A somewhat disturbing point is emerging about the new kind of fundamentalism we are supposed to be having. I am wondering if this point is a variant of something that has been criticized elsewhere as ‘Fundamentalism Plus’ (or ‘IFBX’, as in Independent Fundamentalist Baptist eXtreme).

The point that is emerging is that the new kind of fundamentalism is oriented around Calvinism to the exclusion of those who would consider themselves fundamentalists but non-Calvinists. It also may explain the overtures being made by fundamentalists towards certain conservative evangelicals.

Similar charges have been made before, only to be dismissed by the change agents. I admit some of those previous charges have been made quite clumsily (at best). Nevertheless, new evidence is appearing that suggests there might be something to the charges.

Consider the following:

In a recent interview published on Sharper Iron, Aaron Blumer asked Mike Harding this question about the upcoming Preserving the Truth Conference:

I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for Calvinists? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?

I am not sure why Aaron would think this an obvious question to ask, but here is Mike’s reply to the question:

The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.

There was no follow-up to this question, so that is all we have to go on. But if this is an accurate distinction of a conference on ‘preserving the truth, a symposium on biblical separation’, I find this to be a troubling change.

Now, I have no problem with Calvinists being Calvinists. They have every right to proclaim their views and even to have conferences excluding other views.

But I wonder what these statements have to do with the meaning of fundamentalism and separatism? When has the various permutations in the spectrum between Calvinism and Arminianism been a defining issue for separatism or fundamentalism? When did any soteriology beyond simple belief in salvation by faith alone become a distinguishing mark of fundamentalism and/or separatism?

The IFBX crowd and the Fundamentalism-Plus crowd (as they are described by outsiders) have been criticized for separating too much.

Are we now to expect separatism to include views on soteriology such as Calvinism? Isn’t that exactly the same kind of approach to separation as the IFBX or Fundamentalism-Plus groups? (Or “Everythingism”, as Bauder calls it?)

If so, this is yet another disturbing trend. Do we need more division among Fundamentalists? How does this emphasis really further the cause of Christ or display biblical Christian unity?



  1. Dave says:


    I am not following your progression of thought here. That the folks speaking in this conference fit any of those three labels (baptistic, dispensational, Calvinistic) doesn’t lead to the conclusion that any of those are being added to the meaning of fundamentalism or separatism. I don’t see anything in the topics that would confirm your point either.

    • Hi Dave,

      I agree that the fact that the speakers are not Calvinistic doesn’t mean that this term is necessarily being added to the meaning of fundamentalism or separatism. However, I didn’t raise the question. Aaron Blumer did. And in answering it, Mike didn’t dispel the connection. Perhaps your questions would be better directed to either of them. I would be glad to know that my disappointment is merely a misunderstanding.

      Don Johnson
      Jeremiah 33.3

  2. Brian Ernsberger says:

    It is rather ironic that those who have criticized (and rightly so, I may add) those within Fundamentalism who have made peripheral issues (i.e. KJVOism and such) causes for separation are now themselves seemingly just steps away from doing the very same thing with their “issue” of Calvinism.

  3. Dave says:


    No, my question is properly directed toward you since you attempted to draw an inference that was a non sequitor from what was said. Aaron was anticipating someone doing exactly what Brian and you have just done, i.e., assume that people who share some doctrinal commitments will necessarily make those commitments a test of fellowship.

    Well, I guess your reply and Brian’s post are the real answers. I’ll bow out after expressing my disappointment that you both feel free to insinuate what you have without any basis in fact. I suppose I am naive to still be disappointed at this point.

    • Dave,

      It is really curious how you read things. I didn’t raise the Calvinist connection, Aaron did. It hadn’t ever occurred to me until Aaron mentioned it.

      But what was really astonishing to me was how Mike didn’t dismiss the concerns at all. Aaron gave him every opportunity to say something like, “No, no, Calvinism has nothing to do with this.” He didn’t say it. Instead, he seemed to affirm it. I hope I am just mis-reading it.

      Bow out if you like, but why don’t you mention my questions to Mike and invite him to clarify his remarks so that I can understand him better?

      Don Johnson
      Jeremiah 33.3

  4. Dave says:


    I am not going to pass along your questions because: (1) you can find Mike quite easily if you are indeed really curious about what he thinks, and (2) just because a question is asked doesn’t make it a valid.

    Re: 1, the sincerity of your desire to find out really is questionable since you decided to make an unwarranted assumption publicly rather than do the very easy task of sending Mike an email.

    Re: 2, open-ended, implication-loaded questions like yours are the tool our culture uses to make insinuations while leaving room to say “It was just a question.” Because it wasn’t addressed to anybody specifically it simply served as a set up for someone like Brian to come along and offer his opinion. Next step will be someone to do a blog post telling how “many” are raising questions and think that …

    We’ve all got better, more important things to do today, so may the Lord help us to do it for His glory and His strength.

    • Hi Dave,

      In keeping with the ‘better things to do today’, I haven’t approved your post until those things are finished for the day out here.

      With respect to your comments, are you saying that Calvinism or not has no bearing on fellowship or separation issues? Would you say that you have never discontinued fellowship with other Christians over Calvinism? Are you saying that Mike’s statement doesn’t add any additional layers to the doctrine of separation?

      Here is his statement again:

      The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.

      Are we to conclude that only Calvinistic dispensational baptists need apply when it comes to Biblical separatism? Why am I wrong for asking the question?

      I suspect that we will not be able to come to any satisfactory conclusion to these questions, so you are welcome to bow out as you said you would. But I invite any other readers to point out any error I am making in wondering about these statements.

      I still think that Mike’s answer to these questions are highly unusual. I am astonished that Mike answered the question in the way he did.

      Don Johnson
      Jer 33.3

  5. Brian Ernsberger says:

    Dave, don’t put words in my mouth that are not there. Please re-read my post. I said,

    “are now themselves seemingly just steps away from doing the very same thing with their “issue” of Calvinism.”

    Note the word, “seemingly” and “just steps away from.”
    I did not say that they were doing this. You accuse me of jumping to conclusions when I have not jumped. Instead, you jumped to a conclusion which just isn’t in what I said.

  6. Dave says:


    You are assuming something that you need to actually substantiate, i.e., that anything about the conference theme is related to Calvinistic doctrine. You can see what is going to be covered and it’s not there.

    The logical fallacy which you continue to persist in is that you are assuming that because it is a conference with baptistic, dispensational, Calvinistic speakers that it will teach that fundamentalism should be limited to only those who believe likewise. It is the equivalent of seeing a conference on this theme by the Free Presbyterians and concluding that they would limit fundamentalism to those who are likeminded. It is a non sequitor (B does not follow from A).

    You should reread your first post on this and see the tension in your own statements. I refer particularly to your first three paragraphs in comparison with the line between the Aaron and Harding quotes. In the opening paragraphs you acknowledge that some have claimed (even clumsily) that Calvinism is being added to fundamentalist core tenets, but then you wonder what would prompt Aaron to ask this question. Doesn’t that strike you as contradictory? Why would you be surprised at Aaron’s question when you open by pointing out that some people think this? That doesn’t make sense.

    The fact is, Don, that Mike was interviewed at SI and there was a wide open door for you to ask Aaron or him for clarification on the matter, but you took a path that was intended to make a point, not get clarification. That’s fine, but don’t then duck behind the “it was just a question” defense.

  7. Dave says:


    Whatever. Using wiesel words so that you can make accusations under the guise of wondering out loud is just flat wrong. You offered no argument or evidence, so to say that anything “seems” like something else is bogus.

    Suppose I posted a comment somewhere like this, “Brian keeps joining forces in comment sections with PCC grads lately, is he seemingly just steps away from embracing that school’s attacks on BJU?” Then when you objected to it (which you would be completely right to do since mine was a pathetic accusation), I answered, “Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say you were, but used the words ‘seemingly’ and ‘just steps away.'” I hope you’d reply to that nonsense with, “Whatever.”

    This is serious stuff, Brian, so it deserves careful thought before we make public insinuations (which is what I called them). Tossing Calvinism into the mix serves well as a polarizing tactic, but it lacks substance. I can’t recall anybody ever accusing Calvary Lansdale, for instance, of being Calvinistic. Injecting Calvinism into the current debate regarding separation is a serious mistake precisely because it will shift the discussion away from what it really needs to focus on.

    • Dave, you are amazing!

      Well, I am not assuming anything. I am not hiding behind the “I’m asking a question” defense. I am asking questions, but Mike’s response to Aaron’s question makes me think that I am seeing a pattern that has been exhibited before.

      I appreciate that Calvary Lansdale is not Calvinistic. I am not talking about Calvary Lansdale. I am talking about First Baptist Troy and the “Michigan junta” (that’s a joke). It seems odd that Mike would answer the question the way he did if those theological distinctions have nothing to do with the nature of Biblical separation, the theme of the conference.

      True, I could have pointed it out on SI, but I have been having limited internet access the last few days and that thread quickly degenerated into a conversation about something totally unrelated. So I decided to make my pointed questions here. So sue me.

      Anyway, I clearly have your attention on this point. I wonder if you think my influence is so expansive that you need to waste your energy on the likes of me. You seem more than a little defensive.

      And, BTW, it’s “weasel” not “wiesel”. You’re welcome!

      Don Johnson
      Jeremiah 33.3

  8. Dave says:


    First, thanks for the correction on the spelling.

    Second, my comment about Lansdale was to Brian, not you.

    Third, the relative significance of your influence had nothing to do with my concerns about your post. I will agree, though, that it has proven mainly to be waste of energy. The small degree that has not been wasted, in my mind, is showing that yours was a bogus charge. The fact that you dodge and dismiss rather than answer my objection is sufficient proof of that.

    It’s very strange, Don, that you want to be taken seriously, but when someone does you question their use of time. One might think that someone whose ministry is being called into question has justification for spending time answering those questions. One could also wonder why someone being supported by churches to plant a church has time to do what you’ve done. At least I have the advantage of being able to say my responsibilities have direct bearing on the issue.

    • Well, Dave, can we keep it out of the level of personal attacks? I feel the temptations as well, but it won’t help us or the argument at all.

      I don’t think you have proven anything with respect to my questions. My questions didn’t come out of thin air, they were prompted by Aaron’s question and Mike’s response. That short exchange was astonishing to me. I couldn’t believe that Mike would accept the implication that Calvinism has anything to do with it. It recalled to mind certain past controversies in Michigan over the issue.

      You have, I think, demonstrated that for you Calvinism isn’t part of the equation for separation decisions. That’s good. But I still think the exchange between Aaron and Mike is bizarre.

      Do we need to say anything more about this?

      Don Johnson
      Jeremiah 33.3

  9. Nope.

  10. d4v34x says:

    Hi Don.

    I didn’t read all the above, but I think this is a simple issue. Lou Martuneac has been a longtime critic of SI. Similarly, Lou has been the loudest (only?) voice that the new fundamentalism+ ™ is has Calvinism as one of the main definers.

    Were I a bettor, I’d give dollars to doughnuts that Aaron asked that question in anticipation of more of the same from Lou.

    I know that four of the participants in that conference are Calvinisitic to some extent (hence Brother Harding’s answer), but its a long way from there to a Calvinism as a test of fellowship.

  11. d4v34x says:

    “If… the FBF is seen to becoming a Calvinist only organization, a host of others (including me) would head for the exits.”

    Would it be fair to infer from this statement that its author defines fundamentalism as Arminian or otherwise non-Calvinist?

  12. Keith says:


    I really have no horse in this race. I have no emotional need to defend Dave. I disagree with him almost as often as I disagree with you. Further, while I think the ministers involved with this conference have every right to get together and speak about whatever they want and invite whoever they want, and I think that these guys will do a better job with the topic than the vast majority of folks laying claim to the title fundamentalist, I would personally find this conference a waste of time.

    All that said, logically speaking, Dave is right here. The fact that Mike Harding answered Aaron that all of the speakers are (insert list of adjectives) does not logically imply that the speaker deny fellowship to those better described by other adjectives. What should Harding have done, covered up these guys beliefs? Then you could say, “He dodged the question, doesn’t that raise suspicions?”

    What’s even funnier — and more revealing of the bogus nature of this dispute — is that neither you nor Brian seem the least bit “concerned” or “troubled” by the fact that all the speakers are Baptist and Dispensationalist. I guess it’s ok to limit fellowship under those categories?

    Even by your criteria of “What Aaron asked,” it’s apparent that it’s ok to limit fellowship to baptists and dispensationalists, since Aaron didn’t ask about those qualifiers.

    Your post seems like it might be the result of personal animus thinly covered by feigned curiosity and objectivity. Could it be?

    Ah, feel the love of fundamentalism. I wonder why it’s not more influential?

    • Hi Keith,

      Maybe Dave is right. I don’t know. Here is how I would have answered such a question: the conference is about Biblical separation, the fact that the speakers happen to be Calvinisitic has nothing to do with the topic.

      End of story.

      Instead, what Mike said leads to further questions.

      That is all I have been saying. I think I have been saying the same thing in each reply I have given on this thread. If that is dodging and weaving, I guess standing still and saying the same thing is dodging and weaving.

      To All:

      I am about to get on the Ferry and head to Alberta. My dad is very very ill and may linger for some time or may pass on to heaven at any moment. I will have spotty internet access for some time now. If your posts are held up for lengthy periods of time, that will be the reason. I will be driving through the night tonight (after just having had Thanksgiving turkey). If you think of it, I’d appreciate your prayers along the way.

      Don Johnson
      Jeremiah 33.3

  13. Brian Ernsberger says:

    I said this to another “Dave” at another blogsite (maybe the two “Daves” are actually one, don’t know), you don’t know me, so until you do and can then possibly know whether or not I am implying things in statements, you should be taking my words at face value. There are no “weasel” words being used. I used the word “seemingly” deliberately, meaning that it may or may not be so. You have sought to make my open ended statement a closed, one sided statement. Why? I didn’t, I have drawn no conclusions but you did. If I had, I would have clearly stated them.
    You are right, this is serious stuff, so stop with the non-issue verbiage (Calvinism at Calvary Lansdale, or your supposed scenario, neither of which have any bearing on the issue at hand). As Don has already said, Aaron brought up Calvinism in his question to Mike and Mike made the statement, “The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic (emphasis mine).” The title to the conference is, “Preserving the Truth Conference: a symposium on biblical separation.” Don is correct in addressing this in his article. If our thoughts, inclinations are inaccurate then show us clearly where they are. I for one, would welcome the clarification.

  14. Brian Ernsberger says:

    I see that “Calvinistic” did not bold so my parenthetic statement looks out of place, sorry.

  15. Brian Ernsberger says:

    Will be praying for you and the family.

    To, Keith,
    As far as being “concerned or troubled” about the other two adjectives, “dispensational” or “baptistic,” have nothing to do with the Aaron’s question. Aaron’s question was about Calvinism, not dispensationalism or baptistic beliefs. The fact that Mike put them in there in answering the question, as had already been alluded to, has not helped to make this clear.
    Don’s “answer” to Aaron’s question is sound to me and would not have prompted an article in the first place.

  16. Keith says:

    You guys have clearly not had to answer questions publicly and on the fly for an organization. Or, if you have, you are not reading with the least bit of charity.

    Of course Don’s answer would be fine. However, there is nothing of concern in Mike’s answer — unless you have a beef with calvinism. He most likely was anticipating folks saying, “You guys are all calvinists,” and he wanted to make the point that they are not hyper-calvinists. So sue him for wanting to make another point than you and Don would make.

    Further, you can’t hang all of this on Aaron’s question. If Mike had answered, “No this isn’t a calvinist’s conference, it’s a baptist, dispensationalist conference on separatism,” I’m guessing that this post and the following discussion would not have happened.

    In current fundy land, baptist and dispensationalist is too often assumed. Which is too bad — that’s what everyone ought to be figuring out how to abandon. Come on in to the light of presbyterian, covenatalism — real calvinism.

  17. T. Pennock says:


    Will be praying for your father.


  18. Don,
    Unless someone was here trying to stand ‘in defense of the gospel’, why would anyone need to have Mike’s answer clarified as you posted in hypothetical fashion above? Is there ANY real evidence that Harding, Doran, or anyone associated with the conference is trying to redefine separatistic fundamentalism in light of a calvinistic metric? What if Mike’s answer were read in light of Philippians 2–giving him the benefit of the doubt. Do you understand that Harding works to connect to a broad range of men & ministries within fundamentalism–some clearly not as calvinistic as he? This post feels like someone else’s territory, not yours. We see many men and ministries reacting to the sins and excesses of fundamentalism, and they are often responding incorrectly. I come here because I can be sure that you will have a different take on their responses than many other men will have–and I often benefit from that other POV.But, in this case, I don’t get it, I don’t see the value of your speculation.

    It does seem that Harding’s answer reads like this: “We are baptistic, dispensationalists, and calvinistic, and while we wear the last descriptor, at the same time, we hold to a free offer and invitation of the Gospel (not hyper Calvinistic)…ummm, just like a lot of fundamentalists have been and are…and maybe it wouldn’t hurt some nonCalvinists to come and hear some messages on separtism.” I don’t offer this as a clarification, but how I think many might have heard him–mebbe even nonCalvinists…

    Sam Hendrickson

  19. Don:

    You wrote, “When did any soteriology beyond simple belief in salvation by faith alone become a distinguishing mark of fundamentalism and/or separatism?”

    This has been brewing for some time and we are seeing the front end of a definite division over Calvinism. IMO only I think the 2009 Danny Sweatt controversy followed by Bauder’s 3 part reaction may have been the proverbial straw that initiated this divide that appears to be growing. Personally I do not think there needs to be a divide over Calvinism itself, per se, never have.

    Furthermore, this new convergence and influence coming from Bauder and Doran to begin embracing evangelicals, sharing platforms with them and hosting them in pulpits and seminaries revolves around the magnetic attraction of Calvinism between them. Calvinism is the rallying point. The problem is that there are many non-Calvinists in IFB circles that will never agree to join Calvinists like Doran in the move to embrace like-minded Calvinists in evangelical circles. Hence the break is on.

    Calvinistic men in our circles are offering conferences for like-minded Calvinists and that is what they’ll have in attendance. They’ll be primarily preaching to the choir so to speak. They are within their rights to do that. BTW, I may be attending the PTC conference; two non-Calvinist friends are planning to attend and asked me to join them.

    I do not see this as separation in the classic biblical sense or even withdrawing from disobedient brethren, but there are many of us who will take our fellowship elsewhere rather than join and or give even tacit support to men who are moving toward evangelicalism.


  20. Roger Carlson says:

    Hi all,

    I will admit I did not read all of the posts here, so I am sorry if this was covered by someone.

    Several years ago a pastor in my region hosted a camp. He had a prof from a college come and speak and that prof was a Calvinist, as is the pastor.

    The pastor sent out flyers to local churches. Later, many were angry at him because they said he was trying to indoctrinate, in part, because he didnt disclose that the prof was a calvinist (this prof’s views were well known on the fundamental campus he taught at).

    It has been my experience that many non-calvinists don’t want to interact with calvinists. Had they not let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, they would have been castigated for not doing so. Calvinism is not the main point of the conference, but some of our fundamental brothers would not go if they knew the bent of some of these men. I think it is just fair to say, “this conference is about seperation, but you should know we are calvinistic so that might come up. So please, don’t be offended.”

    I know many non-calvinists who don’t want to fellowship with calvinists and it started way before the calvinist push back. I know this because, it was the non-calvinist calling calvinist heretics that drove me to study the issues further and actually took me from the “Biblicist camp” to the “Calvinistic” camp.

    • Hi all

      I don’t have time to go through each post and reply to individual points. Update on my dad: he has been transferred to the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton for hip surgery hopefully tomorrow. We waited all day only to find out it is cancelled today. Maybe tomorrow. Broke hip in hospital a week ago monday night. figured out hip broken on Friday. Still no surgery. Welcome to socialized medicine.

      My dad has many other issues. The surgery could kill him. If we don’t do the surgery, he will probably die anyway. So…


      With respect to our topic, and especially with respect to Sam’s post, let me propose a scenario:

      Suppose somebody like our friend Kent decided to host a conference on separation. Suppose everybody he invited was, like him, a KJO proponent of some kind. Suppose someone asked him this question:

      “I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for KJOs? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?”

      And Kent answered:

      “The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and KJO. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of Ruckmanism.”

      Would your reactions be similar to mine? Would you question such a conference with this kind of description as possibly being somehow “Fundamentalism-PLUS”?

      I expect the guys who generally agree with me to see the things the way I do. So far no one who tends to take a different point of view has agreed with me, so I concede I could be in error. Sam’s answer in particular got me thinking this way. So if you all would think about my reverse scenario and compare it with Mike’s answers for the actual conference and tell me how I am misreading it, if so.


      Don’t know when I will be able to get back to this internet cafe, if at all, so please bear with me on posting comments and replies.

      Don Johnson
      Jer 33.3

      Nuts… internet cafe won’t let me post on my own blog… sigh… so more later. sometime.

  21. Don,
    praying for your father and your family. Am chewing on your response…

  22. d4v34x says:

    Don, I’m praying for your Dad. Hope to hear good news soon.

    The problem with your Kent B analogy is he actually seperates over false bibliology.

    And as I note above (and in response to Lou) such Arminians as Sweatt and Johnson seem ready to leave an organizations that get “too Calvinist”.

    If the Calvinists felt the same way (and my sense is they don’t– at least I don’t) what’s the difference?



    • To all

      So my dad made it out of surgery this AM. We had two full days of waiting, no food for him till late in the day after surgery canceled. He is still a bit out of it from the anasthesia, but we made it past this hurdle. I was very afraid of him having a heart attack on the table. Of course, he would have then been in heaven… so I am a little conflicted! At any rate, he is still with us and the Lord has seen fit to let us have him a bit longer. I’ll write more on my dad when I get a minute, but I appreciate your prayers as we went through this hurdle.

      Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming…

      d4-Dave, I hear you wrt to Kent. I do have some friends who would describe themselves as KJO and are willing to cooperate across that divide, so let’s propose them as hosts. Of course, none are so imposing or as well known as Kent, but…

      As to Keith’s tempting offer, the whole evangelical scene has its temptations. I wouldn’t have to become a Presby to get into much more well funded territory and still be a Baptist. But I have given my life to an entirely Fundamentalist philosophy. Too many irreconcilable differences with evangelicalism to move me enough to move there.

      Don Johnson
      Jer 33.3

  23. d4v34x says:

    On the other hand, some days an offer like Keith’s is awfully tempting.

  24. Roger:

    You wrote, “Calvinism is not the main point of the conference, but some of our fundamental brothers would not go if they knew the bent of some of these men. ”

    That is a fair assessment. It is because the 1) Calvinistic soteriology and 2) new direction toward evangelicalism of some of the speakers is known why many IFB brothers will not attend. It is primarily the latter, IMO.


  25. Brian Ernsberger says:

    To Keith,
    Personally, if Aaron’s question would have lead with either Baptist or Dispensation instead of Calvinism, yes, I would be bringing this up even though I am a Baptist and Dispensational. As has been said a couple of different times, not one of these three words have anything to do specifically with Biblical separation. Don’s premise is correct, is this Fundamentalism Plus?

  26. Roger Carlson says:

    I have been to busy to be to any blogs since I posted. Don, glad to hear about your Dad.

  27. d4v34x says:

    Don, your latest rework of the question undoes the power of the question.

    There are people in the church I attend (which is not KJVO) that are KJVO. They are willing to cooperate with us and we with them, in the same local body.

    My pastor is not a Calvinist. I am, more or less. He is very respectful when we discuss issues that tread close to soteriology, and I hope I follow his example as well as he leads in it.

    I have no reason to think that Bauder, Doran, et al, will not similarly interact with men who believe differently about certain aspects of soteriology than they believe.

    PS: Its not the evangelicalsm so much as the fully reformed thing that tempts. And that was 3/4 tongue in cheek anyway.

    • d4, well, that rework was just for you anyway. I think my point is relatively clear. I think it is a legitimate question to raise and it is partly coupled with my knowledge of past history in the Great Lakes state.


      To all:

      I am back in my home town, I want to do a few errands for my mom around the house, then head back to the hospital in Edmonton tomorrow. I will not be able to get home for Sunday, our men will handle the services.

      My dad is still not out of the woods. He still has a case of pneumonia, along with other chronic difficulties. Our prayer is that if the Lord intends to take my dad home that he would have the grace of a speedy and relatively painless exit, and if the Lord intends to leave my dad on earth for a bit longer that he would overcome this illness quickly with as little suffering as possible. He is in the Lord’s hands.

      Don Johnson
      Jer 33.3

  28. Don,

    It’s a real blessing to have extra time with your Dad. You may or may not know that my Mom passed away last year. She is in heaven, and we are certainly happy about that, but those she left behind still miss her dearly.