Kent Brandenburg has an excellent analysis of recent comments by Todd Friel and Phil Johnson at a “Discernment (?) Conference.” Part 2 really lays it out, but you need Part 1 to get the context.
by on 11.27.11
the brandenberger reports on ETS
Kent Brandenburg has a commenter who frequently addresses him as Pastor Brandenberger, so I hope Kent will forgive my liberties with his name.
I commend to you his recent series of blogs reporting on goings on at the ETS. Very interesting. You might not agree with everything Kent says about it (I don’t disagree with much, if any of it), but if you are interested in the issues we usually address in this space, you will find Kent’s reports quite interesting. Here are the links:
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part one
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part two
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part three
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part four
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part five
My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part six
by on 8.30.11
when is a link not a link?
A friend of mine posted an article to which I objected. I objected privately, so I’m not going to post a link. We had a brief and I think courteous exchange of views. But the whole discussion gets me thinking about the whole paradigm shift that the new media is. That is, I think we are still getting used to the internet (or, as one of my hockey bloggers calls it, “the AlGore”).
It is common practice in the blogosphere to link to other blogs or articles online. This is part of the ‘netiquette’ of blogging, especially when you are writing a contrary opinion. The link provides context, your readers can go to your online ‘opponent’ to see what they said in context in order to decide whether they will agree with you or him or neither.
It is also common practice to link to news items of interest with a brief comment suggesting why the link was interesting to you.
I have occasionally linked to Christianity Today when I see articles of interest there, or when I wish to take issue with something said there. Some of my fellow fundamentalists have commented when I have done that without much of a disclaimer. I guess I don’t think a disclaimer is all that necessary when I am critiquing an article. It is pretty clear that I am not agreeing! (Does anyone think I am ambiguous when I disagree?) And I don’t think a disclaimer is always necessary when I am just passing along a link to say: look at this, it’s interesting.
But what if I was writing an article listing a whole host of sites as “good resources for church planting” or “good resources for spiritual growth” or “good resources for theology”?
by on 5.9.11
why not join the CEs?
On SI, regular commenter Ron Bean asked the question:
For the sake of summary, simplicity and specificity could someone (perhaps RPittman, who last used this phrase) list some of these many problems of CE’s?
I responded with a list of four items that came to mind immediately, but I’d like to expand on that list a bit here.
by on 3.4.11
news flash: conservative evangelicals *still* not fundamentalists
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.
by on 2.24.11
the evangelical disconnect
So here’s Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, talking about something he calls Vision 2020 and the direction he wants the Convention to go over the next few years. (The Executive Committee is charged with running day to day SBC operations between the actual annual convention meeting, according to SBCnet.)
Among other things, he said:
"As we all know, our convention over the last decades has taken a stand for biblical inerrancy. I thank God for that," Page said. "But I believe that now a unified understanding and a call for an affirmation of an inerrant, infallible Word of God shall lead us to an even greater obedience of that Word. I believe that is where we need to be focusing now. As we affirm its inerrancy and infallibility, let’s do so by fleshing it out and living it in this world."
I wonder what he means by that, in light of this article that came out yesterday:
SBC Executive Committee decides not to oust Alliance churches
By Bob Allen
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) –Membership in a group that welcomes and affirms gays does not automatically disqualify a church from participation in the Southern Baptist Convention, the SBC Executive Committee decided Feb. 22.
Hmmm… ‘fleshing it out and living it in this world…’ I wonder how the Executive Committee reconciles that vision with their decision about the Alliance churches.
Frank Page was President of the SBC in 2006 and 2007, I believe. I think he would be considered a conservative.
Curious.
by on 1.24.11
something I don’t understand
The big question we are wrangling about in the fundamentalist blogosphere in 2011 (and preceding 5 or 10 years) is our relationship to Conservative Evangelicals.
We are asking:
- Are Conservative Evangelicals the same thing as New Evangelicals? – varying answers: ‘not at all’, ‘somewhat’, ‘very much like’
- Should we cooperate with Conservative Evangelicals in some Christian endeavors? – verbal answers: ‘not at all’, ‘maybe’, ‘in some limited arenas’; practical answers: ‘not at all’ … at least up until this last six months or so…
You can debate the merits of these questions, whether they are important to ask or not, whether they are the right questions to ask, whether we are too obsessed with separation and this is evidence of that, or what have you. Regardless, these are the questions we are asking and the central theme around which most discussion on fundamentalist blogs have been obsessed for the last while, maybe since fundamentalists took up blogging at all.
All right then. We are wrangling about these questions. Up until the last six months or so this wrangling has mostly been talk. Now we are seeing some fairly important figures answering the questions practically by involving themselves in some kind of cooperative Christian endeavor with Conservative Evangelicals.
But here is where we have something I don’t understand.
by on 1.1.11
thinking it over
Everybody does it about this time of year, don’t they? Look back through the year and take stock; look forward to the new year and anticipate, I mean.
I thought I’d look back over the year of blogging and note my most commented posts. It might be instructive concerning the things that interest me which also interest a generally fundamentalist oriented reading audience. It might also serve for us to consider the issues facing us in the coming year.
The numbers of comments following these posts may be somewhat surprising. Some may think my numbers are kind of low. This is a function of several factors.
- My readership isn’t huge, although it has picked up considerably at the end of the year (largely due to SI linking on some controversial posts).
- Most blog chatter is generated by the most passionate few, there are many more readers than commenters.
- Blog commentary does have a way of wearing itself out after the arguments have been beaten to death ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
With all those caveats in place, I’ll start with the list of most commented posts (in reverse order of posting):
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 9.23.10
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