fundamentalism by blunt instrument
Dave Doran offers us four articles for the purpose of justifying himself: “Reflecting on Applications”, “Reflections II”, “Reflections III” and “Reflections IV”.
I’d like to offer some reflections on the reflections. I want to see if others think I am getting Dave’s arguments right and whether they think my criticisms/agreements might be valid or invalid.
So here we go…
It’s my day for finding interesting videos. Check out this African Cardinal on ‘liturgical dance’ and secular music:
HT: ‘danofsteel’, a commenter at Remonstrans
The question was asked of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in this interview. The question comes at about the 5:50 mark. The follow-up question, ‘what is the difference between you and the fundamentalists?’
Very interesting.
We held our annual conference last week at Lincoln Park Baptist Church in Wenatchee, WA.
Our keynote speaker was Dr. Fred Moritz, my good friend and former mission director. He is now ‘emeritus’ with the mission and on the faculty of Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
We had a great week … all in just three days! Lots of preaching and good fellowship. We are hosting the sermons at our church site, so I thought I would make the link available for anyone who might be interested.
Another advantage of the Biblical morality arises from the fact that it lays its prohibition on the first tendency to evil in the heart. It does not wait for the overt act, nor for the half-formed desire. It denounces the slightest parleying with temptation, the entertaining for the briefest moment of a corrupt wish. In its view, the apostasy did not consist in plucking the fruit. The race was ruined, when the first suggestion of the tempter was not instantly repelled. Death eternal hung on a moment’s weakness in the will. All hope was gone when the moral principle wavered. In the estimate of God’s law, the highway robbery is comparatively innocent. The crime was in the covetous glance of the eye-in not instantaneously crushing the avaricious desire. What is called a fraudulent bankruptcy may be venial. The guilt was in the assumption of obligations which there was no reasonable prospect of discharging, or rather it was in the state of mind which first began to elevate riches into a god. The degenerating process began in the idolatry of gold, in the first turning of the feeblest current of the affections in the wrong direction. Men charge the deviation of the youth from the paths of virtue to some overmastering temptation, to some public and astounding offence. But the divine precept laid its finger on the desire, years before, to read a certain book, against which, at the time, conscience remonstrated. Thus the Word of God becomes the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. No latent desire can evade its searching glance; no recess of the soul is so barred as to exclude it.”-Bibliotheca Sacra, February, 1846.
quoted by Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 100, 399 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1943), 389.
I just posted an article about the default tolerance of conservative evangelicals, part of their new evangelical heritage. This is a second instance of the same affliction.
John Piper blogs today about the death of a Christian politician in Pakistan. In his article, he says:
This is my small tribute to another Christian killed for Christ’s sake. I read his story with great admiration.
I encourage you to follow the link in Piper’s post. In the article, just before a section that Piper quotes in his article are these words:
Extremists wanted to kill him because of his opposition to the blasphemy law and to Sharia legislation, and because of his work for “the oppressed and marginalised”, the Catholic politician said sombrely into the camera.
Do you catch the religious adjective? The Wikipedia article about the man clearly identifies him as a Roman Catholic.
Now… clearly this is a tragic and senseless death. Poor, bleeding Pakistan. We lament the needless loss of life and the intolerance of radical Muslims. We deplore the use of force in the name of religion.
But our concern is discernment. Here we have a prominent Christian preacher, one who influences thousands. One who is ‘Together for the Gospel’. And yet he misses a key descriptor and calls this tragic death the death of a “Christian killed for Christ’s sake.” Really? A Christian? For Christ’s sake?
Well, maybe he missed it. It is just one word in a lengthy article, after all. But we have noted a long pattern of discernment issues for this man in the past. I would urge those who are heavily influenced by John Piper to be discerning. He tends to demonstrate little discernment himself.
My headline may come as a shock to some. That would be those who equate talking about error with separating from error. But, sadly, while conservative evangelicals are more bold in their criticism and rebuke of error, they can’t quite bring themselves to treat false teachers as the Bible calls for them to be treated.
A case in point is the recent brouhaha over Justin Taylor’s rebuke of Rob Bell. Already many pixels have been brought to bear on the specifics of the case, some in support of Taylor, others attacking him. One interesting little detail is noted by Christianity Today’s Liveblog, but is largely overlooked by most commenters, and is the point that launches my post today.
This is the detail noted by CT:
Taylor updated his post, changing some wording and deleting a reference to Cor. 11:14-15: “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” Instead, Taylor ended the post with the following paragraph:
- Let’s remember to pray. Rob Bell needs to know and teach the liberating gospel of grace—including that Christ absorbed the Father’s wrath on behalf of those who trust in him and repent of their sins. And there are tens of thousands of folks who look to Rob Bell as a biblical teacher and leader. May God give much mercy.
Doesn’t that demonstrate my point about conservative evangelicalism? Almost… but not quite… separation.
Recent discussions here prompt a longer response, hence a new post on the question: Have Fundamentalists failed to separate from heretics on their ‘right’?
For context, I am going to quote from two of my correspondents. I’ll link to the comments of each so you can see the whole context. First, from Larry:
on the KJVO thing, there are two points: (1) KJVO people deny what the Bible teaches about itself and therefore have denied a fundamental of the faith; as fundamentalists, if there were ever a cause for separation surely this would be it. Fundamentalism’s willingness to tolerate doctrinal aberrancy in this situation is why many people are leaving it. (2) I am for not making it an issue. KJVO people make it an issue which they have done by their vocal stands. I am fine if someone uses only the KJV or believes it is the best translation or believes that the TR is the best text. I can and will work with that kind of person. There are no problems there for me. I would only make an issue of it if they did. (Full comment here.)
We should be willing to speak out about "us" just as freely and strongly as we do about "them." People should not get a pass on doctrine or practice simply because they separate from the same people we do. (Full comment here – different comment from above quoted paragraph.)
And from Dave
The issue with the "nutbars," as you call them, is not that they haven’t separated from mainstream fundamentalism themselves, but that they have not, by and large, been clearly repudiated by mainstream fundamentalism. …
Even brothers can be noted and avoided that they may be ashamed, and fundamentalism should clearly do this with the extremists, just as they do with the NEs. Not dealing with the extremists on the right absolutely contributes to the young people then not believing what is said about those on the near left, especially when what they hear from them is much sounder doctrinally than the preaching they hear from those on the right that are tacitly accepted. (Full comment here.)
You can see, I think, a common thread. Larry and Dave are arguing that Fundamentalism by and large has tolerated errors on its right, leaving itself open to the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy. Larry uses phrases like “denied a fundamental of the faith” and “doctrinal aberrancy.” Dave uses the term “extremists.”
Regular readers will not be surprised that I don’t think Fundamentalism is guilty as charged. In fact, I think quite the opposite.
Commenting on Gal 1.8, Vincent of Lerins says:
“‘Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. ‘Though we,’ he says, ‘or an angel from heaven.’ Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen, – if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.”
Vincent of Lerins , “A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies,” in The Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. C. A. Heurtley, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 8.22.
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments