all at, and yet still have His “Word.” Also notice that he writes, “will not pass away,” taking language from Matthew 24:35 where Jesus promises that His “words shall not pass away,” not His “Word,” singular. So Aaron says that the important thing is to get your position from the Bible and then he changes “Words” to “Word,” knowing the difference that makes to the meaning of the verse. He does this a few other times in his article. It isn’t thinking about this scripturally.

In his next sentence, Aaron writes: “He assures us that believers will have sufficient access to His Word until all is fulfilled.” I haven’t read any doctrine of accessibility that Aaron has agreed upon in this series. We have taught that point from Scripture and he has denied. Now he doesn’t say that He thinks that we have access to all the Words, but He does believe in access. Is that in the Bible? And if so, why is it that we have sufficient access to a percentage of the Words and not all of them? If there is access, then the access should reflect what the Bible says will be the access, since that’s where we get our doctrine. Of course, access passages say that we have access to all the Words.

Next he gives three bullet points that he says “some insist” must be included to be a “true doctrine of preservation.” The first is the preservation of “every word in its original form.” Isn’t that what preservation is? If you had 100 marbles and I said I preserved them for you and then handed you 93 of them, you woudn’t think that I preserved them.

His next point is “continual access by many believers.” That is not exactly our position. We believe there is access to every generation of believers. And isn’t this the point of preservation, so that we would, you know, have the words. Let’s go back to the marbles. Let’s say that you gave me the 100 marbles, and I said, I’ve preserved them for you. And then I said, but I don’t know where they are at; I only know that they are around somewhere. Anyone with even half a brain would know that is the equivalent of them being lost. You get the point.

His third bullet point says “Certain identifiability in the form of a perfect text.” The third point is where the greatest rub is for the so-called “dispersed preservation” people. They don’t believe we have one “text” with all the Words in it; well, because God never said what textual edition He would preserve. There we go. Aaron writes about this in the second half of the introduction. And yet that is a straw man because Scripture promises the preservation of every Word, not the preservation of one magical copy that would move its way down through history.

In the last little section of his introduction, he writes: “That every single word is preserved is not in dispute.” Um. Wrong. That is very much in dispute. Does Aaron believe that we have the original words of 1 Samuel 13:1 in any Hebrew manuscript? Most of the authors of God’s Word in Our Hands, a book that proposes the same view as Aaron, don’t believe there is an existent text with the original Words of 1 Samuel 13:1 in it. That sounds like a dispute.

A Clear View of the Central Question

Aaron says the quest for the biblical position relates to this question: “Do we have biblical statements that say, or clearly imply, that believers will have access to every word of Scripture in the form of a text they know is flawless?” There are minefields here. First, Scripture doesn’t teach the preservation of a form of a text, but the preservation of every Word. Second, Scripture doesn’t say that believers will “know” what those Words are. However, I believe that, based on the teaching of Scripture, from both its direct statements and implications, believers will know what every Word is, so that they will be able to have that flawless form of the text. These are important little details here.

In the second paragraph of this section, Aaron mentions the distortion and sabotage of the Words of Scripture. We have a section on that in TSKT. One of the points of that was to show from Scripture that God Himself said that men were already corrupting the Word of God, so that we would understand that the Bible was already being altered in the first century. The main reason for including that in TSKT was to show from Scripture why “earliest manuscripts are the best manuscripts” can’t be said to be true. Later under the heading of “Indirect biblical arguments,” Aaron talks about this again, where he again misses the point, which was plain.

A Final Look at Thou Shalt Keep Them

In this little section Aaron makes this statement: “I focused on [TSKT] as an example of one of the better efforts to establish PTP biblically as the correct doctrine of preservation.” Wrong. TSKT wasn’t making an effort to establish PTP biblically. He frames TSKT wrongfully here, and this does expose Aaron. We studied the Bible on the doctrine of preservation. What we wrote in TSKT is a record of part of our findings. In light of that, I considered this question, “What and when have books been written that would established the ‘dispersed text’ as a Biblical position?” That is, “What works done about preservation of Scripture would show that the Bible teaches this ‘dispersed view’ of preservation?” I’m not going to be able to find that book to read. There is none. I don’t think anyone has written that book because that view isn’t found in the Bible.

“It Is Written”

Aaron wrote about Dave Sutton’s chapter on gegraptai, the perfect passive, third person, singular, of grapho. Pastor Sutton has already answered Aaron’s criticism, but I want to add a little more. A lot of biblical teaching would be voided if someone took the same approach to Scripture as seen in Aaron’s criticism. He says that the perfect tense does not guarantee future preservation, only present preservation. Of course, the perfect looks at the results of some past action from the point of view of the reader. With a perfect verb the reader knows that the results of some action in the past are ongoing. With the perfect, there is no assumption that those results are going to stop. The product of the writing of those Old Testament texts completed in the past were still existent at the time that Christ referenced them fifteen hundred years later. Does that teach preservation? Of course it does. But Aaron sees in the perfect tense that there is no guarantee for the future. But why would one think that, if it is God that has preserved it up to that point? That’s not the purpose of the perfect tense, that is, to hold off on guaranteeing anything in the future. If that were the case, many eternal security passages would be dealt a blow that they shouldn’t. Why? Because the reader shouldn’t think that his salvation is secure anytime past that present moment, at least according to Aaron’s way of thinking on the perfect tense.

To cover his bases, Aaron then says that even if the perfect was making some guarantee for the future, it would only be ensuring the reader of the preservation of just the Words to which Jesus referred and no more. That seems to be a very cynical view. It is akin to saying that only the Apostle Paul could have blood on his hands for not preaching the whole counsel of God’s Word. After all, he didn’t say that everyone would have that kind of responsibility, just himself. This is not the right approach to Scripture. We should assume from the use gegraptai that there is a teaching there about the preservation of all of God’s inspired Words. Aaron seems to me to be making the Word of God of no effect through some tradition.

“The word is very nigh unto thee”

Aaron makes his disputation here: “The author illustrates a widespread error in TSKT’s argument—the leap from “words” to “every one of the words.” . . . . However the passage does not say that every jot and tittle had to be in their “mouths” before they could obey.” I don’t think that Aaron read that chapter carefully enough. Deuteronomy 30:11 says that “this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee.” In the previous verse, we get the commandment: “to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law.” So especially with this being repeated in Romans 10, the implication is that all the “written” commandments and statutes would be available. None of that is mentioned by Aaron. Instead he chooses to present the strawman to his readers.

“Mindful of the words…Remember the words”

Aaron says that TSKT does not make a strong case for accessibility from 2 Peter 3:2 and Jude 17. He says that the “chapter fails to make a strong case but claims to have done so anyway.” Here’s the essence of the chapter. You can’t be mindful of or remember Words that you don’t have. So if Peter and Jude are calling on their readers to remember the Words of all the prophets and the apostles, which would represent the Words of all of the Bible, it is implied that they would have those Words available. Aaron doesn’t think that’s a strong case. So Aaron would be saying that when Peter and Jude said “remember the Words of the prophets and the apostles,” that meant “some of the Words,” not all of them. Aaron seems not to want Scripture to be saying what it is actually saying.

Indirect biblical arguments

TSKT asserts that doctrines are changed, altered, or lost in the critical text. One of the critical text assertions is that no doctrine is altered by the differences between the critical text and the textus receptus. Aaron contends that doctrines are only changed in individual texts (which doesn’t seem to matter so much to him—he doesn’t comment on that at all), that is, only if those passages stand alone, not, however, in the whole of Scripture. And he says that he just randomly picks out 1 Peter 2:2 as an example. Well, to make his point, he really can’t take out just one of the passages as an example. He would have to show how that this does not ever occur.

One of the passages referenced in TSKT is Matthew 18:15-17. In v. 15, the King James Version (from the TR) says, “if thy brother shall trespass against thee.” The New American Standard Version (from the critical text) says, “if thy brother sins.” The critical text, and therefore the modern versions, leaves out “against thee.” That, my friends, changes the doctrine there. And this is the only place in the Bible where this particular teaching is found. Aaron should have been a little less random in his choices. He says that “every textual difference in these chapters is similarly non-decisive doctrinally.” Wrong.

Other arguments

Aaron deals with the canonicity argument of chapter 19 by writing, “The books of the Bible are canonical because God inspired them.” I defy Aaron to show me a verse from Scripture, since that is where we get our doctrine, that says that God inspired “Books.” He says Books are canonical because they are inspired. What does that say about the canonicity of “every writing,” which the Bible actually says God inspired? Aaron denies the latter, which is in Scripture, for the former, which isn’t.

If you remember Aaron’s original question, he concentrates on whether believers will “know” what is the flawless form of text of Scripture. TSKT spends several chapters showing what Scripture says about how God’s Words would be preserved. Aaron doesn’t even mention that. The canonicity argument explains how Israel and the church would “know” what the Words were. How? God would guide them. The Holy Spirit would guide the church to the Words. He wrote them, so He can also guide the church to those Words. He never refutes that particular point, when that is the historic position of the church on preservation.

The Holy Spirit would enable the church to know what the Words were. Aaron says this rests on one’s interpretation of history. But how is this any different than canonicity? How can we “know” what the “Books” of Scripture are? Is that too just an interpretation of history? Aaron is simply choosing what he will call “interpretation of history” and what he won’t.

Speaking of the Books of Scripture, Aaron writes in this section: “His people were able to exercise discernment and recognize their inspired quality.” This should be a bit of an “aha” moment for us. In the second paragraph after his introduction, Aaron writes that the question is not, “Is God able to overcome human nature so that those He chooses perfectly preserve the text?” Just replace the word “text” with the word “Books.” This is where we’re at in this whole issue. Aaron “knows” what the Books are. God’s people were “able” to recognize the Books of Scripture. Why? Well, that was, it seems, a comprehensible use of God’s power over individuals who were crippled by sin. According to Aaron, the church is too sinful for God to enable to know what the Words are but not sinful enough to know what the Books are. Why? Because God inspired the Books. Do you get it? If you don’t, I understand. Aaron says that it is not a matter of what God was able to do. But, yes, it is that matter for Aaron. He isn’t taking His preservation of Books view from a verse. He believes it is what God is able to do. God could overcome men’s sinful natures to perfectly preserve Books only. That is something God could do. However, we wouldn’t want to strain God with the task of perfectly preserving Words, even though those are what God did say He inspired.

The preceding paragraph exposes Aaron, as well as others like Him. I’ve found that the “verse” that guides the advocates for this “dispersed view” of preservation is the one found in One Bible Only? by Kevin Bauder. He wrote: “No two manuscripts contain exactly the same Words.” That statement is not actually true. It has been proven to be false. But even if it were true, which they believe it to be, that’s the “verse” that is the basis for the critical text, eclectic text, or dispersed text view. It’s not in the Bible. It’s not actually a verse, but it may as well be to the critical text proponents. Reason presides over this choice, not faith. They make the choice that they can comprehend. And, of course, it makes the scientists of textual criticism the authority over the Words of God with their denial of theological presuppositions. I do believe it’s like the choice that Jehovah’s Witnesses make about the deity of Christ. They make the comprehensible choice, the one that makes the most sense to their own reasoning, disregarding the statements of Scripture.

To end his criticism of TSKT, Aaron chronicles the “pseudo-arguments” of TSKT. Of course, these are not even arguments, but it makes for clever rhetoric by Aaron. He also says that we participate in a little “mind-reading” in judging the opponents of the doctrine of perfect preservation. That’s to be expected on his part. But since we don’t have a theology of “dispersed preservation” to read anywhere (because there couldn’t be one), we are left with the only possible explanations for a non-biblical or unbiblical point of view. If it’s not in the Bible, where besides man’s reasoning could a view come from? This doesn’t take mind reading, but simple logic.

Aaron ends his article with this: “God has preserved His Word in the manner in which He chose and in a form that is sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.” Perhaps nothing could be more ambiguous as that—no explanation of what God chose or the form that was sufficient. We are to assume that sufficient form was an imperfect form. That’s where Aaron is leaving us. He doesn’t say that, because He can’t show us a verse that teaches it. Whatever the form is, and Aaron doesn’t know, it will be enough for Scripture to be sufficient. Imperfection will be fine with God. That could be the title of Aaron’s piece: Imperfection will be fine with God. We will be sufficiently perfected by means of imperfection, according to Aaron and those like him. I reject that position. And I hope you do too.

Does the Bible teach that it is a divinely inspired book? Those who say they believe in so-called “verbal-plenary” inspiration say “yes.” Those who study the Bible in the most scholarly institutions of America are not so sure. Who is right?

Points of Agreement

Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that the Bible is inspired in some sense. Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches divine inspiration, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words of Scripture He inspired.

It is also agreed that the Bible depicts human beings as both finite and fallen and prone to error in what they do, but that God overcame human fallibility in some sense when He inspired “holy men of God” to record some form of Scripture. This is where we come to a major fork in the road. Though we do not have equally direct and clear statements to the effect that God also ensures that there are sixty six divinely inspired books, many believe a compelling case for this kind of inspiration can be derived from passages in certain sixty-six books that many refer to as Scripture or the Bible.

This article aims to examine all of the relevant biblical arguments to see whether we have sufficient grounds for believing God has continuously overcome the limitations of men so that they produce a divinely inspired, word-perfect text of sixty-six books. The goal here is not to argue outside of scripture, but to make myself a kind of blank slate and only judge my view of inspiration from the passages that are referred to by those who believe in a divinely inspired, word-perfect sixty-six book Bible in the original writings, essentially to hold myself to the standard that the word-perfect, sixty-book divine inspirationists say that they hold themselves to.

“All Scripture Is Given by Inspiration of God”

This phrase from 2 Timothy 3:16 has become the proof text for those who believe in word-perfect and divine inspiration of every and all the Words of a sixty-six book Bible. However, upon closer examination, I believe we can show quite clearly how that this is a position that the men who hold to this view are reading into the text based upon their ill-conceived presuppositions. For instance, 2 Timothy 3:16 itself doesn’t teach what the word-perfect divine inspiration men say that it does. They take from this one phrase far more than it says. Here’s how.

The verse starts with “all Scripture.” These are two words in the original Greek, pas graphe. “All writing” or “every writing.” The understanding of graphe is “writing.” The next word is an adjective, translated in the King James Version with several words, “is given by inspiration of God.” It is only one word in the Greek, an adjective, theopneustos, God-breathed. One could understand this terminology several ways—“every God-breathed writing” or “every writing is God-breathed.” It is grammatically correct and many scholars believe that the translation should be: “Every inspired scripture is also profitable.” Seeing that as a possibility does bring some ambiguity to the meaning of this verse from the start. It’s not best to base some doctrine of divine, verbal-plenary inspiration of a sixty-six book Bible on such questionable writing.

The phrase is saying that certain writings are God breathed. Question: Which ones? Nowhere does the Bible in which this phrase appears tell anyone what the writings were that God inspired, that He breathed. And the verse says “writings,” not “words” or “letters.” Especially when we look at the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament and see that they don’t match up “word for word,” we really have a basis for seeing this as at the most a conceptual type of writing. “Writing” is in a general sense and not in any way specific.

Certainly the verse points a case toward God breathing out writings, but we don’t have a basis for knowing what those writings are. And what certain men say are God-breathed, sixty-six books, they have no basis for knowing that those sixty-six were the ones that God breathed, or that he breathed two chapters or one chapter or five. And then we also know that the men to whom God breathed these writings were affected by the ruination of sin. Nothing in what men call the Bible, these so-called sixty-six books, says anything about whether the men wrote the books down correctly.

Do we know what was inspired and what was not? Nothing in these sixty-six books says anything about that, and all I’m trying to do is determine this based upon what the Bible itself says. And it says nothing about what are the writings and what are not. The sixty-six book Bible has verses in it that refer to books that are not among the sixty-six books. Why are they not included? It would seem that there is a biblical basis for including them, at least if the books in which they are mentioned are considered to be divinely inspired in such a way. When I base my position merely on what the so-called Bible says, I can’t argue for what is inspired and what is not. There is no list included therein.

And then what exactly does this one adjective, found only here in the entire twenty-seven books men refer to as the New Testament, mean? We can’t very well go to other verses to determine it’s meaning. Is it a kind of divine inspiration at the level of William Shakespeare? Everyone has within him a spark of divinity, found in the image of God, that interacts with him in a way for his natural gifts to be used to their greatest extent. We can’t say from this verse what exactly this “inspiration” is all about. Should we not build such a large case on a singular usage of a word? Wouldn’t this word have appeared many more times if it really was so important?

“Holy Men of God Spake As They Were Moved by the Holy Ghost”

In addition to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, here from 2 Peter 1:20-21 is the only other proof text for the apparent doctrine of divine, verbal-plenary inspiration. Just to start, who are the “holy men” and what did they speak? It seems that we start with a lack of information right from the start by which we can make a decision. What came from holy men and what did not? And why were not all the books written by these holy men also part of the Bible? It smacks of subjectivity through and through.

And notice that it says that they “spake.” Was everything that holy men spake, their oral words, actually moved upon by the Holy Spirit. And what was this movement? Many believe that “moved” means “to convey some burden” or “to be carried along.” How does this relate to individual words and written ones at that? It seems that this passage does more harm than good for the cause of something written. It says “spake.” Those are words from someone’s mouth, not something in ink on some physical material, like parchment.

Conclusion

So far, a case for a biblical doctrine of word-perfect, divine inspiration of sixty-six books proves nothing beyond what is generally agreed: that God has given us to a certain degree a message. We don’t know that it is in exact words, we don’t know how many words, which words, or even books, and we don’t know exactly how God went about accomplishing that. At the least, we’ve got to head outside of the Bible to determine how many books should be included in the whole. The Bible itself, as agreed upon the most conservative believers in inspiration, does not tell us how many books should be included. We have no Scriptural basis for determining what is God’s Word and what is not and how exactly God made sure, despite the fallibility of sinful men, that we could even receive it in an untainted condition.

*******************************************

I recognize that many who read the above essay might be experiencing disgust and extreme revulsion. I understand. However, I wanted to argue against verbal-plenary, perfect, divine inspiration in the same manner as those who argue against perfect preservation of Scripture, so that they could get an understanding of what they sound like to us. I think my arguments above are just as good, even better, than what I hear against perfect preservation.

Aaron Blumer, the one whom I answered in my previous post, says he’s taking his teaching only from Scripture. He says he’s only letting Scripture have its say. I would ask him to show me where the Bible says there are sixty-six books and then within those books, and why within those books, why those paragraphs. Scripture might be inspired, but how do we know what is Scripture and what is not? He’s got to make his argument just from Scripture.

As others read my general summary of positions, they may not want to think of what I’ve represented as being inspiration. But shouldn’t they if they are going to be “open minded”? Haven’t I been clear? Anyone who disagrees—should we just admit right now that they are closed minded and attempting to just obfuscate the issue? I think you get the point.

Aaron might think that he has a biblical basis for inspiration, one that we don’t have for preservation. But that’s only based on how you argue the issue. Aaron really does start with a predisposition toward the inspiration of the Bible when he comes to the two inspiration passages. Two. He is able to see them differently than the preservation passages, because he believes in the perfect inspiration of sixty-six books. I contend that the way he argues (and others just like him), what he writes, shows that he starts with a disposition not to believe in perfect preservation. Then he goes about looking at the passages. He’s bound to be looking for arguments to eliminate the doctrine of perfect preservation.

I’m quite sure that most professing fundamentalists still wouldn’t allow for rock music in their church services. Even if much of fundamentalist worship isn’t acceptable to God, they won’t use rock music at their churches. But I do believe that the relationship to rock music has changed in fundamentalist churches. Before they were sure that the Bible taught that rock music is wrong. Now you hear even some of the most conservative of the fundamentalists say that its difficult to judge whether it’s wrong or not. To many now, it’s just a preference they have, not playing rock music, but they would have a hard time explaining why they shouldn’t allow it. They often sound tentative in their opposition to rock music.

What is the evidence that I see that says that rock music is becoming or already is a non-issue in fundamentalism?

Here’s what I see. Rap music is played at the Together for the Gospel conference and professing fundamentalist men get together with those men at that conference. Some of the music at the same event is played with rock music. Most of the primaries find rock and rap acceptable. They may not like it personally, but most of their churches play it. That’s not a problem for them.

MacArthur isn’t criticized by fundamentalist leaders for the rock music played at his church. The Resolved Conference plays rock music for the young people that come—this is a Grace Community Church conference. That doesn’t stop fundamentalists from fellowshiping with MacArthur and Grace Community Church. You don’t hear this as a criticism coming from major fundamentalist leaders.

You will see at SharperIron, which represents a large segment of young fundamentalism, that there is stronger argumentation for rock music than there is against it. Some of their blogroll don’t have a problem with rock music. They may not like it, but they aren’t against it. Nobody suffers any repercussions for supporting rock music or fellowshipping with it. It’s reasonable now not to have a problem with rock music at SharperIron. SharperIron is much more against the doctrine of perfect preservation than they are against rock music. Anti-perfect preservation is nearly at an essential doctrine with the rock music being a liberty.

You don’t hear fundamentalist leaders writing this: “rock music is evil,” “rock music is wrong,” or “rock music is sinful.” If they say anything at all, you hear or see them saying that it is a non-essential and a liberty issue.

Probably the major voice in fundamentalism against rock music now is Scott Aniol. You know Scott is against rock music. You can tell that Scott is not a favorite among the fundamentalists because of that. He is not respected by many because of how strong he is. And yet, when he talks about rock music, you will not hear him say that rock music is sinful, wrong, or evil. In a sense, I hate to say it because I like Scott’s stand, but he tip toes around the issue. In a recent conversation on his blog, he and a colleague talked about how that cultures should be learning from each other and allowing other cultures to reveal our blindspots.

Promoted fundamentalists are friends with those who listen to and promote rock music. You see Dan Philips, one of the Pyromaniacs, go to a Chicago concert and promote rock music of various forms, secular and “Christian” on his blog. And he gets zero criticism from fundamentalists. None. Chris Anderson of SharperIron and in with fundamentalism and SharperIron, even Bob Jones University, considers him a friend. Rock music doesn’t break friendships with fundamentalists. It’s totally a side issue any more.

Why Is Rock Music Becoming a Non-Issue in Fundamentalism?

First, fundamentalism is being influenced much by conservative evangelicals. This is obvious. They want to fit in with those guys and mostly those guys use rock music in their churches. That’s got to be overlooked.

Second, young fundamentalists listen to Christian rock and even secular rock. Fundamentalists know that. They don’t want to come down too hard. I hear from credible sources that most kids on Christian campus are listening to rock music.

Third, the universal church belief and the consequential belief about unity has ditched rock music as an issue. If all believers are going to get together and most professing believers are using and listening to it, there’s not going to be that unity they think we’re supposed to have. So rock music has become a casualty of Christian unity.

Fourth, the people who do preach against rock music are not respected. Many of them use the King James Version and that is more odious to many fundamentalists than rock music. They would rather have rock music than KJVO. I sense this personally. It’s easy to pick up. The major leaders that themselves don’t like rock music preach all around the issue without actually saying the words “rock music.” Kevin Bauder at Central is one of these. You know he’s against it, but you don’t hear him come right out and say it.

Fifth, fundamentalist churches had already started thinking about the audience, when it came to their choice of music. They weren’t thinking so much about the unchanging nature of God as they were what people liked and what people would feel. Without the right purpose of music to anchor them, they have veered away from the right purpose. Some of that is seen in the influence of Patch the Pirate and certain fundamentalist ‘evangelists’ upon fundamentalist music. To their credit, some fundamentalist leaders, like Bauder and Aniol, understand the similarities between some of the Majesty Music and rock music. It’s harder to oppose the rock, at least for them, when fundamentalists have entertainment oriented music themselves. The trite lyrics and show-tune music of revivalists in the midst of even conservative fundamentalists make fundamentalists seem as guilty. This kind of music has been acceptable in even the Bob Jones University branch of fundamentalism and the relations between those forms and rock music is very close in the minds of a Bauder and Aniol, among some others. If they were going to come down hard on rock music, they likely feel they would need to disparage a huge chunk of those with whom they have the closest affiliations.

There are probably more reasons, but these above are the major ones. I don’t mind being wrong. But I think I’m right here. Rock music has become a non-issue in historic fundamentalism. What do you think this means for the future of fundamentalists?