fundamentalism by blunt instrument
… at this.
In light of this, this, and especially this.
Dismayed. Disappointed. Disheartened. Discouraged.
Let’s say Chris Anderson has just been busy and hasn’t had time to read the recent news. Even so.
What excuse could there be for positively referencing the crass crude and vile Driscoll even two weeks ago, before the latest outrage? With only the mildest of disclaimers… “I don’t agree with much of what he says…” Is that all?
I wrote recently about problems with the current Desiring God conference and the silence of FINOs with respect to it. As an update, you should check out another post by Steve Camp, Steve Camp’s outrage over Mark Driscoll. The culpability of Piper et al with respect to the blasphemous Driscoll grows with each passing day. No rebuke from anyone? Will the Piper groupies, any of them, turn in their Fan Club badges?
I must say, however, to Steve Camp, when we are speaking of profaning the holy, how is Driscoll’s language any worse than your music? The sound of the bar and the disco isn’t the sound of the choirs of heaven, is it?
I agree with everything Steve has written in these posts about profane speech. But profanity (making things common) occurs in more ways than just by speech. The church culture that ultimately produced a Mark Driscoll is one that has been profaning holy things for a long time.
May we all repent of our sins and plead our unworthiness before our Holy Saviour.
Scott Aniol alerts us to a raging discussion over in the realms of conservative evangelicalism. Nathan Busenitz, managing editor at Pulpit Magazine wrote an article published on the 17th of September entitled “John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Harsh Language“. Busenitz rightly takes Driscoll and Piper to task for Driscoll’s foul language. In the comments, we discover in a post by Steve Camp that Driscoll isn’t the only one to use bad language in connection with the Desiring God conference. No, Paul Tripp likewise has a foul mouth. You can read about it (and see the associated video, if you care to) at Steve’s blog, “PAUL TRIPP-ING – HE REALLY LIKES TO SAY THE ‘S’ WORD …has Piper lost his mind or just forgotten his Bible?”
It is instructive to read the comments on both posts. And equally instructive to read the execrable Doug Wilson come to Piper’s defense, ironically, in his post “A Temporizing Baa-Lamb“. Quite frankly, his comments are shameful. It is hard to believe that people become so devoted to such men that many objectionable statements, positions, and actions are just overlooked.
While this debate rages in the conservative evangelical realm, FINO land remains serene in its silence. Could it be that no one has read these posts? Surely not. Where is the response? Will anyone ever admit that perhaps there is something not quite right about Piper et al on this? At least the MacArthur camp is taking a stab at it, however mild.
UPDATE: Nathan Busenitz follows up with a still too weak rebuke of Driscoll and no rebuke of Piper. It seems to me that Piper is the one more worthy of rebuke, because his invitation to Driscoll and his public affirmation of him is only serving to enable Driscoll’s continuing bad behaviour. Were Piper to really rebuke Driscoll and refuse association with him, it might have had some real impact. Piper’s comments last year seemed to start working in that direction, then Piper backed off. For shame.
The crowd at the FINO blog, Sharper Iron, are falling all over themselves to debate the anti-Calvinist feature article of John Davis, “Calvinism on the ‘N’ Train“. Of course, such a reaction is to be expected since Calvinism is the theology-du-jour of the neo-Calvinists. Any critique that challenges its tenets must be answered.
But it isn’t really the theology of the article that is most problematic, and the theology, in the end, is unanswerable. The points argued back and forth have been argued back and forth for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is quite unlikely that lightweights like me and any others commenting on the subject are going to solve these theological questions any time soon.
It really is quite amusing to see some say “Scripture forces me to be a Calvinist.” If that were true, all Bible believers would be Calvinists.
But as I said, that isn’t the part of the article that is most problematic… and certainly not the part that needs serious comment and discussion.
I ran across a write-up from the Jamaica Observer speaking of the virtues of the A Beka School Curriculum.
We have used the A Beka Video curriculum in our home for fifteen years (I think I have the number right!). We have been very pleased with it. The article speaks highly of many aspects of the curriculum while noting the controversy (from the secular point of view) of its view on science and history.
While some criticize fundamentalism for not publishing enough books, it seems to me that fundamentalism has had a much more practical and down-to-earth ministering orientation. As a result, what we have written is curricula, not theologica. Should we say that these efforts were wasted, and beneath us?
Thank God for A Beka Book and BJU Press. These have been vital ministries for our times. May God bless them and grant them continued success.
My on-line friend Tim Bayly alerts us to a conference called the Princeton Regional Conference on Reformed Theology. This will be held at Princeton Seminary, on All Saints Day, no less. [That would be Nov 1, for those who don’t know…]
Here’s Tim’s introductory paragraphs:
In a month and a half, Dr. Diane Langberg will be preaching at the Princeton Regional Conference on Reformed Theology co-sponsored by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and she’ll be sharing the conference pulpit with Don [Carson] and Al [Mohler]. This ought not to be, right? Who governs this national parachurch organization?
Among others, Bob, Lig, Al, John, C. J., Alistair, Mark, Phil, R. C., and Gene– you know, men we all know as stalwarts in the battle for orthodoxy. So why are they approving and publicizing on their web site a conference where a woman will preach to men? A conference on “reformed theology,” mind you.
Why, indeed. Could it be that these men are CINOs?
I get kind of tired of the charge of legalism often laid at the feet of fundamentalists. Then I read stories that give me some relief. Today’s National Post gives me one today. (Unfortunately, no longer available online to the general public… not sure why.)
Here’s the headline:
Kosher gadgets grab the spotlight
When it comes to legalism, leave it to the Pharisees.
Remember this?
The old intro to the Twilight Zone talks about moving into a ‘land of shadow and substance’. It seems to me a perfect metaphor for the current state of affairs on the fundamentalist scene. [Read more…]
A friend of mine recently gave me a set of CDs containing the messages from the 2007 Mid-America Conference on Preaching, a conference hosted every year at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.
Unfortunately, none of the sessions from the 2007 conference appear to be available on-line, but I would encourage you to seek out a copy for yourself. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to a workshop by Dave Doran on this subject:
I have been critical of Dave for his message this summer at the FBF. If he had presented the material in this workshop at the FBF meeting, there would have been nothing to criticize.
I am going to include a few clips below. Dave’s presentation on this occasion was extremely clear and helpful. What mystifies me is how he can be so clear on some occasions and so confusing on others.
Be that as it may, I want to give you a summary of Dave’s presentation, taken directly from the accompanying pdf notes file that must have been included at the workshop itself.
I was speaking to my son this afternoon about the difficulty of contending for the faith. Clearly, we are called to contend. We are told that conflict is inevitable in the ministry. We are told that wolves will plague the flock from without and perverse men will arise from within. We are told to guard the flock of God.
If a man will not contend, or despises conflict in the ministry, he ought to get out and get a ‘real’ job. If you are called to the ministry, you are called to contend.
But contention is fraught with danger. On the one hand, the man who contends may find himself labelled as contentious and a crank. (He may be contentious and a crank.)
On the other hand is the ever present dangers plaguing the church from within and without. And there is the command of God.
May God grant us the wisdom to know when, where, and how to contend.
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments