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…]
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
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.
by on 9.17.10
be an extension of the coach
When it comes to sports, I tend to follow sports associated with the city of my birth, Edmonton, Alberta. My hockey team, the Oilers, let their captain go over the summer so a new captain is in the offing. An article speculating on the new captain contained this bit:
Renney [coach of the Oilers] said the captain has to be an extension of the coach.
"In terms of work habits, his own personal preparation from fitness, nutrition, his emotional state. That’s critical. He has to help deliver what’s required from a game plan and have a deep commitment to it."
That prompted some thoughts on pastoral leadership. Peter says:
NAU 1 Peter 5:2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Could we say that as examples of the flock we need to be “an extension of the Lord” displaying work habits that are committed to the kind of spiritual fitness the Lord expects of his people? Can we say the pastor must deliver what’s required from the game plan and have a deep commitment to it? In other words, if we expect the people of God to buy into what we are preaching, surely we must be at least as deeply committed as we are calling them to be, eh?
It may be that we are too much interested in our own agenda, our own game plan, than the Lord’s plan. Yield yourselves (voluntarily) to the Lord as the shepherd of His sheep – they are His, not yours, after all.
by on 9.13.10
milestones
Our family had a little milestone on Saturday. My daughter bought her first car! We’re all pleased and she is quite excited. Here it is:
I took the picture just after she bought the car. A 1999 Honda Accord, one owner, low miles, mint condition.
We live in such an automobile oriented society, the day you get your first car is a real milestone for almost everyone, I think. My first car still lingers in my memory, truly loved, though it was a real lemon. I bought a 1972 Dodge Charger in 1977. It only had about 57000 miles on it, as I recall, about the same as my daughter’s Honda. Except… my previous owner was in a different demographic! Those 57,000 miles were hard miles. Several serious issues emerged as I began to get to know the car. We traded it for a 1977 Plymouth Fury after only six months or so.
But it could fly! Memories…
So far we have helped two of our young people with these milestone purchases. Neither of them have ended up with such an impulsive buy as my first, but this one was much more deliberative. My wife went with my daughter on the shopping expeditions. They narrowed it down to a few, then had one of our men go with them to whittle it down to one. The next day, I went along, but I sent my wife in to do the negotiation. I figure that I don’t get blamed for anything this way! They ended up with the price I predicted before the horse trading started.
Now our family can have something else to remember Sept 11 by.
Comments