I thought I would just give a brief synopsis of my dad’s funeral. Unfortunately there was no recording of it, I would have loved to share the preaching with you. [Read more…]
Archives for 2010
by on 10.21.10
poor boy off the farm
My Tribute to My Dad
(An earlier article on my dad – here, here, here, and here.)
A few years ago, my dad began writing his memoirs. His title was “Poor Boy off the Farm”. It reflects the reality of his life story and something of his insecurities as he battled honorably through life. He was far from ‘poor’ in my mind, though he began life in humble circumstances.
by on 10.20.10
Safe at last
Dear friends, thank you for your prayers. It is 10 pm Mountain time. A little over a half hour ago my dear Dad went to heaven. He slipped quietly away. With the hiss of the oxygen going I didn’t even notice his passing.
My dad was a faithful Christian man. He led me to the Lord many years ago. I thank God for him. He has been the single greatest influence on my life. I’ll write more later.
Praise God for redemption, for Jesus Christ, and for the Sweet Comforter. We sorrow not as those who have no hope.
Maranatha! Don Johnson, Jer 33.3
by on 10.20.10
update to the update
[The following update is posted here by Don’s son for those of you who have been praying for us during this time.]
After the euphoria of a successful procedure this afternoon, my dad is not responding well to continuing treatment. One lung is retaining some fluid, the doctor says that the only hope is to get his blood pressure up and he *might* turn the corner. The doc doesn’t sound too hopeful, however.
Dad is in the Lord’s hands. He is a born again child of the King, and the victory over death is alredy his. Blessed be the name of the Lord!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson, Jer 33.3
sent from my phone, please excuse bad thumb tpying
by on 10.20.10
update on my dad
Some have expressed interest in my dad. He is fighting for more life in the University Hospital in Edmonton, AB. He fell at church a few weeks ago, and things have been going progressively wrong ever since. Fell in the hospital, broke a hip. Pneumonia. And he has some serious chronic conditions as well.
Well, he developed some internal bleeding. They were worried yesterday that he wouldn’t make it through the sedation – possible heart failure, etc. Lots of risk. This AM we discovered he had significant blood loss last night so procedure had to be done. The doc found a double bleeding ulcer just past the stomach and fixed it. He was quite pleased. Says Dad isn’t out of danger yet, but has a chance now.
I am here with my mom, ostensibly to support mom. Hah! She is a rock. I am the basket case.
And let me tell you, in a crisis like this you see the strength of a 54 year marriage. It is a beautiful thing.
by on 10.8.10
fundamentalism-PLUS?
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:
by on 10.1.10
this and that
I’m a little confused by Dave’s latest. I think it might be the unspecificity of ‘this and that’. I’m sort of getting lost the further he goes using these terms. Would it be too much to give some real world examples? (Oops, I said I was hoping to get away from sarcasm!)
But really, what is Dave trying to say in his post? This is what I am getting:
- I get the part that Biblical truth is timeless. I think that is what Dave means by ‘this’.
- I get the part that the way we use the timeless principles to address real life issues is called applications. I think this is what Dave means by ‘that’.
- As we progress in the discussion of ‘this’ and ‘that’, it seems that Dave is saying that applications are relative, dependant on the context of the times. Does that mean that applications change over time? Could we have some examples?
- There appear to be different categories of relationship between ‘this’ and ‘that’.
- First, there is potential for disagreement among Christians because not everyone sees the connection between ‘this’ and ‘that’ in the same way. (And as long as we agree on the ‘this’ we need to give latitude to others on the ‘that’.)
- Next, there is a possibility that ‘that’ could lead to a violation of ‘this’. While we should be concerned about the possibility, as long as we agree on ‘this’, we should still give latitude over differences in ‘that’.
- When ‘that’ is elevated to the same level as ‘this’, trouble occurs, unless ‘that’ equals ‘this’, but not all agree and as long as ‘that’ doesn’t equal ‘this’, we should allow one another latitude in ‘that’.
- If differences over ‘that’ lead to questions about motives, we err and do not the truth. Instead, differences over ‘that’ should result in ‘open, constructive debate’. (Dialogue, anyone?)
- The key is to start talking about the Scriptures – the ‘this’. We’ll get so in harmony over ‘this’, ‘that’ will be irrelevant. Your ‘that’ is different from my ‘that’? No problem, bro, we’re in sync on ‘this’, fill your boots!
Is ‘that’ all clear? Maybe I should have said, is ‘this’ all clear? What is ‘this’, anyway? Should we be in agreement about ‘this’? How do I know? I could have been talking about ‘that’ all along while someone else is talking about ‘this’.
‘This’ is extremely confusing. (But be careful how you explain it to me, you wouldn’t want to get into the motives thing, you know.)
P.S. Please take this in a light-hearted spirit. I think I get what Dave is saying, but, wow, trying to wade through all the ‘this’es and ‘that’s is getting to me!
by on 9.30.10
what is my objective?
Dave Doran wrote a post in response to my ‘phantom movements’ post. He continues to hold that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist movement any longer, and I continue to hold that there is an identifiable movement. (My claims should not be misunderstood to mean that I think the Fundamentalist movement is brimming with health, just that it exists.)
Dave’s major criticism of my piece centers on the way I expressed myself. First, he quotes my take on the objectives of both evangelicalism and fundamentalism:
The evangelical objective is cooperation with as many as possible while maintaining in some fashion the integrity of the gospel.
On the other hand, there is a group of churches, individuals, and Christian institutions that pursue separatism as an objective.
It really hurts to see your own words in pixelated print! Especially when your quoted words are followed with this critique:
More importantly, I believe he misses the mark on the objective of fundamentalism by making separatism the objective rather than the means to the objective.
I hate it when Dave is right like that! My statement of fundamentalism’s objective not only misses the boat entirely but it contradicts some things I have been saying here recently about separation plus non-cooperation.
Dave also criticizes my words ‘in some fashion’ with respect to evangelicalism’s objectives. I think my statement is somewhat awkward and unclear, but I don’t think it is as far off as my second statement with respect to the objective of fundamentalism.
First I’ll explain ‘in some fashion’ and then I’ll re-address both objective statements, hopefully with greater clarity on the one hand and greater accuracy on the other.
by on 9.26.10
how organized to you need to be?
This will be the first part of my response to Dave’s critique of my last post. This part of my response will deal with an aspect of his critique that I think is incorrect. He does make a valid criticism that I will address in a subsequent post.
The first thing I would like to address is this point:
Ironically, both Don and I quote Webster dictionary as the basis for making our assessment. He does it in his post and I do it to make the opposite case in a post in October 2009. So, at least we can say that we agree that for a movement to exist there must be some unifying objective.
…
First, the reasons why Don and I can both use Webster to argue opposite points is that Don drops part of Webster’s definition. Now, to be sure, he acknowledges this—“Based on this definition, one could dispute whether there has ever been much of a fundamentalist movement, especially if the word ‘organized’ is emphasized”—yet dismisses this as a non-problem. But it is a serious, thesis refuting problem! A thousand people at the shopping mall to buy clothes for school all have the same objective, but nobody would consider them a back-to-school clothes buying movement, would they? Without organization and coordination of effort, there is no movement. When you drop the word organized from the Webster definition you actually change the meaning.
Dave is contending that my dismissal of the word ‘organized’ changes the definition of movement into something else.
My contention is that the word ‘organized’ in the definition doesn’t mean some kind of formal organizational structure across the length and breadth of a movement – it is impossible for such to be the case and I doubt that it has ever happened. That is not to say that there isn’t some organization that galvanizes, leads, influences, or directs movements, but that one really can’t expect a movement to have an over-arching organization.
by on 9.23.10
phantom movements
Is there still a fundamentalist movement? An evangelical movement? Some are claiming that whatever movements could have been called such in the past, they exist as movements no longer. If that is so, what difference does the dissolution of these movements make in decisions about Christian fellowship?
The Merriam Webster dictionary gives us this definition of movement:
a series of organized activities working toward an objective also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end, the civil rights movement
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
Based on this definition, one could dispute whether there has ever been much of a fundamentalist movement, especially if the word ‘organized’ is emphasized. Apart from some denominational fundamentalists in the early days (GARBC, CBA, OPC), my perception of fundamentalism is that it is largely a very loosely organized group of independent individuals and churches. By ‘very loosely organized’, I’d have to say ‘so loose as to not be organized at all’.
However, in the sample phrase the dictionary gives (‘the civil rights movement’), tight organization is not much more evident than we have seen in fundamentalism or evangelicalism, so I suspect the emphasis of the definition should fall on ‘activities working toward an objective’ or ‘effort to promote or attain an end’ rather than on the word organized.
In this sense, I think we can safely say there has been a fundamentalist movement and an evangelical movement.
Comments