It is imperative that I establish several principles and convictions before presenting the music which is presently the mark of the Fundamentalists. Unless these matters are acknowledged, the content of this article will not be read with the proper heart and spirit. I am writing to my brethren, those with whom I have cast my lot, my companions in the battle against the apostasy. It is my prayer that the Holy Spirit will enable me to write with sanctified candor on the music found among my own people.
The year 1974 was a very momentous year in my family’s life. It was the year we made our exodus from a theological system which we believed was entering a true apostasy, with no hope of any return. My family had been members of the Pentecostal system for three generations with my grandfather Hubert T. Spence being the Bishop of the Pentecostal Holiness Church in the late 1940s. My father was admired as a Bible scholar and teacher in its ranks and was sought for Bible conferences and seminars. At the age of twenty, I was sent for ninety days to Canada for twelve full week revivals with the expenses being paid by the denomination. I was ordained to the ministry that very year, and the ecclesiastical road seemed promising. This Pentecostal denomination had been birthed in the early 1900s on the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but its distinctives certainly were different from those who were fundamental in their marquee names. By the year 1974 the Charismatic movement was well under way, and the process of its “assimilation” into the historical Pentecostal denominations was taking place. “Holiness” was no longer a battle cry in the system’s precincts; the lifestyles and clothing were fast changing; healing and prosperity were strongly being viewed as co-equal in the atonement with cleansing; the music was being infiltrated by the contemporary sound; and the leadership were becoming dark and heretical in their dealings with the people. The growing crises between these leaders and my dear father were intensifying by 1969. As a young man I knew that our time was short, and by 1971 my father left his denominational nativity and joined another, much smaller Pentecostal denomination. This denomination desired for him to begin a Bible college for them. I, too, left the former denomination and pastored for several years one of the churches of the latter. But after three years it was evident that the dye was being cast and the smaller denomination was pressing its way to gain an established position in the growing popularity of the Charismatic movement. So, in 1974 we left the Pentecostal system totally with my dear father and mother, and Foundations Bible College and Church became the vision of the Spence pilgrims. I was twenty-five years old at the time. Its geography became a place where we could say anything that was true without the fear of ecclesiastical condemnation. The Word of God was to have liberty among us.
My Introduction to the Fundamentalist Movement
The only organism or movement we saw taking a stand against the growing worldwide apostasy in the institutional churches was the Christian Fundamentalist movement. My father had been saved at Bob Jones College in the late 1940s and was friends with the Jones family, as well as with Dr. Rod Bell. We are indebted for their Christian esteem and the opening of their hearts in fellowship to us at that time. Although my father was acquainted with these men and spoke at the first World Congress of Christian Fundamentalists in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1976, I personally was entering their fellowship with little understanding of their past or their present. My young heart was deeply impressed with their public stand against the apostasy, openly condemning those things which were destroying Christianity across our country. The leaders of my former denomination had gone for a number of years without such a voice; it truly was refreshing to hear.
My literary introduction to the movement was through the writings of George Dollar, particularly through his book entitled A History of Fundamentalism in America. His definition of the Fundamentalist movement was clear and forthright: “Historic Fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes.” But as I read through his presentation on the history of this movement, I never found the “heart” of the Fundamentalist. The book certainly presented the facts, dates, personalities, and historical details, but it seemed to lack “spirit,” and again, “heart.” It was not until the 1986 World Congress of Christian Fundamentalists, in the released publication of Dr. David O. Beale, that I found what I wanted to read of this precious, historical legacy I had entered. The very name of the book, In Pursuit of Purity, spoke volumes of spiritual worth which marked this movement’s past. It is important that I quote several sentences from his first chapter defining Fundamentalism:
Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness.
It is not even a mere literal exposition of the Bible. The essence of Fundamentalism goes much deeper than that—it is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures.
Historically, Fundamentalists have striven progressively for what they regard as biblical purity. This does not imply a belief in perfectionism, but it means their goal has been a position as consistent as possible with the doctrine of holiness. Such a doctrinal distinctive has consistently positioned historic Fundamentalism away from the center of organized religion. The present study reveals that pre-1930 Fundamentalism was nonconformist, while post-1930 Fundamentalism has been separatist. Like the English Puritans, most early American Fundamentalists attempted to purify or purge the denominations from within. Like the English Separatists, the succeeding generations came out and started afresh. The separatist position itself, however, did not completely solidify as a distinct, militant movement until the 1950s.
While Fundamentalism has always embraced and defended the cardinal doctrines of traditional Christianity, the movement has been characterized by an emphasis on the doctrine and practice of holiness, a full-orbed holiness that includes both personal and ecclesiastical aspects . . . . They now regard the doctrine of biblical fellowship as fundamental, inherently part of the doctrine of God’s absolute holiness—separation (sanctification) from the world, from false religion, and from every practice of disobedience to the Scriptures.
While Fundamentalism prior to 1930 had separated primarily from worldliness, and the Fundamentalism of the 1930s and 1940s had separated primarily from modernism, mid-twentieth-century Fundamentalism had come to the conviction that, in the face of a new enemy within the camp, they must also separate from disobedient evangelicals. They felt that the explicit teaching of Matthew 18:15-18 . . . along with other passages, compelled them to withdraw fellowship in the light of the continued, willful rebellion of their new evangelical brethren. . . . Consequently, Fundamentalism became the new evangelicals’ primary target of attack.
These words carefully guarded the fact that purity of heart, life, doctrine, and methods were those ingredients which marked this precious movement arising in the mid-1800s among men who in their own denominations were desiring to purge liberalism and modernism from their ranks. But the mid-1900s proved their church systems were refusing to return to the paths of Scripture, and the only thing for the remnant to do was to leave the systems and become pilgrims. As this trend continued, it was evident that others were finding themselves in the same religious situation we were in; it was a description of what had happened to my dear family. We truly found in the Fundamentalist movement a kindred spirit in Christ.
The Music of the Early Fundamentalists
Because Fundamentalism is a movement, it tends to be fluid in its progress with the possibility of several streams eventually coming out of it. Their direction depends on the responses of individuals within the movement. We have already seen a break-off in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and perhaps we will witness another stream to break away in the near future. In its earlier history Fundamentalism was trans-denominational in influence. There were a variety of distinctives represented in those who identified with it. But, they all strongly adhered to the “fundamentals of the Christian faith,” which were to be the guardian principles of their distinctives. Because of the historical and denominational background of many of its adherents, the legacy of the music of early Fundamentalism was found in the historical hymns of the Christian Faith, specifically the great hymns from the Protestant Reformation and the hymns of the 1700s. The early Fundamentalists’ hymnbooks were composed of those hymns which lauded the Christ, the Blood, the Cross, the Trinity, the Atonement, the fundamentals, and the Christian life. The distinctives of the various churches yielded to these bullock truth hymns.
But by the mid-1800s, there was this growing evangelical message, especially coming forth in the Third Great Awakening (late 1850s and 1860s), which was giving birth to the Gospel hymn. Its melody was a little different from that of the traditional hymns of the church, and even its lyrics were of a more personal nature. It catered to the common man with his simple understanding of God and Christ. Although Charles Wesley wrote many of his hymns for the coal miners who were part of the common man of his day, he wrote to bring these people “up” to truth. The simple man was found singing hymns that were strong in both melody and lyrics. But there was a move in the mid and latter part of the 1800s (mainly because of D. L. Moody’s emphasis upon evangelism, the Sunday school movement, and the increasing influence of the YMCA) to simplify the singing and make the message more compatible to the understanding of the audience. A simple heart needed a simple song. We are not undermining the work of the Lord during this period of history, nor are we intimidating the Lord’s men who preached the Gospel during this era. There is a difference between the preaching of the 1700s and of the 1800s; a difference likewise is seen in the music of the two church periods. We cannot say that the 1700s’ music lacked warmth, for the very term warmth was clearly the mark of that music, especially of Wesley’s. It was alive and vibrant; it had a vivaciousness which was lacking in the dead churches of England at that time. It had power of message and melody. Perhaps this is the difference: the mid and latter 1800s’ emphasis upon evangelism was unconsciously withdrawing from the depth of the past in order to reach the unconverted. There is nothing wrong with this unless such songs become the exclusive, musical diet of God’s people. Even today, we do not reject the Christian choruses for children; but if they become the main form of Christian music, because we believe people cannot take anything deeper, they will affect their concept of depth in the Christian life. Even Isaac Watts wrote children’s music with easy melodies to sing, but the words were constantly calling the child to a greater depth in understanding God.
In reflecting upon my years in the Pentecostal movement, I realize the vast majority of hymns its churches sang were composed in the late 1800s. It was rare to hear a song written prior to that time. “And Can It Be,” written by Charles Wesley, was an unsung hymn in such churches. The Pentecostal diet was found exclusively in the easier, lighter Gospel hymns with additional songs from the Vaughn, Stamps, and Baxter time period (which were very shallow and often unbiblical in their messages). These men were not Fundamentalists; their music is not part of the Fundamentalist legacy.
We must keep in mind that Fundamentalism was born in the throes of the battle fought against doctrinal and practical apostasy. This battle was not over evangelism. Even the hymns these Fundamentalist men were singing, written in earlier days, were part of the weaponry they were using to fight against liberalism and modernism. These hymns were part of the legacy they were endeavoring to protect from the enemy. Evangelism was another matter, and, sad to say, it often got in the way of the stand that was crucial at that time. D. L. Moody was a precious man, but there were times his thirst for souls and enlargement of campaigns clouded the biblical issue. The giving of an organ to the local Roman Catholic Church in Northfield is a case in point, and some of the men who graced his pulpit were questionable. Yet, his hunger for the souls of men in Chicago and other cities seemed to be the great motive and fire of his heart. Sankey gave the hymns which complemented Moody’s preaching. But it must be understood that Moody was an evangelist and not a pastor to deepen men in God. Probably his greatest work (though not visibly the most successful) was the Northfield Conferences which were for the strengthening of pastors and preachers. Here, the already converted leaders were taught to “seek” the infilling of the Spirit for the empowering of their Christian lives. The deeper sermons heard there were by the preaching of deeper men. A message to a lost man may be different from a message to a converted man in emphasis of truths; even the musical message may be different in emphasis. But when the evangelistic music becomes the constant diet of the saved, spiritual depth will be lost; that lack of depth will have an effect upon the soul.
But the turn of the twentieth century brought two prominent musicians who contributed to the furtherance of the evangelistic message: Charles McCallen Alexander and Homer Alvan Rodeheaver. These two men, in aiding the evangelistic crusades, brought a new era to such music and the Gospel song.
The Emphasis Upon Evangelism
Mr. Alexander was different from Sankey in his musical approach. One of these differences was a greater informality to revival services, by leading the singing with wide sweeping arm motions and by accompanying the service with the piano rather than the organ. The piano used alone is a more informal instrument for worship. Even today, the piano does give that evangelistic atmosphere in contrast with the worshipful environment of the organ. These are several things we must carefully guard in viewing Ira Sankey’s music: (1) He was not a flamboyant man given to levity or lightness in worship services. He was a man, amidst his good-natured spirit, who believed the Gospel services were serious times when men’s souls were at stake. (2) He also played the organ which gave a greater dignity to the music he sang. (3) He was not flamboyant in his manner of singing. (4) Many of the songs sung today that are identified with Sankey’s time tend to be sung with a different rhythmic style and harmonic accompaniment.
In careful observation of the Fundamentalists of today and especially of the spiritual environment of their churches, we must agree that of all the historical periods of Christian Fundamentalism (beginning with the 1850s to the present), the most influential has been the later “evangelistic” period rather than the earlier, deep doctrinal period. Because of this fact, the Fundamentalists’ churches tend toward the post-Sankey hymns that were prevalent during the 1910s up to the early 1940s. This was the time of Mr. Alexander and Mr. Rodeheaver. Perhaps this may be an insight to the fact that in the earlier days of the Fundamentalist movement, there were more biblical scholars than there seem to be today. And even today, the services tend toward a greater informality, based upon evangelism rather than the context of earlier doctrinal worship. If one would peruse the hymnbooks in the present Fundamentalists’ churches, he would see them filled with simpler Gospel hymns, few of the historical hymns of the church and, I am sorry to say, a number of songs by Gaither, Carmichael, Rambo, Doris Akers, etc. Among several influences that have brought this about have been Mr. Al Smith (a Fundamentalist music composer) and his process of compromise over the years in regard to the music chosen for his hymnbooks to be used in our churches. Yes, the focal point of Fundamentalism has changed to more of the evangelistic approach rather than the doctrinal depth which was the need in the universal church at the time of the movement’s birth. Yet, we are at a time in history when depth of doctrinal understanding is just as urgent as it was then, and perhaps, more so. In the earlier days the doctrinal enemies were liberalism, modernism, evolution, etc. These enemies have mutated to ecumenicity, charismatism, secular humanism, and the like, necessitating the great need of doctrinal forthrightness. But most evangelistic hymns do not deal with doctrinal issues; they present the simple, basic message to bring a person to Christ. Again, these hymns are all right for an evangelistic campaign, but they will not build Christians in a local church to bring them to maturity.
Let me return briefly to some observations of the Alexander and Rodeheaver days. Charles Alexander was given to “lightening” the atmosphere with jokes and entertainment in order to keep the audience in a lighter mood rather than one of biblical sobriety. There is no problem with honorable levity, provided it is at the proper time, but a constant atmosphere of it will only instill in the audience an “easy-going” approach to God. Homer Rodeheaver endeavored to produce an informal atmosphere though not to the extreme that Mr. Alexander did. I am sure that Billy Sunday’s personality and manner of preaching influenced Rodeheaver’s approach. Yet, Rodeheaver had his unique way of entertaining the audience. I am not implying by these statements that these men, simply because of their unique ways, were not of God. But what must be acknowledged is that there was a shift taking place. A new atmosphere was being created for the evangelistic campaigns even different from that of Moody and his contemporary.
Why do multitudes of people attend the Gospel sings heard all around our country today? Is it for the Word of God contained in the songs? The songs may contain Scripture itself, but the melodic “wrapper” is presented in such a way that it is not “offensive” to the world, and it truly comes across as entertaining rather than “churchy” or “preachy.” And often, as the preaching becomes more shallow, the music becomes the side effect of such preaching. Jack Hyles was notorious for keeping the people laughing during his sermons. He had a way of presenting a strong statement of principle or conviction and then cushioning it with a joke. His Pastors’ Conferences prompt an imitation by thousands of preachers of his preaching manner. My father stated in the past that Jack Hyles had a way of “emotionally raping” his audience. It makes one wonder about the evangelistic statistics that have accompanied such a “ministry.” I, by no means, place the previous men I have mentioned in the same category of Jack Hyles, for my respect for them is much higher. But Jack Hyles’ ministry showed how far we had gone in the decline of spirituality.
A church cannot build itself on evangelism; it must build upon the Word of God. If evangelism is the only fountain, the church will be a shallow, carnal church without the stability to meet the onslaught of this powerful age. If the preaching of the pulpit weakens, it will tolerate songs that are weak in melody and message (though the message may be true). If our songs are only evangelistic in nature, or the arrangements coming forth are “easy-listening” in their mood and spirit, they too become the cushioning effect to whatever truth the lyrics may contain. Ralph Carmichael wrote and arranged many such songs years ago containing very close harmony, marked with dissonance, producing a smooth and soft effect. It was a musical sedative to the soul. And it compelled the sword of the Word of God to be sheathed, leaving it impotent upon its hearers. Yes, music directors can make the Word of God impotent simply by the way they arrange a song, the way they sing it, or even the way they accompany it.
Once a “less-than-the-best” direction is set on a musical path in a church or movement, it is but a matter of time before the music will go the “way of all flesh.” Lot made a choice one day, believing it was for the betterment of both him and his family. No doubt, he had convinced himself that Abraham was too dogmatic in his ways, and that he could succeed in life without his uncle’s support and friendship. Of course, we know the story very well: his first step away led to another step, and then another, until the seventh step brought him to the gate as a judge in Sodom. Certain choices of direction for a musical ministry may not seem wrong in the beginning, for “there is a way which seemeth right unto a man.” But the road continues, until after a while some improper elements begin to show up. Others may see it, speak of it, have concern about it; but the one on the path is subjectively too involved in the matter, and the concessions over time will produce a blindness. Some individuals are so prominent in the public eye that they inwardly believe they cannot afford to back up and recover, for it would necessitate leadership repentance. It would be a wonderful thing if Billy Graham was to confess to the world all of the compromises of the truth he has made. But even if at one point in his life he saw his wrong, he would have to sacrifice everything of self to acknowledge them. And, oh, the multitudes who have followed him in his compromises, how would they take the change? The pattern seems to be that there is a point when a leader, in his thinking of himself and the ministry he has made, believes he cannot afford to repent of those compromises or to change the direction in which he is heading, for in so doing, he would destroy his public image and acceptance of the people. Therefore, he persists in what he is doing with the belief (after a while) that there is still evidence of God in his ministry, a fact which seems to compensate for his failures. But such a process will finally lead to apostasy. There comes a point, after rejecting the various dealings by God, that the will of a man becomes set in the direction chosen, and there is no return. Apostasy does not simply exist by renouncing doctrine; it could come about with the keeping of fundamentals verbally while the “practice” becomes apostate. When individuals begin to do what at one time they condemned, a change truly takes place. We must say this was the cause of the apostasy of Billy Graham. I trust and pray that we as leaders in our appointed spheres of ministry will not be caught in this inner web of self-destruction.