Archives for June 2009

A frequent commenter on SI poses an interesting question: shall we separate over Calvinism. He cites these precedents:

• Protestant Reformers did not allow latitude on this issue
• When Melanchthon drifted away from Luther’s views, other Reformed people considered them as “other” than them
• The Dortians condemned the Remonstrants
• The Particular Baptists and the General Baptists operated separately
• The Calvinistic Methodists and the Wesleyan Methodists operated separately

Another commenter replies, noting that such division is essentially sectarianism. Fundamentalism, with whatever faults it may be charged with, has essentially been non-sectarian in its philosophy and approach. It is a philosophy that created ecclesiastical coalitions around a common cause, generally laying aside more narrow sectarian concerns.

Thus, we have seen such gatherings as the World Congress of Fundamentalists, efforts to pool fundamentalist thought from the preaching and teaching of men of quite broad sectarian backgrounds. Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, men of other groups, all have been welcome at the table in this common cause.

Some gatherings of fundamentalists, to be sure, have been somewhat sectarian in their efforts. The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship would be one such gathering. It is both Fundamentalist and Baptist. Its goal is to promote the broader fundamentalist philosophy within a Baptist ecclesiastical framework. But being fundamentalist, it has not historically been particular about the distinctions among Baptists. To take part, it is sufficient to be a Baptist and a fundamentalist.

Sectarian over-emphasis threatens fundamentalism

Political coalitions are built on compromise. We see this all the time in secular politics. The conservative side of the spectrum politically is usually a coalition of fiscal and social conservatives with a few libertarians mixed in. When one group or another within that group decides its more narrow concerns are more important than the larger concerns of the coalition, the coalition breaks down and electoral defeats become more likely.

[Read more…]

Now that we are in a reflective mode, I’d like to review the message preached by Danny Sweatt, “Young and Restless”. The thesis of my review is this: Pastor Sweatt has gotten a bad rap from his critics – they heard what they wanted to hear and are uncharitable in listening to him.

I would challenge anyone who disagrees with me to listen to the message again. Listen carefully. Try to understand each point that Pastor Sweatt is making. Don’t get distracted by any animus you might feel about his comments about Calvinism. Listen to them first to understand what he is saying, and second to judge the comments in context with the rest of his message (not to mention his years of faithful ministry). I am writing this review after listening to the message for a third time. I would urge that all critics listen again (or actually listen for the first time) and listen with as little prejudice as possible.

Now, having made that apology at the outset, I have to agree that pastor Sweatt’s message was not the absolute best message I have ever heard. At many points the points were made clumsily and indistinctly (that’s why careful listening is required). He at times said things and used vocabulary that I think obscured his message. In fact, his own poor word choice (malapropism) is responsible for the hottest lingering criticism of his message. He is also guilty of preaching prejudice at points. His reasoning and expression are often very clumsy. He doesn’t fully say what he means, misuses words, and in general fails to achieve what he set out to achieve.

However, I don’t think his message is the travesty that some are making it out to be and I believe that some are twisting what he said for their own ends.

First, a summary of his points:

[Read more…]

The latest controversy in the ranks of fundamentalism certainly has many of us riled up. Although things have quieted down a bit now, there are still rumblings in various venues of the fundamentalist blogosphere that indicate the pot is still simmering with plenty of hard feelings and resentment to go around.

Many are still agitating for something more than “we haven’t divided over this issue and we aren’t going to start now.” It is evident that this is so even in Kevin Bauder’s third article on the subject and the subsequent discussion at SI. Some still want something more to be done.

I am still amazed at the reaction to all this. The whole thing reminds me of this:

NAU Acts 19:32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together.

We read various rallying cries around the web: “The Time is Now!” “It’s time to take a stand.” “We can’t take this any more.”

Politically these are extremely fragile and risky times for fundamentalism. There has never been complete unanimity on every point, but this controversy threatens to destroy a great deal of such unity as has existed in fundamentalism for some time. It is very hard to see what advantage will be gained.

To risk the unity of brethren, surely, some great cause must be at stake. What is that cause? Can you name the one single thing that a great mass of right thinking people should now rally around and say, “we’re not going to take it anymore”?

[Read more…]