Entries Tagged 'Personalities' ↓

Within fundamentalism, ongoing discussion of our views and practices inevitably leads to a discussion of worldliness. Traditionally fundamentalism has called for a separation not only from false teachers and modernism but also for a separation from the world. Fundamentalism has spoken out against an attitude of worldliness developing in the church.

In Dave Doran’s recent presentations concerning separation, he touched on the area of worldliness, some of which I objected to earlier. He continues this discussion by putting into writing a good deal of the material he covered in the presentations. This article deals with worldliness.

Dave starts off with a reasonable definition of worldliness:

Worldliness is having a heart and mind shaped by the world’s beliefs and values so that we engage in its sinful pleasures and pursue earthly treasures.

So far, so good. You can read any number of articles on worldliness and come up with similar definitions.

But it is the expansion of this definition that I find … what? Curious? Unusual? Discordant? Troubling? Perhaps all of the above…

Continue reading →

In response to the recent MACP presentation on separation, I posted some questions. Today, I’d like to post a few objections. That is not to say I object to the basic concepts concerning separation as presented, I thought that was quite helpful. But I do have some objections to particulars and I think they should be noted.

Continue reading →

Since Dave Doran’s blog has no comments and he sometimes comments here, I thought I’d ask some questions.

I have listened to the audio of his first two presentations at the recent Mid-America Conference on Preaching. I have to say that in general I am in agreement with what he is teaching about ecclesiastical separation. We may differ on some points of application, but as to philosophy, biblical grounds and motivation, I think Dave has it basically right. (I am sure he is relieved to know I think so!) I would encourage anyone to listen to the audio for their own instruction.

But I do have some questions:

Continue reading →

One could come to that conclusion by reading Kevin Bauder’s latest. He is continuing his unproven thesis:

My thesis has been that the early Fundamentalist movement was deeply influenced by Common Sense Realism, populism, and sentimentalism.

And is now asserting:

Because of these three influences, the Fundamentalist movement was never dedicated purely to defending the faith. To some extent, its defense of the faith always presumed and included a defense of the ideals of Common Sense, populism, and sentimentalism.

As evidence he cites the example of Billy Sunday, who, he says, was defending Victorianism as over against the ‘flapper’ lifestyle of the Jazz Age. If this defense of culture is truly a characteristic of Fundamentalism, should Fundamentalism instead have embraced the Jazz Age culture?

I don’t think that is where Bauder would want to go, but would such a conclusion be out of place, given his arguments?

Continue reading →

Dave Doran gives us more concerning the fragmentation and death of the fundamentalist movement as such. There is a good deal of truth to his observations concerning the lack of unifying goals and the center of biblical focus for Christian unity and ministry.

He concludes:

The center of God’s will for this dispensation is in the local church (1 Tim 3:15). That’s where the unity of the Spirit is to be preserved in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). The local church has been charged with the task of carrying out the Great Commission (since baptizing is an ordinance of the church). The movement that ought to matter most to us is one that aims to plant churches that will reproduce in every place where the name of Christ has not been named, and that movement must spring from local churches in order to be biblical. Sign me up for that movement.

I once met a preacher who told me that he wasn’t much for going to conferences and getting known. He just preferred to stay home and “hoe corn” (he pastored in the Midwest).

So in light of this non-movement movement sentiment, I wonders:

Continue reading →

In light of comments to the first edition of this article, I have decided to rewrite what I wrote. My original article including the comments can be found here. After reviewing my earlier article, I find that, as is often the case, I am too reactionary and too sarcastic. Hopefully this effort will prove to be at least less sarcastic.

In Kevin Bauder’s ongoing series purporting to retell the story of fundamentalism, he makes two charges against Fundamentalism, one that Fundamentalism settles for an abbreviated form of Christianity and the other that Fundamentalism is guilty of adding elements that are not necessary to Christianity.

The charges are stated thus:

On one hand, as an actual, historical movement, Fundamentalism has often tended to settle for an abbreviated form of Christianity. Though clear exceptions exist, it has often sacrificed doctrinal breadth and detail. On the other hand, Fundamentalism has also tended to add elements that are not necessary to any form of biblical Christianity. Over the next few essays, I wish to explore three of these additions: Common Sense Realism, populism, and sentimentalism.

This paragraph is the premise for the article that follows dealing with the philosophy of Scottish Common Sense Realism and the next article  which focuses on populism. We will shortly see an article about sentimentalism (presumably).

The way this premise is stated, it appears that these flaws are intrinsic to Fundamentalism. They are stated as if they are uniquely Fundamentalist problems and as if they are major stumbling blocks to Fundamentalist success.

Continue reading →

Isn’t this exactly what some fundamentalists are doing with evangelicals they admire for one reason or another?

It is not helpful when fundamentalists try to discredit the evangelistic fruitfulness of Graham’s ministry or when evangelicals use that fruitfulness to justify all of Graham’s associations and actions. Both attempts are rooted in the same false assumption—God can only use those who are perfectly obedient (or close to it). … The evangelical, coming from the opposite angle but with the same assumption, feels compelled to argue that since God used Graham, what Graham was doing can’t be wrong (or, at least, not that bad).

Dave is giving some good analysis in his series of articles, but this paragraph seems to describe precisely the problem I have with the way some fundamentalists talk about their evangelical ‘faves’.

And I have one other point where I want to make a mild objection.

Continue reading →

Piper, Driscoll Stay Passionate for Mission amid Criticisms – Christian Post

Baptist theologian John Piper and emerging church pastor Mark Driscoll are teaming up this week for an anticipated conference on the "resurgence of the local church."

"Advance," opening on Thursday in Durham, N.C., is just one of many events the two pastors have come together for in recent years.

What produces this incredible weakness in Piper?

Exactly! What I have been saying with respect to the blasphemer is that he is not doctrinally sound. The repeated disclaimer for not completely rejecting the blasphemer and refusing to refrain from all recommendation of him is that he is ‘doctrinally sound’. Sound doctrine doesn’t produce blasphemous behaviour. And close scrutiny, says Dave, will show that the ‘sound doctrine’ isn’t really all that sound.

So what is behind the seemingly compulsive qualification of so many who write disclaimers¹ for the blasphemer to include, “Well, he’s doctrinally sound”?

Could it be…

Continue reading →

1. P.S. I can’t wait for Dave’s entry for me in his new “Disclaimerpedia”. I am sure it will be a doozy. [↩]

Our friend Dave references “a blogger” who answered his question regarding appreciating Piper without having one’s fundamentalist convictions questioned. That blogger, according to Dave, answered the question:

Here’s his answer: “So I would answer the question, No.”

He carries on discussing this as if that is all there is to the answer. He never links to the unnamed blogger so that you can read the context and judge for yourself if DMD is representing him fairly (bad netiquette, Dave).

As you know, it is possible that Dave could be referring to my answer given on this site. We don’t know for sure, because the quoted portion above isn’t exactly like my answer.

However,  Dave does offer a quote from the comments section that is word for word from my comments:

And I really think it may be unbelievable because in the comment section that follows, the same man writes, “Well, I am not saying don’t appreciate the good that such men do, although we may debate what is good and what isn’t.”

So … let’s make these points:

1. It really isn’t legitimate to attack another blog without providing links so that readers can evaluate context.
2. It has never been my position that it is wrong to use or appreciate the work of men with whom I would not join in ministry partnership with.
3. My complaint on this point is that so-called fundamentalist educators, pastors, leaders have been guilty in recent years of unreserved enthusiasm for men with serious ministry flaws. My answer to Dave’s question wasn’t a bare “No” as he suggests. I gave reasons for it which he conveniently ignores.

I’d be interested if Dave would have the courtesy to deal with the entire argument, not misrepresent what was said for his own purposes.