Dealing with post-BG realities

31 July 2009

The last post tried to explain why, from a fundamentalist perspective, the Billy Graham issue still has life. The concern is more about Grahamism, than Graham himself (though the split was not without its personal elements). Here is the tension point for someone like me—don’t radically different views of Billy Graham’s ministry mean something? To paint it in the starkest terms simply to develop the point, if one side views Graham’s ministry as the death of fundamentalist unity and a betrayal of the gospel and the other side views it as the standard for evangelical unity and evangelistic progress, how can we ever expect those two to walk together in peace?

Frankly, I don’t think the folks on the poles of that spectrum will ever find their way to fellowship until heaven, and they may be shocked to find the other end actually got there! While I don’t hesitate to admit which end of the spectrum I tilt toward, I also recognize that most folks are taking positions away from the ends. I am not sure that is a good thing, but it is probably inevitable with the passing of time. The dangers, from my perspective, for the separatist side are at least twofold: (1) simply dropping the Graham issue because it seems out of date or unfashionable to address it; or (2) fixating on the Graham issue without taking into consideration that the time and terrain have changed. I may be a fool for attempting it, but let me suggest a possible way forward.

Rejoice at God’s grace and over the preaching of Christ

Regardless of what one thinks of the ecumenical practices of Billy Graham, it is clear that God graciously honored His Word and brought many to genuine faith in Jesus Christ. As a separatist, I’d make the case that God did this in spite of the ecumenicism, but I still rejoice at the sovereign work of God that produced conversions. Like Paul, all who love the Lord should rejoice when “Christ is proclaimed” (Phil 1:18). If we want to debate the overall effectiveness of citywide evangelistic crusades, altar call evangelism, and matters like that, fine. Those aren’t, though, matters related to the difference between fundamentalism and. new evangelicalism—both movements share the same revivalistic heritage and have folks that accept and reject portions of that heritage.

It is not helpful when fundamentalists try to discredit the evangelistic fruitfulness of Graham’s ministry or when evangelicals use that fruitfulness to justify all of Graham’s associations and actions. Both attempts are rooted in the same false assumption—God can only use those who are perfectly obedient (or close to it). The fundamentalist, starting with this assumption, feels compelled to argue that since what Graham was doing was wrong, God didn’t really use Billy Graham. The evangelical, coming from the opposite angle but with the same assumption, feels compelled to argue that since God used Graham, what Graham was doing can’t be wrong (or, at least, not that bad). The assumption, however, is false—Scripture is clear that God has used men with serious flaws (is there really any other kind?). This doesn’t minimize disobedience, but rather focuses our attention on biblical fidelity as a more important means of evaluation than ministerial success. And it allows us to rejoice over God’s grace even when we disagree with a course of action.

Recognize the cooling effect of history

The old question about whether the glass is half empty or half full seems to apply here. The reality is that this is 2009, not 1959, so the cool detachment of historical perspective is beginning to settle in. The very idea of “cool detachment” is objectionable to folks at the ends of the spectrum, but it is inevitable and it is happening on both sides of the divide. Younger men of fundamentalist heritage are not quite as quick to speak negatively of Graham simply because they do see that many have come to Christ and some good was accomplished. Younger men of evangelical heritage are not quite as quick to praise Graham simply because they see that his ecumenical practices really did cross boundaries that should never have been crossed. In essence, what we are seeing is qualified criticism and qualified praise. Glass half empty and glass half full.

For older folks on both sides of the aisle, these kinds of qualified assessments are often irritating because the sting of old battles is still felt. Billy Graham is still the test case. If you don’t like Billy, then you’re one of those divisive fundamentalists. If you do like Billy, then you’re one of those compromising evangelicals. It is doubtful that those of us who are too young to have experienced the conflict between the two groups can fully appreciate it. We should try though.

What is important here, I believe, is to recognize that some fundamentalists might tone down their criticism of Graham because they no longer feel he is germane to the discussion or because they consider it ineffective to focus on him since there are such divergent views of his ministry. Also, it is important to recognize that some evangelicals disagree with the ecumenical practices of Graham, yet still see him as someone whom God used to spread the gospel to millions around the world. I am not saying that I agree with either approach, but that I need to factor that into my interpretation of the ecclesiastical landscape. And when I do, it keeps me from thinking that all younger fundamentalists are getting soft on separation and that all younger evangelicals are committed to ecumenicism.

Basically, my point would be that using Graham’s name as something of a Shibboleth will become increasingly ineffective. The legacy of Billy Graham, in their minds, can’t be reduced to a single issue. As time passes, history will show that Graham has had an amazingly influential ministry, and that a portion of that influence was the blurring of the distinction between those who are solid on the gospel and the fundamentals of the faith and those who are not. The relative importance one gives to that portion of his legacy probably serves as a decent gauge on one’s view of separation.

Focusing on the truly important issue

That leads me back to the point I tried to make yesterday—it really isn’t about Billy Graham, it’s about separation for the sake of the gospel. Let’s stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that Billy Graham’s ministry can be viewed as a glass with portions both empty and full (ignoring whether it is half or three quarters or whatever). What constitutes the empty portion? Can the discussion move to the question of whether ecumenical evangelism is a Scripturally acceptable approach? Or, more broadly, can we have a serious conversation about whether it is ever proper to extend Christian recognition and fellowship to those who deny essential doctrines of the Christian faith?

It seems, at least to me, that both sides of the debate are somewhat hamstrung by the lingering shadow of Billy Graham. Evangelicals of developing separatist conviction seem very hesitant to openly criticize what Graham did and many who would seem to reject his ecumencism still celebrate his legacy. Fundamentalists are baffled and bothered by this. That’s why someone like me inserts words like “developing” before separatist conviction and “seem” before reject his ecumenism! Holding up Graham for honor sends conflicting signals to fundamentalists. (I’ll confess that at least this fundamentalist has the same feeling whenever I hear some other professing fundamentalist extol the virtues of someone like Finney.)

So, what’s the way forward (if there is to be one)? I’ll only speak for myself and do it bullet-style:

·         I won’t ask anybody to curse the name of Graham, but only to simply admit that his ecumenicism was unbiblical and should not be followed. If we don’t agree about that, then we’re moving in different directions.

·         I won’t agree when folks name schools, buildings, or whatever after him, but such honor will not be the grounds for a gap between us; only disagreement about what the Bible teaches on separation will be. Frankly, I am embarrassed by quite a few folks that some professing fundamentalists honor and I don’t break fellowship with them over it. I think we’d all be better off if we just skipped the whole monument thing, but I am not in charge, so I’ll grumble and move on.

·         I would contend that distorting the record by saying minimizing things about what was at stake in the decision by BG to pursue the sponsorship and cooperation of liberal Protestants and Catholics raises serious questions about one’s convictions on these matters. Don’t paper over the problem or try to pass the buck for the separation that happened.

There is always more that could and should be said, and perhaps I’ll get to some of that down the road. For now, though, let me just say clearly that I believe the fundamentalists were right and that Billy Graham was wrong on the central issue of the relationship between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. That question is still the question of the hour even if the players have changed. It would be very good if we could have a serious conversation about that.

DMD @ 04:22 


Why are we so hung up on Billy Graham?

30 July 2009

It doesn’t take long for a conversation about fundamentalism and evangelicalism to crash into the Billy Graham barrier that divides the two groups. This is understandable for some and odd for others. Some think it is odd because they view Graham as the icon of evangelical success, while others simply think he is old news. Some think it is understandable because they view Graham as symbolic of a philosophy and movement. I count myself among the latter group and would like to explain why.

The controversy surrounding Billy Graham’s ministry was very clearly centered on one thing—ecumenical evangelism. Specifically, was Graham’s practice of accepting sponsorship and participation by theological liberals Scripturally acceptable? The question wasn’t about cooperative evangelism per se, but the kind of cooperative evangelism that forged alliances between, to use biblical language, light and darkness. Fundamentalists had a long heritage of cooperative evangelism, citywide crusades, but these partnerships were always formed with believers and believing churches. Denominational lines might be crossed, but not Gospel boundaries. Graham’s pursuit of broader partnership was okay, it was argued, because Graham’s message was never watered down. Fundamentalists objected by arguing that Graham’s message was adversely affected by the presence of liberals on the platform. More importantly, the practice of sending those who made professions of faith back into the spiritual care of their liberal churches was simply appalling.

In reality, Graham’s ecumenical practices were merely the tip of the iceberg. Graham built his ministry on the rejection of ecclesiastical separation. The foundation of his ecumenical strategy was the repudiation of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. Or, to put it another way, Graham was trying to erase the divide that had developed between evangelicals and non-evangelicals, particularly as it relates to the mainline denominations and those who had separated from them in the early 20th century. One of his early apologists, Robert Ferm, in his book Cooperative Evangelism: Is Billy Graham Right or Wrong? (p. 14), clearly states this viewpoint:

                The controversy which has been provoked by the Billy Graham Crusades and his policy of cooperation is deeply rooted in history. One of the most distressing factors in American church life since the latter part of the nineteenth century has been the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy. While the acrimonious exchanges of a quarter of a century ago have greatly lessened, a cleavage continues in American church life which cuts across denominational and other ecclesiastical lines.

And he further states,

Many evangelical Christians, if asked now whether they are fundamentalist or not, will unhesitatingly affirm their belief in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, while they are unwilling to be labeled as fundamentalists. Such individuals rightly believe that there can be no effective Christian witness which is not characterized by love and a recognition of others as Christians, although they may not agree with them on every detail of doctrine.

Ferm is right about what was at stake in the Graham Crusades—it was about whether those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Faith should be recognized as Christians. From the New York City Crusade (1957) onward, a long list of liberal churchmen adorned the Graham Crusades as sponsors and participants. Being an honored guest, for instance, at the installation of Bishop James Pike and, reportedly, having this apostate lead in prayer at the San Francisco Crusade are precisely the kind of actions that had the double effect closing the gap between liberals and evangelicals while simultaneously opening up one between evangelicals and fundamentalists (for info on Pike look here and here.). There is a reason that Farley Butler entitled his doctoral dissertation, “Billy Graham and the End of Evangelical Unity,” and why Murray titled his book, Evangelicalism Divided.

When separatists point to Graham they are really pointing to a belief system or ministerial philosophy. Billy Graham represented and advocated an unbiblical ecumenicism. Just like Calvin, Arminius, and others have had their names become the label for a system of thought, Graham’s name, for the fundamentalist, functions in the same way. From the fundamentalist perspective, the discussion is more about the movement that Graham represented than the man himself.

Actually, this wasn’t only true for the fundamentalist. The evangelicals also saw Graham as something of a boundary marker for evangelicalism. To quote Ferm again, “Thus it is evident that there has been a variety of opinion in matters of theology as well as matters of association from the beginning of the controversy. Recently Billy Graham has become a kind of test case” (p. 15, emphasis original). The centrality of Graham to the self-identity of evangelicalism is pretty much a given in works on evangelicalism. For instance, Daryl Hart, writes, “All of this is a way of saying that Billy Graham has represented more than a man and his evangelistic efforts; he has also been the institutional center holding the evangelical movement together” (Deconstructing Evangelicalism, p. 111). Or consider Marsden, “For a time, a convenient rule of thumb was that an evangelical was anybody who identified with Billy Graham” (Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 234).

From the late 1950s onward, Billy Graham served as the symbolic dividing line between separatist and non-separatist evangelicalism. The debate really isn’t about the symbol, but the substance of the two positions. Billy Graham has largely passed from the ecclesiastical scene, but the position he represented has not. Attempts to minimize the difference between the two are neither honest nor helpful. The compromises that Graham made and their consequences still adversely affect the church in our day. If you want to find the fountainhead for contemporary evangelicalism’s confusion on a whole host of theological issues, including the very idea of who can legitimately be called a Christian, look no further than the ecumenism of Billy Graham.

DMD @ 05:40 


I guess we took our ball and went home...

29 July 2009

This post by Collin Hansen (author of Young, Restless, Reformed) is another reminder, from my perspective, of the significant gap between fundamentalists and evangelicals. The gap is largely one of understanding—I just don’t think we get each other. There are a few things I’d like to say about the post, but I’ll restrain myself and stick to what I consider to be the big problem. As long as evangelicals continue to think like this (or, at the bare minimum communicate like this), the gap will remain wide:

After years of tension, Billy Graham delivered the decisive break between evangelicals and fundamentalists in 1957. Graham turned down invitations to preach in New York City under the sponsorship of fundamentalist churches before accepting one from the liberal Protestant Council. Fundamentalists have never let Graham or his evangelical sympathizers forget the snub.

Snub? Collin, you can’t be serious. Graham’s decision regarding the New York Crusade was merely a snub? What a terrible word choice. I hope that Hansen doesn’t really believe that’s what this divide was about—people peeved because Graham wouldn’t be their friend. The key word in that paragraph is “liberal” as when joined to “Protestant Council” in order to identify the group that Graham embraced. It wasn’t a snub that caused the rub, it was compromise. With the NYC crusade, Billy Graham finally came fully out of the ecumenical closet in which he had been hiding. That move brought the tensions between the separatists and non-separatists to a head (which many believe is the very reason that Graham did this).

I’d like to think that it was just a poorly chosen word, but these kinds of minimizing words are used much too commonly on the evangelical side of the discussion. It’s like reading a Southern account of the Civil War which claims the cause of the conflict was economics. I suppose someone could finesse it that way, but it would represent a serious mischaracterization of reality. To describe Graham’s compromise and ecumenical strategy in terms of personal pique qualifies as a similar mischaracterization. It trivializes a matter of crucial Gospel significance—to whom may the hand of Christian recognition and fellowship be extended? The NYC Crusade was Graham’s answer—it apparently can be extended to all whom claim the label Christian even if they deny the fundamental truths of Christianity.

For some odd reason, the Fundamentalists opted not to follow along with the tide that was flowing Graham’s way. It certainly wasn’t because they thought their position would prove more popular. Being that they were Fundamentalists, the answer is really pretty simple. They were still hung up on the idea that Machen expressed so well in the title of his book Christianity and Liberalism—liberalism is not Christian, so it is contrary to the Scriptures, and betrays the Gospel, to act as if liberals are our Christian brothers. When Graham threw his hat in the ring with the liberal Protestant Council, he was embarking on a path that was contrary to clear biblical teaching (e.g., 2 John 9-11; Gal 1:6-9; Rom 16:17-18). Fundamentalists rightly objected to this compromise.

Objections to Graham’s path were not limited to some obscure circle of snakehandlers—men from the faculties of Dallas, Westminster, and Grace Seminaries all wrote against the new evangelical compromise. These men weren’t offended by a snub; they were standing up for the Gospel.

As I read Collin’s description of the conflict between the new evangelicals and fundamentalists, it reminded me of the criticisms that C. H. Spurgeon faced during the Down-Grade controversy near the end of the 19th century. Spurgeon took what he believed to be a principled stand in defense of the Faith, yet his critics accused him of personal pique and wounded vanity. We all know how that turned out. If contemporary evangelicals want to paint the fundamentalists of the 1950s with the same kind of brush, so be it. If you’d like a more careful assessment of what was at stake in Billy Graham’s ecumenical practices, read Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided.

The historical difference between fundamentalism and evangelicals has nothing to do with Calvinism. Hansen’s post makes that clear—does anybody think Billy Graham represents Calvinism? It is separation for the sake of the Gospel. Historically, good men from various points along the soteriological spectrum have stood together on the principle that Christian recognition and fellowship cannot be extended to those who deny the Faith. And, sadly, men from all along that same spectrum have, for five decades, denied this plain biblical truth and pursued the ecumenical path blazed by Billy Graham. That’s the dividing line. Always has been and, I hope, always will be.

Update: Larry Rogier develops the point of the last paragraph more fully here.

DMD @ 07:17 


The Value of the Fundamentalist Label

28 July 2009

A little over two years ago I was asked to write a response to the following question: “Is the ‘Fundamentalist’ label too archaic and contaminated to be considered useful?” While looking for something else on Monday, I came across what I had written back then and offer it now with some slight modifications. 



This is a difficult question for at least two reasons. The first reason is that there is so much disagreement about what the label actually means—if there is no agreement among self-professing fundamentalists about what the label means, then how can we agree on whether it is archaic and contaminated? Personally, I don’t believe defining the term is that hard, but, to borrow biblical language, “everyone defines it as is right in his own eyes.” As long as that continues, opinions on archaism and contamination will be strongly divided.

Second, and perhaps more to the point, the question is difficult to answer without a preceding question of context. In the context of what conversation is the label being used? Context always influences the choice of words we use—a word like “monergism” fits well in a seminary theology class, but not so well in a third grade Sunday School class. So, it seems that where the word “fundamentalist” is used factors significantly into answering the question.

If it is being used during an “in-house” discussion among the self-professing, then I don’t believe it is either archaic or contaminated. The already committed generally possess enough historical awareness to prevent archaism and enough sympathy to overcome any sense of contamination.

I will concede, however, that even among the “in-house” crowd there is enough confusion regarding our history and identity to require, in my mind, some type of qualifier or modifier. Others have recognized this as well, and some of the more well-known modifiers include words like historic, authentic, and balanced. Whenever one wants to put some distance between his own fundamentalism and someone else’s, the modifier serves this purpose—“I am a historic (vs. hysteric) fundamentalist.” The fact that modifiers have become needed harkens back to my first point—the modifier helps define the term and so many different kinds of people claim to be fundamentalists that the boundaries of a mutually acceptable definition have been exceeded. It simply doesn’t seem plausible that Jack Schaap and Kevin Bauder are both fundamentalists of the same kind.

For myself, I have preferred the word separatist as the modifier. Some, no doubt, will argue that concept of separatist is included in the definition of the word fundamentalist. I understand, and am sympathetic to, their point. Yet, I remain convinced that beginning in the 1940s the chief issue which distinguished new evangelicalism from fundamentalism was separatism, and that the fragmentation among fundamentalists in the late 1950s and following resulted from the breakdown of the fundamentalist unity on this point. In other words, each “new” brand of fundamentalism was more or less a non-separatist one.

If, however, the context for the term “fundamentalist” is outside the boundaries of those who have some historical awareness and theological sympathy with the term, then I believe it does suffer from archaism and contamination. The meaning of words is controlled by usage, and the contemporary usage for “fundamentalism” does not recognize its uniquely Christian and theological significance.

If I write an op-ed for our local newspaper that boldly proclaims that I am a fundamentalist, the average reader will not understand that means I am one who is opposed to theological modernism within supposedly Christian churches and that I embrace historic orthodoxy on those points which are being abandoned by the modernists. They will associate that term with the narrow-minded radicalism that it is so often used to label. Since they don’t know the history of the term, they will define it according to contemporary usage.

Contemporary usage within our general culture is different than our in-house usage, and it communicates something very different from what we intend by the term. That’s why, for instance, our church does not put the term into materials which are intended to notify the general public about what kind of church we are. But I do use the term, and help explain it, in our church’s membership course. Context makes a big difference. There is no change in who we are, just some awareness of how the words we are using are understood by those who hear them.

So, returning to the original question, is the “fundamentalist” label too archaic and contaminated to be considered useful? For me, it depends on the audience to whom you are speaking. I would hate to see us lose a word of historical and theological significance for American believers. Fundamentalism is an important part of our heritage, and teaching its meaning and history can be an excellent means of preparing our churches to guard the Faith.

Speaking to the world around us, though, demands that we use words that communicate clearly and don’t obscure or detract from our message. I am pretty sure that putting “Fundamentalist” on our church sign or brochure would not communicate clearly to lost people. Given the contemporary usage of the term, it should only be used as an in-house label.

DMD @ 05:14 


Keep the bubble in the middle

27 July 2009

It seems to me that we must always be on guard, especially in our day, against the dangers that spring from a faulty view of people. Specifically, we tend to give our friends far too much credit and our opponents far too little. I think this may come from our tendency to have an “all or nothing” mindset—either someone is all good or no good. We don’t do “mixed bag” very well. Yet, a biblical view of depravity makes it clear that “mixed bag” is all we really have! The effects of the fall have tainted us all, and that taint extends to every portion of us. Some of these effects manifest themselves in the sinless infirmities of the human condition, while others are evidenced through the sinful choices that flow from sinful desires. Infirmity and iniquity produce mixed bags.

This all or nothing mindset is dangerous in that it leaves us with two unacceptable options—deification or disillusionment. If we opt for the “all” side of things, then we run the risk of a dangerous naiveté that disregards our biblical responsibility to examine all things. On the other hand, if we operate from a “nothing” paradigm then it we will eventually turn into a sour, critical people who mistake judgmentalism for discernment. Neither is acceptable; both are dangerous. So why does this happen so much? I am sure there are more reasons than I can think of, but let me suggest two.

First, I think it is simply easier to live this way because it reduces your options to two and simplifies the decision making process. It is always easier to accept a credible person’s word on a subject, and what we’re talking about here is reducing the world to two kinds of people—those whom we deem credible and those whom we discredit in some way. I think it is easy for us to see that contemporary politics is dominated by this kind of thinking, but it’s probably not as easy for us to see that ecclesiastical politics is too. We are impressed by Group A or Pastor B, so we accept (even defend) whatever is done or stated. Or, contrariwise, we are suspicious of Group C and Pastor D, so we reject (even attack) whatever is done or stated. Since nobody is a mixed bag, it is all or nothing.

Second, and worse, if the problem at Corinth is any window into human nature, then it is possible that we choose our standard bearers with fleshly motives and goals. They pooled into various camps, not for the sake of the name that they put on the placard, but for the sake of their own influence and power. Does anybody really think that Apollos, Peter, and Paul were behind the division at Corinth? No way. Rather, it was power-hungry, turf-protecting people who were using these big names in order to advance their own agendas. Also, the reality of “I am of Apollos” is that it practically means “I am not of Paul.” I don’t want to overstate my point here, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that a very common human problem is to build constituencies by demonizing others. Instead of rallying people primarily by what we believe, we rally them by what we’re against. This kind of thinking easily mutates into an all or nothing mindset. We can’t say anything bad about our friends because it might hurt our cause, and we can’t say anything good about our opponents because it might help theirs. Truth gets trampled in the process.

It is not easy to maintain balance in any important area of life. Integrity, though, demands that we engage in discernment even when it leads us to disagree with friends or to recognize the truth of what an opponent has said. We’ll do a better job of being balanced if we don’t let ourselves slide toward the all or nothing ends of the spectrum.

DMD @ 08:01 


Ecclesiastes 11:6

24 July 2009

I received this in an email this morning from Dr. Pearson Johnson, a fellow pastor here at ICBC who also teaches at DBTS, and I thought I’d pass it along (with permission) for your encouragement:

Just an encouraging reminder on the potential of a VBS flyer. A little over 30 years ago, a woman in Wayne [MI] got a hold of a vbs flyer someone was passing out for a church over in Allen Park. She called the number to see if the bus could pick up her Kindergarten daughter. The bus didn’t go that far out, they said, but one of the vbs workers who lived out that way said she would pick up the girl and bring her to VBS.

That Kindergarten girl is now my wife. Her toddler brother is now a missionary in Tanzania. Her baby brother is now a church planter in Georgia. God’s grace was extended in a wonderful way through the faithfulness of some unknown church member who passed out some VBS flyers.

May God help us see the potential of simple acts of faithfulness! It helps me to think of this when I find a few parents who express interest in sending their kids to VBS among the many who seem to not care when out canvassing.

DMD @ 08:31 


The Objective Beyond Victory

24 July 2009

“God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong” (1 Cor 1:27b). The center of this divine strategy is the Cross, but you can see God using it from cover to cover in the Scriptures. Gideon’s defeat of the Midianites is a very clear example of it in several ways—Gideon is anything but a confident warrior, the use of only 300 men, and the way in which the victory is actually obtained. That this is a deliberate strategy is clear from what God tells Gideon, “The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would become boastful, saying, ‘My own power has delivered me’” (Judges 7:2).

That God works in this way is a clear testimony to the fact that victory in battle is not the ultimate objective. If God can defeat Midian with 300, then He certainly could have defeated them with 32,000! The goal is not mere victory, but the kind of victory that exalts the Lord, not Israel. By using the most unconventional and unlikely means, the Lord accomplishes two objectives—the deliverance of Israel (the immediate objective) and the magnification of His own glory (the ultimate objective).

That God’s glory be the ultimate objective is both necessary and beneficial for God’s people. It is necessary because God will not give His glory to anyone or anything else (cf. Isa 42:8). God knew that Israel’s heart would become puffed up and would take credit for the victory, so God designed a way of victory which would leave them no room to boast. And this was a display of God’s kindness to them—by exalting Himself and humbling them, He was doing for them what was in their best interest.

God’s way is to use the weak and inglorious so that His strength and glory are clearly seen. This is for our good. We need to see how great He is so that we are never tempted to trust in ourselves. The temptation to trust in man’s strength and wisdom seems to run throughout the Scriptures, so it must be the evidence of our depravity, not restricted to any particular culture. Yet, it seems that American culture prides itself so much on self-sufficiency and personal accomplishment that we, as believers, are extremely susceptible to the kind of pride that God didn’t want Israel to have. In fact, the brochures for most ministry conferences and the books on how to “build a church” in our day seem to overflow with the very self-confidence that God detests.  

Maybe that’s why the church in the US is in such bad shape—our boastful pride over our little victories stands in the way of God’s magnificent work on our behalf. Perhaps the lesson of Gideon’s little army is one that we need to meditate on more carefully.

DMD @ 06:06 


Follow the Fleece?

23 July 2009

My Bible reading this morning brought me across the well known account of Gideon and his fleece. This is an action that has been interpreted both positively and negatively. Some think that Gideon’s example is something that we should imitate when we need to know the Lord’s will or need confirmation of what we believe is the Lord’s will. Gideon’s “fleece” becomes a symbol for something that the Lord does to prove His intentions and direction. The basic pattern is like this, “Lord, if you want us to do X, then do Y so that we can know it.” Of course, for Y to really prove the point, it has to be something quite extraordinary like Gideon’s fleece being wet while surrounded by dry, then dry when surrounded by wet. If the “fleece” is easily explainable, then it really doesn’t do much for you.

Others, including me, think that Gideon serves as an example here, but it is not a good one! Gideon was not trying to determine what God’s will was—he already knew. Gideon’s action was really the expression of doubt. His own words, “If You will deliver Israel through me, as You have spoken” (v. 36), show that he already knew not only what God’s will was, but also what God had promised to him. This was not anything like asking the Lord to open doors in front of you if He wants you to proceed in a direction of which you aren’t quite sure. This was asking God to do something to prove that He will keep His promise. Gideon knew God’s will and had a promise from God about his success in accomplishing the task, but Gideon wanted reassurance. That may be natural, but it is not commendable.

Although God graciously accommodates Gideon, what Gideon did really amounts to a violation of Deuteronomy 6:16, “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.” Moses is referring to what happened in Exodus 17 when the people of Israel demanded that God provide water for them in the wilderness. Specifically, verse 7 described their sin in this way, “they tested the LORD, saying, ‘Is the LORD among us, or not?’” The parallel with Gideon’s request seems clear. Israel did not need a sign that the LORD was among them, nor did Gideon need this fleece test. God had already revealed Himself and made promises that were to be trusted, not tested.

Two thoughts struck me as I meditated on this again today: (1) what a gracious God we serve that He patiently deals with Gideon in spite of his doubts and disobedience—“He is mindful that we are but dust” (Ps 103:14b); and (2) what a perfect Savior is Jesus Christ—when tempted by the devil to put His Father to the test by demanding a miracle, He refused on the basis of the very text that Gideon disobeyed (Deut 6:16). That is the example we should follow, not Gideon’s use of a fleece.

DMD @ 05:46 


On Men and Preaching

21 July 2009



Please excuse a crossover post from our church blog, but today and tomorrow mark special days on my annual calendar--Tim Jordan is in town to preach tonight and we will spend the two days chasing golf balls around the course and laughing a lot. Tim has become a very good friend and getting together with him is always refreshing. On to more serious stuff...

Some thoughts from the Bible reading today:

1.        God’s plan is for male leadership, but when men fail to step up to the task, God often accomplishes His purposes through willing women, e.g., Deborah and Jael step up while Barak is hesitant and lacks faith. The ladies knew that it was the Lord who would win the victory, so they could take Him at His Word. For some reason, Barak thought God could only work if Deborah was involved—a thought that dishonors God by making Him dependent on His servants!

2.        I love how Acts 8 ties together the ideas of “the word” and “Christ” throughout the chapter—“preaching the word” (v. 4), “proclaiming Christ” (v. 5),  “preaching the good news about…the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 12), “received the word of God” (v. 14), “spoken the word of the Lord” (v. 25), and “beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him” (v. 35). This suggests: (a) that their evangelism was expository in nature, i.e., it exposed the meaning of biblical texts; and, (b) that their evangelistic preaching was Christ-centered, i.e., it was about the person and work of Jesus Christ, not about the hearer’s felt needs or whatever. I was reminded of Paul’s testimony in 2 Corinthians 4:5, “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake.”






 

DMD @ 05:46 


Maintaining Perspective

20 July 2009

I’ve had more than a few people make comments to me about the “tough” travel schedule I’ve had for the past five weeks. There is no doubt it was not a vacation, and I am extremely thankful for the grace that God granted in answer to the prayers of many, but I also was struck several times by the small task that I was engaged in when it is compared to what others have and are experiencing. Some “reality checks” that came to me along the way:

·         Remembering that the “roughing it” that I did in Africa was only temporary, whereas my hosts in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia live it 24/7/365. So far, every time I have gone overseas it was with a roundtrip ticket in my hand. As long as mine isn’t a one way ticket, I know it’s just a matter of days until I am back home to abundant creature comforts.

·         Listening to the testimony of a brother in Christ who was sentenced, along with his wife, to 1 ½ years in jail for his faith, but thankfully was only forced to serve 40 days of that sentence. With a smile, he told how he was able to lead four men to Christ in those forty days, so he figures going to jail was “worth it.”

·         Hearing, while at the Baptist Mid-Missions Conference, how the founder of that mission, William Haas, died on the field of Africa in 1924 and that the news of his death did not reach his wife until 14 months later! Here I was flying back and forth to Africa twice in the space of a month, and there was a time when the journey took months and commitment to it was almost a death sentence.

·         Having a pastor in my class in Zambia who, though almost ten years younger than me, has already experienced the death of two wives, yet serves the Lord with joy and faithfulness.

·         Boarding a plane from Atlanta to Detroit with about 30 members of the U.S. Army who were heading home for a short break from service in very difficult places—some of whom had not been home for many months. As an American, I was thrilled when our plane clapped with appreciation for their service and remained seated (except for one loser) so they could leave the plane first. Here were men (and women, sadly) who had left family and home to fight on foreign soil and had been gone for months, enduring real hardship for their country.

All of these helped keep my focus clear. All I “endured” during my whirlwind journey was the loss of some sleep, a relatively short amount time away from my family, and a sore backside from sitting on airplanes.

DMD @ 12:51 


While re-adjusting to EST...

20 July 2009

A couple of quick items while I get back into gear here in the States:

Terry Mattingly provides an interesting timeline of the fight between the Episcopalians and the Anglicans here. Don’t have time to develop it here, but the use of “conservative” in this context is somewhat deceptive, in my mind. Reacting negatively to the ordination of practicing homosexuals is a very low standard to qualify one as conservative. To use this as a benchmark of theological conservatism seems doubly misguided.

Here is what a lost man thinks of Saddleback’s efforts (?) to win the lost via improv comedy. Really not funny at all.

DMD @ 06:28 


Heading Home

17 July 2009

Sorry that the blogging has been slow. The days have been pretty long and didn’t leave much time to use the internet, and what time I did have was usually to check email and communicate with my family. I was teaching from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday through Wednesday, then at 7:30 a.m. for a little while this morning. Class finished well, and right now I am sitting in the airport in South Africa waiting for a flight to Atlanta, then on to Detroit. In about 24 hours (DV) I will be back home and done with my 50K+ air mile marathon since June 11th. It’s been an incredible blessing to see what God is doing around the world and have opportunity to teach over 100 men (26 Chinese; 83 African) who are either in pastoral ministry already or are preparing for it. I have been encouraged by their hunger for the Word and zeal for Jesus Christ.

While I am very, very thankful for all of the advantageous that we have in the West in terms of resources, almost every time I finish experiences like these I come away reminded of how simple God’s plan for His work is and rebuked by how these men serve Christ so faithfully and joyfully without so much that we in the West think to be absolutely necessary. The end of class today was fun because we gave each student a copy of Dr. McCune’s Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity and Stanley Touissant’s Behold the King (a commentary on Matthew). God has blessed our church with some resources that we dedicated to missions, and we used some of that to give these men these gifts. They were very thankful since it is very difficult for them to get good books due to availability and finances. If folks from IC are reading this—thanks for having a heart for God’s global purpose to call out a people for His name sake!

The class ended with what is one of my most enjoyable teaching times—I was showing them how to find the theme of a biblical passage. On Thursday, at the end of the day, I walked them through the process by working on Matthew 6:1-18. For this morning, they were supposed to use the worksheet I gave them to prepare on Matthew 7:15-23. The project went very well. We had a good time digging in to the Word and it seemed to be very helpful for them to see it in practice. The idea of helping 80 Zambian and Kenyan men get a handle on the concept of finding and preaching the theme of biblical texts kept me fired up at the end of a long week (month!). I can’t think of much that would be of more benefit to preachers and God’s people to help those who stand in the pulpit to have messages that accurately capture the message of the biblical text, explain it clearly, press it home to the consciences of God’s people, and help people see where it shows up in life. The last two lectures alone make the trip worth doing, in my mind. Oh how we need a revival of biblical preaching!

Well, on that thought, I’ll sign off and go get ready for a 16 flight from Joburg to Atlanta that should give me plenty of time to study (and sleep, I hope).

DMD @ 08:53 


Reporting from Zambia

13 July 2009

Good morning from South Africa evening from Zambia! I had typed most of what follows this morning while waiting for my flight. Here’s what I wrote then:

This week brings another incredible opportunity—I am teaching a block course on the Gospel of Matthew to a group of Zambian pastors and students. I am sitting in the airport in Joburg waiting for my flight up to Ndola where I will be picked up and we’ll drive an hour to Kitwe. The class is being taught at Central African Baptist College. I have not had the privilege of seeing this ministry before, so I am eager to visit. Our church did help with a building project, and I have had several occasions to get to know the leaders of the work here, Phil Hunt and Steve Hafler. I am looking forward to spending some time with them this week.

There is no way that I could do Matthew in one week, so the class is really going to be a survey of the book’s theme, then exposition of chapters 1-7. I hope that it is profitable for the men who are taking the class. As you think of it, I’d appreciate your prayer on my behalf. If you follow the blog, you know that the past several weeks have been a little crazy travel-wise. Last week, at the BMM conference, it was a strange thing, but the best I felt all week was while I was preaching those seven sessions. In between them, I was feeling the effects of the travel. I am sure that this the Lord’s help in answer to prayer, so I would love to experience the same this week. Thanks!

Well, I made it here without any complications (beyond having to pay almost four times as much to bring the commentaries that I brought for the men in the class). We had a shortened session today (3-6 p.m.) and I covered mainly introductory material so that we can plow into the theme of Matthew tomorrow. Found out today class runs from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., so it will be a good long day (actually three of them). It looks like we’ll have about 70 men in the class. What a great privilege to teach these brothers. Please pray!

DMD @ 11:42 


Sticking to the point...

11 July 2009

Some of my preoccupation with the discussion about distinguishing between ideas and individuals is rooted in what I was doing this week—speaking seven times on the subject of discernment to a group of missionaries. I think this concept is critical to the practice of discernment. Discernment will be damaged if we credit or discredit ideas simply because of who sets them forth. It can work either way. Fools are occasionally right about some things. And wise men occasionally say or do foolish things.

If that’s true, then: (a) doing something wise once doesn’t grant anybody lifetime status as a wise person, and doing something foolish doesn’t consign one to the fools bin for life; and (b) that an idea or action springs from a wise person isn’t a sufficient justification for that idea or action, or that it springs from a fool isn’t a sufficient refutation of that idea or action. The idea or action is what needs to be evaluated. Defenses of that idea or action should focus, as well, on the idea or action, not shift the subject to the thinker or actor.

I’ve already noted that this is easier to say than to do. I’d add that it is not a final rule too—we all will draw conclusions about a person if they regularly say or do foolish things. None of us should make snap judgments based on a limited sample of evidence or that run contrary to a significant amount of evidence. We all, though, do draw conclusions from patterns. Rightly so.

It is also helpful when critiquing anything to give the author the benefit of the doubt until he has proven untrustworthy. So, if he says something like, “There is a lot of talk about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals these days,” then it might be good to assume that the subject is “fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals” and not really about a particular individual, even if individuals are named as representative of one category or another.

It is necessary, too, when you attempt to refute a point to actually address that point, not shift the subject to some other issue. An example:

Doran: “Scotty Bowman made a bad decision when he tried to use Sergei Federov as a defenseman.”

You: “Scotty Bowman won 9 Stanley Cups as a coach, so I think he knows what he is doing.”

Doran: “I am not saying that Scotty Bowman is a bad coach. I said I think he made a bad decision.”

You: “How many Stanley Cups have you won, punk?”

Both of these defenses tend to shift the subject away from the decision itself to the person who made the decision (first answer) or to the person who is critical of it (second answer). IOW, the first defense rests on Scotty’s credibility as a coach and the second defense rests on my lack of credibility as a coach. Obviously, those are, in fact, arguments and they do potentially have some merit, but I hope none of us would give them a definitive place in our judgment. Remember, even wise men can make a foolish decision and even fools can make a wise decision from time to time.

It would be better, though, to offer counterevidence that directly relates to the specific assertion being made. If one asserts, for instance, that naming a pavilion after a man who had a significant hand in the liberalization of a seminary and convention may demonstrate a difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, then counter with arguments that disprove that. If the argument is made that doing this is wrong, then counter with arguments that show that it is proper to do so (or at least not as bad as alleged). Just so we are clear about what I am saying, here’s what I think shouldn’t be done:

Doran: “That conservative evangelicals, like Al Mohler, would honor a man who had a significant hand in the liberalization of SBTS and the SBC may reveal a difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.”

Objector: “Al Mohler has taken a tremendous stand for the faith at great cost to himself and his family.”

Doran: “I am not saying that Al Mohler is a bad man. I said that this decision might reveal a significant difference between two approaches to theological controversy.”

Objector: “Where’s your post about the buildings at BJU that are named after racists?”

Nothing is gained by this kind of counterargument because it is beside the point. Something, though, is lost by it—the question itself. Instead of addressing the question (potential differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals), the topic gets shifted to whether Al Mohler is a good guy or not and whether SBTS is a good seminary or not. Those are legit questions, but not what was being discussed. It is quite possible that one might agree with me that this was a bad decision and still think that Mohler is a good guy and SBTS is a good seminary. Here comes the chorus again—even a wise man can make a foolish decision from time to time.

I’ll close by referring again to Trueman’s point about what’s happening to our culture. I wrote the same thing last week (and posted it on Friday). The tendency to take all disagreements personally is not good. We are in danger of losing the ability for intelligent discourse and debate. It is slightly ironic, in my view, that a post originally intended to highlight a potential difference between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism has revealed a striking similarity between the two—the tendency to justify decisions on the basis of who made them rather than on the quality of the decisions themselves.

DMD @ 02:51 


Miscellany

10 July 2009

A few of items from the web:

As a traveler, this article about cybercriminals caught my attention. (HT)

There’s an old line (from a song I won’t name) that goes something like, “Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.” I thought of that when I read this.

I think of the second scene in this video often. Apollo’s response near the end of the clip reminds me of how all of us are inclined to interpret our own actions differently than those of other people. You do it. It’s not cool. I do it. It is cool.

DMD @ 09:50 


Ideas and Individuals (again)

10 July 2009

I stirred the pot again with my comment at the end of the post quoting Carl Trueman, so I’d like to take another run (or two) at the matter of distinguishing between ideas and individuals. Actually, last week, while I was overseas, I wrote up something I intended to post, but didn’t because I wasn’t able to get internet access until much later than I expected. As you can tell, it was written as if I’d be able to post it in a timely way. I’ll simply reproduce it “as is” so that you can see what I was thinking then. I’m getting ready to head out of the country again, so I don’t know if I’ll follow up right away or not. Here goes:

 

Here’s part of what happens when you are on the other side of the world. It’s 9 p.m. where you are, but your body can’t decide if it is early morning or time to go to bed. Bed wins and you sleep very well…until the middle of the night when your body decides that your little daytime nap has been enough. Said that to explain what I am about to write. It represents what happens when you lay in bed wide awake in the middle of the night and your mind is buzzing about a combination of things—the seven messages on discernment that you will doing next week for a conference, the tension that gets created when you use real life examples in order to open a discussion on ideas, the process of going from concrete to abstract in biblical interpretation and homiletics, etc.

Although I would like to have slept a little longer, I am thankful for the quiet, extended time to ruminate on these things. I think they are important. In reality, the development on spiritual discernment demands that we think through them so that we can make wise choices. So, here are some bullet point thoughts for your consideration. I’ll let you judge whether I should have just rolled over and gone back to sleep!

·         I believe a very strong biblical case can be made that discernment involves drawing wise conclusions from specific, concrete cases. For example, we are to draw wisdom and instruction from observing the field of the sluggard (cf. Pro 24:30-34). I think we all acknowledge this when we encourage the reading of history. I suppose it is easier for us to evaluate things when the objects of our evaluation are dead or distant. It seems that when we look at current events we are too often tied to the people involved in ways that make us more sensitive about things. That’s mostly good, but I wonder if it doesn’t reflect some unhealthy elements of our contemporary culture. This is a delicate matter simply because it is possible to err in either direction—unwarranted defense or criticism of individuals. And we might be tempted to ignore legitimate concerns or the exposure of illegitimate concerns if we don’t look at the ideas rather than the individuals involved.

·         There is no doubt that some have abused the concept of “biblical principles” as an element of making ethical decisions. Sometimes it takes the form of a conclusion in search of a text to support it. Most often, though, it seems to simply represent a misguided hermeneutic that turns every action in a text into a timeless principle (e.g., “If you want to beat the giants in your life, then you need to take care of your regular duties like David did.”). In any event, I don’t deny that some have been “principle happy” and used it to bind the consciences of God’s people illegitimately. But I think we make a serious mistake if we react to this by running in the other direction to a kind of reductionism that almost treats the Bible in an excessively time-bound way. Clearly, Paul believed that things were recorded in the Scripture as examples for us (cf. 1 Cor 10:6) and even demonstrated for us how to use a case example from the Mosaic Law in order to derive a moral principle that to be applied to support for Gospel ministers (cf. 1 Cor 9:9-10). Frankly, I think one of the problems that needs to be addressed in our use of Scripture is the tendency to think that God only cares about specific cases and not about timeless principles.

·         One of the concepts that gets discussed, in homiletics textbooks and classes, regarding the application of Scripture is the “ladder of abstraction.” I don’t have access to my books, but I believe that Sunukjian (Invitation to Biblical Preaching) does a good job talking about this. Matthewson is helpful in his work on Old Testament narratives. Walter Kaiser (Toward an Exegetical Theology uses the term “principalization” to refer, I think, to the same basic idea. IOW, when the Bible uses a concrete example, we must work up from that to a more abstract concept that allows us to make contemporary application. It needs more elaboration, but let me use David and Goliath again. How do we handle this text? We can strap it down to its historical details—if you are David (the chosen king), then you can kill giants. Or we can jump to the other end—here’s how to beat the giants in your life. Better would be to see the original intent (the text helps us understand why David is a man after God’s heart and God’s chosen one to lead Israel) and then move it up one level to a question like, What kind of man will God use? You move from a specific, concrete example (David) to a more general truth (kind of person). That’s what Paul did with oxen in 1 Cor 9. Frankly, I think we do this all the time. Sometimes well, sometimes not so much.

·         All that to say, when a specific case is cited, the point in doing so should be to move up the ladder of abstraction to the larger matter of ideas. So, a specific man/institution naming a specific pavilion after another specific man shouldn’t be left at the level of specifics, but instead elevated to the level of ideas—what should we think about the concept of giving honor to certain kinds of individuals? (Or, if someone wants to turn it around, what should we think about pastors who post criticisms of actions like this?) Is anything biblical at stake when one honors someone who was unfaithful to Gospel?

·         Now, I think that a part of the point that Owen Strachen was making, and that I appreciate, is that it isn’t as easy to separate the individuals from the ideas as it may seem. I think Owen was saying that this decision can’t be evaluated apart from a consideration of who Al Mohler is (and what SBTS is) and how Dr. Mohler has consistently responded to questions of biblical fidelity. To a point, I agree with him, and that’s why I would not want to make a single decision like this a referendum on a man or institution. It is very uncharitable and unwise to draw conclusions from limited evidence. But that really is why the post was made in the first place—the appearance of conflicting ideas in that the institution cleaned house, but now honors the one who filled the house with the stuff that needed to be swept out.

·         I also believe, though, that it is unwise to dismiss the discussion of ideas because of the individuals involved.

DMD @ 06:43 


Seeing the Difference between Ideas and Individuals

9 July 2009

Carl Trueman cranks out another home run here. It is all good, but here is one part that I will highlight:

Thus, to respond as this person did would seem to point to one of two possible explanations: she was a narcissist and thus incapable of understanding that articles written by another could possibly not be aimed at her; or (and frankly, more likely), she was clueless about controversial discourse and unable to separate critique of a particular viewpoint from a malicious attack on any person who might hold to said viewpoint.   Whichever was the case, however, the use of the language of hurt and pain as primary involved both a trivialization of those concepts in themselves and a sidestepping of the real issue, i.e., was the argument I proposed right or wrong?

It’s the second option that seems much too common these days. I’d add that this shows up also when someone takes offense on behalf of someone else. You know, like when the quality of a decision is criticized and folks shift the subject to a defense of the person(s) responsible for the decision.

DMD @ 11:51 


One of these things is not like the other one...

9 July 2009

A crucial element of discernment is the ability to tell the difference between things. Hebrews 5:14 helps us see this clearly, “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” Discernment, in light of this verse, means telling the difference between good and evil. The word translated discern speaks of “the ability to distinguish and evaluate” and could be translated distinguishing or differentiation (BDAG, p. 231).

Discernment demands that we discriminate and makes distinctions, separating things from one another so that you can tell them apart. Practicing discernment, therefore, presupposes categories like good and evil, wisdom and folly, and truth and error. If these categories are eliminated, then the practice of discernment is made unnecessary. If the world is gray, then there is no point to thinking in terms of black and white.

But the world isn’t gray. Viewed from God’s perspective, there is black and white, truth and untruth, wisdom and folly. Something either fits reality as God knows it or it doesn’t. Truth is not relative. There really is something called evil. Categories like good, beautiful, and true really do matter.


The Apostle Paul prayed that the Philippian believers would have more discernment so that they would “approve the things that are excellent” (Phil 1:10-11). That, of necessity, means that something like excellence exists. If there is an excellent option, then there must be non-excellent options to be distinguished from it. Discernment means telling the difference between excellent and other than excellent.


Practically, we know this must be the case. Consider obedience to Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” The verse tells me to “dwell” on certain things and that means, by necessary implication that I can’t dwell on other things. How can we possibly obey this command if it is impossible to distinguish between things based on the qualities list in this verse? Obviously we can and we must.


1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 also demands that we acknowledge the existence of categories like good and evil, and that we engage in the process of examination to decide what we may accept and what we must reject. It is expected that believers will engage their minds in the process of examining the teachings of those who claim to speak on behalf of God (cf. vv. 19-20). False teaching is evil; the truth is good. Discernment looks to tell the difference between these two.

DMD @ 05:52 


Christ Became a Curse for Us

8 July 2009

We've encouraged our church family to read through the Bible together this year according to McCheyne's plan. As an encouragement on those lines, we (i.e., pastors) occasionally post thoughts from the Bible reading or answer questions that are sent to us. Here's something I just posted at our church blog:

Christ and the Defeated Kings in Joshua 10 

I know that title for this blog post probably doesn’t make sense, but let me explain. As I was reading Joshua 10 this morning, I was struck by verse 26, “So afterward Joshua struck them and put them to death, and he hanged them on five trees; and they hung on the trees until evening.” Joshua needed five trees because he had defeated the five kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (v. 23). It was an incredible victory from the LORD. But the part that struck me was the mention of hanging them on the trees. In part, it struck me because Joshua did the same thing to the king of Ai (cf. 8:29).

The main reason, though, that I found it striking was that it prompted me to think about the glory and offensiveness of the Cross. Remember what Paul writes to the Galatians? “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’” (3:13). Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 to support the fact that Christ became a curse for us by hanging on that tree. For Paul, the glory of the Cross was found in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, but for Paul’s enemies, ancient and present, the idea that Christ became a curse is offensive. And what Joshua did to those defeated kings helps us understand how offensive it was to the Jews.

Hanging on a tree was for convicted criminals and defeated kings, not for the Messiah. Because the Cross has become an ornament and decoration for us, we probably can’t feel the offense of it very well. A Jew, steeped in the Law and Hebrew history, would feel it very much. Moses recorded God’s curse against those hung on a tree, and Joshua put it into practice. Hanging on a tree meant being under God’s curse. Let’s not forget that. Christ on the cross became the curse for us so that we might be redeemed from that curse.

I took no pleasure, this morning, in thinking about the death of these five kings. I was, though, full of amazement again at the grace of God poured out at the Cross. The Cross is an incredible display of humble sacrifice and a message that must be received in humble repentance and faith. To the natural mind, it is foolish and scandalous. To those who are the called, it is the wisdom and power of God. SDG!

DMD @ 11:43 


The Call to Discernment

8 July 2009


I mentioned a few posts ago that I am preaching this week at the Annual Conference for Baptist Mid-Missions on the topic of discernment. Here's the skeleton for my first message that was entitled "The Call to Discernment:"

1.    The threat of false teachers and teaching demands vigilant discernment, 1 Ths 5:21-22; cf. 1 John 4:1-6; 1 Tim 4:1-5; Eph 4:14.

a.            The context of this responsibility, “but”

b.            The comprehensiveness of this responsibility, “everything”

c.            The character of this responsibility, “examine”

d.            The conclusions of this responsibility, 21b-22

1)    We must receive the good, “hold fast to that which is good”

2)    We must reject the bad, “abstain from every form of evil”

2.    The challenge of maintaining a pure and unified church demands careful discernment, 1 Cor 5:12-13; 6:5.

a.            Church discipline requires discernment and righteous judgment, 1 Cor 5:12-13.

b.            Settling disputes among believers requires discernment, 1 Cor 6:5.

3.    The need to apply the Scriptures to changing life situations demands disciplined discernment, Eph 5:10; John 5:24; Heb 5:14.

a.            Spiritual maturity is not automatic, Heb 5:12.

b.            Spiritual maturity is not irreversible, “you have become dull of hearing…come to need milk”

c.            Spiritual maturity is demonstrated by developed biblical digestion, “solid food is for the mature”

d.            Spiritual maturity is demonstrated by developed ethical discernment, “senses trained to discern good and evil”

4.    The task of forming solid Christian character and testimony demands growing discernment, Phil 1:9-10.

a.            The Request, “love abound…knowledge and all discernment”

b.            The Reason, “so that you may approve the things that are excellent”

c.            The Result, “in order to be sincere and blameless”

Conclusion: A careless mindset has tragic consequences for doctrinal purity, church health, spiritual growth and Christlike character.

 

DMD @ 06:28 


From around the web

8 July 2009

A re-run from Al Mohler that is definitely worth re-reading.

Doug Wilson, a man that I am still trying to figure out, offers his perspective on goopy vs. clear thinking as it relates to complementarianism.

A couple of great lines from an entertainment piece by Bill Katz:

·         “Mention of the Academy provides a nice segue into the rule change for Oscar that will change the awards ceremony and remind us of film history. No, I'm not referring to the new rule that will see ten, rather than five films nominated for ‘Best Picture.’ That is grotesque, and nothing more than a publicity grab for an ever more mediocre industry. It's hard enough to name five pictures worthy of ‘best.’ Getting ten will put Oscar on the level of summer camps that give an ‘outstanding camper’ ribbon to any kid who doesn't drown.”

·         “We haven't considered here the death of Michael Jackson. If you really feel compelled to read more about that, there are medicines available.”

Some interesting thoughts on summer preaching from C.J. Mahaney.

DMD @ 06:20 


Checking in from the road again

7 July 2009


Some quick hits:

1.        I am speaking this week at the Annual Conference for Baptist Mid-Missions. Kicked off the conference last night—the theme is “Knowing Right, Doing Right” and I’ve been asked to speak on discernment. Lord willing, seven messages on a very important subject. I will try to post some things this week, but not sure how that will work.

2.        Lord willing, I leave on Saturday to teach a block class on Matthew in Zambia. This will be my first visit there, so I am eager to see the work and spend time with anywhere from 60 to 100 of the Lord’s servants. Still have some work to do in getting ready for that (which is why I am not sure how much I’ll post this week!). So, from mid-June to mid-July I’ll have visited five mission fields: Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Pacific Islands, and OHIO. And not just Ohio, but the Cleveland area. In honor of that I preached from the King James last night. I think I did okay with it—I had to practice my lisp yesterday afternoon so I could handle all of the “eths” at the end of words!

3.        Here’s an idea for you church growth folks. The closest we’ve come to this one is our Wild Game Dinner!



DMD @ 06:55 


Back in the USA on Independence Day

4 July 2009

Back in the States after a great trip overseas teaching some wonderful brothers from a restricted access nation. I get an extra long 4th of July since I flew back across the international date line. It is always good to be back home!

Checking my email and found this gem:

“The perfection we do not have, Jesus provided. The judgment we do not want, Jesus bore.”

- John Piper, Finally Alive(Scotland, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2009), 74.

What a wonderful Savior is Jesus our Lord!

DMD @ 11:35 


Missions, Pavilions, and Wives

2 July 2009

Checking in from a coffee shop on an island in the Pacific… 

I am enjoying a wonderful time of teaching God’s Word to a group of 26 brothers from a Restricted Access Nation. Our theme is “The Mission of Jesus and His Disciples” (basically an exposition of the Great Commission and its implementation in Acts and the Epistles, particularly Ephesians). I love teaching this stuff—it is always convicting for me, as a pastor, to be reminded of these basic truths and how the local church must be dominated by the task and determined to follow the example of Jesus—“I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4).

Owen Strachen has weighed in on the Great Pavilion Debate. He makes some good points and is worth taking the time to read it. I agree with him that there are significant differences between Fuller and SBTS, and would agree that the presidency of Al Mohler (vs. Ockenga, Carnell, or Hubbard) is one of them. I am not quite ready to concede that this was about Al Mohler as much as it was about the possible differences in the thinking of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. I still believe we all are too quick to personalize discussions, and this tendency has been, for the most part, detrimental to the health of the church. Anyway, I appreciate the “push back” on my posts by Owen, Mark, and Greg.

Oh, and a closing note, based on a conversation with a friend regarding the importance of a good wife. The context was a discussion about a missionary who needed to come home from the field because his wife couldn’t adjust well. My friend said something like, “The wife decision is one you can’t go back and do over.” How true! And how thankful I am that God gave me an incredible wife who loves the Lord and the Great Commission enough to let her husband run all over the world for the sake of His Name. What favor I obtained from the Lord when He gave me her! SDG

DMD @ 01:58 




about me

audio

articles

mailbag

ministry links

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Inter-City Baptist Church
Inter-City Baptist School
Inter-City Christian Bookstore
Missions Mandate
Wayne State Campus Bible Fellowship
<< July 2009 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

recent posts

archives

rss feed