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.

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.

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.

Reprise: What is Best?

I was prompted to republish this message because of a series of comments I read relating to an article linked on the Religious Affections Ministries site. I didn’t even listen to the songs mentioned, I just saw the names, remembered their significance, thought of a story, and decided to tell it. This is a related sermon I gave numerous times around the country, and it’s one I listen to again on occasion to refresh my memory about how God has led our family. It is subtitled; My Christian Broadcasting Story. Please play or download What is Best? 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 What is Best? MP3

(This sermon was originally published in the Spring of 2006.)

Some Further Explanation

A good friend recently sent along an e-mail commenting on our Settle for This? post from March 18. By way of response, I sent this additional information that might help others who have read the article. Here is a slightly modified version:

I correspond/keep up with many people in the ministry. Recently I have been nothing short of alarmed by the authors and teachers they are recommending. It is not a matter of these men having nothing profitable to say at all, but more a case of their materials being vastly inferior to others written/provided by fundamentalists.

These pundits usually have one thing in common; they are popular. Some have sold hundreds of thousands of books and operate very large ministries. These guys are usually highly intellectual and pragmatic. They are higher class neo-evangelical types that operate on “sophisticated” outreach plans, usually relying on observation of the culture – then development of a ministry philosophy – then systematic execution. They discount our – preach God’s word faithfully and pray the Holy Spirit works in hearts – method as old-fashioned, unsophisticated and (worst of all) unsuccessful.

What’s the common denominator? Problematic, poorly formulated and many times unquestionably wrong doctrine.

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. Their ministry is not accomplished by pragmatic methodology and study of cultural relevance, but rather by the power of God’s word in the heart’s of Holy-Spirit-prepared people.

Therefore, when I am asked to endure the heady research and intellectual formulation of another doctrinally questionable evangelical heavyweight, I ask myself, do I have to settle for this?

All that to say I generally agree with your statements on the subject. There is sometimes no harm at all in recommending a book by an author that violently disagrees with us. In fact, some of them are likely more Godly people than we are! To me, that’s not the main point. I am instead weary of being told that the “best and brightest” Biblical thinkers of today reside far outside fundamental circles. I find that notion unquestionably wrong and bordering on laughable.

We have made an attempt to clarify our position in the past few days by presenting the preaching of Dr. Rick Flanders. He makes the connection between belief and philosophy as well as anyone we have ever heard on the topic.

A Broad Range?

By way of follow-up to our most recent post on foundational ministry principles, I wanted to link you to a related article. Dr. Rick Flanders offers some very interesting perspectives of fundamentalism in an entry published by Sharper Iron on May 3, 2006. Its editor’s note gives us a clue as to how widely endorsed his philosophies may (or may not) be within fundamental Christianity.

While many of today’s generally conservative ministers bristle at Dr. Flanders’ assertions about (what he calls) young fundamentalists, I would rather tend to agree. 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 am not a product of the movement to which Dr. Flanders refers. 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.

The fact of the matter is, most of the convictions they helped form in me came directly from scripture. Certainly I have chosen to do many things differently over the years, but I have never asserted the need for reforming their general methodology based upon changing cultural dynamics or my own inflated sense of sophistication. We are not smarter than those that came before us, and we do not live in a world that is so radically different that it should cause us to jettison proven philosophy and technique. Those insisting otherwise should take a very serious look at their motivation for doing so. They should also set out to prove their ways are measurably better, based on Biblical standards.

Today I am an independent, Baptist, fundamentalist with a traditional and conservative ministry philosophy. While I am frustrated I even have to list these qualifications, I fear it is all too often necessary in framing discussion. Unfortunately it is not enough to simply call yourself a fundamentalist today, as the range of thought among us is sometimes too “broad” to unite us.

Credibility and Stature

I have recently expressed concern that many Baptist pastors and missionaries are enthusiastically promoting speakers, authors and teachers that are sub-par in doctrinal and (consequently) philosophical understanding. This week I was grieved again by three further examples, as those calling themselves fundamentalists justified the blunders and missteps of their favorite evangelical pundit.

This morning I clicked play on a message that helped focus my concerns. As I compared it with those I’ve heard from the “leading Christian thinkers” of our day, I discovered a monumental difference. These words resonate with conviction and assurance that only consistent and deliberate study in God’s word can bring. Talk of cultural dynamics and the psychological processes of the post-modern mind were conspicuously absent; praise God.

Dr. Rick Flanders was featured at the Conference on Baptist Fundamentalism last month at Maranatha Baptist Bible College. He spoke on an historic mistake by fundamentalists, and in doing so defined a chief problem today. It is one of the best sermons you will ever hear on foundational principles for ministry philosophy. I thank God for men that stand firm against the tide! Please make time to listen.

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 A Mistake by Fundamentalists