Archives for February 2007

Yesterday was my dad’s eightieth birthday. I don’t want the day to slip by without some thoughts on the man who is the single biggest influence on my life of any mortal man on earth. My dad was raised on a homestead in central Alberta during the depression and World War II. I remember begging my dad to tell me the stories from the farm and of the war every chance I got. I marveled at how he could remember the details of the ebb and flow of the war, but of course, he lived through it. He learned that in life you must sacrifice in order to reach success. Everyone had to in those years. Some did better than others, but all who survived it learned to sacrifice. That is something that is lost on the present generations, including my own.

My dad as a young man drifted through several different jobs, many in the oilfields of Alberta, just opening up in those days. His home had a Christian mother and a diffident father – spiritually, he was confused, but he did have an acquaintance with the gospel. As a young man, after a crisis experience, he received godly counsel from one pastor (perhaps the point of his conversion) and then was discipled by another pastor. He was working in the oilpatch near my home town and attending a small gospel preaching church in town where he met my mother. They married and set out to establish a Christian home.

My dad became a business man in my home town – working the graveyard shift on the oil rigs and running his general insurance business during the day. He would sometimes be so tired customers would have to wake him up to do business. After some time he left the oilpatch behind and was full time in his business. He became successful and fairly well respected, serving our town as a municipal councilor and as acting mayor to fill out the term of a mayor who died while in office. He ran unsuccessfully for the provincial legislature on two occasions, both bitter disappointments to me, but my dad looks back and thinks it was probably better for us that he didn’t win.

More than anything that I appreciate about my dad is that he always took the time to talk to me. He taught me that being in business didn’t mean the abandonment of Christianity or integrity. He taught me a Christian world-view (though I am sure he wouldn’t think of it in those terms!) I well remember riding long highway trips with him (in Alberta we have lots of long, straight highways between towns miles apart). On those trips we would talk or listen to Christian men on the radio. Some were better than others and we would discuss them. He took me to Bible conferences at Prairie Bible Institute in Three Hills, AB. Those were stirring occasions. He took us to sumer camp, sometimes taking the week off to serve as a counselor at camp. He served in our local church in various offices.

My dad certainly wouldn’t claim to be perfect and he won’t be until he is caught up to glory. But my dad is a Christian man of integrity to whom I owe my physical and spiritual life. When I was but a wee lad, my dad explained the gospel to me and I trusted Jesus Christ as my Saviour.

Today, I thank God for my dad – he suffers today from Parkinson’s disease, his energy levels are not what they once were, but he’s doing pretty well for the shape he’s in! And inside a weakening body there still lives that faith that comes from Jesus Christ and the great work of God in providing eternal salvation for sinful men. One day that faith will make that body perfect, like the Lord’s, for my dad will see Him as He is!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Well, here we are, with an entry… I am in the midst of renovating the second half of my duplex, sold the other half in November. So my time is cramped for sure. Right now I am in the midst of painting. I have put in three days of painting so far and it looks like another day and a half to go, hopefully Monday and Tuesday of next week. Did I mention that I hate painting? Give me drywall mud any day. At any rate, things are really coming into shape on the reno. One of my deacon’s is helping me. He got the kitchen cabinets installed for me this week while I painted.

In the meantime, we are managing to keep up with our New Testament study guides and sermons as we work our way chronologically through the New Testament. Last Sunday was all Ephesians, the first installment in our study of the prison epistles. It seems to me that in the writing ministry of the apostle Paul the Lord used him to teach Christians concerning Christian living in a progressive sort of way. First he dealt with disciplinary matters as the church was being ‘hewn from the rock’ of Gentile paganism with Galatians and the Corinthian epistles. The Thessalonian epistles were written between these two, dealing with important eschatological questions and pastoral assurances. I suppose we ‘forget’ about those two epistles more than any others of Paul’s, except perhaps Philemon. In Roman’s Paul comprehensively explains the theology of salvation, without a doubt one of the most critical books for our understanding of the gospel. From the disciplinary/eschatological beginnings of Paul’s ‘corpus’ [don’t you love scholarly words?], we move to theology, and then we move to the heavenlies… that is what Ephesians is all about, especially the idea of the heavenly blessings realized now in the church of the Living God. In Colossians we are called to set our affections on things above, especially the pre-eminent Christ. Philippians also gives us high doctrine in the ‘kenosis’ passage, the doctrine of the incarnation. The theology of these books are intended to stir up Christian graces in our lives, real practical Christian living. Theology is essential for this, the contemporary pulpiteer who eschews theology and preaches only ‘practical’ messages can give no solid ground for people to live the Christian life by faith. The only basis for ‘Christian living’ in such preaching is the pragmatic benefit of living a sober life, and the only power is will power, not faith. Paul’s writing closes out with practical matters, four personal epistles written to individuals (Philemon, the two Timothys, and Titus), but high theology intersperses the work. I think Paul was involved in Hebrews as well, but I’ll leave my theory on that one until we get to it.

In Ephesians, our first message was about the Church. Entitled “The Great Mystery Revealed” from Eph 1-3, I discussed the great plan of God, determined before the foundation of the world but only revealed in the NT era, the mystery of the Church. The church is formed individually, when individuals are saved by grace through faith, and corporately, when the Gentiles and Jews are taken from where they were to become one new body, not what they used to be. This whole concept involves the manifold wisdom and love of God, for the blessing of the whole church and the praise of the Lord’s name. This message involves discussing something God wants us to know. After that comes those things that God wants us to do, but those come in the next two messages.

The second message was also about the church, but more involved with our place in it and how we should be functioning. Entitled “One Body“, it covered Eph 4.1-16. The idea of this message was that because of the mystery revealed to us [and in us] (Eph 1-3), there is an imperative for the believer: unite with the body of Christ, especially as it is seen in a local church. There is a call to a mind of unity with the brethren, seven uniting reasons are given (centered around the persons of the Trinity), and gifts are given to the body for the purpose of uniting it in the image of Christ. The whole point of this message is that God has a place for you in a local church and you are obliged to fulfill it.

The third message covered the rest of Ephesians, 4.16-6.24. I called it “The New Walk“. The new walk begins with a renewed mind, the renewed mind displays itself by putting off the old man and putting on the new man, especially for the sake of the body: ex., put off stealing, work, so that you may be able to bless others. The renewed mind involves renewed relationships: marriage, family (parent/child), employment (master/servant). Having changed your mind about how to live, the apostle finally calls the believer to stand against the wiles of the devil, fully equipped with the armor of God.

On Wednesday, we moved on to Philippians (which some think was written last of the four prison epistles). The message for this evening was entitled: “Humility and How to Attain It“. A major theme of Philippians is humility. Paul’s words concerning himself and his devotion to the gospel are an example to us (even when rivals preach it out of envy, hoping to hurt him; or when it might mean his execution). From this, Paul exhorts the Philippians to adopt his mind, by adopting a manner of life worthy of the gospel, and by adopting a mind like Christ. The apostle points to the example of the humility and humiliation of in his incarnation and crucifixion, Christ as the ultimate example for us to follow, leading him to exhort us once again to work (for it is God working in you). My proposition for this message was: “Humility is a state of mind produced by a commitment to self-sacrificial giving.”

Well that catches us up. I will now retreat into my mad dash to prepare for the weekend, then next week, more painting!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

‘Sight’ that tingles

You need to read this article. For the technologically oriented, it will be interesting, but for the preacher, the story is priceless. One to save for the illustration file. The article is about a device that allows the blind to ‘see’. Very interesting, and to me, quite moving.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

In a recent on-line conversation [note, in a software upgrade, the conversation comments were lost] I brought up points made by Ernest Pickering in his book The Tragedy of Compromise. Here are the points:

Pickering cites 6 factors that spurred the rise to NE in his book, The Tragedy of Compromise. They are:

1. A reaction to what was perceived as excessive negativism on the part of fundamentalists.

2. A desire to be accepted by the scholarly world.

3. The influence of training in liberal institutions.

4. The general mindset and spirit of the age.

5. A reaction to the criticism that fundamentalism lacked a vision for social action.

6. A growing ecumenical spirit which viewed fundamentalism as too separatistic. [Pickering, pp. 8-10]

In bringing up these points, I was comparing the attitudes which gave rise to Evangelicalism to the spirit that seems to animate a good deal of what is called ‘the Young Fundamentalists’ today. My contention is that with some modification, the attitudes of the YFs are essentially the same as those of the New Evangelicals. I suggested changing the word “scholarly” in #2 and the word “liberal” in #3 to “evangelical”.

In the conversation, Ben Wright of Paleoevangelical disagreed with me. Here is the challenge he issued at the end of the conversation:

I would like some specific examples from you (since you asked for such from me) of how YFdom has been influenced by those factors, particularly #s 2 and 3, even with your replacement of “evangelical.” I’m really curious who you’re talking about. And that doesn’t imply that I think your replacement of “liberal” with “evangelical” maintains the validity of the analogy. I really don’t.

When I cited the points, I didn’t have anyone in particular in mind, but since Ben recently graduated from Southeastern Theological Seminary, I realize that he may have thought I was directly attacking him on that score. Ahh… I really didn’t think of that when I mentioned Pickering’s points, Ben, but if my contention is correct, the application may be warranted.

But let me talk about similarities in the YF world to each of these points:

1. A reaction to what was perceived as excessive negativism on the part of fundamentalists.

I grew up in a little evangelical church on the prairies of Alberta. I went away to Bob Jones University in the mid 1970s and became a fundamentalist. I have many friends [and know others] from my school days who reacted to the negativisim in fundamentalism then. They ended up as evangelicals. The YFs today are singing the same song. I really don’t see how there is ANY difference between the attitude of the evangelicals of the 50s and later in the 70s and the YFs today. Same song, different verse.

2. A desire to be accepted by the scholarly world.

The parallel here is not exact. I suggested replacing the word ‘scholarly’ with ‘evangelical’ above, but that isn’t quite right. There does seem to be a desire by young fundamentalists to be accepted by the evangelical scholarly world, which isn’t quite the same, at least in application, as the desires of the evangelicals of the 50s. Nevertheless, I don’t see a difference in philosophy, simply a difference in direction. When I posted the list I had in mind my friends who were all enamoured with Dallas Theological Seminary in the 80s, for example, or the many young fellows I hear of these days heading off to Masters. Southeastern would fit the category also, as would many others.

That is not to say that the motive for attending such schools is purely for acceptance in the evangelical scholarly world, or that there may be legitimate reasons for pursuing such training for a fundamentalist. I suppose that one would have to know the motivations in each case to be able to completely certain for any one person, but it does seem odd for young men heading for a Fundamentalist pastoral ministry to spend precious years and dollars in the training of men whose pastoral philosophy is not the same as that of Fundamentalism. I suspect that most young fellows who leave a fundamentalist church background or fundamentalist undergraduate program for such training aren’t planning much in the way of a fundamentalist ministry career.

3. The influence of training in liberal institutions.

Again, the parallel is not exact. I acknowledge that the YF men are antagonistic towards liberalism, and that they are not training in liberal institutions. But in keeping with my comments above, I don’t see how training in evangelical institutions will tend towards producing men with a fundamentalist philosophy of ministry. In addition to the institutions, I would suggest that today young men are reading evangelical authors and being tremendously influenced by their teaching. One can’t ‘ban books’ but the young men today should be cautioned concerning discernment and should probably be developing their abilities for critical thinking rather than becoming enamoured with the current stars of evangelicalism because they seem to be conservative and they might happen to tout my favorite theological points.

So, no, YF men are not being influenced by liberal institutions, in this they are different from the evangelicals. But who can deny they are being more influenced by evangelical institutions than fundamentalist institutions? How are they likely to end up as fundamentalists with that kind of influence?

4. The general mindset and spirit of the age.

On this point, I think the young people called Young Fundamentalists are exactly like the evangelicals of yesteryear. The spirit of the age in the 50s was a confident, modern era. The evangelicals embraced it and expected to transform it by engaging it. Today the spirit is different somewhat, but the YFs are embracing the questioning, anti-authoritarian, worldly mindset of the age in large numbers. Witness the lengthy debates on the YFs favorite internet forum on the permissability of drinking alcohol or permissiveness concerning movie watching or any number of other topics. Notice how anyone who wishes to speak to them with a ‘thus saith the Lord’ is hooted down and laughed to scorn. The spirit of the age is upon us, and not in a little way.

5. A reaction to the criticism that fundamentalism lacked a vision for social action.

I suppose there ar varying degrees of reaction in this particular area. Some are more involved in social action than others. I also suppose that the jury is somewhat still out on whether or not the efforts of YFs in the area of social action are legitimate or detrimental to the cause of Christ. It is undeniable that some of the YFs have criticized fundamentalism at large for a failure to involve themselves in social efforts. We are not talking merely about a debate about appropriate methodology. That debate rages in the secular and evangelical spheres as well. The distinguishing mark made by this point is that there is a criticism of fundamentalism because of its supposed lack of compassion. For an example of this, read some of Bob Bixby’s comments in relation to his efforts. I am not critiquing Bob here, per se. But it is undeniable that he and others complain about fundamentalism’s lack of social vision. How are these critiques different from those of the evangelicals of the 50s towards fundamentalists?

6. A growing ecumenical spirit which viewed fundamentalism as too separatistic.

Ben didn’t like this point too much in our discussion as I recall. As I understand what he was saying, he seemed to resist the attachment of the label ‘ecumenical’ to young fundamentalists (or to conservative evangelicals for that matter). First, if we simply say ‘a growing broad spirit of openness’, we can get to the heart of this point. The evangelicals viewed fundamentalism as too separatistic. Can anyone deny that YFs criticise fundamentalists as being too separatistic? That is what this openness to MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Piper, et al, is all about. In this area in particular, the YFs are most like the early evangelicals.

One thing further on this point… Ecumenism is as ecumenism does. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of ecumenical:

1 : worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
2 a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.

The tendency towards wider Christian unity or cooperation is an ecumenical tendency. It is certainly not what a separatist is doing. To the extent one criticises separation, to that extent he is tending towards wider cooperartion. Though the YFs may not be full blown ecumenicals, seeking to unite the entire professing church world-wide, I submit that neither are the evangelicals. But the direction is the same. I am not against Christian unity, but I am also not for unity with all Christians, including many whom I consider to be true believers. The YFs are trending in the opposite direction.

~~~

I suppose these answers are not specific enough, although they have been specific in some cases. Nevertheless, I do see a parallel between the attitude of the Young Fundamentalists and the evangelicals of the 50s and 60s. I left the older bunch by choice. It appears this younger crowd is joining them by choice.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3