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 1.24.12
defining ‘conservative evangelical’
A couple of my recent reading sources lead me to look at the term ‘conservative evangelical’ from a different perspective other than my normal ‘rabid fundamentalism’. One source is a book edited by Timothy George and David Dockery, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition. The other is an article by Michael Clawson appearing on Roger Olson’s site, “Young, Restless, and Fundamentalist: Neo-fundamentalism among American Evangelicals” (HT: Sharper Iron).
Both of these sources come at the question from the evangelical side of the spectrum, in the case of Clawson and Olson, it is on the outside of conservative evangelicalism looking in, whereas George and Dockery are more or less on the inside of the movement. Both sources offer some interesting observations of the so-called ‘conservative evangelical’ movement.
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 11.2.11
is it propaganda?
Wikipedia says that propaganda was not originally a negative or pejorative term.
While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples, propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others.
Our church is located in an area of Greater Victoria that was once known as ‘the Western Communities’. Some recalcitrant old-timers (read ‘me’) still sometimes use the old term. The term has some negative connotations – our area used to be considered a little bit of ‘hicksville’, or ‘dogpatch’… not the choicest addresses in town.
All that began to change with rapid property development and population growth in our end of town. That’s when the propaganda machine went into effect.
by on 10.7.11
young? conservative? Hold on!
My on-line friend, Jon Gleason, wrote me in response to the current controversy. I thought it would be worth reposting here with his kind consent. His embrace of separatistic principles is not unlike mine. Both of us came out of evangelical backgrounds. Those who are moving leftward are perhaps naïve about the problems they will encounter as they join up with evangelicals. May this current controversy be a “Hold on!” moment for them as Jon describes below:
Dear Don,
I am glad you commented on your blog on Thabiti Anyabwile’s recent article. I’ve been watching events with great interest, because Pastor Anyabwile is saying many things I was saying and thinking some 22 years ago. While some may think nothing is going to come of this, I’m not so certain.
As a student at Biola University and then at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, I held a position which is virtually identical to many who would today be called “conservative evangelicals”. If I could sum up what I believed back then, it would be thus: “I’ll hold to the truth of God’s Word; I’m absolutely committed to it. I oppose apostasy – but I’m not one of those wacky second degree separatists.”
God’s Word is powerful, and so is obedience. If you obey, you occasionally have those “paradigm shifts” as new areas of obedience open up to you. We might call them the “Hold ON!” moments. That can happen when you realise, “I’m in fellowship with those who are dabbling with heretics!” My “hold ON!” moment came when Biola invited a music minister from the Crystal Cathedral to speak at a music seminar. I couldn’t overlook the fact that he was aiding the propagation of Robert Schuller’s heresy, and Biola thought it was acceptable to bring him in.
by on 10.6.11
the Jakes-shakes continue
Another blog reacting to the TD Jakes invitation and defense by James MacDonald.
What makes this one interesting is…
- That the author is a pastor in the Harvest Bible Fellowship, James MacDonald’s organization.
- That the author is a graduate of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- That some of the author’s co-bloggers are also graduates of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. (One is the son of a very close friend from ‘back in the day’.)
Given those connections, the separatistic bent of the blog post makes a bit more sense. (Although it remains to be seen if actual separation will take place.)
Along with making the post make a bit more sense, these facts raise some interesting questions:
by on 10.1.11
elephantine update
Thabiti Anyabwile comments on the Mark Driscoll / James MacDonald / T. D. Jakes love-in. You need to read it.
Money quote:
And we kid ourselves if we think the Elephant Room invitation itself isn’t an endorsement of sorts. We can’t downplay the associations by calling for people to suspend judgment and responding ad hominem against “discernment bloggers.” We certainly can’t do that while simultaneously pointing to our association at The Gospel Coalition as a happy certification of orthodoxy and good practice, as Driscoll seems to do here with MacDonald. [emphasis added]
What a blessing it would be if men like Thabiti and the more conservative evangelicals would finally see that this is the crux of the fundamentalist-evangelical divide, and then get on the right side of it.
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 8.5.11
hippo critter?
It’s all very well to call the young, the restless, and the reformed to maturity and discernment, but… well, just read the comments following the post.
by on 8.1.11
Machen–Christianity and Liberalism
Have you ever read this classic? I’ve heard about it all my ministry life, from the days of training at BJU til now, but, incredible as it may seem, never read the book.
I found a copy of the text online and converted it to the Kindle. I’m about half way through. I’m hoping to do some blogging about the ideas in it sometime soon (when life slows down… Hah!). In the meantime, I’d like to urge you to read it if you have never done so.
It is available online here. There is a Kindle version here, it’s 1.99 for that version. I found a free one somewhere, but it was poorly scanned, so I formatted my own from the website I linked to first.
One last item: Tim Challies just completed a group reading of Christianity and Liberalism. The blog series begins here, with links to each of the subsequent blogs at the bottom of the article. Challies is an interesting guy. He and some of his readers might be getting Machen’s point a bit, but most of them don’t seem to realize that if you are going to oppose liberalism as aggressively as Machen did, you will either be forced out as Machen was or you will realize you have to come out. You can’t take Machen’s stand and remain in fellowship with apostasy.
Comments