You are here: Home / Archives for Issues
by on 12.6.08

who said it?

Can you identify the source of this quote? What about the date and publication?

Today, fundamentalism is said to be in an identity crisis. It is allegedly trying to discover what it is. New self-definitions are being heard which say that a fundamentalist is one who is faithful to expository preaching, practices church discipline, repudiates easy believism, and is aggressive in evangelism. Or some imply that a fundamentalist is one who believes in inerrancy and does not cooperate with Roman Catholics, or is one who believes the “fundamentals” but is less militant and separatistic than formerly thought. The truth is that these are things that new evangelicals and self-proclaimed non-fundamentalists also believe and practice, leaving a distinctly fundamentalist self-identity completely vacuous. This all points up the fact that many are simply confused, and this includes would-be leaders as well as followers and well-wishers. Judging by some of the prevalent ambiguity, one is sometimes tempted to ask, Will the real fundamentalist please stand up?

don_sig2

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Issues, Quotables
by on 12.3.08

more musings on the ETS

Is there a more defining evangelical organization than the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS)? Some might say that the quintessential Evangelical organization would be the National Association of Evangelicals, but would that really be true? One key area of comparison is the doctrinal standards of each organization. The NAE requires members to affirm their statement of faith. The ETS requires members to hold to their doctrinal basis. (Of course, the ETS requires a level of scholarly attainment for membership as well, due to its differing nature. We are not comparing that aspect of these organizations.)

Now, which organization requires the more exclusive standard of doctrinal agreement as its foundational basis?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: ETS, Fundamentalism, Issues, New Evangelicalism, Separation
by on 11.24.08

everybody sing!

Back in May, Scott Aniol posted Leading Music at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory on his site, Religious Affections.

In the article, he commented on the music at the Together for the Gospel conference he had attended earlier in the year. Among other things he said this:

Although every hymn choice for that conference was in and of itself conservative, and although the accompaniment was simple in theory, a completely different underlying philosophy bled through. The leader of the singing, who led from the piano, was a master at emotional manipulation stimulation. How he accompanied the hymns moved and swayed the audience in certain emotional directions. He constantly shouted out unintelligible exclamations that further roused the audience. And the audience did respond. Hands waving in the air, enthusiastic shouting, vigorous singing, and even some jumping around.

I would recommend you read Scott’s entire article. There is some discussion following, but the article is the main thing. Now, I don’t have the time, the $$$, nor the interest to attend such conferences. I didn’t really have a full picture of what Scott was describing, but I had an idea what it was like. Now you can get a sense of exactly what Scott is describing…

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Charismatism, Issues, Music, Separation, Worldliness
by on 11.24.08

some good words from Southern Baptists on alcohol

I recently posted a review of a book by my good friend, Randy Jaeggli, on the subject of the Christian and alcohol consumption. As Calvin Coolidge is said to have said about a preacher’s attitude toward sin: “He was agin it.”

I came across an article in the Criswell Theological Review today. The article is by Richard Land and Barrett Duke. In The Christian and Alcohol, they appear to be ‘agin’ it also. The whole issue of the CTR is devoted to the subject of Christians and alcohol use. I commend Land and Duke’s article to you, I think they present a well-reasoned position for adopting a policy of total abstinence. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Issues, Worldliness
by on 11.14.08

advice from minnick

The September/October issue of Frontline magazine features the second instalment in a series of articles by Mark Minnick on the subject, “What’s an Evangelical to Do?”

The question is asking what is the appropriate response for any evangelical Christian to the false teaching of alleged evangelical Christians. N. T. Wright is offered as the exemplary false teacher. John Piper is offered as a typical evangelical in response to Wright’s false teaching. The article concludes with these words:

This is the first thing Evangelicals ought to do. They ought to require that any organization to which they belong for Christian endeavor or any professing Christian theologian with whom they enter into any spiritual cooperation whatsoever give unfeigned, unqualified, dogmatic assent to every single Fundamental of the Christian (that is, “Evangelical”) faith.

If, after repeated appeals, an organization or individual refuses to do so, those who are truly Evangelical ought to withhold Christian recognition and avoid him (Rom 16.17), and for the love of the Truth and the safety of Christ’s flock, cry “wolf!” Interminable, deferential, academic fencing will not do. There’s no Scriptural paradigm for it whatsoever. Well-intentioned or not, it’s a betrayal of Christ and the gospel. [bolded words my emphasis]

This advice is exactly what ought to be done, but it is exactly what many Evangelicals will not do. Take for example

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Issues, Minnick, New Evangelicalism, Personalities, Piper
by on 11.4.08

on polemics

I am feeling USA election anxiety today. My loved ones are voting in a state that will likely overwhelmingly support my preferred candidate. Would that their votes could count in a battleground, but such is not the case. We’ll know tonight how it all pans out.

As therapy for my election anxiety, I thought I might do a little meditation on polemics. My postings here could be characterized as polemical, eh?

Dictionary.com gives me these definitions under ‘polemic‘:

–noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.

–adjective
3. Also, po·lem·i·cal. of or pertaining to a polemic; controversial.

Ah, yes, that would be me!

And why would the subjects I post about move me to be polemical? Why wouldn’t I, as a pastor, be more devotional and less polemical? Or maybe, much more devotional? Here is why:

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Christian Living, Fundamentalism, Issues, Spiritual Life
by on 10.24.08

a few posts worth reading

In my scanning of various blogs, I come across a few articles I’d like to pass along. No one has enough time, but perhaps some of these are worth your time.

From Lighthouse Trails

Why We Say Beth Moore is a Contemplative Advocate
  • Advocate: one that defends or maintains a cause (Webster’s Dictionary) In our recent article, “Rick Warren Points Network Followers to the Contemplative ‘Sabbath'”, we state that Beth Moore is a “contemplative advocate.” Some people have a hard time with this statement. Why do we say she is advocating contemplative spirituality?
Should Christians Expose Error?
  • “Exposing Error: Is It Worthwhile?” By Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951) Objection is often raised even by some sound in the faith-regarding the exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the …
  • a key quote:

Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint it is worthwhile work. To our Savior, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider “the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” it ensures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls “caught in the snare of the fowler”-how many of them God only knows-it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting.

“Servant Leadership” … A Christian Idea … Not Exactly
  • LTRP Note: Today, there is much talk about teaching people to become good leaders. In reality, what is happening is people are being taught to be good followers. The term (and the concept) Servant Leadership, used by many of the most prolific Christian authors and teachers today, did not originate …
The Mid-America Conference on Preaching

A review/summation by Scott Aniol:

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Dave Doran’s First General Session
Part 3 – Horn and Conley’s General Sessions
Part 4 – Dawson on Culture
Part 5 – Snoeberger on Culture
Part 6 – Doran’s Second General Session
Part 7 – McCune on Mars Hill
Part 8 – Snoeberger on Carson

From Brian Collins:

AP Definition of Fundamentalism
Neuhaus on the new New Evangelicals
ICC Commentaries for Free Download

Just a few things that interest me, in case you don’t follow the same blogs I do.

don_sig2

Filed Under: Culture, Fundamentalism, General Interest, New Evangelicalism, Theology
by on 10.8.08

deny the gospel by deeds

I mentioned earlier that I am listening to Kevin Bauder’s sessions at International Baptist College. I still recommend them to you in order to understand Bauder’s thinking. As I listen, I find myself mostly in agreement with his exegesis, but I do have significant differences with him on several non-exegetical points. I’ll talk more about that later.

Tonight, I’d like to comment on a point Bauder makes several times in the lectures, but doesn’t appear to elaborate on. (I am almost finished with lecture 8 of 10 lectures.)

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Infidelity, Issues, Separation
by on 10.6.08

are we immune?

Are we (Fundamentalists) immune from the entrance of savage wolves (Ac 20.29) or the rise of men from our own selves, speaking perverse things (Ac 20.30)?

I am listening to Kevin Bauder’s series of lectures at International Baptist College in Tempe, AZ. His whole presentation is exhaustive (and perhaps exhausting!). Some will strenuously disagree with his ecclesiology [though I do not]. Regardless of your views on that topic, his presentation is worth listening to. I have not yet made it to the end, but if you want to understand how Bauder himself arrives at his conclusions, his presentation is well worth your careful attention.

I have no comments or critiques as yet on his work here since I haven’t made it completely through to the end. I may make some comments later, I am sure I will have an opinion!

But a comment in the seventh lecture in the series got me thinking about the questions with which I commence this post.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Issues
by on 10.3.08

well…

Now that the dust has settled a bit, what shall we say?

First, I think that Chris was rightly offended at the category tag I put on my earlier post. He was right, I was wrong. The tag has been removed.

But what about the substance of my complaint? Chris dismisses my complaint and thinks I should take down my post since he was merely offering a citation, nothing more.

A citation?

ci·ta·tion      (s?-t?’sh?n)  Pronunciation Key
n.  

  1. The act of citing.
    1. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
    2. A source so cited; a quotation.

[citation. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citation (accessed: October 03, 2008).]

This is the headline of the post in question:

Driscoll on the Emergent Church

By Chris on Mark Driscoll

Prominently displayed is a picture of Driscoll himself (apparently while ‘preaching’.)

There are a few other citations in the post, it is true. But what is the post about? It’s about Driscoll. He is the centrepiece and his mp3 is the main point of the post.

Side Note: There is an attitude among some who wear the label ‘fundamentalist’ that seems to think it ‘cool’ to show how cutting edge they are by talking up and quasi endorsing men who are not fundamentalists. It’s real cool when you can promote someone like a Driscoll and yet say you still hold your fundie bona fides. Am I right or wrong, my readers, to say that such an attitude exists?

Now, in my mind, what Chris did with his post was more than citation, it was promotion. My perceptions are admittedly affected by Driscoll’s most recent outrage, but I have been repeatedly asking (and no one has really been answering) if the Christian church should do anything but shun Driscoll for his blasphemous talk?

The outrage in our little circle has been directed instead at me, for expressing my dismay at what seems to me to be promotion, not just citation. I have argued with Chris in the past concerning his support and promotion of conservative evangelicals. I have a great deal of misgivings about what Chris says and does in that respect, but Driscoll is (and has been) far further afield than a conservative evangelical. Am I right in saying Chris’ post is promotion not citation? (I realize opinions will differ here.) Am I right in thinking that it is at best highly questionable if not completely inappropriate to promote Driscoll in any way? Or in this way?

Now then, what should we do? Chris wants me to take down my post, and I still find his strongly objectionable.

These posts are probably all archived by now on Google, I am sure. But if Chris is willing to take down his (both of them), I will take down mine (both of them). That would mean, of course, dear readers, that all your immortal comments would be lost. Can you live with that?

don_sig2

Filed Under: Issues
« Previous Page
Next Page »