Missionary Broadcasting.com

I have begun to recognize a disturbing trend among some fundamentalist pastors and missionaries, though I was careful to make note of a large number of examples before I dared call it a trend. Some of best informed ministers I know have made excuses for it, perhaps even admitted its potential harm, then chosen to forge ahead despite the warning signs. They have offered a disclaimer beforehand, a litany of justifications during, and a tepid approach at regret afterward; all the while failing to admit it was actually a bad idea from the beginning. This “trend” has forced me to my knees and laid upon me a burden to know why.

How should a Godly minister determine what kind of Pastors, authors and speakers they recommend to others in the ministry? More specifically, should we promote, extol the virtues of, and heartily endorse those that deny fundamental Christian theology? These questions have weighed on my heart as I have been encouraged to embrace the teaching of prominent evangelical thinkers that, in some cases, reject sound doctrine and see the world through a lens that is anything but Biblical.

As a man who has spent a number of years in vocational service, only recently becoming convinced of a calling to the Pastorate, I am eager to hear the thoughts of those more experienced along this path. Therefore I pay close attention to fellow-laborers offering advice on philosophy and method. All too often however, I am pointed to materials written by men of questionable doctrinal foundation. “He may not agree with us doctrinally” they say or write, “but he’s got some good ideas about how we can reach people”.

Three specific examples come to mind in which the phrase “doesn’t agree with us doctrinally” was used. In the first a simple Google search revealed a nationally credible magazine article in which the author in question emphatically denied a six day creation and labeled conservative Christians (basically) dangerous. The second author/Pastor was criticized widely for using profanity in the pulpit, and the third writes openly of his acceptance of sign gifts and rejection of Biblical separation.

I have taken great pains to be vague, because all of these men’s ministries would be moderately recognizable and it is not my intention to call them on the carpet here. I am rather more concerned that respected fundamentalists find their philosophies more enticing than those with which they actually agree.

Can someone please explain to me (leave a comment) when doctrinal beliefs became irrelevant in the shaping of outreach philosophy? Are we to be persuaded that a lack of understanding or blatant rejection of orthodox Christianity has no bearing on a person’s methodology? Is a man that cannot even come to grips with the simplest matters of righteousness and doctrinal truth at the same time capable of grappling with the complexities of post-modern outreach theory?

You can answer these questions yourself without my even suggesting there is one, simple, definitive answer. I am instead concerned about a groundswell of support for questionable evangelical pundits by conservative friends and colleagues. Good rarely, if ever, comes of these bizarre endorsements, though I can recount situation after situation when they have caused confusion and dismay.

We have limited time in the day, and more importantly, limited time in life. Can we not instead direct young, eager-to-learn ministers to those who have first developed principled fundamentalist belief? Let’s reject the smug facade of “sophistication” and choose our endorsements and personal influences with care.

One final statement: doctrinal integrity will always lead to Biblical methodology, while doctrinal ambiguity leads astray.