Entries Tagged 'Evangelicalism' ↓

I’d like to comment on myself this time. In my post on ‘the vision thing’, I made this comment:

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side.

Others have noticed this difference also. The Conservative Evangelical brand is largely led by ministries centered around prominent individuals. The Fundamentalist brand, these days, really has no star power in its leaders and it tends to find whatever leadership it has in collective efforts, rather than in individual ministries.

That is a generalization, of course. There are, I suppose, some exceptions to the rule, but I think the generalization holds.

For example, when you think Conservative Evangelical, you think of a list of names: Dever, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. Some of these men represent institutions and work closely with a number of other men, but there is a sense that they are the focal point of the brand.

On the other hand, when you think Fundamentalism, what comes to mind? Bob Jones University, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, Maranatha, Detroit, Central, the Wilds, etc. Of course, individuals lead these ministries and fill up their staffs, but I would suggest that even fairly well informed observers would have to think a bit to get the individual leaders of ALL of these ministries. On the CE side, if we simply named 9Marks, Desiring God, Sovereign Grace, Southern Seminary, Grace to You… most observers – regular readers of this blog – would be able to put the names to those ministries without any effort.

Isn’t that a curious difference? It wasn’t always so in Fundamentalism. And that involves both an irony and a sign of generational change.

Continue reading →

I’ve been involved in one of our interminable discussions of the state of fundamentalism on another blog. The topic of conversation shifted from the original post somewhat and one comment from a pastor in California brought up the idea of ‘vision’.

He suggests that it is easy to summarize in a few short words or a phrases the essential vision of various evangelical ministries, but questions whether that is true of fundamentalist ministries or institutions. I don’t happen to think that he is right, but he seems to think that the ‘visions’ of the evangelicals are more compelling than the lack of vision of fundamentalists.

Another complicating factor in making these comparisons is that the ‘competing’ ministries are represented by ministries strongly identified with a popular individual on the conservative evangelical side as opposed to more institutional or group oriented ministries/organizations on the fundamentalist side. In some ways we aren’t really comparing apples to apples here.

Having said that, the idea of ‘vision’ (or ‘mission statements’) leaves me cold. Too much corporate psycho-babble for me.

I wonder, however, if a few readers would like to chime in on the subject by giving us their brief ‘vision statements’ for the various ministries mentioned. Here is the list:

• 9Marks
• Ligonier
• Grace To You
• Desiring God
• BJU
• FBFI
• Sword of the Lord

I am going to post the complete post I am reacting to after the jump, so I would suggest that it would be best if you write out your vision/mission statements first, without looking at the post or other comments. Then click through to my comments section and post your reaction.

We can discuss various other aspects of this post as well, but let’s start with how well we can define these ministries without looking up their mission statements on their web-sites or doing any research about them. If you aren’t that familiar with a ministry, ‘I don’t know’ is an acceptable response.

More below…

Continue reading →

Consider the word ‘conservative’. What does it mean?

Let’s try Dictionary.com

Continue reading →

I’m a little late to the party, but it seems to me that so far one point is missing from all the discussion of the manhattan declaration.

The fundamentalist reaction, all over the place, is to note that the declaration is a serious compromise of the gospel by its declaration that all signers are Christians. I’ll not repeat all of the analysis on this point, you can find that elsewhere.

The evangelical reaction is mixed. Some fairly conservative names have signed the document while others have notably and publicly made their opposition clear. Al Mohler is a prominent conservative signatory while John MacArthur is a prominent non-signatory.

Dave Doran comments in one of his blogs on the subject:

Thankfully, to this point Dr. Mohler has kept a theological edge that has prevented him from fully embracing the ecumenical path of men like Timothy George and Chuck Colson. I hope he never loses that edge. Well, truth be told, I really hope he slides closer to John MacArthur’s position.

This quotation contains all the elements of the one point I’d like to highlight and poses a serious question for the rising neo-fundamentalists who seem to want closer ties to the conservative camp.

Continue reading →

I am in my home town, assisting my parents in a move out to the coast so that our family can more directly care for them in their old age. Today I went to church with my dad. It was in this church that I grew up and had my first preaching opportunities. It is a church almost 100 years old. It has had a significant impact on many lives during its existence, including at least 5 men in the ministry from its young people just in my generation.

The style of service and many doctrinal issues make this a church I could no longer have close fellowship with, even if the Lord had brought me back to my home province for my ministry. I rarely attend here, not usually visiting my parents over a Sunday. In the last 27 years, I have probably been in the church for one of its services less than 5 times.

Continue reading →

… to steal a phrase.

I ran across an article about the Reformed Church in America at the Christian news site, Christian Post. Entitled “Reformed Church in America Is Imploding, Professor Says”, the article describes turmoil in a denomination I don’t know a lot about.

Several things struck me about the way the conflict was described however. Note these key paragraphs:

Amid years of contention between liberals and conservatives over issues such as the civil-rights movement, women’s ordination and evangelism with regard to social witness, Luidens says "loyalists" emerged to keep the denomination together. They were more dedicated to denominational survival than to ideological purity, he notes.

Though the two extremes were held together then, today many liberals have left the RCA in significant numbers and conservatives have shifted their target to the loyalists and continue to "rail against ‘liberalism,’" he says.

Now before anyone shrieks, ‘none of these people are fundamentalists’, let me say I am quite aware of that. But the conflict illustrates exactly what fundamentalism is all about, how it came into existence, and why a need for it still exists.

Continue reading →

The analogy of map and compass is a useful one for considering our navigation the ‘wilderness of this world’ and especially useful for navigating the ecclesiastical wilderness.

For a good understanding of the analogy, though, one must have some understanding of how maps and compasses work. A much more full description can be found from a chapter of a book, The Backpacker’s Field Manual, excerpted here on the Princeton University site, but I’ll attempt a bit in this post.

I suppose when we think of ‘mapping’ the locations on the ecclesiastical landscape, we probably envision a political map, with nation-states and their boundaries. Such maps seem fairly objective and definite in allocating the bounds of various domains, but they are of limited value for navigation.

Continue reading →

There’s something right and something wrong about the "compass and map" analogy. The purpose of the analogy is to teach us that it is more important to have the right philosophy and direction (spiritual discernment) internally rather than depend upon uncertain and changeable labels that might be attached to various individuals in the ecclesiastical world.

I think we can agree with the point being made to this extent: it is vital that men in the ministry develop their spiritual discernment so that they can wisely guard the flocks the Lord gives them. This includes making decisions about who you might enter into ministry partnership with and who you might recommend as a resource to your people, or why you might give various levels of cautions concerning some resources.

Likewise, men in the ministry need to be able to develop the same kind of discernment in those whom they train for future ministry.

And it is more important to understand the Biblical principles of separation than it is to know exactly where every prominent figure in the current ecclesiastical landscape stands. We need to understand the principles ourselves to make good judgements and evaluations.

Continue reading →

Most of my focus is on the independent Baptist perspective, but I ran across a recent conference that might be of interest from the perspective of denominationalists. The conference was called “Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism”. It was held at Union University, October 6-9. You can read summaries of each session here and access the audio here.

Here are a couple of quotes that might be of interest to fundamentalists:

David Dockery:

Fundamentalists were unable to discern the difference between those who denied the deity of Christ and those who engaged in card-playing.

Can you feel the love?

Duane Litfin:

Evangelicalism broke free from the ghetto of fundamentalism, remaining mostly fundamentalist in theology, while demonstrating openness to intellectual and cultural engagement.

Dave Doran gives us some thoughts on movements in general and the fundamentalist movement in particular.

In general, I think he is right. For a movement to exist, you have to be moving somewhere.

Given this understanding of movement, it is also correct to say that there is no longer a new-evangelical movement. But it isn’t correct to say there are no new-evangelicals or no new-evangelicalism. The philosophy is alive and well and expressed by many evangelicals repeatedly. It won’t do to say that new-evangelicalism is dead simply because the movement has ceased.

Among fundamentalists, there does seem to be a movement to push fundamentalism into some kind of alliance with evangelicals. We have been calling this movement the ‘young fundamentalists’. Some of us have been resisting this movement. Speaking for myself, my resistance to this movement is largely due to the fact that I don’t think the YFs truly understand either fundamentalism or evangelicalism and the entrenched divisions between them.