Glory & Grace RSS feed by David M. Doran

Announcement

We're making a move so that the blog, as it grows, can be more helpful. I hope it won't inconvenience anybody too badly, we think this will be best for the longer run. I've been instructed to inform you of two things:

New blog address: http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/

Update their RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/GloryGrace

Thanks for reading the blog. I hope, with God's help, to pick the pace back up as we move out of summer and into fall. SDG.

Tulips are for the garden, not theology

I wanted this to have its own post because I think it deserves special attention. Ken Stewart also has an interesting article on the use of theTULIP acronym that can be found here. My take of his ideas: (1) the acronym is really of recent (early 20^th century); (2) it is not a very helpful device because (a) it doesn’t reflect the five points well at all; (b) has a more negative tendency than earlier defenders of the five points usually displayed; and (c) it tends toward a party spirit versus a defense of central Christian doctrine; and (3) it doesn’t adequately summarize Calvinism (IOW, Calvinism involves more than this acronym suggests).

I found the article to be interesting. I was simply unaware of the relative newness of the TULIP acronym. I have always objected to the unfortunate connotations created by TULIP (e.g., limited atonement and irresistible grace). And I have quite loudly contended that it is a mistake to call someone a Calvinist simply because they believe some (or even all) of the five points. Calvinism is much larger than the theological position taken in the Canons of Dordt.

Something to read

Kevin Bauder provides a provocative installment for his series on the history of fundamentalism here. (If you missed the first installment, it’s here.) A few years ago I told Kevin that he was the William F. Buckley of Fundamentalism—to which he replied (or maybe I offered, can’t recall now) that if he’s Buckley, then I must be Rush Limbaugh! Kevin has thought deeply about Fundamentalism and about how separatist principles should be expressed, so I am looking forward to this series. Even at those points where we disagree (which are few), he always makes me think and wrestle through the issues.

An interesting review, by Kenneth Stewart, of a couple of books tracing the Calvinist resurgence in Britain and America can be found here. His concluding question based on reading Collin Hansen’s book, “If we [the PCA] are not numbered with the “new Calvinists” is that as it should be and are we indeed better off?”

Community, Yes. Collectivism, No.

Although I didn’t hear it myself (for sanctification purposes I’m not listening to the news much these days!), apparently the president cited Scripture in the defense of his health care reform efforts. I’ve seen a couple of spots on the web that make reference to it, and one comment that I thought I’d pass along is here. The money quote from Victor Davis Hanson’s post is this:

Ironically, the religious trope would argue against the entrance of the state that would relieve citizens of their own moral responsibilities to help out family and friends in times of illness. It is no accident that secularism, agnosticism, and atheism are strongest in socialist Europe, where the government has relieved citizens of traditional moral responsibilities emphasized by religion

I agree completely and I think Hanson brushes up against a bigger issue that I believe we face in our culture—institutionalization. By that I mean the tendency to transfer individual responsibilities to institutions. I think, in many cases, we have allowed ourselves to slide past helpful cooperative effort into dumping off our duties to other people who have formed some kind of organization to do it for us. Collective effort isn’t bad, but we must be careful not to use it to excuse passivity. For example, tossing a few dollars in the offering plate for a benevolence offering should not replace a personal commitment to have open eyes to see actual needs and seek to meet those needs.

I am all for a robust sense of community, but very strongly opposed to collectivism. I think they are very different.

A Good Point Poorly Stated

This is interesting. While I agree with Piper about the kind of translation which is best, I don’t think it is best to couch the difference in terms of having all the words. Two reasons (for now): (1) the evaluation of a translation isn’t really a matter of matching the number of words in the original text—I am sure Piper does not intend this impression, but he does give it by stating the case as an issue of having “all the words”; and (2) the point he makes against the NIV/TNIV translation in the video isn’t really that they don’t have “all” the words, but that they don’t have the right word—the Greek has gar which is translated for in NASB/ESV and now in NIV/TNIV. IOW, since they actually translate the word, they have “all the words” in this case (just the wrong one!). My guess is that Piper’s comment here is being influenced by the fact that gar is quite often not translated in the NIV/TNIV, mainly, I think, because they try to shorten their sentences for readability.

To be clear, I agree with Piper, on the principle, because I believe that omitting the logical connectors in pursuit of readability is a mistake. The goal of the reader, and expositor, is to get the meaning right and getting the meaning right demands following the argument of the text. The connectors are crucial to that task and reaching that goal.

A Wise Word from a Wounded Woman

I came across an article on Jenny Sanford which was really quite interesting despite its location! Perhaps the most interesting was her take on why male politicians seem so susceptible to moral failure.

The question is why some men—specifically, male politicians—don’t seem to understand how extramarital affairs poison both careers and families. Having watched the species up close all these years, Sanford has a theory. “Politicians become disconnected from the way everyone else lives in the world. I saw that from the very beginning. They’ll say they need something, and ten people want to give it to them. It’s an ego boost, and it’s easy to drink your own Kool-Aid. As a wife, you do your best to keep them grounded, but it’s a real challenge.”

Wise words that should serve as a warning for those who possess (or seek) power and privilege!

Holding Out for a Better Offer

The phrase in the title of this post is one usually associated with buying and selling (although sometimes it is used in courtship too!). A potential buyer makes an offer and the seller decides to pass on that offer in the hopes of a better offer down the road. This phrase came to mind this morning when I read Romans 8:25, “But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

The context makes it clear that the initial offer comes to us from the flesh (cf. vv. 12-13). It promises us payment that will satisfy certain of our desires. But because of the Spirit’s presence in our lives, we have the hope of a better offer, “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (v. 23). As long as we live in this present world, there will always be two offers—flesh and Spirit. The tension for us is that the flesh’s offer is already on the table. The “payment” can be delivered immediately. We can see it, smell it, touch it, and taste it. Not so with the Spirit’s offer. “Payment” is future and we cannot see it (cf. v. 24 “for who hopes for what he already sees?”).

Here is the heart of verse 25—our ability to hold out for the better offer is rooted in our hope. Paul ties them together in a cause-effect relationship: “if we hope…we wait eagerly for it.” Hope enables us to wait. The stronger the hope, the more eagerly we wait. So, how do we grow stronger in hope? A lot could be said here, but let me just draw our attention to where Paul started this section of Romans because I think it is the centerpiece of our hope. Back in chapter five, Paul wrote this, “hope does not disappoint because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. ⁶For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (vv. 5-6).

Those two verses introduce themes that Paul returns to in chapter 8: (1) hope (vv. 20, 24-25); (2) the love of God (v. 39; implied in our sonship too, vv. 14-16); (3) the Holy Spirit’s presence in us (vv. 9-11, 23); and (4) the death of Christ on our behalf (vv. 3, 11, 32, 34). We could summarize it like this, “Our hope is based on God’s love for us proven by the death of Christ and confirmed by the presence of the Spirit.”

Or, to return to the phrase in the title, we can hold out for that better offer because we are sure it will come—God loves us and will deliver what He promised, having proved that by sending His Son to die in our place and confirmed it by providing the down payment of His Spirit. The strength of our hope is directly connected to our grasp of these incredible truths. That means are ability to say no to the flesh’s offers is tied to our grasp of these truths too. Glorying in God’s love, Christ’s death and resurrection, and the Spirit’s witness to our adoption is the fuel that kindles the fire of hope. When our hearts are satisfied with these, we can hold out for that better offer.

A Poor Way to Grow the Church

If you wondered what the poor might be good for, here’s one answer—helping them might be a “big draw” for your church. I know, they aren’t really saying that churches should use ministry to the poor as a growth strategy, but it sure seems that way. Especially when this post follows so closely to the one on serving before joining that I interacted with here. Basically, the two posts combine to say something like, “People might join your church if you let them get involved in community projects first, and one of the community projects that seems to be hot right now is ministry to the poor, so, if you want to grow, start doing something and invite people outside of the church to get involved.”

Three quick comments:

1. Though lip service is paid to benevolence as a legitimate ministry on its own, the whole point of the article is to motivate involvement on the basis of anticipated church growth. IOW, it is being advocated on utilitarian grounds and that seems to run contrary to benevolence as an expression of loving my neighbor as myself.

2. Ed Stetzer’s comment that ministry to the poor is a great way to “validate the gospel” is concerning. Perhaps it was simply a poor way of expressing his point, but it is hard to know what point that might have been. I certainly hope he wasn’t really speaking about the gospel being validated by something we do. Maybe he meant that our trust in the gospel would be validated. Even this, though, is a dangerous path to run. I am sure some will become apoplectic when they read this, but ministering to the poor doesn’t validate your status as a genuine believer or validate the gospel. Are we to conclude, for example, that Mother Theresa of Calcutta held to the true gospel because she served the poor or that her “faith” was genuine because she ministered to the poor? Validate was a very poor word choice in this context.

3. As is usually the case, the example of Jesus is cited, but then used selectively and improperly. Here’s what Stetzer says, “Even the unchurched in America know that Jesus came healing the sick and serving the poor so they are surprised to see Him represented by a church uninvolved in such activities. Churches would do well to be engaged with, and also to be known for, caring for the poor.” Follow the flow—Jesus came healing the sick and serving the poor; we should care for the poor. What happened to healing the sick—if Jesus did both, shouldn’t we? And how, by the way, did Jesus serve the poor? Did He open a soup kitchen or a food pantry? No, He miraculously fed them. Jesus used His miracle-producing power to heal and feed as evidence that He was the Messiah (Matt 11:1-6). To replace miracles with clinics and soup kitchens is to trivialize the miracles recorded for us in the Gospels. His argument works only on the surface, but can’t hold up to serious scrutiny. While I disagree with them, at least those who embrace the signs and wonders movement are consistent—the presence of the Kingdom means real miracles, not non-miraculous imitations. What is currently spreading in evangelicalism is a Kingdom Now perspective, but approaches to ministry that are actually Kingdom Lite.

There is room for a debate about whether and how the church should serve the poor (to use the Stetzer’s phrase), but that debate will be skewed if one of the factors is whether it will aid church growth or not. The issue should be obedience, not utilitarianism. I also think it would be very good to question whether we really are doing the same thing that Jesus did simply because we name our food pantry “The Five Loaves and Two Fishes.”

Ecumenical Evangelicals

This is a little old, but certainly relevant to conversations about what direction evangelicalism, or at least a portion of it, is headed. Youth Specialties, a division of Zondervan, apparently wants to make their conferences “less edgy.” While that might normally be thought of as a good thing, in this case the edges that they want to remove are the wrong ones. This quote will show what I mean:

“The biggest change: The 3,000-plus youth workers expected to attend the conventions—held in Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and Atlanta—can expect keynote speakers to address fewer hot-button issues from the main stage than in years past.

Organizers promise more unifying "big room" gatherings that celebrate what the diverse crowds—ranging from conservative evangelicals to mainline Protestants and Catholics—have in common: the gospel of Jesus Christ, a belief in God's power to transform lives, and a passion for developing young people of faith.

"Whether you're a liberal [Methodist] or Presbyterian or some other denomination like that, or whether you come from a Southern Baptist church or an independent Bible church, those are things we can stack hands on," Oestreicher said.

Read a little deeper into the article and you see that “edgy” must have been having a keynote speaker from an organization that tries to build bridges between the religious and homosexual communities. “Less edgy” means having the same speaker, but only in a less visible role. Wow, those really are edgy changes.

So, let’s get this straight (no pun intended), less edgy means we can still blur Gospel distinctions by finding common ground between conservative evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Catholics, but we won’t hit a hot button topic like homosexuality.

Again, I find myself wondering, like with the Episcopalian versus Anglican situation, what really matters anymore. Fundamental doctrines, including justification by faith alone in Christ alone, can be ignored, but let’s make sure we don’t upset anybody about homosexuality. From my perspective, what Youth Specialities really needs some edginess—like defining the gospel clearly and making sure that “young people of faith” actually have the Faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Real, Live Foolish Preacher

After reading this, I thought I would help this man out with an answer to his question at the end—please, don’t go back in a pulpit!

A rare foray into politics...

This is worth taking time to watch if you'd like a perspective on socialized medicine from a conservative British politician.

The Proper Use of a Good Word

Amen to this.

A new blog

Here is a new blog that I know will be of profit to you. Mark Snoeberger is a godly and gifted man who uses those gifts for the glory of God to advance the mission of Christ’s church. I commend him and it to you heartily.

A good word from out west

This is very good. Except for the fact that there is nothing comparable to Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals, I wonder if you couldn’t tweak his post a little and apply it to Fundamentalism as well. At least one difference would be that rather than running from saying anything negative about ideas and ministries, much of Fundamentalism has run from saying anything positive about them! IOW, DMLJ was concerned about an evangelicalism that defined itself only by what it was for and never about what it was against, but we may be in a day where fundamentalism seldom defines itself by what it is for and almost always by what it is against.

I still have not been disabused of the idea that the outcome the new evangelical project is far worse than recognized by most, but it seems that it is being recognized more and more. I’d say that this is a hopeful sign, but a positive response might lead some to question my fundamentalist credentials. So, let me say it negatively—it’s about time and I sure hope the rest of them wake up soon.

Serving before Joining?

I think this is an example of basing a decision on what might possibly work rather than on sound theology. In a post entitled “Volunteering: The Growing Front Door to the Church” Sam Rainer suggests that the church should consider capitalizing on the growing spirit of volunteerism. In a nutshell, here’s what he thinks provides the unique open door, “an invitation to serve may be the best way to invite people to church. Serve first, connect after the church lives the mission.”

Some observations and concerns:

1. His use of “the mission” in the context of community impact reflects the triumph of holistic mission thinking in our day, i.e., that the church has the dual responsibility to evangelize and effect social change. This is a big subject that needs more said, but now is not the time.

2. The words “invite people to church” in this context seem very stretched. He mentions it in near proximity to working with charities and in the larger context of doing community service. How is it inviting people “to church” when the real focus is working with non-church members to restore the local playground (as an example)? The words “Front Door to the Church” in his title also reflect this same idea. This seems to be the way church growth thought works—everything is a tool to get more people to the church. I hope that I am not nitpicking, but I think it does reflect a change of thought process too. Contrast two approaches to this same issue—evangelism vis-à-vis community involvement. One option is that the church organizes volunteer projects in order to attract the unchurched to participate as a means of getting them in the church. Another option would be to encourage believers to get involved in community projects as a means of doing good and building relationships which might lead to gospel witness. These are different approaches rooted in a different understanding of the congregational and personal spheres of responsibility. IOW, the former attributes responsibilities to the congregation that used to be viewed as personal ones.

3. The very idea of involving unbelievers and the unchurched in the ministries of the church is problematic to begin with. Again, there is a lot that could be said here, but perhaps it is enough to simply point out that the church is the Body of Christ and the Scriptures are clear that it is the “parts” of the Body which are to function in that Body building itself up in love (Eph 4:16) and those “parts” are supposed to serve according to the outworking of their spiritual gifts given to them by Divine design (cf. 1 Cor 12; Rom 12:3-8; Eph 4:7-16). This approach seems to represent the triumph of organizational thinking, not biblical thinking, about the nature of the church.

4. Along similar lines, doing anything that allows the church to be viewed as another volunteer or service organization is a mistake. If it is just one of many doing the same things, then it has lost its God-intended uniqueness and, I think, the gospel suffers for it. This seems a lot like just another church growth idea that operates with the “We’re really a lot like you, so come over and check us out” mindset. Deep inside the modern church growth psyche is the mistaken notion that we must win them to us before we can win them to Christ. One outgrowth of that is that good works become a means to glorify us, not our Father who is in heaven—“our church is really cool, come look at what we’re doing!” When the evangelical church is simply doing better and with more people what the non-evangelical churches are doing, how is that a gospel distinctive? It’s not. It’s just telling them they can have a shinier version of the same thing. Sure, sometime after they come around the gospel will be given, but by that time the message may already be blurred—you’ve let this person serve with your church, affirming their sinful pursuit of self-righteousness and muting the message of repentance that they desperately need to hear.

Maybe I am overreacting, but I don’t think so. I think, rather, that we’re becoming the proverbial frog in the church growth kettle. It’s almost as if the whole paradigm has shifted without being noticed so that “building the church” is assumed to be the same as building any human organization. Whatever works should be used and the proof of what works is the latest set of polls.

(Just because I know someone out there will think I am being prejudiced in my criticism, I’ve actually had to say some of these same things in the context of fundamentalist conferences where similar ideas were set forth. Pragmatism is rampant across the ecclesiastical landscape. And, thankfully, rejection of it can be found across the board too.)

One Principle, Two Cultures

How about something a little lighter today? As many of you no doubt have seen, there is a video of a wedding processional that has gone viral on YouTube. (Rumor has it that it was taped at the First Baptist Church of Troy, but I haven’t been able to confirm that yet. The person at the front is shaped somewhat like the pastor of that church, but my eyes aren’t that great anymore, so don’t take my word for it.)

Anyway, on to my point, which is not to get into dancing at weddings or anything like that (and if you are offended by dancing at weddings or music with an anapestic beat, then don’t watch the videos I am about to post). If one were to compare the viral clip from the US (found here) with video taken of a Tanzanian wedding procession (two samples found here and here), you can find similarities, but what I’d like to point out is the difference.

The specific difference that most interests me is the cultural expectations regarding the disposition of the bride. In an American wedding, the bride is expected to be happy and celebratory—it is her big day and for her to be sad would not be a good sign. Her wedding, usually, is a big party thrown by her parents as they hand her off to her groom. In a Tanzanian wedding, the bride is expected to put on an air of sadness in order to not dishonor her parents as she leaves their home. If she were too happy, it would reflect badly on them. You can see the difference in how the bride enters in the two cultures. In the American video, the bride dances her way down the aisle. In the Tanzanian videos, everybody else is dancing, but not the bride—it’s almost as if she is being marched off to be sacrificed!

Maybe I’m a little slow, but it is these kinds of differences between cultures that fascinate me. I suppose we could argue about which bridal disposition is the more biblical expression, but I really think that we’d be missing the main point. The better question would probably be, given the way the culture views this, how should believers “have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (2 Cor 8:21)? We have a dual obligation, don’t we? Clearly, the Lord has first place, but we do live within a culture that affects the way things are done and, to some degree, establishes the context within which we live and act.

I despise cultural relativism, but learning how to apply the same biblical principles within different cultures is not cultural relativism. Or, to put it in terms of weddings, how a bride fulfills the biblical obligation to honor her parents may take very different forms in different cultures.

Closing the Barn Door after the Horses Are Already Gone?

I really don’t care to get into the larger debate about the Anglican versus Episcopalian conflict that is developing over the ordination of openly homosexual bishops, but part of the discussion is simply baffling to me. Though his blog article was not the cause for my bewilderment, as I read what Al Mohler had to say on this matter today, I had the thought again that I have had several times when I read about this controversy. Here’s the section that prompted me this time:

Acting just prior to the Diocese of Los Angeles, the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota also announced candidates for election as bishop. The three candidates include the Rev. Bonnie Perry, pastor of All Saints Episcopal Church in Chicago, Illinois. According to the Chicago Tribune, Rev. Perry has been in a committed homosexual relationship with another female Episcopal priest for 22 years.

Where does one start—with the mention of a female pastor, a female priest, or the lesbian relationship has been ongoing for 22 years? Seriously. What is wrong with this picture?

Did we really need the selection of open homosexuals to serve as bishops to prove that the Episcopalian/Anglican church had surrendered its commitment to Scriptural authority? Wouldn’t the presence of lesbian female pastors and priests be evidence enough of that? Frankly, from my perspective, wouldn’t the presence of non-lesbian female pastors and priests be enough evidence of that?

Folks, the problem in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church is not homosexuality. That is just the tip of the iceberg. And the rejection of homosexuality does not make one a theological conservative, so let’s not be naïve about the state of the Anglican church worldwide simply because some portions of it are upset with their morally liberal American kin.

The Efficacy of Intercessory Prayer

While reading Acts 23 this morning, I was reminded again of the importance and effectiveness of intercessory prayer. Part of the historical backdrop to what happens with Paul’s rescue in Acts 23 is found in Romans 15:30-32. Before Paul travels back to Jerusalem, he writes to the Romans and asks them to pray for three things: (1) that he may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea; (2) that his service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints; and (3) that he may come to the Romans in joy by the will of God and find refreshing rest in their company. He is so burdened about these matters that he asks them “to strive together” with him in prayer to God about them.

We’ve been studying prayer on Sunday mornings and I’ve repeatedly emphasized the efficacy of prayer with these words, “prayer works because God designed it to work.” When you compare Romans 15:30-32 with Acts 21-23, you find several clear testimonies to the truthfulness of this statement. Look at those prayer requests again, then consider: (1) that Acts 21:17 says that Luke records that when the missionary team “arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly;” and (2) that Acts 21 and 23 show clearly how God protected Paul by (a) motivating a Roman commander to respond immediately to the riot that broke out; (b) allowing the arrogance of the Jewish leaders to produce a fight among themselves rather than an attack on Paul; and (c) by placing Paul’s nephew in a position to learn of the plot against Paul, then causing both the centurion and commander to listen to the words of this young man. It is really a remarkable chain of events that come together in order to fulfill the prayer request which Paul was making before God’s throne, and for which he had invited the fervent prayers of the Roman believers.

The Apostle clearly believed in the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. He constantly invited others to pray for him, and he described those prayers as an effective instrument used by God to accomplish His purposes. Although he wrote it to the Corinthians, I am sure he would have responded to the Romans who prayed in the same way as he did in 2 Corinthians 1:10-11, God “who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us, you also joining in helping us through your prayers, so that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed on us through the prayers of many.” God delivers. We help in that deliverance through prayer. Prayer secures the blessings and results in multiplied thanksgivings.

Our commitment to just about any effort is tied to our belief in its effectiveness. None of us engage fervently and faithfully in what we consider to be fruitless, pointless tasks. Let’s be reminded by the combination of Acts 21-23 and Romans 15:30-32 that God hears the combined prayers of people who may be far removed from each other, but are striving together in prayer for the same purpose, and He acts on behalf of those who wait for Him. Let’s be reminded that the prayers of people comfortably situated in North America can be effective instruments in securing protection for those who are laboring for Christ on the other side of the globe. Let’s be reminded that prayer works because God designed it to work!

Doctrinal Conviction and External Constraint

Yesterday, I was reading “What We Are to Bear with in Others” by Jeremiah Burroughs (in The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan Documents on Church Issues) and found it quite interesting along a few different lines. As an American who has enjoyed the benefits of religious liberty, it reminded me how thankful I should be for this privilege—others have faced quite different circumstances through the centuries, even in the West. As a separatist, I also found it quite interesting. I need to reflect more on Burroughs’s arguments, but wanted to share one quote and explain why I found it interesting.

A little context before I supply the quote. Burroughs assumes agreement the fundamentals and is only addressing those places where good men of sound doctrine differ with one another on matters of interpretive judgment. And Burroughs is primarily concerned about the use of political or judicial force to resolve matters like this, i.e., the involvement of the state and magistrate. He is not addressing doctrinal controversy over fundamental doctrines and, admittedly, his point might need tailoring in a world where “bearing with others” doesn’t mean “don’t imprison or punish” them. How far that extends is open for debate, but the basic principle he is advocating is that men should not be constrained from outside by the consequences of not accepting the official position in matters of judgment.

That said, on to the quote. After arguing that imposed doctrine and practice might cause men to neglect the truth, he makes the case that

“there will be a strong temptation to resist and reject truth; if God begins to dart in any light into a man’s spirit that appears to cross what hath been determined of for opinion or practice under a penalty, the corruption of man’s heart will entice him to turn his mind from that light, not to let it into conscience or heart, lest it prevailing, should put him upon such ways, wherein he is like to suffer” (p. 335).

That’s a long way of saying that a person may not follow the light of Scripture because of the consequences that doing so would court. Remember, he is not talking about fundamental doctrines, but matters about which good men have differed in their understanding of Scripture. So, if Pastor Smith is studying the Word and begins to see “light” there which leads him in a certain direction, but he knows that if he follows that light he will come under discipline from the state (or ecclesiastical authority), he may be tempted to stop his study so as to avoid coming to any conclusions that might have bad consequences. That Burroughs is right in his observation of this problem doesn’t necessarily mean that his solution is correct. I think he is right in the observation—some men won’t study certain issues because they simply don’t want to start down a path they can’t really afford to travel.

This is a larger subject than one post can address, but let me just throw out a few ideas related (perhaps loosely and certainly not in any order of importance) to Burroughs’s point and contemporary life:

· My guess is that the motivation behind Mark Dever’s recent statement on millennial positions is guided by thinking similar to this (you can hear the sermon here and a report about the controversial statement is here). IOW, by including within the doctrinal statement a matter of interpretive judgment you bring to bear consequences which might affect the pursuit of personal conviction in the way that Burroughs outlines.

· I am not convinced that it is as simple as declaring that some doctrines are fundamental and all others (apparently) are matters of judgment. I definitely believe that there are fundamental doctrines, but I haven’t been able to see my way clear to treating all others as matters reserved to private judgment. If one is not careful, the working rule becomes something like, “If good men disagree on it, then it is a matter of private judgment.” Some of the folks who were quite dogmatic about including millennial schemes in the private judgment category are unwilling to place mode of baptism there, yet that issue has certainly been debated amongst good men for a long time. Why is it sin to include a statement on millennial position, but not so for one on mode of baptism? In fact, if I follow Burroughs correctly, I think he’d conclude that neither should ultimately be matters that are decisive on church membership. That seems more consistent.

· I think that Burroughs is arguing for mutual charity among Bible believing people and churches even at those points where they disagree, and I agree with that basic point. But I am not convinced that such charity actually demands ministerial cooperation (e.g., planting of churches, support of missionaries, etc.). Not saying it is barred, but that I have not found arguments that it is demanded compelling. In my mind, it is one thing to recognize each other as brothers in Christ and as true Gospel churches, and it is something more to engage in cooperative work. The former seems to be a NT obligation, but the latter is a voluntary commitment of the local assembly. Is a Presbyterian church wrong to withhold support from a church planting project that will not permit infant baptism? I don’t think so.

· Some of the weight of Burroughs’s concern seems unavoidable—a Baptist pastor would definitely feel real pressure if found himself being moved, through his studies, away from credobaptism. He should feel it. If he didn’t, we would question his integrity. I am inclined to think that it is the rugged individualism of our day that makes us inclined to think that groups should bend to the individual rather than the other way. IOW, rather than make an individual move in the direction of his new convictions, we want everything around him to accommodate his change. There are probably times when this is appropriate it, but I don’t think it is the first and best answer. If you become a Presbyterian, then find a Presbyterian church in which to serve. If you become a Charismatic, same thing. If you become a Baptist, then come on in, the water’s warm.

· It seems to me that these are matters for local churches to decide, and we’d all do well to leave room for differing convictions on some of these things. Our church tends toward viewing missionary work in terms of reproduction and multiplication, so we expect a high degree of doctrinal and ministerial agreement in those with whom we partner. I have friends who pastor churches that take a broader view of it than we do. That’s fine. We won’t break fellowship with them because they allow more latitude in matters of judgment than we do, and I’d be surprised if they would break fellowship with us because we are narrower on some of this. Same thing holds, I believe, for doctrinal statements. I think a good case can be made for both detailed and broad statements, but ultimately I think it is a matter for each local church to decide.

· Along a different, but not unrelated, vein, the concerned expressed by Burroughs was one of the reasons that we (DBTS) recently modified our enrollment policy, untying it from our full doctrinal statement and fastening it to a shorter Creed that seeks to articulate a non-negotiable doctrinal core alongside our Baptist and separatist convictions. We were concerned that some men might postpone dealing with important doctrinal questions simply because they weren’t sure how that would affect their education. Seminary is a time to nail down theological convictions, not postpone developing them, so we made a move in the direction of Burroughs’s basic point.

I’d encourage you to read what Burroughs has to say and give it some thought. Though it was written a long time ago, there is timeliness in it that I think you’ll appreciate.

Prayer request

I would like to ask you to pray for some folks that we know in Kenya. Joel and MaryAnn Weaver are members of our church who serve the Lord in Kenya. Joel is the pastor of the Emmanuel Baptist Church in Nairobi. Over the weekend, one of the members at Emmanuel, Ryan Williams, was involved in a plane crash. Ryan serves overseas as an engineer with AIM Air, a missionary aviation group. There were four people on the small plane, two Americans who were making a documentary on poverty in Kenya, the pilot, and Ryan. The two Americans seem to be okay, but the pilot was killed in the crash and Ryan has some very serious injuries. I’ve had the privilege of meeting Ryan and his wife, Dawn, while preaching on two occasions at Emmanuel. You can read more about the accident here, here, and here. Paul Weaver has also posted some updates at his blog.

Please pray for the family of the pilot, for Ryan Williams and his family, and for the Weavers as they minister to these families. Pray also for the ministry of Camp Lukenya as today begins a week of camp, ironically, with about 100 campers from the poverty-stricken areas of Nairobi like the one being filmed prior to the plane crash.

Invincible and Entitled

The tragedy of Samson’s life is stunning. He is the poster boy for wasted potential. He had incredible gifts and opportunity, but squandered them by being controlled by his appetites. What he saw, he wanted, and what he wanted he pursued without regard for rightness or risk. Samson’s foolishness would almost seem like a caricature if there were not so many examples, past and present, of people who follow the same pathway. It seems that not many weeks go by without word that some well-known, influential person has walked in the foolish steps of Samson—enticed by his eyes, ensnared by his lusts, and then enslaved to his sins. It’s tempting to provide a list of the foolishness that has been on display, but that might be dangerous because it makes it easier for each of us to think that such foolishness is only possible for others. The seedbed of such incredible moral disasters is right there, in thinking that we could never play the fool like that. “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall” (1 Cor 10:12).

Matthew Henry, commenting on Samson’s fall, captures the danger for all of us:

See the fatal effects of false security. Satan ruins men by flattering them into a good opinion of their own safety, and so bringing them to mind nothing, and fear nothing; and then he robs them of their strength and honor, and leads them captive at his will. When we sleep our spiritual enemies do not. Samson's eyes were the inlets of his sin (ver. 1) and now his punishment began there. Now the Philistines blinded him, he had time to remember how his own lust had before blinded him. The best way to preserve the eyes, is, to turn them away from beholding vanity. Take warning by his fall, carefully to watch against all fleshly lusts; for all our glory is gone, and our defense departed from us, when our separation to God, as spiritual Nazarites, is profaned.

Samson was full of boundless arrogance and driven by unbridled appetite. He thought he was invincible and entitled to whatever he wanted. What a toxic combination. Samson’s life certainly provides a sobering warning to all who have been entrusted with leadership. Yet, it would be a serious mistake to think that only people with power and privilege need to be warned by his life. Our culture feeds the beasts of arrogance and appetite non-stop, blinding people to the consequences of foolish choices and enslaving them to the pursuit of pleasure. If you think that you are not affected by this, then, friend, you are in great danger. You’ve been flattered, to borrow Henry’s words, into a good opinion of your own safety and need to wake up to the fatal effects of such false security. Let Samson’s tragic life be a warning to us all of how God is dishonored and potential is destroyed when we think too highly of ourselves and allow ourselves to become slaves of our appetites.

Dealing with post-BG realities

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.

Why are we so hung up on Billy Graham?

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 20^th 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.

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

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 19^th 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.

The Value of the Fundamentalist Label

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.

Keep the bubble in the middle

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.

Ecclesiastes 11:6

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.

The Objective Beyond Victory

“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.

Follow the Fleece?

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.

On Men and Preaching

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.”

Maintaining Perspective

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.

While re-adjusting to EST...

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.

Heading Home

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 11^th. 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).

Reporting from Zambia

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!

Sticking to the point...

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.

Miscellany

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.

Ideas and Individuals (again)

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.

Seeing the Difference between Ideas and Individuals

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.

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

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.

Christ Became a Curse for Us

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!

The Call to Discernment

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.

From around the web

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.

Checking in from the road again

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!

Back in the USA on Independence Day

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!

Missions, Pavilions, and Wives

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

McChurch

Here’s a thought provoking way to start the week—an interesting article by Terry Mattingly on a new book by the title of Franchising McChurch.

Some (final, I hope) Thoughts on the McCall Pavilion and Objections to My Questioning It

As indicated in my original post, my reason for raising the subject was in connection to discussions about fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals. It was not “to carp” at Al Mohler (or Mark Dever, for that matter). This decision potentially reveals a clear distinction between the two perspectives, especially as it relates to the question of how theological conservatives respond to theological liberals (and those who have aided and abetted them). That some defended the move in terms of “healing old wounds” or as a matter of Christian graciousness seems, from my perspective, to prove my point, not refute it. IOW, what biblical justification is there for attempting to heal old wounds that came from a theological battle between conservatives and liberals? Doesn’t that very language fit more with McCall’s call to “stand together in one common commitment in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” than with what the Scriptures say about having no fellowship with unbelief and not participating in the evil of false teachers? Since when did Christian graciousness necessarily extend to naming monuments after men (leaving aside, for the moment, the whole issue of man-monuments)? Can anybody seriously envision the Apostle Paul erecting a monument at Ephesus for any elder of that assembly who opened the door for savage wolves and turned his eyes away from the men who rose up speaking perverse things? I don’t think so.

As for Mark Rogers raising the subject of racism and Bob Jones University, that should be seen for what it is, a red herring. For starters, suppose I agree with Mark’s point, what does it prove? Must I write about every wrong decision to name a building (or school) before I can write about any such wrong decision? All raising the BJU thing did was distract from the point at hand. Even more importantly, in my mind, is whether it is legitimate to equate the two in the first place. Is Mark really suggesting that direct denial of fundamental doctrines is the equal of an indirect denial that springs from a (horribly) wrong biblical interpretation? IOW, is it really true that forbidding interracial dating is the equivalent of denying the inspiration of the Scriptures? I first voiced my opposition to the BJU policy 30 years ago and spoke directly to the administration back in 2000 just before it changed, so please don’t read my point as being sympathetic to it at all. I just can’t see the equivalency here.

Let me say one more thing about my intent. It was not to rain on SBTS’s parade—had I known that my post would get forwarded to a bunch of SBTS grads, I may have considered waiting until a less awkward time. I was not writing for SBCers or SBTS grads, but for the people that I figured read my somewhat obscure blog—fundamentalists. Guys studying in fundamentalist colleges and seminaries, serving as pastors in fundamentalist churches, etc. There is a lot of talk among us about what is happening across the ecclesiastical landscape. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but part of that process means seeing the differences that may still exist between the various groups. It matters to folks like me when a John MacArthur, for instance, expresses his concerns about a Mark Driscoll. In the same way, it matters when conservatives honor men who aided the liberalization of evangelicalism.

I can recognize that from a perspective within the SBC and mainstream evangelicalism, my concerns may seem like nitpicking. I am not an insider, though. I am an outside observer looking at things, I hope, with a broader perspective than the last 16 or 30 years. Perhaps an illustration from a little farther back can help explain my concern. Fuller Seminary started as the flagship of the New Evangelicalism in the late 1940s. Too often, I think, people make the mistake of thinking that Fuller now is what Fuller then was like. But Marsden, in Reforming Fundamentalism, is very clear about how conservative Fuller was at its start. For example, it was staunchly anti-Catholic and deeply committed to biblical inerrancy. So how did Fuller Seminary become what it is today? Probably many tributaries, but none more important than its desire to “heal the old wounds” of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and its “gracious” stance toward heterodoxy. Consider the names of the men who were there at the start—all of them were theological conservatives and most of them took many good stands in defense of the Gospel. But they muffled their objection to false teachers and pursued a path of peaceful coexistence and respectful relationships within the academic guild. There is a warning there for all of us.

Al Mohler deserves, and has, my genuine respect for what God has used him to do in bringing SBTS back from its apostasy-riddled condition. My post wasn’t about Al Mohler; it was about two different approaches to the matter of response to apostasy and compromise with it. This isn’t about who wears what label. I disagree with the decision that was made, and I wonder if this kind of decision is simply an anomaly or truly representative of a very different approach. I hope it is the former, but I am concerned that it may be the latter.

Be content to be nothing

“Be content to be nothing, for that is what you are. When your own emptiness is painfully forced upon your consciousness, chide yourself that you ever dreamed of being full, except in the Lord.”

- Charles Spurgeon

We report, you decide

Greg Gilbert responds to my initial post about the McCall Pavilion.

Two quick thoughts:

(1) It is pretty much the kind of explanation I expected (i.e., this is simply an institutionally proper thing to do; McCall did some good things that should be acknowledged). I’ll confess that I am probably in the extreme minority on this point, but I am not convinced. The question I asked in my post was, “What biblical justification for something like this can there be?” I didn’t see any biblical rationale set forth at all in Greg’s response. I know a seminary is not a church, but don’t texts like 2 John 9-11 have some bearing on whom we honor for their contribution to theological education and ministerial training?

(2) Why does expressing disagreement and asking a question about an action qualify as “carp[ing] at Al Mohler”? I am disappointed by this line of response, but it seems to be standard fare for our culture these days. I don’t think Greg would accuse Mark Dever of “carping at” whomever simply because Mark expressed disagreement with some action by or idea of that person. Why make this about Al Mohler? What not leave it where I put it—what biblical rationale can be offered by a staunch conservative for honoring a man who presided over the liberalization of SBTS? It’s not really about individuals; it’s about ideas and their consequences.

Update: Mark Rogers has also taken exception with my post. I may respond here or there later, but need to focus on some other things presently.

Is this an application of Loving Your Enemies?

Here’s some more of what Duke McCall had to say, in an article in SBTS’s publication, The Tie, about the Conservative Resurgence:

The past 18 months have been a dark and depressing period in the life of Southern Baptists. For the first time since I was ordained to the Baptist ministry almost a half-century ago, I have had reason to fear for the future of our convention.

The well-financed effort to wrest from the conservative majority of Southern Baptists their agencies and assets has moved relentlessly, attacking honorable Christian servants, misleading and confusing lay persons, camouflaging a grab for power as a ‘battle to save the Bible.’

The leaders of Bold Mission Thrust have been especially frustrated as they have seen our denomination’s energies sapped by the political shenanigans of a hard-core conspiracy. And this at a time when Southern Baptists had an unprecedented opportunity to share the Gospel with a lost world!

Using both the elective and appointive processes of the Convention, with deliberate and calculated plans to divide and disenfranchise the mainstream of Southern Baptists, a ‘power politics’ party is seeking to change the nature of the policy-making boards of all the agencies of the Convention. They want to remove the broad cross-section of Southern Baptists who now serve as trustees and replace them with others, many of whom support institutions which compete with Southern Baptists and drain off millions of dollars from the Cooperative Program each year.

The result, if this militant minority of independent interests succeeds, will be the destruction of the Southern Baptist Convention as we know it. (quoted by Jerry Sutton in The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, pp. 341-342).

Earlier in the book, Jerry Sutton had this to say about another one of McCall’s efforts to stop the Resurgence in its tracks—“McCall’s use of slur tactics, distortion, and inaccurate analogies are exemplary of his willingness to use whatever tactics necessary to maintain the status quo, even though it was outside the will of the majority of Southern Baptists” (p. 112).

While it doesn’t seem as if McCall has changed his views, based on the report of his remarks at the dedication ceremony, he seems to have toned down his rhetoric.

I ask that because there have been diverse currents running through our community and fellowship. We do not always agree with each other on everything, but what I call upon us to recognize is that the hand of God is upon this institution and those with responsibility for her and that we acknowledge that and say, “We will continue our own convictions as they diverge from one another. But we will stand together in one common commitment in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”

And here is where the rub is, in my mind. Given the historical context, the “convictions” of which McCall speaks seem certainly to include matters central to the Faith, don’t they? What we know of the man, his presidency at SBTS and the Baptist World Alliance, his advocacy against the Conservative Resurgence, and his writings on these things, it would seem extremely naïve to conclude that he refers only to matters, to frame in it terms of Mohler’s triage model, of secondary or tertiary concern. And if, as he did during his presidency, McCall is claiming that Bible believing people should “stand together in one common commitment in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” with those who deny the very fundamentals of the Faith, the sad irony of this new pavilion is even greater.

In Pursuit of Despair

Chris Anderson needs help. Serious help. Seriously.

Honor to whom dishonor is due

There is a lot of talk about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals these days, and that’s probably a good thing (depending on the kind of talk involved). I agree with Mark Minnick when he, following Iain Murray, puts attention on the central question of what an evangelical’s response to non-evangelicals is. In my mind, that is the crucial biblical question. I don’t think the answer to the question is always as clear as some on both sides contend. IOW, some fundamentalists downplay the steps that some evangelicals have taken to break from liberalism (either by putting it out or withdrawing from it) and some evangelicals downplay the softness toward heterodoxy that is sometimes (often?) on display among evangelicals. That last sentence probably needs more elaboration than I will give it, but just think of the long list of heterodox people who have been cut slack by evangelicals for one reason or another. Perhaps a very recent example will illustrate my point. Here’s a quote from a post by Owen Strachen about the celebration of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s 150^th anniversary and the dedication of the new pavilion which commemorates this event:

Following Dr. Mohler’s message, the seminary honored seventh president Duke K. McCall by announcing the dedication of its new welcome pavilion in his honor. McCall then gave some remarks which showed his talent as an orator in the finest Southern fashion. While noting the “currents that carry us different ways”, an obvious nod to theological divergence between McCall and others, the former president registered his support for the school he loves and called for alumni–presumably those who have struggled to think well of SBTS in recent decades–to stand in support of the school. The assembly gave him a standing ovation, a moment that was both unexpected and poignant.

For those who are not familiar with Duke K. McCall, Strachen’s line about “theological divergence between McCall and others” is a polite way of saying that the influence and ministry of McCall was one of the reasons the Conservative Resurgence was needed and that he was one of its vocal opponents. McCall himself recounts how he very early in the process viewed the Conservative Resurgence as “potentially disastrous” and was concerned about how to prevent the “Pressler-Patterson Crusade” from loading up the SBTS board with a “flood of ‘anti-intellectual’ trustees.”

This is what boggles my mind. Here you find a staunch theological conservative (Al Mohler), backed by other staunch conservatives (e.g., chairman of the SBTS board, Mark Dever), naming a pavilion in honor of a man whose service at SBTS produced the mess which Mohler is credited for reversing. Recognizing him at the event is one thing, but naming a pavilion after him? What biblical justification can there be for something like this?

Symbolic gestures are important. Naming schools after new evangelicals like Billy Graham and buildings after liberals like Duke McCall are symbolic gestures that mean something. And they mean something bad to many of us.

I just don’t get it.

Reflections on Ten Incredible Years

Well, I am back home and grateful to God for another wonderful visit to East Africa. I enjoyed great fellowship with our missionaries and with eleven members of Inter-City Baptist Church. As I think I’ve mentioned previously, this is my 11^th trip to East Africa since 1999. The first trip was almost exactly 10 years ago—I spent Father’s Day in Mwanza, Tanzania back in 1999 and now again in 2009. On Father’s Day I was struck by that fact while writing in my journal. What an incredible ride these past 10 years have been!

That trip in June 1999 was my first visit to the mission field, and it came as a survey trip with Rob Howell. Since that first trip, the Lord has given me the opportunity to make a number of other ministry trips—Tanzania, Kenya, Poland, India, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, and Mexico. I’ve written about the value of visiting the mission field in a series of 4 posts (here, here, here, and here), but reflecting on these past 10 years prompted me to make some notes to share with our team (and now with you).

Missions Provocations

1999 marked my 10^th anniversary as the senior pastor of ICBC, so I obviously had not done any missionary visits in those first ten years. But I was doing a lot of thinking about missions and the Lord was at work in my heart. In the mid-nineties I preached a series called “Forgotten Elements of the Great Commission” that was pretty much the first draft for a lot of what ended up in For the Sake of His Name. John Piper’s Let the Nations Be Glad was used by the Lord to great profit in my life. I also read a number of biographies that all seemed to form an interlocking emphasis on missions—Taylor, Borden, and even Moody pointed toward missions via the connections with the Student Volunteer Movement. (BTW, reading about the Student Volunteer Movement stirred a burden for students and missions that has evolved into Student Global Impact and Missions Mandate.)

Also, our church became debt free in the early 90s and I led our church to start adding missionaries at, looking back on it, an overly aggressive pace. I think that because I don’t think I was as careful leading our church in this as I should have been. I made a few mistakes, but perhaps the biggest was assuming that the endorsement of a mission agency meant more than it did. Thankfully, we added some very good missionaries, but we also added some that we should not have. It was, though, a good learning experience that has proved profitable for our church’s missions efforts for the long haul.

Missions Principles

I may unpack these more fully later on, but let me just fire through a bullet point list of what I’ve come to feel strongly about through these provocations and the experiences of the past ten years:

· Primacy of the local church—ultimately, we can’t look outside of the local church to do missions; the Great Commission starts from local churches, is under the supervision of local churches, and should result in local churches. Pastors, don’t make the mistake of handing the ball off to mission boards! Get personally involved and lead the church to own the task.

· Priority of church planting and starting church planting movements—the center of missions must be planting churches that will plant churches, and that means we must deliberately focus on developing indigenous works with a reproducible model and stop transplanting American churches and ministries worldwide.

· Power of focus—we decided to concentrate our efforts on a few places in order to make a deep impact rather than spread them out and diffuse them. We support works all over the world, but not as many as if we measured our missions efforts solely by the number of missionaries we support.

· Partnerships in the Gospel—it became clear to me that we needed to find godly, gifted men with a compatible vision and help them get it done by God’s grace. I am grateful to God for the partners that He has given our church. These are men with a heart for God and a vision to advance the Great Commission, and we’ve had the privilege of joining our resources to their work in a partnership that God is blessing. May He raise up more for His glory!

What matters most...

If you read the blog, you know that I am in East Africa currently. Twenty-four members of our church have traveled here on a vision trip to see what God is doing, minister to our missionaries, and, we trust, grow in Christ and in our commitment to the Great Commission. We actually form two groups of 12 that have split time between Kenya and Tanzania. The group of which I am part was in Kenya first, then came down to Tanzania on Wednesday. Apart from some brief time in Kenya together on last Saturday morning and seeing each other at the airport in Mwanza, TZ on Wednesday afternoon, the two groups have not been together. The other group will return to the States on Monday (DV), and our group will arrive on Tuesday (DV).

As it is usually is when I come over here (this is my 11th trip), it is incredible to see what God is doing to call out a people for His name from among the nations. One of the realities that challenges me most is what sacrifices it takes to pastor a church in these countries (provided you're not being subsidized by a missionary). This afternoon, our group sat down for about 1 1/2 hours with two godly men, Paulo and Samson, who pastor churches that were planted by Rob Howell. Our folks heard their testimonies and asked questions about life and ministry here. I've had the priviledge of watching these men grow and serve Christ for several years now, but it was great to see our folks have the privilege of meeting them and learning about their work.

Tanzania is a very poor country and it is very difficult for a church to support its pastor. Faithful congregations do their best, but, quite honestly, it isn't enough to cover life. So these men do some farming on the side to grow food for their families. As they explained the basic flow and schedule of their lives, I sat there, once again, with this deep sense of amazement at the dedication God has worked into their hearts. And I was brought low by the amazing kindness of God that allows me to serve Christ without having to make the sacrifices that they do.

Not too long after the meeting, I checked my email and took a quick look at what is happening back on the other side of the world (including the ecclesiastical world). And I thought, I wonder if all of us pastors in the States had to live like these godly, humble brothers, would so much of what gets us riled up even matter to us? I am sure these brothers would love it if there big problems in life consisted of who said what in the latest conference.

As for me, all that nonsense seems like a colossal waste of time compared to what really matters. I'll toss my hat in the ring, I hope, any time the gospel is at stake, but all this fussing about stupid stuff looks, well, really stupid when you get out here. Coram Deo.

Counterpoint

Since I posted a link to the article by Peter Masters, it is proper, I think, to post a response to it by Doug Wilson. Like with the Masters article, I neither agree or disagree with it all.

HT: Chris Anderson

God's glory--our concern and hope

As a loose follow up to the two posts on humility and exaltation, reading Psalm 109 this morning reinforced some of the ideas covered in those two posts. This is a psalm of David that has Messianic elements to it—we know that because it is used in Acts 1 regarding the replacement of Judas. What is striking is to read the psalm, then, in light of the Lord’s betrayal. It seems, at least to me, that the words of this psalm may have been on the lips of the Lord as He prayed in the garden that night.

The tie to what I wrote about humility and exaltation is found, for instance, in the words of verses 26-27, “Help me, O LORD my God; save me according to Your lovingkindness. And let them know that this is Your hand; You, LORD, have done it.” David wants vindication from the Lord that exalts the Lord. His concern for himself is not larger than his concern for God’s glory. In fact, his hope of vindication is rooted in God’s glory since he is God’s servant. Or, in the words of verse 21, David ask God to “deal kindly with [him] for Your name’s sake.”

The glory of God is his greatest concern and his strongest hope. May it be so for us as well!

Christian love and benevolence

In case you missed the earlier post where I mentioned that I would be traveling in Kenya and Tanzania with a group from our church visiting a few of our missionaries here in East Africa. We arrived last Friday and have been enjoying a great visit with the Weavers (Joel, MaryAnn, and Paul). On Sunday we worshipped with the Emmanuel Baptist Church in Nairobi. Some of the folks from our group taught SS and Children’s Church, and I taught the adult SS class and preached in the morning worship. God is doing a good work in and through this congregation of believers.

Today, our group traveled down to a drought-stricken region of Kenya to visit three congregations there in order to see the works and to help deliver some famine relief from the churches in Nairobi. It is a contemporary application of Acts 11:27ff and 2 Corinthians 8-9—God’s people in a place of abundance being graciously moved by God to provide for the needs of God’s people in another place. Sometimes I think we forget that God often fulfills His promise to supply all of our needs (Phil 4:19) in this way. We want the miraculous gift, but it is often the more normal means that God uses.

In light of our adventure today, I thought I would just toss out some thoughts in outline form from 2 Corinthians 8-9:

Historical Context and Background

· Rom 15:26 “For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem;” 1 Cor 16:3 “to carry your gift to Jerusalem”

· Paul is now collecting this offering among the Macedonians and preparing to return to Corinth in order to collect their portion of the offering. They have expressed a desire to do this, but he is concerned that they might not follow through on that desire, so he includes this section to urge them to complete the work.

Theme: The proof of Christian love through benevolence should be done eagerly, diligently, and generously.

· Proof, 8:8; 8:24; 9:13; cf. “for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ”

· Benevolence, “in the support of the saints” (8:4), “this ministry to the saints” (9:1), “fully supplying the needs of the saints” (9:12), and “your contribution to them” (9:13).

· Eagerly, 8:8; 8:10-12; 9:2; 9:7; cf. example of Paul and his team, 8:16-20.

· Diligently, 8:11; cf. “you may be prepared” (9:3), “would be ready” (9:5)

· Generously, “the wealth of their liberality” (8:2); “this generous gift” (8:20); “bountiful gift” (9:5); “all liberality” (9:11); “the liberality of your contribution” (9:13), and especially “sows bountifully” (9:6).

The character of giving—a work of grace exhibited in surrender of ourselves and our substance, 8:1,6, 7, 9, 19; 9:14; cf. “favor” in 8:4.

· It begins with the grace of God in Christ, 8:1, 9; 9:8, 14

· It is a gracious work, 8:6, 7, 19; cf. “gave of their own accord” (9:3); “purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion” (9:7).

· It is the outgrowth of personal surrender (ourselves and our substance), 8:5.

Motivations for this kind of giving

· The Pattern of Christ, 8:9

· The Promise of God, 9:6, 10b “increase the harvest of righteousness”

· The Praise of God, “is producing thanksgiving to God” (9:11), “is overflowing through many thanksgivings to God” (9:12); cf. 9:15.

Humility and Exaltation II

If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately (John 13:32)

In the last post, we wrestled with the question of how it can be right to pursue humility with the motivation of being exalted. I attempted to ground this principle in two truths: (1) exaltation is the result of grace, not merit, and humility is the condition of receiving that grace; and (2) promises are embraced by faith, so following the path of humility is empowered by the faith that God will exalt at the proper time—which may be in eternity! I also showed how this principle (“the way up is down”) is illustrated in the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:5-11).

Another, less familiar, text that helps us understand this principle is John 13:32. This text records words of Jesus spoken on the night of His betrayal. Speaking to His disciples, He says, “If God is glorified in Him [Jesus], God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately.” The truth expressed here sheds more light on the question we considered in that last post. In essence, what Jesus says is, “When God the Father knows that someone is committed to glorifying Him, then He will glorify that servant.”

I believe this ties directly into the promise of exaltation on the basis of humility. Biblical humility, by definition, is Godward in its focus. We humble ourselves before Him because we see Him in all His glory, and the aim of our humility becomes His glory. Again, Jesus is the perfect example for us. Jesus humbled Himself in order to do the Father’s will and to glorify the Father. The ultimate purpose of the Son’s humility was the Father’s glory; therefore, the exaltation that the Father bestows on the Son will be used for the Father’s glory (remember Phil. 2:11, “to the glory of God the Father”?).

True humility is never mercenary or selfish. A person is genuinely humbled when he sees God in all of His glory and that kind of humility always produces love and obedience to God. When God finds a man, woman, teenager or child that is wholeheartedly committed to His glory, then He is ready to exalt that person at the proper time so that His own glory is magnified. So, the way down is actually the way up, but not up in a selfish sense. It is the way up in the incredible adventure of bringing glory to our great God and Savior!

Humility and Exaltation

Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you (James 4:10)

Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time (1 Peter 5:6)

The message of these verses is often summarized in the simple statement, “The way up in God’s program is down.” That is a good summary of a powerful biblical principle. As the passage in James says only four verses earlier, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (4:6). Unless we want to take on God, we better humble ourselves before Him!

These verses also raise a more complicated question about humility and exaltation. How can the promise of exaltation be a proper motivation for humility? Isn’t that self-contradictory? Yet, the text is very clear (especially in Peter), “humble yourselves…that He may exalt you.” It would not be wrong to translate the Greek “in order that He may exalt you.” The promise of exaltation is the motivation for humility—doesn’t that seem strange to you? I know it has stirred me to much mental and spiritual wrestling with it. I do not claim to have it all figured out, but allow me to offer two statements that I believe point us in the direction of the right answer and then point out the greatest illustration of this principle ever.

First, being “exalted” as these texts promise is rooted in grace, not human merit. That is why James instructs us that God “gives grace to the humble.” We humble ourselves so that we can receive grace from God and grace is what raises us up, not our human efforts. Second, since we are being motivated by a promise of God (that He will exalt you), we are also dealing with the realm of faith. “The way up is down” should not be viewed as a carnal strategy for getting more out of life. It is a principle that can only be consistently lived by faith that God will “exalt you at the proper time”, and that time very well may be after this life, not during it. This text is no guarantee that humility will help us up the corporate ladder or obtain all of our temporal desires. This is God’s promise for the eternal joy of His children.

You may have guessed the illustration already; it is Jesus! Philippians 2:5-11 clearly tie humility and exaltation in a cause-effect relationship. God’s Word says, “He humbled Himself… For this reason also, God highly exalted Him” (vv. 8,9). That Jesus is exalted to the right hand of the Father is final proof that God will keep His promise to exalt those who humble themselves, and it should be strong motivation to have the same attitude that was in Jesus (Phil. 2:5)!

Inviting prayer for God's glory and the good of God's people

Brethren, pray for us (1 Thessalonians 5:25)

The Apostle Paul did not hesitate to request prayer for his missionary team and himself. In this case, the request is rooted in their common kinship (“brethren”). By the way, this is the only time in the letter that word stands first in the verse or sentence, and it seems to give it special emphasis. Requesting prayer is not unusual for Paul. He regularly sought the prayer support of the churches, cf. Eph. 6:19-20; Rom. 15:30-32; Col. 4:2-3; 2 Ths. 3:1-2; 2 Cor. 1:11. Paul earnestly believed that prayer was an effective means ordained by God for securing His power for ministry (2 Ths. 3:1) and obtaining protection from evil men (2 Ths. 3:2; Phil. 1:19; Phlm 22). The record of these prayer requests shows that Paul did not believe safe and successful ministry was dependent solely on his own prayers. He believed that intercessory prayer was also an effective means for these things. Their prayers influenced his power, protection, and productivity! Paul was not alone in this belief. Others have followed his example.

Spurgeon—“The sinew of the minister’s strength under God is the supplication of his church. We can do anything and everything if we have a praying people around us. But when our dear friends and fellow helpers cease to pray, the Holy [Spirit] hastens to depart, and Ichabod is written on the place of assembly.”

Calvin—“We ought to bear in mind always that we shall throw away our labour in ploughing, sowing, and watering, unless the increase comes from heaven (1 Corinthians 3:7). It will therefore not be enough to carry out the task of teaching strenuously if at the same time blessing is not being sought from the Lord, so that the work may not be useless and unfruitful. From this it is evident that it is not for nothing that zeal for prayer is commended to the ministers of the Word.”

Iain Murray—“No amount of gift or diligence in the ministry can compensate for the loss of the influence of prayer."

John Flavel—“Yea, friends, your own interest may persuade to [prayer on my behalf]. What mercies you obtain for me redound to your own advantage… The more gifts and graces a minister has, the better for those who shall wait on his ministry; the more God gives in to me, the more I shall be able to give out to you.”

Gardiner Spring—“Let the thought sink deep into the heart of every church, that their minister will be very much such a minister as their prayers may make him. If nothing short of Omnipotent grace can make a Christian, nothing less than this can make a faithful and successful minister of the Gospel.”

If Paul needed the prayers of people, who could doubt that every pastor and missionary does too? And, as Paul did, I invite you pray for those who serve Christ through the proclamation of God's Word. We desperately need the hand of God upon us, so please pray for us!

Applying Paul Contrary to Paul

I was just listening, in the car, to Mark Dever’s interview with Aaron Messner (of Covenant College) and Mark made what I thought was a very interesting comment about 1 Corinthians 9 vis-à-vis 1 Corinthians 1 & 2. My paraphrase (and extension) of it—we must recognize the difference between doing what Paul said was good and acceptable in 1 Cor 9 and doing what Paul said was bad and unacceptable in 1 Cor 1 & 2. I think he makes an extremely important point in this somewhat passing comment.

My sense of things is that much of what is being called contextualization and defended on the basis of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is really a violation of 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5. IOW, rather than simply eliminate unnecessary offenses by the messenger it attempts to eliminate the offense of the message. It is more Corinthian, than Pauline.

Can you afford not to go?

There are more reasons for pastors to visit the mission field than I’ve listed so far, but I’ll stop my list with the three I’ve given: understanding missions better, improving your leadership of the church’s missions efforts, and being a blessing to God’s servants on the mission field. I’d like to address an intensely practical question—and potential objection in some minds—how can I afford the time and cost of visiting the mission field?

Obviously, it takes both time and money to travel across the globe to visit missionaries, but not as much of either as we might think. While some of the time factor will be affected by how well you handle jet lag, you can get to and from most places on the planet much quicker than you’d expect. If you treat your first visit to the mission field as a “once in a lifetime” trip then you will probably plan it larger than the kind of visit I am recommending. The tendency in that case is to jam too much into the trip simply because you think you need to get everything you can do while you are “on that side of the world.” It might be wiser to develop a plan for visiting your missionaries over a period of time that allows you to do so with shorter trips that actually give you more time with each one.

In our church’s case, we have a number of families for which we are the sending church, so we targeted those missionary families as the top priority for visiting on the field. We’d love to visit all of the missionaries we support, but our first obligation is to the ones who are members of our church. That became a simple decision-making guideline for us. You can develop your own, but some principled plan for visiting the field can keep it from becoming a whirlwind tour. I believe most missionaries sincerely desire to have any visit include a Sunday on the field so that you can worship with believers in the churches they have started, so you should plan to arrive before or stay through a Sunday. Personally, I don’t like to be gone from our church for two Sundays in a row, so I generally restrict my trips accordingly.

There is no disputing that international travel can be expensive, especially if you go to places for which you need an array of shots and medications. Here are a few quick observations and suggestions. Don’t conclude you can’t do it until you begin to actually look into it—far too many never get past the “we could never afford that” stage. I don’t know what “too much” is for you, but the numbers are not as bad as you might think. Especially if you shop around and do some investigation to learn what time of the year is best for prices. For example, the drop in price from August 31^st to September 1^st can be huge because of tourism. Travel at an off-peak time. See if the missionary can get a better deal on his end of the travel arrangements. Call William Shatner to negotiate for you!

Where do you get the money to do this? I would hope your congregation would be committed to this, but they may need to be taught and encouraged in this regard. That’s one of the reasons I wrote these blog entries—share them with folks in order to have them understand that it’s not just your idea. Consider including money in your missions budget for annual or bi-annual field visits. Plan a special offering at Christmas, or some other part of the year, that will be used for missionary projects, including visits to the field. My observation is that if you get to the field once, the impact it has on you will convince the congregation to send you back again (just make sure they buy you a roundtrip ticket!).

I am extremely thankful to pastor a congregation that is committed to missions and to allow its pastors to get to the field to minister. As we’ve worked to direct the resources of the church toward our missions priorities, it has also helped us grow in our commitment to missions. If visiting the field is a priority (and it ought to be), then take the steps needed to direct resources toward that priority. Teach, model, and make the most of every opportunity you get. You’ll be amazed how easily the momentum can be built and sustained when God’s people see the fruits of this kind of leadership.

Visiting the Mission Field IV

A Calvinist sweating the New Calvinism

A good word of warning from Peter Masters, of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, about the danger of “heady” Calvinism:

These are harsh words, but they lead me to say that where biblical, evangelical Calvinism shapes conduct, and especially worship, it is a very humbling, beautiful system of Truth, but where it is confined to the head, it inflates pride and self-determination.

It comes tucked inside a very strong word of warning about the “new Calvinism” which is documented by Collin Hansen in Young, Restless, Reformed. I’d encourage you to read the whole article. He puts forth some ideas that merit discussion. Maybe he can be squeezed into that panel discussion in Schaumburg coming up soon!

HT: Jonathan Hunt

Simply being present

So far, I have suggested that visiting the mission field does wonderful things for a pastor’s knowledge about and zeal for missions, and both of these help him be a better leader in the local church’s missionary efforts. Learning and leadership are great reasons to go to the field. I’d like to add a third reason that I also believe is very important. Visiting the mission field provides a wonderful opportunity to minister to God’s servants on the frontlines of the global harvest.

Of course, visiting missionaries on the field is a valuable aspect of ministry accountability, but a visit by a sending or supporting pastor goes way beyond this. Missionaries face all of the normal challenges of ministry plus loads of additional challenges that come with cross cultural ministry. Having guests from “back home” can be a breath of fresh air in terms of fellowship and encouragement. Certainly, modern technology has provided many incredible ways to stay in touch, but a computer screen can’t really match personal interaction.

This was driven home to me on my first visit to the mission field. We had the privilege of staying in the home of a young missionary couple for a few nights as we traveled through the country on a survey trip. It was a great visit, but what amazed me was how simply sitting around the table playing games late into the light was so encouraging to them. Those kinds of opportunities only happened once in a while when someone was passing through their area. We laughed and enjoyed one another’s company. I learned a lesson about how just showing up can be a blessing to folks who live on the other side of the world for the sake of the gospel.

More importantly, I’ve learned through the years that one of the great struggles for missionaries is the feeling that people back home just don’t understand what life on the field is like. And they’re right. As I said in the first post of this series, it is a dangerous thing for anybody to think they understand the foreign field from a quick visit. But visiting does start the task of understanding and that really helps the communication process. Too many times the only communication a missionary hears from churches back home is related to money or problems. That has to be frustrating. Going to the field helps build relationships based on understanding what the missionary is facing. It communicates to the missionary that the church really cares about the work and workers.

I’ll confess that my task orientation was the biggest hurdle in terms of getting me to visit the mission field. I reasoned that there wasn’t anything I could do on the field that the missionary couldn’t do, so why travel all that distance to add nothing significant to the process? But I was wrong. The missionary can’t visit himself! I could though. I could show up with a simple desire to encourage these wonderful servants of Jesus Christ, whether that meant long, profound talks about ministry, playing table games late into the night, or simply watching their children so they can go out for a dinner alone.

Brush up on your monopoly skills and head out to the field to do some encouraging!

Visiting the Mission Field III

Fuel the fire for missions by seeing it up close

I am not naturally wired for world travel, but visiting mission fields has been a life-changing experience for me. Every time I’ve traveled and every field I’ve visited has opened rich opportunities for learning. I enjoy returning to my trip journals to see how I expressed there what God was teaching me as I worked to think through the practical ramifications of His Word. There are vivid memories of long conversations and late night reflections on incredible days of ministry. I truly can’t explain how much I’ve learned from visiting God’s work around the globe.

My second reason for encouraging pastors (current and future) to visit the mission field grows right out of the work God does in your own soul through these trips. Visiting the mission field stirs your zeal for missions and increases your ability to challenge the congregation about missions. Seeing the Gospel at work to change lives and plant churches on the field lights a fire in your soul. It is easy to get so absorbed in the details of our own church ministries that we lose sight of God’s global work of calling out a people for His name.

I’ve been on fields that seem to be experiencing incredible times of harvest. It makes my heart long to see that in our land and in our church. I’ve been places where the work of evangelism seems extraordinarily hard and involves significant risk, and I’ve been humbled to think of the privileges I freely enjoy. More than once I’ve sat on planes heading back home with tears in my eyes and a heart that burns fresh with a desire to see God glorified around the globe.

There’s a difference in my preaching because of seeing these things. There’s especially a difference in my preaching about missions because of seeing these things. Instead of talking in general terms, I can use real examples and experiences to communicate truth. Not only is there more zeal, there is more credibility.

God has used visits to the mission field to strengthen my ability to lead our congregation more fully into Great Commission ministry. He uses it to get an ever-tightening grip on my heart so that I lift up my eyes to the fields of the world and call our congregation to serious missions commitment. Others may be different, but my heart for missions was radically altered by stepping on the mission field. I think yours will be too.

Visiting the Mission Field II

Visiting the Mission Field

In light of my upcoming trips, I am going to take the liberty of re-posting four articles I originally wrote for Missions Mandate last year. BTW, if you’ve not checked out that site and you have a heart for missions, you’ll love it. Here’s the first installment:

Visiting the Mission Field

In 1999, I had the privilege of accompanying Rob Howell on his survey trip to Tanzania. I had been overseas before, but never for this kind of missions trip. It was incredible and life-changing. Since that time I’ve been able to travel many times to foreign fields and I’d like to offer a series of brief posts as encouragement to do the same for any current and future pastors who are reading this.

My reasons won’t be offered according to rank or importance, simply because it’s hard to decide which is most important (and they overlap with each other some). So, while it might not be my top reason for visiting the mission field, here is my first: It is an incredible learning opportunity! Most of us can be great missionary theoreticians, but until we get out into the field with the practitioners we will be lacking an important ingredient for missions leadership in the local church.

That means we go to the field to listen and learn. Don’t go with a bag full of pat answers. Go with a heart to really understand what that field is like, what the challenges of gospel ministry there are like, and how your church can better pray and help the missionaries. Pastors are almost always in the position of leadership and teaching, but deliberately go to the field to follow the lead of the missionary and learn from him. Of course, you’ll be ministering too, but don’t get so caught up telling that you aren’t asking!

When you get back, make sure you remember that one visit to the mission field makes you as close to a missiologist as learning the Greek alphabet makes you a Greek scholar! I’ve been to East Africa ten times and still feel as if I am swimming in the shallow end of the pool when it comes to understanding ministry there. It takes time to figure out what we don’t know and then look for the answers, and I would imagine few things are more frustrating for missionaries than a pastor who, after spending one week on the field, talks like an expert on missions. Go back to the same field several times to see the progress on the field (and in your knowledge of it). Go to several different fields and ask questions about working there, then think about the commonalities and dissimilarities between fields.

I know that it takes money and time to visit the field, but it is really easier than many (most?) people think. Go, as a learner, and your life and ministry will be changed!

Going global

Over the next five weeks, Lord willing, I’ll have the privilege of visiting four mission fields and seeing what God is doing for His name’s sake among the nations. First up on my journey is a trip to Kenya and Tanzania with a group of 24 from our church heading over on a ministry team to see the work and spend time with our missionaries. We’ll visit with the Joel, MaryAnn, and Paul Weaver in Kenya, and with Rob and Kara Howell and Dan and Jana Eads in Tanzania. Shortly after we return from Africa, I will be traveling to do some teaching for some brothers who serve Christ in a restricted access nation. Two days after my return from that trip, I have the privilege of speaking at the Annual Meeting for Baptist Mid-Missions. Two days after that’s done, I hop on a plane for Zambia to teach the book of Matthew to a group of pastors at Central Africa Baptist College. So, I’ve got missions on my mind! Airplanes too.

I’ve shared these travel details for three reasons: (1) it will explain why there may be some gaps in the posting over the next few weeks—not sure if I’ll be able to write anything or get it posted if I do write something; (2) it explains why I will probably be posting on missions topics over the next few weeks; and (3) I’d love for you to pray for me as you think about it—I am grateful that the Lord has given me a constitution that handles international travel pretty well, but 48K miles in the air within 38 days and zipping back and forth from wildly different time zones could be interesting (not to mention that I have to spend three days near Cleveland!).

All that said, let me just drop a bullet point outline of what I think is Paul’s basic missionary strategy. A lot more could be said, but I think these were important factors in how Paul pursued an indigenous church planting movement (i.e., he planted churches that would plant churches):

· Bold preaching that called for genuine conversion, 1 Ths 1:6-10.

· Accepting only those professions of faith which were credible, 1 Ths 1:4-5; 3:5; Acts 26:20; cf. 1 John.

· Concentrating on core doctrine and practice, Gal 1:6-9; Rom 16:17-18; 2 Ths 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11

· Carefully balancing warning and encouragement about their continuing in the Faith, Acts 14:22; Phil 2:12-13; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 5:5-6; Gal 5:19-21.

· Developing godly, gifted leaders to shepherd the flock, Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28-30; Titus 1:5-16; Eph 4:11-16.

· Emphasizing moral principles applied with spiritual discernment under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and through the leadership of the Holy Spirit, Phil 1:9-11; Eph 5:7-15; Rom 14:5-9; Gal 5:13-26.

· Teaching the believers and congregations to take responsibility for their doctrinal, moral, and ministerial growth and progress, Acts 20:28-32; Rom 16:17-19; Phil 3:15-16; 1 Cor 5; 1 Ths 5:12-22.

Prayer and God's Sovereignty

Here’s John Piper* on the effectiveness of prayer—“prayer causes things to happen that would not happen if you didn’t pray.” Two thoughts, probably prompted by recent discussions, came to mind: (1) can a Calvinist really believe that prayer has this kind of effectiveness (tongue firmly planted in cheek); and (2) apparently Piper does think that some Calvinists might be hesitant to affirm this kind of effectiveness for prayer.

Maybe, just maybe, these two thoughts should cause non-Calvinists and Calvinists to pause before they cut loose on one another. (Same goes for you Biblicists too!)

*Just in case anybody forgot or gets uptight about things like this, here's a disclaimer: John Piper disagrees with me on several things, so don't hold it against him that I quoted him.

A God both near and far off

I am posting a bulletin article today that I wrote ten years ago for our church family. I was reminded of it by circumstances a member of our church is experiencing right now. She is in Tanzania and her mother has had some very serious health issues come up unexpectedly. As we were praying about it in our pastoral staff meeting yesterday, these words from Jeremiah came to mind and were expressed in my prayer for Beth and her family. I share it with you for your spiritual encouragement and to ask you to pray for Beth, her mom, and the rest of her family.

"Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off?” Jeremiah 23:23

Although these words stand in the biblical text as a warning to those who think they can hide from God, they also serve as an incredible comfort to God’s children. The Lord’s question is actually making a powerful and profound point about His own nature—He is everywhere! The theological term for this attribute is omnipresence. The Bible teaches that God is everywhere present in the fullness of His existence. Or, in the words of the text, He is both “near” and “far off” at the same time!

This truth was very special to me last week as I was half the globe away from my family on our mission trip in Tanzania. Back home, on Father’s Day, my four-year-old, Derek, took a fall on the church playground that resulted in two broken and displaced bones in his forearm, and a broken elbow. I found out about it on Tuesday evening of that week, and I don’t know that I have ever felt more helpless. My heart ached for my little boy and for my wife!

But true to His gracious character, God began to remind me of Who He really is—10,000 miles may be a lot to me, but it isn’t to Him! His words to Jeremiah were perfectly targeted to my need, “Am I a God who is near, and not a God far off?” I could not be there to help my son and wife, but God was already there, and He can do more for them than I ever could imagine doing. In fact, God was “near” to me in prayer and “far off” in answer to prayer at the same time! What an awesome God we serve!

This view of His greatness was also a fresh reminder of my smallness. If I had been home, I would have been absorbed in doing things for Derek. I would have relied on myself to solve problems and give comfort. Being far away in Tanzania, I could do nothing. I was forced into a position of humble dependence. There was nothing that I could do except pray—but praying to a God like ours is not doing nothing! God enabled me once again to see how much I could “do” for my son and wife through prayer. If for nothing else, Derek’s “accident” was a tool for God’s grace to humble and teach me.

Friend, what is true about 10,000 miles is also true about 1 mile, and in Allen Park, not just Tanzania. What a shame we too often forget that God is both near and far off! No matter where your “cares” are located, God is already there! Cast yourself at His feet in prayer so that He may be exalted in and through your humble dependence on Him.

Honor to whom honor is due

Yesterday marked the 75^th birthday of Dr. Rolland D. McCune. As some of you may know, Dr. McCune recently retired from the full-time faculty of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. I’ve had the incredible privilege of being Dr. McCune’s student, faculty and administrative colleague, and pastor. The influence that Dr. McCune has had on my life is immeasurable. His theology classes ignited a fire in my soul for the Word and God’s glory. His commitment to the truth regardless of the political consequences was refreshing and formative. His patience with questions and interest in his students was encouraging. He was one of God’s gracious gifts to me as a very young pastor—he had been in the ministry for almost as long as I had been alive, yet he never once despised my youth and always provided me with timely, wise counsel. How I thank God for this wonderful servant of Jesus Christ!

I know others who have been blessed by his ministry will appreciate honoring this godly servant, and those who don’t know him will benefit from introduction. So, I’ve compiled some items to help. Inside the post, I’ve placed two notes of appreciation that we written for publications. The first comes from a special edition of the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal that was done in honor of Dr. McCune’s seventieth birthday. I’ve modified it slightly, but the content is essentially the same. The second is the endorsement I wrote for Dr. McCune’s book, Promise Unfulfilled. After that I’ve put in some links to direct you to Dr. McCune’s articles, books, sermons, and an interview with Dr. McCune done by Andy Naselli. Enjoy to glory of God!

Festschrift Appreciation

Dr. Rolland D. McCune has been Professor of Systematic Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1981. He also served as Dean of the Faculty for six years and then, in 1989, was chosen to serve as the President of the seminary. Dr. McCune served effectively as President for ten years until returning to the classroom and research to continue his teaching while expanding his writing ministry.

Before joining the faculty at DBTS, Dr. McCune spent fourteen years on the faculty of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, serving as Professor, Registrar, and Dean. He also served for a time on the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota Baptist Association and on the faculty of Indiana Baptist College in Indianapolis. Dr. McCune has pastored churches in Missouri and Indiana, as well as serving often as interim pastor in churches in Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan.

Dr. McCune received his seminary and doctoral training at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana. He has also studied at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. Dr. McCune has written numerous articles for the publications of the seminaries where he has served and has produced extensive syllabuses for his courses that serve as invaluable resources for his students. Dr. McCune has also written a book entitled Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism, released in October 2004.

It is very common for former students to express appreciation for the influence of their professors, but when Dr. McCune’s former students talk about his impact on their lives, it usually transcends mere appreciation. Their testimonies are full of profound respect and agreement that his example and instruction were life-changing. Four decades worth of seminary students have benefited from his consistent example as a believer, preacher, teacher, and separatist Fundamentalist.

While strongly opposed to the pietism that often exerts a negative influence on evangelicalism and fundamentalism, Dr. McCune has modeled consistent godliness and faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ. Warning students often to beware of any spirituality that attempts to “bypass the intellect,” he has urged seminarians to build their walk with God on the solid ground of biblical truth, not experientialism and emotionalism. It is that solid ground which has enabled him to stand firm in the face of difficult personal trials, including two bouts with cancer. He has lived out his theology in the trenches of daily life.

It would be impossible to sit under Dr. McCune’s ministry and miss the importance of the local church in his life and teaching. His clear articulation of the biblical teaching regarding the primacy of the local church for God’s work in this age has profoundly shaped the thinking of seminary students and helped pastors in local churches for over three decades. Rather than set the seminary in competition with local churches, Dr. McCune directed his teaching and poured his efforts into helping the local church. His faithfulness to his own church has been a powerful testimony to his students. His pulpit ministry in churches has been a source of great blessing to congregations throughout the Midwest.

Over the course of his long teaching ministry, Dr. McCune has never stopped being a student. He has set a pattern of lifelong study to continually strengthen and sharpen his understanding of the Scriptures and his correlation and articulation of its doctrines. Instead of resting on yesterday’s notes, Dr. McCune is always expanding and refining them in the light of continued biblical study and interaction with the newest literature on those subjects. He has set a high and worthy standard for men heading into the preaching and teaching ministry.

During the course of his ministry, the landscape of evangelicalism and fundamentalism has changed considerably. Tides have shifted regularly, and many men and ministries have drifted along with them. Dr. McCune, however, has remained steadfast in his propagation and defense of the Faith once delivered to the saints. Because he believes and teaches that fundamentalism is first and foremost a theological movement, his students have been grounded in biblical fundamentalism and have learned to make issues of Truth primary (versus concerns about personalities and ecclesiastical politics). His stands against ecclesiastical compromise have been clear and consistent. His commitment to sound theology has caused him to confront error both inside and outside of the fundamentalist movement. His clear voice and careful biblical arguments have helped equip students and pastors to stand firmly in a day of enormous compromise.

A central theme of Dr. McCune’s teaching and preaching has been the glory of God’s grace, so it is only fitting that we offer our thanks to the Sovereign God for saving, equipping, and using Dr. McCune for His glory. This man has been a choice instrument in the hands of the Living and True God. Much has been accomplished by the Master through a willing and able servant. Soli Deo Gloria.

Endorsement for Promise Unfulfilled

I have had the privilege of observing Dr. Rolland McCune’s life and ministry from several different perspectives. He was my theology professor while I was in seminary. I was Chairman of the Board while he served as the Seminary President. He is a member of the church where I serve as pastor. I have preached with him in pastors’ conferences. We have shared rooms together on the road for the seminary, and family occasions together at home. I watched him face two bouts with cancer with confident trust in His God. I have seen him take difficult stands on biblical principles with gracious strength. In all of these varied situations of life, Dr. McCune’s commitment to the truth of God’s Word and the God of that Word has been unwavering. His dedication to study, love for the local church, and desire to communicate biblical truth have had a profound effect on my life and ministry. Whenever he speaks or writes, I listen carefully because I know it reflects a life of study and devotion to the cause of Jesus Christ.

While in seminary, I had the privilege of taking Dr. McCune’s course on the History and Theology of New Evangelicalism and it turned out to be one of the most influential courses I have ever taken. Since I was not born until after Harold J. Ockenga announced the launch of the New Evangelicalism and did not begin to think seriously about such matters until almost two decades after that, it was eye-opening to learn this history and see its implications for the world of ministry I was entering. Frankly, before taking the course I knew what the Fundamentalist position was, but I didn’t fully understand why. The material contained in that course, and in this book, helped me understand the dangers of the compromises which had been made before I was born but were bearing very bad fruit by the time I was entering ministry. Now, almost another two decades later, the costs of these compromises continue to mount. I pray that the material in this book will have the same effect on others that it has had on me, and I hope that it will receive a wide audience among Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. It is a serious and solemn call to faithfulness that desperately needs to be heard.

Links

Dr. McCune’s articles in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal:

A Review Article: The Younger Evangelicals

Doctrinal Non-Issues In Historic Fundamentalism

Formation Of The New Evangelicalism I: Historical And Theological Antecedents

Formation Of The New Evangelicalism II: Historical Beginnings

Self-Identity Of Fundamentalism

The New Evangelicalism and Apologetics

The New Evangelicalism: Evaluations and Prospects

Dr. McCune’s books:

· Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism

· A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol 1.

A sampling of Dr. McCune’s conference lectures and sermons:

· Paul and Educated Unbelief - notes (MACP lecture)

· “Who Controls the Local Church” (MACP lecture)

· “The Gospel’s Ethical Foundation: The Imputed Righteousness of Christ” (MACP lecture)

· “Ecumenical Evangelism: Its Effects on the Growth of the Evangelical Church” (MACP Lecture)

· “The Gospel and Modern Man” (BJU Bible Conference message)

· “Social Gospel: Evangelicalism” (BJU Bible Conference message)

An interview with Dr. McCune by Andy Naselli.

Thank you Dr. McCune for your contribution to the Lord’s work and especially for the contribution you have made to my life and ministry. I thank God for Daisy and you!

Don't take the bait!

Carl Trueman has a great post on blog attacks.

I’ve found myself thinking very similarly to what he writes here:

This raises the question of whether one should respond to individual blog attacks. My advice is no, never, not under any circumstances. Now, one of the reasons I do not read these things (in addition to having a real life with real friends, real problems etc) is because I know that, if I did so, there would be times when the temptation to respond would be overwhelming, and that would be fatal. As soon as one responds, the attacker grows parasitically stronger, gaining an audience and a credibility previously denied him. And the victim has lost because he has taken the rant of some nutjob seriously enough to acknowledge it; he has granted it a status which it simply does not merit in and of itself; and in his efforts to refute it, he has perversely made it important, given it a constituency it did not possess.

And I am tempted to print this line and post it in plain sight as a reminder not to let trolls tweak my beak:

It's bandit country out there on the web but sane people know lunacy when they see it: let the nutters do their nutjobby thing; let the psychos babble; and let the vicious vent.

I commend the whole article to you, especially his counsel on how to profit spiritually from blog attacks. Good stuff.

HT: JT

Some Thoughts on Confronting or Challenging a Speaker

A couple of weeks ago, when the fur was really flying, I sat down after a Sunday evening service and outlined some thoughts about being in the uncomfortable position of moderating a meeting at which someone uses the pulpit improperly (whether intentionally or not). I am grateful that I’ve never faced a very bad situation, but it seems inevitable, if you have a lot of outside speakers, that someone will do something that presents a challenge to you. I had hoped to write it out in article form, but haven’t gotten around to doing it, so I decided to just add some more notes to the original outline.

1. The Context Affects the Decision

1.1. Is this something which can be dealt with at a later date as a part of normal shepherding and preaching?

1.2. Is this something which should be addressed now because this group doesn’t regularly assemble? E.g., a conference or seminar

1.3. Is this something which can or should be addressed immediately because the nature of the group permits or requires it? A group of pastors should be able to handle this better than most, and a group of students may need this more than most.

1.4. Is this something which seems to deliberately take a position with the intent of contradicting a well known and well established position of the host or some party involved in the meeting? IOW, if you perceive that someone has tried to settle a score or put a notch on his belt, that might warrant addressing it (even if it is just to ask for a clarification on that matter).

2. The Importance of the Doctrinal Issue Affects the Decision

2.1. Is this a matter of significant doctrinal consequence and ramification? If the gospel is at stake, I think something must be done immediately—whether that is a gentle clarification or an outright challenge (and I’ve had to do both).

2.2. Is this only a matter of differing interpretations or is it a really matter of rejection of biblical truth?

3. The Nature of the Communication Affects the Decision

3.1. Did the speaker clearly violate the biblical obligations to speak truthfully and for the edification of those who hear?

3.2. Did the speaker display a combative attitude or tone that indicates that he knows that what he is saying is controversial and against some of those who are present? If the speaker initiates the conflict, then don’t feel badly about stepping up to the challenge.

1. The primary factor is the doctrinal content and implications of what was said.

1.1. If heresy has been proclaimed, then it should almost always be addressed immediately.

1.2. Differing interpretations can be allowed to stand in most cases, unless it is a crucial matter to a pastor and local assembly. Most often, though, it can probably be addressed in the course of normal shepherding and ministry of the Word.

2. The second factor is the nature of the communication, especially if joined to the significant doctrinal issues.

2.1. Anytime a speaker seems to pursue controversy deliberately and does so by unbiblical means, it warrants public correction (or at least voiced objection).

2.2. Most times when a speaker accuses others of false doctrine in a combative way and is clearly mistaken in his view, it warrants public address of some sort.

2.2.1. It may that a question of clarification would be the best way to approach it. Something like, “Brother, it sounds like you were saying X, but I wonder if that’s really what you meant or were trying to say because….” IOW, you seek clarification in case you’ve misunderstood or it was a simply misstatement on his part.

2.2.2. If there is little to no doubt about what has happened, then the proper response would be to either express disagreement with his view or if warranted, to challenge him about the nature of what he has done.

3. In those cases where a well-intentioned speaker has espoused a position which is contrary to the position of the host or others present, it is generally best to let it alone unless you feel it could cause a significant and unnecessary disruption.

3.1. The people most likely to be upset are the ones who are already most firmly convinced, so there is no fear of them being led astray. Those who are unaware of the issue will not even notice it.

3.2. If there is concern about the impact what was said might have on those who heard, then a decision needs to be made about the right context for addressing it and whether it needs to be addressed directly or not.

3.2.1. If it happens in the course of a church service, then you should have plenty of opportunity to address it down the road since you meet with these folks regularly.

3.2.2. If it happens in a conference or some other unique setting, then it really comes down to how important the issue is and how grievous the error was.

These are rough, unfinished thoughts, but hopefully will be of some value to those of us who, either now or in the future, have the responsibility for leadership when God’s people gather together. As I’ve said in other posts, God’s Word is the standard and authority, not the preacher, so I feel no obligation to let any man just say whatever he wants to say because he’s “God’s man.” In fact, since God entrusts the spiritual care of the flock to Christ's undershepherds, we can't play the coward when some threat to their spiritual health confronts us. It might be tough and probably will be unpopular, but it's the right thing to do.

Celebrities or the Cross?

There is a lot that could be said about the CT article “The Gospel and the Gosselins,” but I’d like to just focus on one aspect of this—the love affair that American believers have with celebrity status. Obviously, we have a core problem in that our thinking is form fitted to the world’s paparazzi panic at the sight of anybody famous. All you have to do is watch the line up for pictures with some well known preacher or “artist” to know something is seriously wrong (or, in an older day, to get a Bible signed). But that’s not my main concern.

It is that the American church seems constantly to bank its hope of success on the star power and potential attention that comes from Christian celebrities. If someone famous makes a profession of faith (seemingly regardless of how clear or unclear it may be), they are immediately, it seems, hustled onto a platform somewhere to tell other people about it. Christian organizations and local churches rapidly book them for an event, not really because of the content in their testimony, but because of the magnetic draw of their names. The landscape is sadly littered, it seems, with those who took this meteoric rise to Christian celebrity only to crash and burn, no doubt as evidence of what Paul warned about in 1 Timothy 3:6, “and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.” The primary intent of the passage relates to pastors, but there seems warrant for legitimate application to all who are thrust into places of influence.

It is bad enough that churches and Christian organizations will use these folks like bait to attract prospects, but I fear that there is a deeper problem to be concerned about. Using the attractiveness of celebrities as an aid to evangelism runs directly against what Paul teaches about the preaching of the Cross in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. It really is evidence of the commercialization of the gospel ministry—we sell things on the basis of celebrity testimonials, so why not spread the gospel that way? The “product” benefits from the cool factor of the one who endorses it. It is just another way to eliminate the offense of the Cross and an attempt to gain popularity within the culture. The Corinthians were concerned about sophistication and power, Americans are concerned about celebrity and popularity.

The first time I encountered this mindset was almost thirty years ago. As a college student, I was recruited to help launch a Bible study on the campus of Clemson University that would target the athletes, particularly the football team since it was the dominant force on campus—those were the days of a national championship and William “The Refrigerator” Perry (man, he was big—I felt like a little boy next to him!). What was the theory behind this new effort? I was told, to paraphrase, “if we can reach some of the well known football players, we think it will throw open the doors to reaching a lot more students.” IOW, the celebrity of the football players will make the gospel more attractive to the other students. I can’t understand why Paul didn’t think of that? Oh, maybe because he knew that God’s plan was directly opposite of that.

FWIW, we did see some football players make professions of faith in Christ—including the guy that Woody Hayes infamously punched during a bowl game—but it never produced the results that were hoped for. I am afraid that pretty much has always been the bottom line on that flawed strategy. It would have been better to follow Paul instead of Madison Avenue.

Berean or Corinthian?

Yesterday, I tried to make the case that believers must exercise careful discernment whenever someone stands up to speak on behalf of God. We looked specifically at one text of Scripture (1 Ths 5:19-22) while making reference to a number of others along the same subject. I didn’t refer to Acts 17:11 yesterday, but its statement that the Bereans were “examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” is another example that is often cited. Probably most of us have heard someone challenge others to have a “Berean mindset.”

While I believe we must seek to base all that we believe on the teachings of the Scripture (the true and original goal of the Bereans of Acts 17), I am also concerned about how that concept is sometimes abused in our day. Some who claim a “Berean mindset” seem to be more motivated by the desire to appear “noble-minded” than they are the desire to seriously examine the Scriptures. There is an edge of condescension that creeps into their use of Scripture and their attitude toward those who disagree with them. This would seem to be more accurately called, based on 1 Corinthians 8:1-2, a “Corinthian mindset.” Paul had to confront them with these words, “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know.”

A sure sign of trouble is seen when anybody draws the unwarranted and improper conclusion from Acts 17:11 that the Bereans were questioning, skeptical, or critical in their approach to what Paul was teaching. The text does not say that they were seeking to refute what Paul was teaching. In fact, it was just the opposite. The text says that “they received the word with great eagerness.” These were people who were hungry to know the Word, not a group of skeptics ready to debate every word that came from Paul’s mouth. Rather, “with considerable open-mindedness, they brought the claims made by Paul to the touchstone of Holy Writ instead of giving way to prejudice” (F. F. Bruce, Acts, p. 347).

Another point that I think is important, but often missed, is that the comparison is between the Jews in Thessalonica and those in Berea—the Gentile Thessalonians received the Word as God’s, cf. 1 Ths 2:13—and that the issue being examined was the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah (the “these things” is clearly referring to the gospel). While there is certainly some legitimate extension of this principle, the main point is that the Jews, upon hearing the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah promised in the OT where checking the OT texts that Paul based his message on “to see if these things were so.” So, in reality they examined the proclamation about Jesus of Nazareth against the OT text.

It is wrong, therefore, to make the case that a Berean mindset questions everything that is, or has been, taught and believed. The Bereans did not have a “prove-it-to-me” mindset; they had a “let’s-look-at-the-Word” mindset. Granted, it is difficult at times to make a clear practical distinction, but the attitude of the heart is always very different. One approaches the Word with a skepticism (sometimes praised as “critical thinking”) that tends to reduce everything the text says to its smallest possible meaning and leave much of Scripture locked in ancient times with no application to today. The other approaches the Word with an openness (sometimes criticized as “simplicity”) that wants to know what God’s will is and fully expects the Word to speak to the details of life.

It is so important for us to guard our hearts against a critical spirit that disguises itself as spirituality! We must be very careful so that we don’t cross the line from hungry learner with a humble spirit to pious critic with an inflated ego. Thankfully, God has given us the Spirit, the Word, and His people to help us know Him and to see ourselves more clearly (cf. Heb 3:13; 13:17). We must all work hard to be discerning without being critical and to be teachable without being gullible. One part of that hard work is being open to the loving exhortation of others who see some evidence of pride popping up in our attitude and actions. May God give us the humility and spiritual hunger of the Bereans and keep us from the arrogance and condescension of the Corinthians!

Why I am not a fan of King James

I was disappointed, but not surprised, when Lebron James huffed off the court, after losing on Saturday night, without congratulating his opponents. Apparently he left the building without talking to reporters too. Nice.

I honestly hope it is not the case, but he seems to be developing into the poster boy for what happens when you spend your whole life being told by everybody how wonderful you are. Since everybody else always talks about you, you begin to talk always about you too! Here’s his explanation for walking out on everybody—“'It's hard for me to congratulate somebody after you just lose to them,' he said. 'I'm a winner. It's not being a poor sport or anything like that.'”

A few quick thoughts: (1) don’t you actually have to win to be a winner? (2) isn’t refusing “to congratulate somebody after you just [lost] to them” something close to the definition of “being a poor sport”? and, (3) isn’t it better to let others praise you instead of doing it yourself?

The answer to that third question is quite clear in the Authorized King James, “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips” (Proverbs 27:2).

Drawing encouragement from those who have gone before us

I quoted from a biography about George Muller in my morning sermon yesterday in order to illustrate a point I was making. I wish I could say that I have been better at reading biographies than I have been, but I can say that I have found them to be very profitable for my own personal life and for my public ministry of God’s Word. Tim Aynes has provided some great encouragement for good reading with this post about missionary biographies at Missions Mandate.

Take heed how you listen

“Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; ²²abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22).

This is a text that has significance for everyone who listens to preaching and teaching that claims to speak on behalf of God. Although it is common to treat each of these verses as separate units, it is better to see them as one unit addressing the congregation’s proper response to God’s messengers. I don’t want to get into the debate about the nature of the prophecy mentioned in verse 20, but I think most would agree that at the very least it means someone is standing up to speak on behalf of God. At the time that Paul is writing, it is clear that the Spirit was working in this way to strengthen and build up the church, so believers must not “quench” this ministry of the Spirit (v. 19). That would be one bad response, but it would also be unprofitable to accept whatever is said without exercising discernment, so verses 21-22 provide valuable instruction on what to do on that count.

Receptive does not mean gullible!

The “openness” of verses 19-20 is balanced by calling believers to “examine everything.” The neuter makes it clear that he is referring to the utterances themselves, not primarily those who have spoken them. The early church experienced obvious supernatural work by the Spirit of God, and with it came much counterfeiting and deception. The believers were urged to exercise great discernment. The comprehensiveness of Paul’s command should not be missed. When people stand up to speak on God’s behalf it is serious business! Because of the eternal significance of this activity no one gets free pass! Everything which claims to be a word from God must be examined. No exceptions.

Paul uses a word that includes a background of testing metals or of examining political candidates. It reflects the ideas of analysis and approval. We are to carefully evaluate and examine what is said to see if it is pure and acceptable. The present tense means that God expects this to be a continual or habitual practice.

Careful does not mean critical!

I know some people, and pastors, fear creating critical people, but I fear that we may have cast off biblical restraint in this area. Simple reflection on other passages of Scripture points out that this is God’s expectation for us. Jesus told the disciples to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees (Matt 16:6). John told his readers to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). Paul warned the Galatians that even if an angel brought a different message not to accept it (Gal 1:6-9). He warned the Corinthians of the Satanic strategy to appear as angels of light (2 Cor 11:14). He warned the Ephesian elders about “wolves” from outside and also about men “from among your own selves” (Acts 20:29-30). God expects you to have your mind plugged in whenever someone claims to be speaking God’s Word.

The Apostle presents us with two possible outcomes that follow a careful examination whenever someone stands up to speak for God. Verse 21 tells us to “hold fast to that which is good” and verse 22 tells us to “abstain from every form of evil.” The simple way I’ve taught this to our congregation is that we must receive the good and reject the bad. The standard for determining good versus bad is the Scriptures themselves. If anybody stands up to speak on behalf of God and says things that contradict, distort, or misrepresent the Scriptures, then it is a “form of evil” from which we must abstain no matter who is doing the speaking (including even angels and apostles, cf. Gal 1:8). Whenever someone stands up to speak on behalf of God and what they say is accurate according to the Bible, then it is “good” and we must “hold fast” to it.

We should listen to God’s Word being preached, so to speak, with our hands open and extended toward the preacher—we want to be ready to hear what God has to say to us through His Word by His Spirit. When the message is delivered into our hands, if it accords with the Word, it is good so we should hold on to it tightly, but if it proves to be in disagreement with the Word, then we should drop it immediately. Leave it right there on the floor of the room in which you heard it.

No one stands above God’s Word, including the preacher. As preachers, we must substantiate what we are saying from the text of Scripture—what it clearly declares along with its necessary and legitimate implications for obedience to our God. When preachers go beyond the Scriptures, they have also gone beyond their authority. Let those who proclaim their love for the Word demonstrate it by exalting God’s Word, not our own.

Where have you gone, SBC missions dough?

I was looking for something else when I happened upon this blog post by Tom Ascol (Pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Cape Coral, Fl and Executive Director of Founders Ministries) about the Cooperative Program of the SBC. It is three years old, but very interesting from an outsider’s perspective (and it seems, based on Pastor Ascol’s words, that would be helpful to many within the SBC to consider as well). Read the whole thing, but here’s a piece of the core:

For example, in my own state the Florida Baptist Convention (FBC) keeps 60% of money that local FBC congregations give to the CP (If you want to see the percentages of other state conventions, click here). That means that 40% makes its way to Nashville, to be disbursed by the Executive Committee according to budget allocations adopted annually by Southern Baptist messengers. The 2005-2006 allocations stipulate that 50% of all money that does finally make it to Nashville via CP gifts go to the International Mission Board. The North American Mission Board receives 22.79% Most of the remaining money (21.64%) goes to "Theological Education Ministries" (primarily, the 6 Southern Baptist Seminaries).

Here is what that means: if Bob puts $100 in the offering plate at Happy Southern Baptist Church (HSBC) in Punta Gorda, Florida and if HSBC has allocated 10% of their undesignated receipts for the "Cooperative Program missions," then 10 of Bob's dollars gets sent to the Florida Baptist Convention offices in Jacksonville. Of that, $6 of his money stays in the state for various concerns like those mentioned above and $4 gets sent to Nashville, Tennessee. Once there, $2 gets allocated to the International Mission Board for overseas mission work. A little less than $1 goes to mission work in North America and a little less than that goes to support theological education. In other words, of every dollar that Bob gives, about $.o2 goes to overseas missions (assuming HSBC has no other avenue for contributions to missions efforts).

Disclaimerpedia.com

I was thinking some more about the matter of disclaimers and I may have come up with an idea that is way better than my previously mentioned ones. What we need is someone to develop a website similar to Wikipedia that is devoted completely to disclaimer material. All you’d have to do is put a hyperlink in the name that would direct readers to Disclaimerpedia. With one click you’re done—“boom goes the dynamite!” Maybe an example would help. Let’s say I want to point people to Chris Anderson’s blog post about the guy from Seattle with the short man complex and potty mouth, when I write Chris’s name I’d put in a hyperlink that jumped to Disclaimerpedia for info like this:

Chris Anderson is a pastor in the sorry state just south of the beautiful Great Lake State. It appears that he has an unusual interest in dolls, which might explain his love for the Cavaliers and Indians. Although Chris claims to be a fundamentalist, he has been pictured very prominently at neo-evangelical events and made positive comments about compromisers which has caused some to consider pulling his membership card. He has also been known, though, to offer some very clear thinking and astute observations. If he can learn to drive more carefully, he might really go places.

Needs a little work, but I think a site like this could be very helpful. Now if I can just goad someone into doing the work on it.

Rock solid may fit his band, but not so sure about his doctrine

John Piper was recently asked to comment on the brewing controversy about John MacArthur’s public rebuke of Mark Driscoll, which focused mainly, but not exclusively, on his lewd sermon on the Song of Solomon (I am using "sermon on" quite loosely). In the course of saying some very helpful things, Dr. Piper also described Mark Driscoll as being “rock solid doctrinally.” This seems to be one of the core defenses of Driscoll, perhaps second only to something like, “You don’t understand the context within which he is ministering” (which shows up in Piper’s answer as well).

I have to say that I am not convinced that Driscoll is rock solid doctrinally, at least not when he preaches and writes on doctrinal issues. Sure, he may have an orthodox creed, but what comes out can range from pretty weak to flat out wrong. Consider some of the flawed stuff in Vintage Jesus (as just one example). Or his peculiar stuff about kings, priests, and prophets in the church. I would not consider his answers during the Nightline face-off on the existence of Satan to be rock solid doctrinally. I know it is probably a very pressure packed context, but his explanation regarding evil-virtue-freewill-choice-love was very weak. (Although I was impressed by his ability to resist putting a smackdown on Deepak Chopra—to borrow a saying from Les Ollila, that guy can make you mad enough to mug an Avon lady!)

Also, when did we arrive at the conclusion that behavior is a non-doctrinal issue? I think that Phil Johnson did a very good job showing the importance of the connection here, One money quote: “Paul's point is that sanctified behavior is the essential companion to authentically sound doctrine. You may verbally affirm the finest confession of faith ever written, but if your words and deeds deny it, Paul would not have affirmed you as an authentic Christian at all.”

This just seems like a very weak line of defense regarding Mark Driscoll’s ministry. His doctrinal teaching has, at the very least, some very rough edges precisely because of his efforts to be edgy and relevant. The issues that men like MacArthur and Johnson have raised about his speech and conduct have doctrinal ramifications. The fact that Driscoll is putting himself forward as an authoritative voice on doctrinal matters, through his books, makes this even more concerning. The trajectory seems dangerously off course.

Sound of distant thunder?

This could have some scary implications for church planters (not to mention “house church” folks).

HT: Jim Russell

A few more pennies on Mark Driscoll

Pastor Chris Anderson has written a good post on Mark Driscoll that is worth your time to read if you are wondering what to make of him and his ministry. If you don’t know who Mark Driscoll is, then don’t bother finding out. Here are two more quick thoughts on this matter.

First, we continue to make the same old mistake of judging a man and his ministry by visible results. While we should be thankful for every good thing that God accomplishes through any of us, we must not make the mistake of thinking that positive results are necessarily an endorsement of any particular minister or ministry. I think that Jonathan Edwards is dead on with this comment:

Another error, arising from an erroneous principle, is a wrong notion that they have an attestation of Divine Providence to persons, or things. We go too far, when we look upon the success that God gives to some persons, in making them instruments of doing much good, as a testimony of God’s approbation of those persons and all the courses they take…But there are innumerable ways by which persons may be misled, in forming a judgment of the mind and will of God, from the events of providence. If a person’s success be a reward of something in him that God approves, yet it is no argument that he approves of everything in him (Jonathan Edwards, “Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols. [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974], 1:408–409).

He says more on this subject that is helpful. Bottom line is that God is free to use whomever or whatever He wants to accomplish His purposes and that fact that He does so does not mean that the instrument becomes uniquely qualified as an expert or should be held up as a model for others. Completely eliminate anybody from your direct consideration right now and remember this: God may honor His Word even when it is spoken by those who are disobedient to it. The standard for evaluation is the Word, not visible results.

Second, Chris mentioned my making a connection between Driscoll and Finney, so let me clarify a little. The context was a point I was making about Driscoll’s apparent understanding of contextualization being pretty lame. Specifically, I said that Driscoll is to contextualization what Bill Hybels is to Donald McGavran’s homogenous unit principle. Hybel’s dime store version of that principle produces “Unchurched Harry” and Driscoll’s dime store version of contextualization means imitating Chris Rock. Both of them, I think, are borrowing missiological terms with established meanings and using them in a very shallow way. And it is at that point that I see a real similarity between what Hybels does and what Driscoll does, and the root of that is Finney’s embrace of methodological pragmatism. Every time I hear Driscoll tell people to hold their theology tightly in their right hand and their methodology loosely in their left hand, I cringe. This is an incredibly naïve and potentially dangerous false dichotomy. It warrants far more than I can say right now, but it needs to be challenged. (BTW, I was very thankful that Ligon Duncan challenged the idea that we can separate theology and methodology in his message at the Gospel Coalition conference. That is a hopeful sign.)

A second thought on disclaimers

I know we probably can’t live without disclaimers, so I’d like to offer some possibilities for your consideration.

Maybe a rating system like they do for films:

G—General Audiences (applies to material from approved fundamentalist publishing houses—both of them).

PG—Pastoral Guidance (don’t read or listen to this without approval from your pastor. Not the youth pastor; a real pastor).

PG-13—Presidential Guidance (don’t read or listen to this without the help of a president from a fundamentalist college, seminary, or fundamentalist organization—if you need help knowing who really qualifies, email me).

R—Restricted (this should only be read or listened to by pastors and some professors so that they can tell us what is wrong with it).

Maybe a content warning approach would be better (sort of like I hear they do for TV shows). Whenever someone’s name is mentioned, the warning codes can follow it inside parentheses:

CT—covenant theology

C4—four point Calvinism

C5—five point Calvinism

C7—7 point Calvinism (designed especially for John Piper material).

RT—Reformed Theology (to be used when you’re not sure if it contains Calvinism, Covenant Theology, or both, but you want to keep people away from it).

OT—Open Theists (deny God’s knowledge of future events and control over actual events)

RAC—radical anti-Calvinist

BG—Billy Graham-like compromiser

SG—use some Sovereign Grace music.

SGX—use a lot of Sovereign Grace music and recommend C. J. Mahaney’s (CT, C5, RT, SGX) books.

GS—use old gospel songs.

GSX—use only old gospel songs and none of those old dead hymns or newfangled choruses.

MDM—market-driven ministry.

BDM—bus-driven ministry.

SBC—tied to the Southern Baptist ~~Compromise~~ Convention.

TOT—tied in with Open Theists in the BGC.

IFBX—fundamentalist extreme

FINO—fundamentalist in name only (edit HT: ox)

EM—emerging middle (which I think has to do with fat guys trying to run to the front of the line, but not quite sure)

Or, the one I am personally tilting toward, the commercial disclaimer. It would work something like this:

John Piper with whom I take exception here regarding his view of people groups, has recently…

Bill Hybels, who embraces the compromising market-driven approach to ministry that I refute here, recently…

Well, lunch is over, so it’s time for me to move on.

On Naming Names

One of the interesting (distressing?) sidebars to the recent conversations about fundamentalism is the difficult matter of naming names for the purposes of expressing appreciation or attaching opprobrium. I call it a difficult matter mainly because I think it is often far less profitable than some others seem to think. This is a blog, so file this in the category of one man’s opinion.

It is completely unprofitable for a preacher to hold up as models of great leadership men whose ministries were marked by theological error and moral failure. I don’t care how big their churches were or how recognizable their names. Doesn’t it smell of hypocrisy to hold up men like this without qualification while demanding disclaimers on everything else?

It is very unprofitable to paint a distorted picture of evangelicals in order to keep fundamentalists away from them. During the course of my adult life, my guess is that I know as many men that have moved toward evangelicalism because of these false representations as have been preserved by them. The misrepresentations that I have heard personally and have had others share with me that they have heard are ridiculous. Isn’t there something really twisted about trying to rally people to the defense of the Truth via distortions and misrepresentations?

It is unprofitable to adopt a “speak no good of my opponents” approach to ministry. I have never heard anybody advocate throwing out qualifiers altogether, but something is wrong with our sub-culture if we cannot mention a book, sermon, or well-known person without making sure that everybody knows that “we are not endorsing everything that this man teaches or does.” Good grief. I’d have to put disclaimers on my own sermons, writings, and probably even in the church bulletin! I imagine I’ll write more on this at a later point, but I personally believe this is one of the most telling marks of spiritual immaturity within our circles.

It is also not profitable to toss names into discussions that don’t need to be tossed into them, especially when we pile them into lists without making careful distinctions. It is very disconcerting to see good men’s names tossed into the same list with Jack Hyles and Bob Gray, whether that list is being held up for honor or rebuke. Whatever my disagreements might be with some of those men, tying them to the likes of Hyles and Gray does a disservice to everybody. Also, it is doubtful that introducing the names of people who were not directly involved in this discussion did much good at all in terms of substantive debate. Looked to me more like rabbit trails than ghost purging.

It seems like we need to find a more profitable way to focus on principles without getting caught up in personalities. No doubt, there are times when names have to be named because the Truth is at stake. I am all for that, and don’t mind at all when that is being done publicly. I suppose the closest thing I can come up with as a guideline would be something like, Be careful when tossing names in for illustrative purposes alone because: (1) you probably aren’t supplying as much detail as you need to support your point, (2) many people will be distracted away from your main point; and (3) a fight will probably break out over whether it was right to have said what you did about that person. So, if you are going to name names, then take it up fully and directly, but be careful about making passing comments that might be perceived as a drive-by shot at someone. I am sure I’ve failed in this regard, but this latest kerfuffle will hopefully help me in the future.

Of First Importance

Starts my day with email messages like this one on beholding the glory of Christ:

“How, then, can we behold the glory of Christ? We need, firstly, a spiritual understanding of his glory as revealed in Scripture. Secondly, we need to think much about him if we wish to enjoy him fully (1 Pet. 1:8). If we are satisfied with vague ideas about him we shall find no transforming power communicated to us. But when we cling wholeheartedly to him and our minds are filled with thoughts of him and we constantly delight ourselves in him, then spiritual power will flow from him to purify our hearts, increase our holiness, strengthen our graces, and sometimes fill us ‘with joy inexpressible and full of glory.’”

- John Owen, The Glory of Christ, abridged and made easy by R. J. K. Law (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 115.

At least I am gauranteed one helpful email to start the day!

If you find it, please don't spoil it!

“Where might a contemporary separatist go to enjoy a quiet, respectful exchange of ideas?” Does anybody else find this question, coming from the keyboard of that friendly chap who calls himself Dissidens, somewhat remarkable? Did anybody else find himself thinking something like, “Wow, even he’s tired of his own blog and looking for somewhere else to hang out on the internet.” My guess is that if he finds the quiet, respectful place about which he inquires, it won’t stay that way long.

Dangerous Attacks on Calvinism

Few debates generate as much intensity as those which surround Calvinism. Probably because both sides take it so seriously and personally, a lot more heat than light tends to be generated. One side alleges that the other doesn’t understand the gospel and the other side charges its opponents with making God the author of sin. Frankly, it would be good if everybody chilled out a little.

I would like, though, to sound an alarm about something that concerns me very much. It seems that the rush to refute Calvinistic teaching regularly leads folks to make some statements that lead in dangerous directions, especially in our contemporary context. Let me just highlight two areas of particular concern—human depravity and God’s eternal plan.

Historically, both Calvinists and Arminians have agreed that natural man is not able to respond to the gospel without some work of God’s grace before that response to make it possible. The two views differ with each other dramatically on the nature and extent of this grace, but they both believe that lost people cannot respond to the gospel without a preceding work of God’s grace. Some anti-Calvinists, though, in their zeal to refute total inability end up arguing that man has the ability to repent and believe apart from a work of God’s grace. That flies right in the face of clear biblical evidence to the contrary (e.g., John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Tim 2:25-26).

The same may be said about God’s eternal plan, that is, Calvinists and Arminians have both viewed the future as certain because it was included in God’s plan for His creation. They differed greatly about the basis of God's decree, but historic orthodoxy did not embrace an open future. The Open Theists did not miss this point, that’s why they went past classic Arminianism to a heretical position which denies God’s knowledge of future events and eliminates the certainty of future events. So, it concerns me when a professing fundamentalist argues that we should not believe that God’s eternal plan encompasses everything that happens. I am sure that he would never embrace Open Theism, but I wonder if he realizes how close to the edge he stands.

Arminians, Calvinists, and even Biblicists cannot reject the clear biblical teaching that God “works all thing after the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11) and has an “eternal purpose” that is being carried out (Eph 3:11). Sure, there is room to debate how God’s foreknowledge plays into the details of that plan, but denying that there is a plan is contrary to the Scriptures. We can even say that denying that there is a certain plan for all things has been the special province of heretics, not biblically minded people. Orthodox believers may disagree about how that plan was formed, but they have not disagreed that there is a plan and that the plan is certain to happen.

There are some arguments that are illegitimate and can be ignored (e.g., all Calvinists are obnoxious). But there is a category of argument that is illegitimate and can’t be ignored because of the doctrinal danger wrapped up in the argument. I’ve only highlighted two, but there are others. Modern history provides ample evidence of where misguided zeal can lead. All of us need to make sure that we think carefully before we speak.

A lesson from the greatest team sport on the planet...

Although I didn’t get to see it, both the stat and story lines from the Red Wings-Blackhawks game serve as a timely and fitting illustration, in my mind, of the importance of staying focused and the unprofitability of losing focus. For those who are athletically challenged, boorish snobs, or just clueless, the Detroit Red Wings and Chicago Blackhawks are two professional hockey teams competing against each other in the National Hockey League’s Western Conference Finals. Well, during the third game of their best of seven series, a defenseman from the Wings, Kronwall, delivered a crushing check on Martin Havlat of the Blackhawks. Opinion is divided (mainly along team lines) as to whether it was a legal check or not, but one thing was certain—the Blackhawks didn’t like it. In fact, there anger about the check spilled over into game four of the series on Sunday afternoon. What did it produce? They got smoked by the Wings 6-1, in large part because they got nailed with a ton of penalties—54 minutes worth—and the Wings capitalized by scoring 3 of their 6 goals while on the power play.

So, what’s the lesson to be learned here? When you think that something wrong has been done, don’t get so preoccupied with it that you start doing (and saying) unwise things that end up backfiring and damaging the pursuit of larger, more important goals. There may be some momentary satisfaction that comes from scrums and skirmishes, but you can’t let that become more important than winning the game. Payback is a poor substitute for victory, but is chosen far too frequently.

I hope I don’t even have to mention that payback is not an option for believers (Rom 12:17; 1 Ths 5:15). It does seem, at least to me, that we often spend way too much time focused on perceived slights. Sure, some things ought to be addressed, so address them and get back in the game. We have to be able take a hit without getting thrown off of our game. Pastors who don’t like being hit will find their ministerial joy being drained out of them. Church members who can’t take a hit will find themselves either drifting from church to church or simply parking in a pew as a spectator (fewer hits happen there). Fundamentalists who prefer non-contact sports will not last long in an ecclesiastical world where everybody is bumping into each other while trying to draw lines that will protect God’s people from false teaching and false teachers.

There’s no justifying cheap shots, but you can’t let your life and service for Christ be controlled by them. Get up and go put the puck in the net!

(Edit: Duh, it's the Western Conference, not the Eastern Conference. That's what I get for making fun of the athletically challenged, boorish snobs, and generally clueless. A little humble pie for me. Go Wings!)

You can't really mean that. Oh, I guess you don't.

A few posts ago, I asked this question about John Piper: “is it possible to appreciate this man's heart for the Word, expository preaching, people's souls, and God's glory without being questioned about one's fundamentalist convictions?” Shortly afterward, I provided the following answer: “I definitely think so. For those who don’t, I’d simply point them to the Apostle Paul’s response to the Corinthian believers—he rejoices before God about the grace that was on display in them while at the same time being fully aware of the many other problems among them. Acknowledging and appreciating the grace of God does not mean that you don’t see problems too.”

But, much to my surprise—yeah, right—not everybody agrees with me. Another blogger noted my question and decided to open a discussion on it (partly due, no doubt, to the fact that I don’t allow comments). Here’s his answer: “So I would answer the question, No.”

This, I think, is only profitable in that it reveals something about part of the division among present day fundamentalists. I think his answer says more about his perception of fundamentalism than about anything else. He answered in one word, but that one word represents a fuller thought, which when turned positively is this: “Yes, I believe it is legitimate to call into question a person’s fundamentalist convictions because that person appreciates John Piper’s heart for the Word, expository preaching, people’s souls, and God’s glory.”

Frankly, it seems almost unbelievable to me that anybody could answer in this way. And I really think it may be unbelievable because in the comment section that follows, the same man writes, “Well, I am not saying don’t appreciate the good that such men do, although we may debate what is good and what isn’t.” So, unless we are really down to splitting hairs between appreciating a “man’s heart” for good and “the good” that the man does, we really do agree that we can appreciate the good without endorsing everything. And that’s the point of all this.

It is my contention that as long as we try to demonize our Christian brothers who disagree with us on matters of ecclesiastical separation, etc., we are pursuing a strategy that is not only unbiblical, but is very unproductive. This is not a new problem—most of us who’ve been around for any amount of time can recall instances where the case against new evangelicalism, or so-called pseudo-fundamentalism, was marked more by personal invective than substantive use of Scripture and careful application of the same to the case at hand. That approach has resulted in a “speak no good of your opponents” approach that is wrong and misguided.

My original point, and continued argument, is that there is no conflict between appreciating the strengths of a man’s ministry while still drawing the conclusion that that same man is wrong in some significant areas, perhaps even significantly wrong enough to cause us to withhold ministerial fellowship and cooperation.

Even better than last week

In my book, Kevin Bauder hits it out of the park with his latest essay and provides valuable perspective on shaping a better fundamentalist future. Can we print up the "Kevin is my home boy" T-shirts now? How about a Bauder Bobblehead?

Quiz Answers

Taking my own quiz

(1) The explanation of preaching, definitely.

(2) Yes, I believe it is very dishonest to suggest that Calvinists aren’t interested in souls. In fact, I’ve written a little something about the fact that there is nothing about belief in God’s sovereignty over the gift of salvation that either makes evangelism unnecessary or damages motivation for evangelism and missions. Depravity does the latter, not Calvinistic theology.

(3) I definitely think so. For those who don’t, I’d simply point them to the Apostle Paul’s response to the Corinthian believers—he rejoices before God about the grace that was on display in them while at the same time being fully aware of the many other problems among them. Acknowledging and appreciating the grace of God does not mean that you don’t see problems too. Ignoring the evident grace of God is less than biblical.

I'm on fire!

Phil Johnson's post at Pyromaniacs about our little family spat included a reference to a "conversation" that Phil and I enjoyed a little over four years ago that has been turned into a document stored here. I'd encourage you to read it sometime. It was a fascinating conversation for me and I appreciated a lot of what Phil had to say. A lot has happened in the past four years that might warrant an update of some kind. Maybe when Phil gets back from Italy and provides some analysis of this latest go-round it will spark something. Oh, and thanks for the positive plug, Phil!

A short quiz

Here's a little experiment for some who have been troubled by the kerfuffle over the speech given at the Wilds. Watch this video clip on preaching and then ask yourself questions like: (1) which is more attractive and honoring to God and the Word, this explanation of preaching or this example of it? (2) does it seem dishonest to paint Calvinists as uninterested in souls when there is so much evidence to the contrary? and (3) is it possible to appreciate this man's heart for the Word, expository preaching, people's souls, and God's glory without being questioned about one's fundamentalist convictions?

Rumor has it...

That you will receive a free one of these with your registration for the FBFI meeting in June.

Debate it, but don't divide over it

Good men have differed with each other for centuries over the biblical teaching on God’s sovereignty as it relates to the gift of salvation. I doubt that we’ll settle these debates any time soon. It would also be very narrow-minded to think that this is something that is unique to fundamentalism. The debate about these matters is currently much more volatile within the SBC than among fundamentalists (though that might be a skewed comparison in that self-professing fundamentalists may have already split from each other over this issue, so there isn’t much need to fight about it). I can say this much, Dave Hunt didn’t write his error-filled diatribe primarily for the sake of fundamentalists (as evidenced by content and back cover endorsements). It would seem naïve to think that good men would not disagree with one another over matters of such importance.

The real issue is whether those disagreements are to be treated as interpretive debates among fundamentalists or as a boundary line between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. Historically, it has been viewed as the former, not the latter. Fundamentalism has always included Calvinists and non-Calvinists precisely because holding one position or the other does not deny any fundamental of the Faith. My previous post was intended to show that arguing otherwise misunderstands both the history and nature of fundamentalism.

So, I am all for debate about these matters if the debate is conducted as being among brothers and not as between enemies. I strongly disagree with those who, as an example, base election on divinely foreseen faith. I’ll gladly debate that point with them, but I don’t think that such men are not my brothers. I just think that they are wrong. And they think I am wrong. I don’t think that they are on the border of denying inerrancy. I just think they have misinterpreted the Scriptures. It seems that biblical love among Christian brothers demands this courtesy be extended in both directions.

The tendency to elevate all matters of disagreement into battles over the identity of fundamentalism is more deadly for fundamentalism than Calvinism or Arminianism. We’ve been in a Thirty Years’ War that ebbs and flows according to the hot issues of the day. Right now it seems to be Calvinism. Not too long ago it was translations. Many of these fights have been about Fundamentalism Plus—the fundamentals of the faith plus some particular doctrine or practice. A certain group comes to the conclusion that you can’t be a fundamentalist unless you are right on the fundamentals plus their unique view, so they begin drawing a circle which excludes those who disagree. This was exactly what happened over the KJV.

I am not at all suggesting that every item in the plus category is unimportant. Fundamentalist is only one of the descriptors that applies to my theological positions—I am not less than a fundamentalist, but I am much more than that. I am a Baptist. I am a Dispensationalist. I am Calvinistic. All of these more narrow identities are very important to me (and to those who disagree with me!). They do affect ministerial cooperation on some levels, but they don’t establish the definition of who is and who is not a fundamentalist.

If men who are committed to separatist fundamentalism want to debate Calvinism, fine. If men who disagree with each other on these matters feel strongly enough about their disagreements to put some limits on their cooperative ministry, that’s fine too. Let’s not, though, start down the road of making Calvinism or non-Calvinism a test of biblical orthodoxy (i.e., whether one is a fundamentalist or not). Let’s not try to argue that you can’t be a separatist if you’re a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist. Debate is legitimate; divisiveness is not.

Has He Stopped Beating His Wife?

One of the benefits (or detriments) of having a blog, I suppose, is that the kinds of things that only my computer screen would have heard before now can be shared with whoever drops by to read it. Here’s one example.

A commenter at SharperIron is apparently grieved by Kevin Bauder’s reference to the “toxic climate” in Illinois. I wasn’t sure at first if this commenter was grieved, but by the 1000^th reference to Bauder’s comment, I finally realized that he might be. Whatever.

I’ll ignore the fact that he seems bent on skewing Kevin’s basic point (it’s not about fundamentalism per se but a certain kind of fundamentalism—oops, guess I didn’t completely ignore it). What really bothers me is the kind of argument that he uses. Here’s the pertinent part: “You know it is entirely possible that Bethel Baptist Church (and/or any of its pastoral staff) could be one of the churches that you men might name and Bauder would include as contributing to what he (Bauder) referred to as the ‘toxic climate of Illinois?’”

This is simply innuendo disguised as a question. You can flip it 180 degrees and it works too: “You know it is entirely possible that Bethel Baptist Church (and/or any of its pastoral staff) could be one of the churches that you men might name and Bauder would include as thriving in what he (Bauder) referred to as the ‘toxic climate of Illinois?’”

What good does this kind of question do? None. All it really does is try to turn a general statement into a specific offense in order to promote controversy. Or, following this commenter's approach, “You know it is entirely possible that this man is trying to stir up controversy between Kevin Bauder and Bethel Baptist Church.”

Lot of good that does.

Calvinism and Fundamentalism

I can’t recall a time in my adult life where the subject of Calvinism wasn’t a hotly debated subject, and I’ve been involved in a number of those debates. I’ve seen enough of them to know: (1) the word “Calvinism” means very different things to different people; (2) those of Calvinistic leanings are continually surprised to find out what they believe as described by those who oppose Calvinistic teachings; (3) those who oppose Calvinistic teachings get very bothered when told by Calvinistic men that they don’t really understand Calvinistic teaching; and (4) things can get ugly quickly.

I am sure, at some point, it might be profitable to address the specific complaints made by Pastor Dan Sweatt against Calvinism, but I am not really that concerned about them right now. For one thing, no full blown Calvinist would consider me one anyway. He’d probably throw the label Amyraldian on me—so I am a little ticked at everybody for the inaccurate use of labels. Also, some other people have, and no doubt will continue, to point out errors in his message, so I’ll approach this from a different angle. An angle which I think it is more important in relation to fundamentalism.

The burden of Pastor Sweatt’s sermon was focused on young men who are abandoning fundamentalism, hence the title “Young and Restless.” (I will assume, for discussion purposes, the premise that young men are actually leaving even though I think that is a claim that needs better definition.) It seems clear to Pastor Sweatt that Calvinism is a (the?) major reason why young men are leaving fundamentalism. I think that assessment is very short-sighted. By framing the issue in terms of Calvinism, he both distorted the history of fundamentalism and shifted the subject in a counter-productive manner.

There have always been Calvinistic fundamentalists. That point is irrefutable. There are very clear examples of present day Calvinistic fundamentalists. My guess is that many, if not most, of the pastors in fellowship with the FBFI serve churches which have doctrinal statements heavily influenced by the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, a clearly Calvinistic statement of faith. (That also, by the way, means it’s goofy to try to argue that Calvinistic men can’t be good Baptists either.) Historically, this matter has been a non-issue in terms of fundamentalism. Pastor Sweatt reveals the provincial nature of his thinking about fundamentalism when his list of great fundamentalists is composed mainly of men who were strongly anti-Calvinistic. This was a real weakness of his message that revealed a very lopsided understanding of fundamentalist history.

This goes deeper than merely the historical presence of Calvinists in fundamentalism—it cuts to the very definition of fundamentalism. If the fundamental in fundamentalism means anything, it means that the doctrinal center of fundamentalism is those doctrines which cannot be denied without denying the Faith. I doubt that Pastor Sweatt is prepared to say that Calvinists are apostates, so a basic premise of his message really doesn’t make sense. His argument is based on a serious misunderstanding about what is fundamental and what is not.

And if that weren’t bad enough, by making Calvinism the central issue, he distracts us away from the real question that should be in front of us. What we really need to ask, it seems, is this, “If young men can find Calvinism within fundamentalism, then why are they leaving?” The answer to that question is where the message should have gone. And the answer to that question is far more complex that Pastor Sweatt seems willing to allow. It’s easy to say it’s about the seductive allure of big names and an obsession with Calvinism, but the shallowness of that answer belies its truthfulness. Clearly, there are young men leaving who have no interest in Calvinism and no affinity for the men that Sweatt mentioned. Calvinism is not the cause for their departure. Some young men who have wandered away from the fundamentalist circles of Pastor Sweatt were Calvinists well before they wandered, so one might be able to offer the argument that they were chased away by anti-Calvinists rather than lured away by Calvinists. I could keep supplying counter-examples, but don’t think I need to do so to show the point I am making.

In technical terms, Pastor Sweatt has fallen prey to a cause-effect fallacy (of the post hoc propter hoc family for you Latin and logic buffs). In other words, he sees men who (a) are Calvinistic in their thinking and (b) are departing from his brand of fundamentalism, so he concludes (c) that Calvinism is the cause for their departure. My point is that there is no proof that the connection between (a) and (b) leads to (c)—in fact, there is significant evidence to the contrary.

If we are concerned that young men are leaving fundamentalism, then we better look for a better analysis of the problem than the one offered by Pastor Sweatt. Calvinism is not the culprit. This is not the post to delve into this deeply, but I would suggest that the answer to the question lies much closer to home.

A Good Start

I had planned to start my blogging career in calmer times, but as it turns out, my debut comes on the tail end of an interesting kerfluffle among fundamentalists over a message by Pastor Dan Sweatt presented at a FBFI regional meeting. A man that I respect very much, Dr. Kevin Bauder, expressed his concerns publicly about it here. A statement from John Vaughn and Brad Smith, of the FBFI, has also been posted in response to Dr. Bauder’s call. Because I think there are profitable things to be learned from this incident, I’d like to spend a few posts on it. I’ll start with a statement I wrote right after Kevin Bauder’s essay came out, and follow that with some thoughts on the FBFI statement.

My Agreement with Kevin Bauder

I would like to affirm my agreement with Dr. Kevin Bauder’s call for a response by the FBFI to what was preached by Pastor Dan Sweatt at the FBFI South regional meeting. Pastor Sweatt is certainly entitled to his theological convictions and to proclaim his beliefs, but he is not entitled to use a public platform to mishandle God’s Word and misrepresent godly men. I have expressed my concerns to him personally, but I believe it is appropriate to state them publicly as well. The fact that this sermon was preached at the Wilds for a FBFI meeting, but is being promoted via his church’s website and sermonaudio.com seems to indicate a deliberate effort to increase its exposure to a larger audience than the conference itself. For those of us who are investing our lives in training men for the gospel ministry, this is no small matter. We are attempting to cultivate in these men a love for biblical fundamentalism—the kind that is committed to sound doctrine, integrity in handling the Scriptures, and the spread of the gospel to the ends of the earth for the glory of God. That kind of fundamentalism will stand for the truth, even if it means taking a stand against those who use the mantle of fundamentalism as a cloak to advance this kind of agenda.

Others have exposed the errors in Pastor Sweatt’s message and method, so I’ll not pile on here. I want to go on record, though, in saying that it is well past the time when this should be an unacceptable thing in our circles. The authority of the pulpit does not reside in the preacher, but in God’s Word. If we continue to ignore the kind of abuse of the pulpit found in this sermon, we betray our commitment to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. This is contrary to our history and identity as fundamentalists, and, more importantly, it dishonors God.

My Appreciation for the FBFI Statement

While there can be no doubt that more could have been said by the FBFI on this matter, I think the statement put out by John Vaughn and Brad Smith addresses the concerns that men like Kevin and I had. Basically, those were two-fold: (1) is there room in the FBFI for men with differing views on the matter of Calvinism? And (2) will the FBFI stand up and say that there is not room in the FBFI for the kind of communication which inevitably causes division over these matters. I think they did this, and they did it well. Could they have named names? Sure. Should they have? No, I don’t think so. The statement made it about principles, not personalities and that’s what was needed. There is a bigger picture here than one speech at one conference.

That doesn’t mean that what Danny Sweatt said should be left unchallenged by others. If you believe he was mistaken in what he said and misguided in this attempt, then offer corrections. Just do it biblically, accurately, and respectfully. Let’s not commit the common error of not distinguishing between ideas and individuals. Kevin Bauder, John Vaughn, and Brad Smith have done us a service in addressing this issue. Let’s build on it for God’s glory and the good of His people.

Here we go...

Welcome to Glory & Grace. At least two years ago I asked the tech guys here to design a blog for me so that I could try my hand at this form of communication. They did their part and I didn’t do mine—I chickened out and didn’t pull the trigger. I suppose I could use more spiritual language about it—I just didn’t have peace about it—but the reality was simply that I didn’t think I could maintain anything profitable. Almost two months ago I decided to resurrect the idea and asked them to put something together. What’s the difference between two years ago and now? Mainly that my view of blogs has changed, and I stumbled across a post by Abraham Piper that pushed me over the edge. Now that the regular seminary year is over, I’m going to take a shot at it and see how it goes.

I’ve named the blog Glory & Grace because of the dominating place these biblical concepts have come to have in my life and ministry. When I was a freshman in college, God used Ephesians 1:12 to confirm His call on my life to the ministry of God’s Word, “to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.” The purpose of our lives must be God-centered and we only come to know that and live like that by His grace. Glory and grace sums up a lot for me.

The blog is currently a blank slate, so I can’t predict completely what will fill it up. I know that there are subjects that matter quite a bit to me, so those will probably get regular attention here. There will be some current event and contemporary issue stuff, but I hope not as much as posts about expositional preaching, local church ministry, theology, missions, church planting, and devotional comments on texts and biblical themes.

One feature of this blog that might not be widely appreciated is that there will be no comments section. The basic reason for this is that I’ve seldom seen a comment section that doesn’t end up in the ditch. The kind of communication that happens, especially if anything controversial is on the plate, is usually unprofitable and often unbiblical. If the blog allowed comments, I’d feel obligated to monitor them and I know that I would not do a good job keeping up with this. Since I don’t want to create work for anybody else around here, we’re just not going to allow them. Easiest, safest solution.

Now, just because there will be no comments section doesn’t mean that I don’t want to hear from you (except for the trolls who are reading this—please leave me alone!). We’ve set up a mailbag system through which you can communicate whatever it is that you feel needs to be communicated. If someone points out where I made a mistake, I will correct it. If someone says something very helpful and important, I’ll pass that along. If someone writes something that is really stupid, I may post it just to make fun of it. Just kidding. Maybe. The bottom line is that I just don’t want a bunch of nonsense happening in a comments section, perhaps as much for my sanctification as anybody else’s!

The experiment begins. I hope, and pray, it proves profitable. Thanks for dropping by.

For the sake of His name,

Dave Doran