Archives for 10.3.08

calvinistic secret society? UPDATE: nope

I got three hits on my blog today from a discussion forum called “Spurgeon Underground“.

One of them is from Anniston, Alabama, who viewed, according to Sitemeter, my main page, my about page, and then went over to my church site. This visitor spent 3:31 on oxgoad.

Another, briefer visit was from Mobile, Alabama, just a quick hit and gone.

The first visit was from the UK, 1:56, with an “out-click” on my link to the Pulpit Magazine article concerning Piper, Driscoll, and harsh language.

This group is a private forum for members only. From their about page:

The Spurgeon Underground Fellowship is a small group of like-minded, committed Christians who strongly hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. We believe that the Bible is our sole authority for all doctrine and practice. We do not reject biblical commentaries and other writings by committed believers, but we hold them accountable to the “whole counsel of God” as found in the Scriptures. Because we believe in the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Scripture, we are also strongly committed to what is commonly called the Doctrines of Grace or Reformed Theology.

This group was created for fellowship, prayer, and interaction for those who hold these doctrines. These doctrines are not politically correct, nor are they readily accepted in the majority of the Christian churches in our day. This fellowship is a haven in the midst of a stormy sea. As such, membership is by invitation only and only extended to like-minded, like-spirited men. If you would like to know more about the fellowship, you can read our fellowship guildelines posted below in Adobe Acrobat format. You may also email the Forum Administrator.

What gives with this? Why the secrecy, fellows? How does clandestine spirituality promote the body of Christ?

And why the mis-spelling of “guidelines”? It occurs twice on the about page, both in the comment above and in the link to the “guildelines” document. Is this just an accident or is it somehow a subliminal play on the word “guild”?

Count me mystified.


UPDATE: One of the members of this group enlightens me in the comments. I meant my comments to be taken lightly after a rather tense week, so I hope our brethren who are involved in this group aren’t offended. I wish them all well in their various ministries. By the way, you might want to check out their group blog, linked in the comments below.


Now that the dust has settled a bit, what shall we say?

First, I think that Chris was rightly offended at the category tag I put on my earlier post. He was right, I was wrong. The tag has been removed.

But what about the substance of my complaint? Chris dismisses my complaint and thinks I should take down my post since he was merely offering a citation, nothing more.

A citation?

ci·ta·tion      (s?-t?’sh?n)  Pronunciation Key

  1. The act of citing.
    1. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
    2. A source so cited; a quotation.

[citation. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. (accessed: October 03, 2008).]

This is the headline of the post in question:

Driscoll on the Emergent Church

By Chris on Mark Driscoll

Prominently displayed is a picture of Driscoll himself (apparently while ‘preaching’.)

There are a few other citations in the post, it is true. But what is the post about? It’s about Driscoll. He is the centrepiece and his mp3 is the main point of the post.

Side Note: There is an attitude among some who wear the label ‘fundamentalist’ that seems to think it ‘cool’ to show how cutting edge they are by talking up and quasi endorsing men who are not fundamentalists. It’s real cool when you can promote someone like a Driscoll and yet say you still hold your fundie bona fides. Am I right or wrong, my readers, to say that such an attitude exists?

Now, in my mind, what Chris did with his post was more than citation, it was promotion. My perceptions are admittedly affected by Driscoll’s most recent outrage, but I have been repeatedly asking (and no one has really been answering) if the Christian church should do anything but shun Driscoll for his blasphemous talk?

The outrage in our little circle has been directed instead at me, for expressing my dismay at what seems to me to be promotion, not just citation. I have argued with Chris in the past concerning his support and promotion of conservative evangelicals. I have a great deal of misgivings about what Chris says and does in that respect, but Driscoll is (and has been) far further afield than a conservative evangelical. Am I right in saying Chris’ post is promotion not citation? (I realize opinions will differ here.) Am I right in thinking that it is at best highly questionable if not completely inappropriate to promote Driscoll in any way? Or in this way?

Now then, what should we do? Chris wants me to take down my post, and I still find his strongly objectionable.

These posts are probably all archived by now on Google, I am sure. But if Chris is willing to take down his (both of them), I will take down mine (both of them). That would mean, of course, dear readers, that all your immortal comments would be lost. Can you live with that?