contend = defend?

I recently listened to a message purporting to be an exposition of the book of Jude. Several points in the message were derived out of the speaker’s experience (or his perception of his experience). These points in the main were questionable. One man’s experience is no authority and another man’s experience quite often differs. One man sees fundamentalists as primarily lovers of the fight, whereas another man sees them as lovers of the faith. But whose experience is right? It is true that some men seem simply to be contentious, but how well do we know them and the entire scope of their ministry?

In addition the message purported to be on the subject of separation, but Jude is not a separation passage. As such the message seemed conflicted from the beginning, as text did not match subject.

The weakest point of the message was the heart of the message. We all know Jude 3 as the rallying cry, the banner of fundamentalism. Here it is:

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

In the message, the speaker called his hearers to the Christian duty of defending the faith. Over and over again came the phrase, defend the faith, defend the faith, defend the faith.

Well… is that what Jude said?

[Read more…]

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.

[Read more…]

gospel-driven separation: is it enough?

What would you say to a group that believes the following:

We affirm the Trinity – God who is a community of three persons … We believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the Word made flesh, the Savior of the world, fully human and fully divine … This new life is the loving gift of God’s grace that becomes ours through faith and repentance.

Does that sound OK to you?

Suppose the group is one that holds to high moral values and eschews worldliness. What would you say?

A Canadian evangelical magazine asks:

The question Evangelicals must ask is: What shall we do about how much we have in common?

The magazine concludes its article on this group with this paragraph:

There is a tremendous opportunity for Canadian Evangelicals when it comes to the _________ of ______. They are a relatively small group within Canada that gives much independence to each congregation. They have a good orthodox statement of faith and a focus on Jesus Christ. … Can we as Evangelicals come alongside the _________ of ______, not denying our differences, but embracing our common faith?

The group in question is called the Community of Christ. Not familiar with that name? Try this one:

[Read more…]

items of interest

Some very interesting articles over the last few days, impossible to really absorb them all, but thought I’d pass them on for the interest of others:

* An amazing editorial over at CT regarding the Crystal Cathedral bankruptcy – they don’t get everything right, but make this amazing admission:

The lesson is that our attempts to find and exploit a point of cultural contact inevitably end in bankruptcy.

This does not deny the need to talk about the gospel in language and thought forms that a culture understands. In fact, we cannot avoid doing this—we are culturally and linguistically bound, ultimately unable to get out of our own skin and see the world in any other way. But we must repress every fearful thought that suggests that making the gospel relevant and meaningful rests on our shoulders.

* On the subject of music, several articles out about a new study published at McGill University (Montreal) – when a musical piece builds tension, then resolves it, the brain releases dopamine, the ‘pleasure juice’ that is also stimulated by things like food, drugs, and sex.

Some quotes from the Gazette article:

…the feel-good neurotransmitter dopamine is released when people listen to their favourite music, be it rock, jazz or classical.

"Because it [music] gives us pleasure, we can use it to our advantage to modulate our state of mind."

The music that generated dopamine release depended on the listeners’ tastes and preferences.

"All types of music activated the same part of the brain," Zatorre says. "It doesn’t matter if it’s punk, classical, tango or even bagpipes."

Very interesting stuff. I sent the links to Scott Aniol. I wonder what he’ll make of all that.

* Don’t miss the audio files and most of the notes for the Preserving the Truth Conference. I’m reading Mike Riley right now. Very interesting.

* And last, for Bibleworks users, a recent announcement tells us of a partnership between WORDsearch and BW. You can now buy some pretty interesting titles to add on to BW. This could be a welcome gift for someone. (No idea who that could be…)

don_sig2

another quote game

Who said this:

What you do as a pastor, what you do as a college president, what you do as a missionary agency executive, does indeed matter to the whole fundamentalist cause. Who you invite to speak on your platform says volumes about the seriousness of your dedication to Biblical separation. We must be fundamentalists who realize our responsibility to the whole cause of Scriptural separation from apostasy and compromising evangelicals. It’s a matter of Biblical integrity. Let’s be obedient fundamentalists.

Remember, no googling!

don_sig2

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.

  1. 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).
  2. Most blog chatter is generated by the most passionate few, there are many more readers than commenters.
  3. 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):

[Read more…]

the Matthew 18 bludgeon

A very widely misunderstood passage is the church discipline outline given by our Lord in Matthew 18.

KJV  Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

NAU  Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

This paragraph is often used as a bludgeon to stifle public criticism of public religious leaders in their public capacity. The person who uses it asks, “Have you talked to so-and-so personally (and privately) about this?” The questioner ignores the fact that he has not done so himself with the person he is questioning. Never let inconvenient details get in the way of shutting down public debate!

[Read more…]

are we still friends?

Man, my brother and another pastor both sent me a copy of an e-mail from Matt Olson entitled "Open Letter to Friends in Ministry". I haven’t gotten my own personal copy, even though I know I am in Matt’s database. I wonder what that means? I think maybe we aren’t friends anymore.

Well, seriously, there are some issues between us, and I am still concerned about Northland and the direction it is going. Some of the things in Matt’s letter stretch credulity to the breaking point.

[Read more…]

show me the silent majority

Kevin Bauder’s latest installment tells the history of separation from a point of view totally foreign to me. Essentially, he seems to be arguing that there has been a silent majority within evangelical Christendom that never was actually new-evangelical.

  • This silent majority was at first willing to be identified as fundamentalists but had little stomach for the fight the fundamentalists waged against the liberals.
  • This silent majority wasn’t new-evangelical, but it sided with the new evangelical forces on the left of the NAE against the fundamentalists. (??)
  • The silent majority didn’t approve of Billy Graham’s cooperative evangelicalism, but they didn’t break with Graham over it. (???)

You know, I’d really like to see some evidence of these last two points especially. I see many ‘attaboys’ on SI about it, but really, shouldn’t we demand some evidence and not just rely on Bauder’s say-so?

[Read more…]

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:

[Read more…]