Get the Point?

Dr. Dave Doran has written an excellent article today. He expresses in a far more eloquent way a position I have been trying to emphasize for a number of months. It relates to the relationship ideas have with the individual who expresses them. Find it on his Glory & Grace blog (which is great) under the title Sticking to the point…

The problem I often see in fundamentalism is the propensity we have to make certain public figures – if they are liked or appreciated – exempt from criticism. Failing to recognize wisdom from men who also promote very bad ideas is rarely the problem. Who doesn’t read C.I. Scofield with all his gap theory nonsense and still appreciate his insightful notes? Who reads the writings of Luther and Calvin, overlooking their antisemitism, to pull out gems of truth? I would venture to say very few.

What about the other side of the coin? Do we have favorite preachers and teachers we defend at all costs, even if they say or do something ridiculous? I think many of us would have to say yes, no matter how fair-minded we fancy ourselves to be. I think this is a wide-spread problem. While many would shout “why can’t you just appreciate – insert name here – for what they say on – insert subject here – and stop focusing on their faults?” Few are crying “let’s treat every idea equally, no matter the source!” Am I wrong?

Dr. Doran provides illustration on how not to argue points of disagreement. Context for the specific issue can be found in a previous Doran article.

“…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.”

Has Dave been listening in on some of my recent conversations? This is a spot-on observation of something that happens in nearly every debate on these issues. It starts with knee-jerk defense, transitions into an assumption that you think ill of someone’s character, then categorization (“you must be one of those BJU-types”) and the finding of fault. We are all guilty of this are we not? We like certain people, in our minds they can do no wrong, and we are willing to twist and distort an entire argument to prove a point.

I often tell my wife that if theological arguments were held to the standards of true academic debate, there are few Christian theologians today that could muster a passing grade. Meaning, many simply defend their position by calling into question the credibility of the opponent. It happens in politics all the time. If a Republican says a Democrat broke the law today, the Democrat says it’s no big deal because a Republican broke the law last week. Brilliant intellectual wrangling eh?

Make no mistake. I am as guilty as the next guy on this one. I so rarely see the offense admitted I wonder if others see their guilt? I mean, are you exhibiting any of these bad characteristics and then smugly believing you won an argument? I can tell you with all certainty that this only hurts the cause of Christ and lowers the level of debate to just above pre-school.

Let’s stop this nonsense people! Every idea must be examined for Biblical merit on it’s own two legs. Yes, there is a time to stop listening to some people. I am long past the point of no return on many a preacher who refuses to hear a sound rebuke and persists in error or fault because his supporters put up with it. Still, we are judged on the basis of our honest assesment of realities and Biblical facts, not our steadfast association with particular personalities.

“Differences in Perspective”

I am an admirer of Dr. Charles Phelps and have greatly appreciated his preaching for several years. Consequently, I have mentioned him a number of times here, sometimes featuring his sermons or messages from Maranatha Baptist Bible College chapels. Over the past week (or so) I started to notice an alarming amount of search traffic to our site as a result of  queries for “Chuck Phelps leaving MBBC”, “Charles Phelps resignation” and “Chuck Phelps resigns”. (Those statements apparently reflect a combination of words that appear somewhere within this blog.) At that point I began to assume something was happening that had not yet been publicized. Today, the news broke.

One could not help but note this report comes at a moment of endless wrangling over Calvinism and the role it will play in the future of the fundamentalist movement. It is a debate in which Dr. Phelps has not participated (to my awareness), though his name had been mentioned more than once during initial skirmishes. That has given me cause for concern as  I reach for my mouse, ready to visit all the popular flame-throwing blogs.

I fear some authors, curious to a fault, will begin digging or even speculating. Call me suspicious only after you see the other Dr. Phelps searches that have resulted in a visit here!

It is important that men of God are above reproach when it comes to reporting on incidents for which they are not involved. While sleazy newspaper reporters may have no problem dealing in realms of innuendo and suspicion, Christians (especially those in leadership), should have no part in it.

Today I am praying for Dr. Phelps, his family and the entire MBBC student body, faculty and staff. Though our family has no involvement with the school apart from a simple admiration and enjoyment of their sermon podcast, I somehow feel connected with them. I hope to meet Dr. Phelps one day and express my appreciation in person. If I know anything of his heart for ministry I can see him heading back to New England – a very needy mission field – to pastor, plant a church or any number of other things. Praise the Lord!

I truly hope I am the one doing all the speculating today, and expect I will look back on this post and laugh, realizing I had nothing to be concerned about. Wrestling over matters of doctrine and opinion, in the fundamentalism I know, stop well before degrading into personal attack. I pray this is the stripe of fundamentalism that will display itself all over the internet in coming days!

The Unwritten Rules

Regarding the debate I mentioned last night: as I suspected, it was futile to venture outside the “unwritten rules of all Calvinism-related debate”. They are as follows: if you agree with me, you are smart – if you agree with the other guy, you are not – and if you agree with neither of us, you are too ignorant to comment. See what I mean by visiting the original article, along with my comment, which is directly followed by a reply from the author.

I Hate That

I have been commenting this week on another one of those fundamentalist controversies on the web. (See  Young and Restless, Bauder Weighs In and RINO, FINO Parallel.) I’m not sorry I did, because I generally stayed above the fray, focusing on a wider theme rather than the hotly-debated minutia (i.e. Calvinism). Those arguments are tedious, never-ending and generally only ego-driven. Besides, I don’t fit well into either camp, refusing to be held hostage within the confines of the debate – the ideas of two confused men.

You may not know this, but there are dozens of fairly prominent Pastors, missionaries and authors that argue these things out in blog comment threads and forums all over the internet. This is a dangerous pastime, I think, because words can never be taken back after one hits the “send” button. I don’t have the confidence to believe I can properly express myself or even be right enough of the time to do that! So…generally I read the articles and keep my thoughts to myself, no matter how much I agree or disagree.

You already know where I am going right? Yes, tonight I commented on an article with which I disagree. I think I did so in a Godly manner, as I asked  the Lord to superintend in its writing. Still, there were very fine seminary professors, Pastors, missionaries and other Christian leaders commenting too, and I disagree with them all. That makes a nervous feeling well up in my stomach, I must admit.

One way or the other I’m expecting a response from the author sometime soon. Pray that he answers in an equally Godly manner. I’ll try to let you know what happens and provide links when I hear more.

RINO, FINO Parallel

During last year’s presidential campaign conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham often told her radio audience she had a problem with Sen. John McCain because he “feels more comfortable attacking conservatives than liberals”. In the election lead-up while sponsoring free-speech limiting legislation with liberal Sen. Russ Feingold and joining “his good friend” Sen. Ted Kennedy in an attempt to grant illegal aliens amnesty, Sen. McCain also found time to launch attacks on Christians, pro-family groups and even fiscal conservatives. All this while hoping the people he attacked would back him in his presidential bid to beat the very people who had been his closest allies.

Crazy? Not if you’re a young, disgruntled fundamentalist today! Just as McCain held his beliefs almost grudgingly, falsely believing Democrats were more compassionate, more genuine and “just nicer folks”, many up-and-coming fundamentalists of our day are afflicted with a similar misconception. While the people with which they agree most are seen as grumpy and bordering on legalistic, forward-thinking, “mostly correct” evangelical commentators are regarded as compassionate and balanced. Is this really the truth?

In both cases I would shout a resounding no! The misconceptions are often more a result of belief in caricatures and folklore than objective evidence. Single experience after single experience is recounted to support the theory, but many are questionable and some are flat-out false.

Years ago a friend described a horrible act of arrogance and legalism that had allegedly taken place at an otherwise Godly church. After hearing it, I pressed the issue a bit. I wanted to know who the source of the story had been and where I could find the victim. Upon further examination neither a source, victim or eye-witness could be located. In fact, everyone I asked reluctantly admitted they were passing the information along on the basis of third and fourth-hand accounts.

What’s worse? Not one of the people believing this story (presumably made up out of whole cloth) felt the slightest twinge of guilt for doing so. In theory they were telling me it didn’t matter because “it sounded like somthing that probably could have happened at ‘that kind’ of church”.

Let’s not be confused. I am resolutely in favor of declaring sin to be sin. If legalism is characteristic of a person or people we observe, we ought to confront and rebuke them if necessary. You will never catch me making excuses for anyone that commits sin in the name of “standing up for Jesus”. At the same time, I would not classify a particular style of ministry as “potentially sinful” simply because I “know their type”.

I have said it this way in previous articles:

Many critics of “how things used to be done” grew up in the fundamentalist movement, and have personal stories of dismay with individuals in their past. These emotional ties too often cloud the real issues and set people on a crusade to right perceived wrongs. This is a principle reason otherwise strong men of God look outside fundamentalism for input on ministry methodology.

I went on to say that I am not a product of the fundamentalist movement and therefore have a bit of a unique perspective:

Preachers I grew up admiring were generally old-fashioned, hellfire and brimstone types that sang hymns, knocked doors, and read from the King James Bible. All were Southern Baptist, though they didn’t particularly associate themselves with the convention at large, but rather held to Biblical conviction and called out compromisers no matter what label they wore. Did they get some things wrong? Definitely. Is it my job to correct their mistakes? Definitely not.

Anyone reading this article who is frustrated by a history of bad experiences with sinful Christian leaders should be cautioned. Those men may have been the disciple of some “big name preacher” that was building a following for themselves rather than the kingdom of God.They may have also given every excuse in the book for the bad behavior of their heroes, even to the point of compromising their own integrity.

Are the great leaders of movements any different today? They have gained far-reaching acclaim despite their doctrinal problems, personal conviction issues, troubling temperaments and methodological missteps. Still, a new generation of young men irritated by their upbringing in the fundamentalist movement are sitting spellbound at their feet. Claiming every step of the way they will not adopt their belief systems, while turning their affections toward style and personality.

John McCain lost the election because he claimed to believe one thing while his actions declared an affection for something else. The masses of people seeking leadership can have no respect for the mushy middle and (if given the chance) will always choose a firm position to the right or left. I believe men and women in our pews today want the same thing. Not declarative statements on what we “affirm as fact”, but belief – belief that reveals itself in a love for Biblical accuracy, sound doctrine and rightous conviction. The very moment some of those men step forward we will begin winning our spiritual battles, instead of settling for respectable losses.

Bauder Weighs In

Today Kevin Bauder addresses the Dan Sweatt message I referenced in my last post. He makes a point I have been making with friends and colleauges for years.

Bauder on Sharper Iron today:

I am grateful to have been reared in a version of fundamentalism that was led by men who refused to become “giants.” You have probably never heard their names, because they were not trying to create or control empires. They were willing to stand up to bullies, however, and in some cases they were savaged by the very “giants” whom Pastor Sweatt identifies.

Missionary Broadcasting.com on April 10, 2008:

There are some fantastic fundamentalist ministers around today. They are found at small Bible colleges, medium sized churches, and remote mission fields all over the world. Their teachings are more difficult to find, I understand, but the power of God shines through their every word. They give testimony of simple faith, consistent Bible teaching, and love for people.

Bauder is focusing on Fundamentalist leaders from the past, while I reference their paralells today. Either way, we are making the same point. The finest men of God in Christianity did not (and do not) lead vast movements or write best-selling books!

I would contend the “giants” Sweatt references (on both sides of the issue) are the chief problem. Every time questions are raised about the doctrine or methodology - beliefs and convictions, not personalities – of current or former “big name preachers”, things start to get ugly. They got ugly when Pastor Sweatt mentioned some of his heroes, and they get just as ugly every time the names Piper, Keller, Dever, Mahaney, Driscoll or even Calvin himself are put forward.

People that are sycophants in either camp disregard the merits of any criticism on belief and/or methodology, choosing instead to enter ”defense mode”. In short, the men engaged in the argument have the identical problem – and it is a huge problem. They focus on men, fellowships and movements of the day instead of focusing on individual issues, doctrines and specific discussions. The sad part is that neither side seems to realize their failure.

If someone (anyone) writes, preaches or behaves wrongly they ought to be called on it. Let’s stop jumping on every opportunity to defend our favorite authors and teachers! Some have been proven categorically to be wrong, yet their actions and beliefs are still being justified, excused, defended, dismissed and forgotten. If he’s one of our favorites he “has a different style”, but if we don’t like him he is “harmful to the cause of Christ”. Ridiculous. Wrong is wrong is wrong, and it’s about time someone stood up and said so. But then…I guess I just have.

Young and Restless

All the right people have been criticizing a message that was preached at the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship southern regional meeting recently. Some of the articles written against it were downright hostile. After reading them I knew I needed to listen with a discerning ear. I have, and you should too. It is called The Young and the Restless and it was presented by Dr. Dan Sweatt, Pastor of the Berean Baptist Church in Lilburn, Georgia.

There is a growing distinction (even division) among ‘old style’, traditional fundamentalism, and Calvinist, sometimes Reformed ‘neo-fundamentalism’. Unimportant theological mumbo-jumbo? Absolutely not. These are serious issues that ought to be examined thoroughly by men of God. So…devote an hour to listen and let me know what you think afterward.

Role of Elders

I was privileged to listen to a message today that successfully explains several scriptural principles of New Testament Church polity. It comes at exactly the right time in the history of fundamentalism, as our movement becomes more fragmented and confused by the day. Reformed theology is gaining acceptance, lines are being blurred on the role of Elders and Deacons and an ever-broadening spectrum of belief on the local assembly is commonplace.

We are desperately in need of clarity in the muddy waters of modern Christianity. Thank God we are finding it somewhere! In this case it’s on the campus of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, as Dr. Charles Phelps addresses the role of the Elder. If you have any time at all to commit to the study, I would encourage you to play or download it below.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download The Place of Elders in Baptist Church Polity

Seeing Separation Scripturally

Often times even the most conservative Christians somehow forget the importance of personal and ecclesiastical separation. Simply understanding the doctrine is not beneficial unless clear and direct application is made. That is where a great number of us fall short.

Perhaps this message from Dr. Charles Phelps will help us remember and make the application necessary. It is one of the better messages I have ever heard on the subject and I felt compelled to pass it along as I had the opportunity.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Seeing Separation Scripturally

Best and Brightest

This article was almost finished before I decided to completely rewrite it. The first draft delivered a pointed rebuke to lesser Bible teachers and the so-called “sophisticated” fundamentalists that point friends and acquaintances to their influence. When I had come to the close of that exhortation, I realized how much time I had wasted. No amount of reality and factual evidence can convince a person to turn from one on which they have set their affections.

There are men within the Christian church today that are worthy of our attention. They are not worthy because they have written popular books or developed large followings. They are not revolutionary in thinking, not necessarily dynamic in speaking and not particularly winsome in personality. Their ministries are often small, their writings usually unnoticed by the masses and their ideas are sometimes cast aside as old and narrow. Attention should be given to these teachers because of their depth of Biblical knowledge, demonstrated commitment to obedience and abounding reverence for God.

Many others are skilled at contending with the flavor-of-the-month preachers and their sycophants. My time, energy and effort is best spent highlighting the men who are truly the “best and brightest” in the Christian world. Make no mistake, backing down is never an option. It is rather a question of choice on where and how to spend the bulk of my time online.

We begin this journey with a few eager recommendations:

• Education: Dr. Charles Phelps, Maranatha Baptist Bible College
• Historical Fundamentalism: Dr. Rick Flanders, Revival Ministries
• Practical Fundamentalism: Dr. John Vaughn, Faith Baptist Church
• Revival: Dr. Rod Bell Sr., The Old Crooked Stick
• Evangelism: Dr. Hal Hightower, Evangelist

This list should offer enough to keep us busy for the moment. I pray many will click the included links and spend time listening to some of the hundreds of sermons and lessons listed. These men are among the finest Christianity has to offer today, and their materials are invaluable resources for pointing us toward Godly life and ministry in this evil day. If you find something you read or hear particularly useful, please leave a comment here. You may also follow us on Twitter or FriendFeed if you would like more regular updates of a similar kind.