Answering Musical Questions
I wrote the following for our church bulletin 10/24/04 as a preview to what we call "Seminar Sunday" -- on those month's with five Sunday's, we have a soup and sandwiches lunch and an afternoon service instead of an evening service. We devote the whole day to teaching on one topic. This session was on Christian music and our philosophy in our ministry regarding its use in the church especially, with application to personal use also.
The Preview:
Our previously announced Seminar Sunday topic is “Christian Music”. As you know, one of the distinctive features of our ministry is a conservative worship music style. At one time our musical style was not so unusual, but now many Evangelical churches across the continent have abandoned it. In fact, most of the churches in our city seem to have abandoned it as well. The style of worship that we experience here is one thing that unites a fairly diverse group of people. Our theological convictions and backgrounds vary quite considerably, although I think we are in agreement on the essentials.
For those who come to our ministry from a previous association with another church, our conservative music style may be one of the major “drawing cards” of our ministry. You may not have been able to explain what it was you didn’t like about the changes other ministries made in their music, but there is something in what we are doing that appeals to you.
This Seminar Sunday, I want to offer you three messages that will attempt to aid your understanding of what we are trying to accomplish in our ministry and how the style of music fits in with our view of the ministry. There is a reason why independent Baptist churches tend to militantly hold to a conservative style of music ministry. Our music is not merely a preference of musical taste, but part and parcel of the strictly biblical preaching and teaching that we attempt to provide.
Of course we will not have time to cover everything that could be said about Christian music in three relatively ‘brief’ messages! But we will attempt to communicate as clearly as possible our philosophy. We want you to see that Christianity is not simply a choice about where to spend an hour or two on Sunday morning, but that it is a living relationship with Christ that dictates how you do everything in life, including how you interact with the culture of today’s world.
Message Preview: Is Music Evil?
The subject of this message goes to the heart of our decision-making concerning music. It is perhaps in this area where the greatest debate rages concerning music. Many Christians insist that music is absolutely amoral. That means that music of any kind is neither moral nor immoral, neither good nor bad, it simply has no moral quality. For people who believe this, no music is any more evil than a rock, a stick, or a tree. Of course, most Christians who hold this view will say that the words used with music can be evil, and should be guarded to some extent. In this way, they are able to condemn the vile lyrics of secular musicians while defending the similar musical sound of so-called Christian musicians.
The fact is that if music is amoral (has no moral content), then no musical style can be condemned. Music simply becomes a matter of personal taste, a preference. In many churches, the style of music characterized by traditional hymns was maintained for some time because it was simply a matter of “majority rules” — the preference of a majority of the church members dictated the style used. Some churches began to abandon the traditional style for the sake of a wider majority, the lost world, especially the lost world of young people. Over time, most churches appear to have drifted towards a style of music that resembles more or less the style of music you hear in the world. Traditional church music has gone by the wayside, resurrected for funerals and the occasional nostalgic “hymn sing.” If music has no moral value at all, there is absolutely nothing wrong with such changes.
But… of course, we think there is much more to the story than that! Music does have a moral quality. The first message on our seminar Sunday will be devoted to explaining why this is so and urging you to develop biblical discernment concerning the moral quality of the music that makes up your life. Is music evil? Some music surely is evil. Be sure to be here next Sunday to find out what makes some music evil.
Message Preview: The Spiritual Ministry of Music
What is Christian music for? What place does it play in the ministry of the church?
The answers you receive for these questions varies widely depending on the philosophy of music that one holds. Is Christian music primarily a tool for evangelism? (Should it be a tool for evangelism at all?) Is it primarily focused on edification and praise? Is it primarily about worshipping God?
Can the current fads in music actually accomplish all of these purposes? How should they go about it? What is the biblical rationale for our use and purposes in Christian music?
The purpose of this message is to outline a biblical philosophy for the use of music by Christians for Christian purposes.
Message Preview: Approving things Excellent
Our first message is aimed at identifying the need for spiritual discernment in the kind of music Christians use in their churches and listen to in their daily lives. Our second message is aimed at identifying a Christian purpose for the use of music. The third message focuses on a different question: Given that discernment must be made and a biblical purpose should be followed, where should we draw the line when it comes to the kind of music we use?
Some attempt to define the line very precisely. They approach the music of some musicians by picking and choosing among a whole body of work. It is like picking through the bones of a Thanksgiving turkey… there is a little meat at certain spots, but mostly bones and gristle. Inevitably, you are going to bite into something you shouldn’t swallow. When you attempt to precisely define exactly what is good and bad, you end up approving some music that will offend some spiritually minded people.
What should we do? Call the offended brethren narrow minded bigots and ignore them? No, that is not the way of Christ. In this message, I hope to show you a more excellent way: Approving Things Excellent.
The sermon notes for these messages are here.
A summary article from our bulletin for 11/7/04 is at the same location.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Monday, September 13, 2004
12 September 2004
The Possibility of Failure
Do you think it is possible to fail? Suppose a Christian is out living his life in the world… is it possible for that Christian to fail? Can a Christian fail in his testimony before the world? Can a Christian fail in his Christian life? Can a Christian live in such a way that he brings no praise or glory to Christ, or at least, very little praise and glory to Christ?
The answers to these questions depend on the people to whom the questions are put. Some would even be offended that such questions are asked. “After all,” some would say, “we are in the Spirit, of course we are having victory.”
It is a real shock to the system when, in spite of such confidence, Christians fail. In fact, many Christians who think this way fail spectacularly, and are seemingly unable to recover from their failure.
A more realistic view of Christianity and Christians would admit that failure is a possibility. We are all plagued with a sinful human nature that must be kept under control by faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Failure should grieve us and sadden us, but not surprise us. Failure should point us again to the need to rely totally on Christ for victory in this life.
In former days, Christians were encouraged to look at the failures of others and say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” In other words, the realistic view that my failure is eminently possible was a prudent point of view that Christian teachers encouraged. Today, many people are taught to see themselves as believers to be ‘victory-oriented’, ‘in Christ’, and so on. When we look inside ourselves, we are encouraged by some to see a person in victory by the strength of the Holy Spirit within.
Where did such teaching come from? This positive view is the fruit of decades of teaching that integrated psychological precepts with Christianity. In Christian circles, this view is taught as “self-esteem”. In the secular world, self-esteem teaching has come to dominate the minds of educators, health professionals, and, of course, the psychological therapists of various kinds.
Most people are taught at some point in their lives that the most healthy way to live is to have good self-esteem. If you don’t feel good about yourself, all sorts of evils are said to be the result. Sadly, Christian teachers have bought into this thinking with no scriptural basis.
What is the result of self-esteem teaching in the world? The result is a world where almost no one takes accountability for sin. We live in a world with a huge problem with authority. We have hosts of individuals who mistreat one another (seeking self-actualization) and can’t understand when others (especially their spouses) won’t treat them the way they expect to be treated. It is almost as if the whole world thinks this way: “Can’t they see how wonderful I am?”
The presence of this teaching in the church parallels a period in which a great decline in personal standards of behaviour also developed. The church, by and large, seems almost indistinguishable from society at large. Christians see very little of their behaviour as ‘sinful’ or ‘worldly’ any longer. The older generation of Christians who would have frowned on current behaviour is ignored, thought of as ‘old-fashioned’, legalistic, Pharisaical, and so on. Christian behaviour now emphasizes ‘liberty’, the qualms of older generations notwithstanding. It is no coincidence that Christian standards have deteriorated in company with the rise of self-esteem teaching.
Self theory is rooted in these basic ideas: “I am loveable, therefore I should love myself.” The first assumption of self theory is that lovability is absolute. It matters not what you do, or what you are, you are lovable because you have value as a person. This lovability is immutable (unchangeable). The consequence of lovability is one of obligation. “Since I am lovable, it is irresponsible not to love myself.” In fact, some teach that it is selfish to not love yourself.
All of this theorizing takes much more space than we have here to explain. Nevertheless, we ought to be very sober about this. These theories have been practiced sufficiently in our world and in our churches for us to observe whether they have been successful or not. Let’s propose some tests:
The Possibility of Failure
Do you think it is possible to fail? Suppose a Christian is out living his life in the world… is it possible for that Christian to fail? Can a Christian fail in his testimony before the world? Can a Christian fail in his Christian life? Can a Christian live in such a way that he brings no praise or glory to Christ, or at least, very little praise and glory to Christ?
The answers to these questions depend on the people to whom the questions are put. Some would even be offended that such questions are asked. “After all,” some would say, “we are in the Spirit, of course we are having victory.”
It is a real shock to the system when, in spite of such confidence, Christians fail. In fact, many Christians who think this way fail spectacularly, and are seemingly unable to recover from their failure.
A more realistic view of Christianity and Christians would admit that failure is a possibility. We are all plagued with a sinful human nature that must be kept under control by faith in Christ and obedience to His Word. Failure should grieve us and sadden us, but not surprise us. Failure should point us again to the need to rely totally on Christ for victory in this life.
In former days, Christians were encouraged to look at the failures of others and say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” In other words, the realistic view that my failure is eminently possible was a prudent point of view that Christian teachers encouraged. Today, many people are taught to see themselves as believers to be ‘victory-oriented’, ‘in Christ’, and so on. When we look inside ourselves, we are encouraged by some to see a person in victory by the strength of the Holy Spirit within.
Where did such teaching come from? This positive view is the fruit of decades of teaching that integrated psychological precepts with Christianity. In Christian circles, this view is taught as “self-esteem”. In the secular world, self-esteem teaching has come to dominate the minds of educators, health professionals, and, of course, the psychological therapists of various kinds.
Most people are taught at some point in their lives that the most healthy way to live is to have good self-esteem. If you don’t feel good about yourself, all sorts of evils are said to be the result. Sadly, Christian teachers have bought into this thinking with no scriptural basis.
What is the result of self-esteem teaching in the world? The result is a world where almost no one takes accountability for sin. We live in a world with a huge problem with authority. We have hosts of individuals who mistreat one another (seeking self-actualization) and can’t understand when others (especially their spouses) won’t treat them the way they expect to be treated. It is almost as if the whole world thinks this way: “Can’t they see how wonderful I am?”
The presence of this teaching in the church parallels a period in which a great decline in personal standards of behaviour also developed. The church, by and large, seems almost indistinguishable from society at large. Christians see very little of their behaviour as ‘sinful’ or ‘worldly’ any longer. The older generation of Christians who would have frowned on current behaviour is ignored, thought of as ‘old-fashioned’, legalistic, Pharisaical, and so on. Christian behaviour now emphasizes ‘liberty’, the qualms of older generations notwithstanding. It is no coincidence that Christian standards have deteriorated in company with the rise of self-esteem teaching.
Self theory is rooted in these basic ideas: “I am loveable, therefore I should love myself.” The first assumption of self theory is that lovability is absolute. It matters not what you do, or what you are, you are lovable because you have value as a person. This lovability is immutable (unchangeable). The consequence of lovability is one of obligation. “Since I am lovable, it is irresponsible not to love myself.” In fact, some teach that it is selfish to not love yourself.
All of this theorizing takes much more space than we have here to explain. Nevertheless, we ought to be very sober about this. These theories have been practiced sufficiently in our world and in our churches for us to observe whether they have been successful or not. Let’s propose some tests:
- Since the advent of self theory, are people more considerate of others or less considerate?
- Are people more concerned with their testimony or with enjoying all this life has to offer?
- Are people more submissive to the authorities God has placed in their lives or less?
I suppose the answers to these questions are obvious. The fact is, as sinful human beings, we all need the grace of God for victorious Christian living. Unfortunately, many people have been influenced by a false self-theory that is essentially a denial of sin. The consequence in the world is more chaos and trouble, the consequence in the church is a deadening of spiritual life at the same time the church claims to be alive. It is no coincidence that the growth of sinfulness, worldliness, and selfishness in the church has paralleled the rise of self-theory in the church.
Let’s get back to the self-view that sees self as simply a “sinner, saved by grace.” And let’s depend on grace to get us safely home even as we shrink back from “the garment spotted by the flesh.” (Jude 23)
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Love of conflict
I ran across a paragraph in an on-line article I was reading this week. It sort of struck home, as I thought of my delight in discussion and debate:
That line, “human nature loves conflict” … that’s the convicting line. Do we always do well in our discussions? Are we feeding the spirit or the flesh? I know the Bible calls us to contend for the faith, but is that what we do in our discussions?
The fact is that the Bible does call us to enter conflict for the sake of truth. Noble battles have been fought in defense of the faith. Some men have had the courage to stand up and be counted for Christ when few would stand by their sides. We should be ever grateful for such men.
On the other hand, some men seem to be just controversialists. They like the fight. If they run across an opinion, it seems they must be contrary to it. They must speak up. They must engage in the battle. All the while, they justify their actions by the call to contend for the faith.
Now what kind of people are we?
Do we enter conflict for the sake of conflict?
Our Glorious Christ
Hebrews 1.3-4 says, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."
What does it mean that Jesus is the 'radiance of the glory of God'? Westcott says this "is not any isolated ray, but the whole bright image which brings before us the source of light." He also says, "the light flashed forth … [in] the full manifestation of [God’s] attributes according to man’s power of apprehending them." The idea is that there is a moment in time (a 33 year moment) when the brightness of God flashed into human history, consciousness and life. In other times, glimmers of God’s glory might be seen in the lives of people who are completely devoted to Him. But only in Jesus Christ is the exact imprint of his nature seen.
The greatness and majesty of Jesus is seen in the phrase, "he upholds the universe by the word of his power." Our whole existence depends on the word of Jesus Christ. No one is higher than that.
Our glorious Jesus laid aside the fulness of his glory, came to earth to make purification for sins, and then sat down at the right hand of God in Heaven. Not only is Jesus worthy of the throne by virtue of his intrinsic nature and glory, he is worthy of the throne because of what he did on earth to take away men’s sins.
What does this mean for me?
Jesus is a Saviour worth following. He is a Master worthy of obedience. You should not even consider any other option. Bow your knee to him and live for His glory. We are all undone and unworthy before Him, but by His grace we are His brethren and friends. You ought to live for Jesus because he is "the radiance of the glory of God".
Paul had a heart for unity, but not at the expense of truth. His life promoted and protected truth. It must have been a great grief for him to witness those who were divisive in character. The subject became quite familiar to Paul. Eight of the seventeen words utilized to describe the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21 refer to that which characterizes divisiveness. In fact, the Greek word for divisions in Romans 16:17 is the same word that is translated
seditions in Galatians 5:20. Human nature loves conflict. It is the natural activity of an unsaved person but is entirely out of place for a believer. Thus, it should not be a part of the believer’s daily life or attitude when he defends the faith. (Ernie Schmidt, “Are Separatists Divisive?” Faith Pulpit July, August 2003)
That line, “human nature loves conflict” … that’s the convicting line. Do we always do well in our discussions? Are we feeding the spirit or the flesh? I know the Bible calls us to contend for the faith, but is that what we do in our discussions?
The fact is that the Bible does call us to enter conflict for the sake of truth. Noble battles have been fought in defense of the faith. Some men have had the courage to stand up and be counted for Christ when few would stand by their sides. We should be ever grateful for such men.
On the other hand, some men seem to be just controversialists. They like the fight. If they run across an opinion, it seems they must be contrary to it. They must speak up. They must engage in the battle. All the while, they justify their actions by the call to contend for the faith.
Now what kind of people are we?
Do we enter conflict for the sake of conflict?
Our Glorious Christ
Hebrews 1.3-4 says, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."
What does it mean that Jesus is the 'radiance of the glory of God'? Westcott says this "is not any isolated ray, but the whole bright image which brings before us the source of light." He also says, "the light flashed forth … [in] the full manifestation of [God’s] attributes according to man’s power of apprehending them." The idea is that there is a moment in time (a 33 year moment) when the brightness of God flashed into human history, consciousness and life. In other times, glimmers of God’s glory might be seen in the lives of people who are completely devoted to Him. But only in Jesus Christ is the exact imprint of his nature seen.
The greatness and majesty of Jesus is seen in the phrase, "he upholds the universe by the word of his power." Our whole existence depends on the word of Jesus Christ. No one is higher than that.
Our glorious Jesus laid aside the fulness of his glory, came to earth to make purification for sins, and then sat down at the right hand of God in Heaven. Not only is Jesus worthy of the throne by virtue of his intrinsic nature and glory, he is worthy of the throne because of what he did on earth to take away men’s sins.
What does this mean for me?
Jesus is a Saviour worth following. He is a Master worthy of obedience. You should not even consider any other option. Bow your knee to him and live for His glory. We are all undone and unworthy before Him, but by His grace we are His brethren and friends. You ought to live for Jesus because he is "the radiance of the glory of God".
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Unanimity and Unity
Bob Bixby posted a lengthy article on his blog Pensees entitled "Unity and Unanimity are Not the Same Thing". In the ensuing discussion I made several comments that I would like to re-address and expand upon. Rather than post my lengthy response directly to Bob's blog, I have decided to post my response here with a short note on Pensees. I welcome additional discussion.
********
I would like to respond again to the article, "Unity and Unanimity are Not the Same Thing" by Bob Bixby. It appears that I am lately come to this conversation and as such may seem to some of you who are reading this blog as somewhat of an intruder.
Let me say first of all that I appreciate the opportunity that blogs represent. They are an interesting internet phenomenon and seem to invite discussion of ideas. You probably are already aware of the vast array of ideas discussed in blogs. The vast majority are emblematic of the message of Ecclesiastes and aren't worth the electrons they are written on!
Regardless of the quality of most blogs in general, for people of fundamentalist heritage or persuasion, the ideas you are present in this article are worthy of discussion and debate. As a "formerly-young-now-middle-aged" fundamentalist, I would like to address at least some of them. You may or may not agree with all that I have to say.
Bro. Bixby's article is quite lengthy, so it is unlikely that I will be able to address every point, although I may address some of them here as time permits. At the moment, I do want to address a couple of points that seem critical to me. In addition, there are a couple of other things I should say before I begin.
1) When I first ran across Bob's article, I posted a reaction to it that included these words: "MacArthur will go anywhere and support any kind of group." One person contacted me on this point and challenged the statement. After thinking this all over, I realized that the statement itself is overly broad. I am sure there are many places and groups with whom Dr. MacArthur will not associate. My expression of my sentiments in that post was therefore wrong and a 'hasty generalization'. My apologies! I should know better, but I am prone to propaganda too! (That is not to say that I agree with MacArthur's associations, just that I was wrong to state my disagreement in such an overly general way.) Further to this, in my first response I stated that MacArthur spoke in a Baptist Union church here in our city in the past. I have since been unable to verify this, so my memory is probably faulty. I apologize for making an accusation that I cannot back up.
2) Now, by way of introduction, I am a BJU grad, class of 1979 (Bible/Greek) and 1983 (MDiv.) My wife and I are missionary church planters in Victoria, BC, Canada. We are appointees of Baptist World Mission.(Please note my disclaimer below.) We have been here 19 and a half years and are just now getting our church to where there is some hope it will be self-supporting soon. Our growth has been slow (long story, many factors, including the preacher being a slow learner). In any case, we seem to be making progress in the right direction, for which we thank the Lord. I am also the father of five, with two children now at BJU, a son as a Junior Bible major this fall and a daughter who is a freshman Church Ministries major. I am a "lifer" in the Alumni Association, and proud of it.
Now for my response to the paper:
1. My first reaction was reactionary - and still is to some extent. I mentioned these in my first posts on this subject.
Dr. Bell
Foremost was my reaction to the references to Dr. Bell. These seemed to be gratuitous cheap shots that really have nothing to do with advancing the argument of what Fundamentalism is or should be. You said, in objecting to Davey's comment about disciples of evangelicalism being unable to discern between *anagnwsis* (book learning) and *epignwsis* (life knowledge): "This is coming from a conference comprised of many who are affiliated with an association whose leader resigned just recently for public drunkenness." May I ask what this has to do with your point? You know, I am sure there are associates of MacArthur who have resigned in disgrace from their positions. I don't personally know of any, but knowing human nature, I would be surprised if it hasn't happened. Would such an association damage what MacArthur has to say about discipleship?
You later stated: "The 'fightin’ fundamentalists' pound the pulpit and warn the younger generation of John MacArthur, but never – I repeat never – named Rod Bell when it was obvious even before his drunkenness that his ways were wrong."
The general point of the article is that we don't need unanimity, just unity. Is there anything that Dr. Bell taught that attacked the unity we ought to have? Is this unspecific criticism of Dr. Bell's failings a new insistence on unanimity?
Really, I object to making mention of him at all. Dr. Bell resigned his posts of leadership in shame. How does it help to advocate for a point of view by scoring points off his humiliation?
John MacArthur
In addition, I reacted to the overly favorable view of MacArthur. In subsequent discussion on your blog and elsewhere, as well as further investigation on my part, I still object.
Among other things on this point, it was said: "There is no evidence given that John MacArthur does not embrace the so-called 'third pillar.' One cannot honestly say that MacArthur is not a separatist. He’s paid the price for separation." (The third pillar is what Davey described in his article as separation.)
In all of my subsequent thinking on this point, I have wrestled with this: where is MacArthur making his error? I think that for the most part MacArthur is utterly orthodox in his teaching. There are a few areas that I am not certain about, and it appears that in some areas MacArthur himself has made some clarifications, so I will not quibble with those. I don't agree with MacArthur systematically, but that is not a quibble either - I am not insisting on unamimity. In fact, the problem I have with MacArthur is not so much with his doctrines as it is with his associations. He apparently is happy to be listed on the platform with clearly evangelical or charismatic leaders. I wouldn't say that he would appear with just anyone, but he does appear with many who are definitely moving in a much more ecumenical direction. (Franklin Graham, for example.)
Some might quibble with me here. I can almost hear the cry "secondary separation". How to answer? I was thinking about this today in the context of the brouhaha over the Swift Boat Veterans and the Kerry campaign. The Swifties are what is called a 527 organization. Under current campaign law, such organizations must have no connection with any candidates campaign. One veteran resigned yesterday from his volunteer post in the Bush campaign because of his involvement with the Swift Boat campaign. Today, a lawyer who has advised both groups came under fire. He claims that his situation is permitted under the law. (He has subsequently resigned his position as well, in order that his association with the Swifties not harm Bush's re-election.)
On the other hand, there are many seemingly much more significant links between the Kerry campaign and Democratic 527 groups. There is someone who is the former campaign manager of Kerry's campaign now working as executive director (or some such title) of one of the Dem 527s. There is the situation where Kerry and/or his wife Teresa have attended as headline speakers at events sponsored by MoveOn.org, a Democratic 527. All of these associations are being called into question by the Bush campaign.
It seems that association matters. Under this current campaign law, the associations you make in the current political campaign are under a great deal of scrutiny. ASSOCIATION MATTERS!! And because association matters, separation also matters.
When we come back to our religious world, do associations matter?
I don't think it matters if I as an individual go to a meeting to hear a famous evangelical speaker such as MacArthur, Graham, or whoever... I think it does matter if I have such a speaker in to preach at my church. Or if I put myself on a platform with him and join in conference work with him. Associations matter.
Is MacArthur a fundamentalist? No, I don't think so. His associations tell me he is not. Oh, he is fundamental in his doctrine, he just isn't a fundamentalist.
2. As to the substance of the article, I agree in principle that we are not after unanimity. Fundamentalism would be a very small movement if that were the case. (It is small enough as it is!) Unity is the answer. But... unity around what? It seems to me that the article is saying unity around the fundamentals is sufficient. (There have been several listings of 'the fundamentals' or 'the essentials'. I think that a collation of these lists adequately describe the essence of the fundamentals. (For an itemization of several such lists, see THE SELF-IDENTITY OF FUNDAMENTALISM by Roland McCune in DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 9–34 - this is available here on the Detroit Seminary website.)
Historically, fundamentalism has involved more than just an adherence to a list. It has always involved an attitude -- a "mood" as they used to say. That attitude is best expressed by Jude, "earnestly contend for the faith." The early fundamentalists did so. They shared doctrinal views with conservative counterparts in their denominations. They were not willing to hold those viewpoints silently, they would not shut up about them. Ultimately, the contending led to the act of separating, including separation from men who held to identical doctrinal systems. Contending and separating cannot be... well... separated. They go hand in hand, and always have.
So the unity of fundamentalists has always been around the area of doctrine plus the willingness to contend for the doctrine. Some might contend that MacArthur does this. But does he? He makes strong statements about the charismatics, but then he speaks at Greg Laurie's "Preach The Word: Not Ashamed of The Gospel" Bible Exposition conference in September 1999. I am not arguing at this point about separating from MacArthur. My point is that MacArthur often speaks strong words, but then he makes inconsistent associations. It is not speaking the strong words that is sufficient, or the mark of the fundamentalist. It is the willingness to back the strong words up with strong action.
Fundamentalist unity includes doctrine and action (contending and separating when necessary). But... what about those fundamentalists who are constructing shibboleths that must be adhered to or else... what of them? What are they? I suppose we could call them hyper-fundamentalists. When a preacher makes the use of the King James Version a test of fellowship, he is a hyper-fundamentalist. When someone makes Calvinism a test of fellowship, he is a hyper-fundamentalist. When someone makes dispensationalism a test of fellowship, he is a hyper-fundamentalist. On this point I would refer you to another Roland McCune article, DOCTRINAL NON-ISSUES IN HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM (DBSJ 1 (Fall 1996): 171–185), available here.
It appears that some of the objections made in the article are linked to the preaching of standards and so-called legalism. In my experience, those who love the term legalism are looking to get away with questionable behaviour. The favorite question is, "What's wrong with X?"
However, I will grant that many fundamentalists think that if people will conform to an outward moral code, they are spiritually OK. I don't know how widespread it is. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not an insignificant proportion of fundamentalism. This has been the case for the last thirty years that I know of, probably longer. I agree that it is a problem, but it has not been a problem for me in my ministry.
In many cases, the so-called "legalist" is merely a brother with a weak conscience a la 1 Corinthians 8. He needs our love, not our knowledge (1 Cor 8.1). These matters of conscience are tricky... The conscience is a funny thing. There are some things that are just not an issue here in Victoria, BC, that was (or still is) an issue in the South. There are other issues that even the evangelicals here have problems with that people in the South just didn't make a big deal of. Some of our matters of conscience ARE just matters of culture and not of Bible.
I think it is a fruitless excercise trying to go around policing every other man's conscience. Or criticising the same. Rather, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. There IS a limit to how much we should engage in the culture of this world. But there is no hard and fast rule that enables us to determine with surety what that limit is. And we are often inconsistent in our own applications of these standards.
Do our choices here limit our fellowship? Sure they do. Some who eschew the standards of someone with a weaker conscience will find that those with the weaker conscience will not walk with them. So be it. For example, there are fundamentalist brothers who I can fellowship with on a personal level, but I would not take my young people to their church or to their camp ministry or what have you. Why? Standards of behaviour are not high enough. Music standards are not quite where mine are. Does that make me right or wrong? I don't know. Does it make me more spiritual? Hardly! What it does make me is someone who is guided by scriptures in protecting myself and my own ministry from what I perceive to be a too loose relationship with the world.
But let's get back to your thesis: Unity, not unanimity. I agree that this is the essential question. And I agree that some have grievously erred in adding to the fundamentals. The solution, however, is not in divorcing fundamentalist practice from fundamenatal doctrine.
Well, that is enough for now. There are more things that I would like to address in your article, but that will have to be on another day.
(DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions of organizations or institutions of which I am a member.)
********
I would like to respond again to the article, "Unity and Unanimity are Not the Same Thing" by Bob Bixby. It appears that I am lately come to this conversation and as such may seem to some of you who are reading this blog as somewhat of an intruder.
Let me say first of all that I appreciate the opportunity that blogs represent. They are an interesting internet phenomenon and seem to invite discussion of ideas. You probably are already aware of the vast array of ideas discussed in blogs. The vast majority are emblematic of the message of Ecclesiastes and aren't worth the electrons they are written on!
Regardless of the quality of most blogs in general, for people of fundamentalist heritage or persuasion, the ideas you are present in this article are worthy of discussion and debate. As a "formerly-young-now-middle-aged" fundamentalist, I would like to address at least some of them. You may or may not agree with all that I have to say.
Bro. Bixby's article is quite lengthy, so it is unlikely that I will be able to address every point, although I may address some of them here as time permits. At the moment, I do want to address a couple of points that seem critical to me. In addition, there are a couple of other things I should say before I begin.
1) When I first ran across Bob's article, I posted a reaction to it that included these words: "MacArthur will go anywhere and support any kind of group." One person contacted me on this point and challenged the statement. After thinking this all over, I realized that the statement itself is overly broad. I am sure there are many places and groups with whom Dr. MacArthur will not associate. My expression of my sentiments in that post was therefore wrong and a 'hasty generalization'. My apologies! I should know better, but I am prone to propaganda too! (That is not to say that I agree with MacArthur's associations, just that I was wrong to state my disagreement in such an overly general way.) Further to this, in my first response I stated that MacArthur spoke in a Baptist Union church here in our city in the past. I have since been unable to verify this, so my memory is probably faulty. I apologize for making an accusation that I cannot back up.
2) Now, by way of introduction, I am a BJU grad, class of 1979 (Bible/Greek) and 1983 (MDiv.) My wife and I are missionary church planters in Victoria, BC, Canada. We are appointees of Baptist World Mission.(Please note my disclaimer below.) We have been here 19 and a half years and are just now getting our church to where there is some hope it will be self-supporting soon. Our growth has been slow (long story, many factors, including the preacher being a slow learner). In any case, we seem to be making progress in the right direction, for which we thank the Lord. I am also the father of five, with two children now at BJU, a son as a Junior Bible major this fall and a daughter who is a freshman Church Ministries major. I am a "lifer" in the Alumni Association, and proud of it.
Now for my response to the paper:
1. My first reaction was reactionary - and still is to some extent. I mentioned these in my first posts on this subject.
Dr. Bell
Foremost was my reaction to the references to Dr. Bell. These seemed to be gratuitous cheap shots that really have nothing to do with advancing the argument of what Fundamentalism is or should be. You said, in objecting to Davey's comment about disciples of evangelicalism being unable to discern between *anagnwsis* (book learning) and *epignwsis* (life knowledge): "This is coming from a conference comprised of many who are affiliated with an association whose leader resigned just recently for public drunkenness." May I ask what this has to do with your point? You know, I am sure there are associates of MacArthur who have resigned in disgrace from their positions. I don't personally know of any, but knowing human nature, I would be surprised if it hasn't happened. Would such an association damage what MacArthur has to say about discipleship?
You later stated: "The 'fightin’ fundamentalists' pound the pulpit and warn the younger generation of John MacArthur, but never – I repeat never – named Rod Bell when it was obvious even before his drunkenness that his ways were wrong."
The general point of the article is that we don't need unanimity, just unity. Is there anything that Dr. Bell taught that attacked the unity we ought to have? Is this unspecific criticism of Dr. Bell's failings a new insistence on unanimity?
Really, I object to making mention of him at all. Dr. Bell resigned his posts of leadership in shame. How does it help to advocate for a point of view by scoring points off his humiliation?
John MacArthur
In addition, I reacted to the overly favorable view of MacArthur. In subsequent discussion on your blog and elsewhere, as well as further investigation on my part, I still object.
Among other things on this point, it was said: "There is no evidence given that John MacArthur does not embrace the so-called 'third pillar.' One cannot honestly say that MacArthur is not a separatist. He’s paid the price for separation." (The third pillar is what Davey described in his article as separation.)
In all of my subsequent thinking on this point, I have wrestled with this: where is MacArthur making his error? I think that for the most part MacArthur is utterly orthodox in his teaching. There are a few areas that I am not certain about, and it appears that in some areas MacArthur himself has made some clarifications, so I will not quibble with those. I don't agree with MacArthur systematically, but that is not a quibble either - I am not insisting on unamimity. In fact, the problem I have with MacArthur is not so much with his doctrines as it is with his associations. He apparently is happy to be listed on the platform with clearly evangelical or charismatic leaders. I wouldn't say that he would appear with just anyone, but he does appear with many who are definitely moving in a much more ecumenical direction. (Franklin Graham, for example.)
Some might quibble with me here. I can almost hear the cry "secondary separation". How to answer? I was thinking about this today in the context of the brouhaha over the Swift Boat Veterans and the Kerry campaign. The Swifties are what is called a 527 organization. Under current campaign law, such organizations must have no connection with any candidates campaign. One veteran resigned yesterday from his volunteer post in the Bush campaign because of his involvement with the Swift Boat campaign. Today, a lawyer who has advised both groups came under fire. He claims that his situation is permitted under the law. (He has subsequently resigned his position as well, in order that his association with the Swifties not harm Bush's re-election.)
On the other hand, there are many seemingly much more significant links between the Kerry campaign and Democratic 527 groups. There is someone who is the former campaign manager of Kerry's campaign now working as executive director (or some such title) of one of the Dem 527s. There is the situation where Kerry and/or his wife Teresa have attended as headline speakers at events sponsored by MoveOn.org, a Democratic 527. All of these associations are being called into question by the Bush campaign.
It seems that association matters. Under this current campaign law, the associations you make in the current political campaign are under a great deal of scrutiny. ASSOCIATION MATTERS!! And because association matters, separation also matters.
When we come back to our religious world, do associations matter?
I don't think it matters if I as an individual go to a meeting to hear a famous evangelical speaker such as MacArthur, Graham, or whoever... I think it does matter if I have such a speaker in to preach at my church. Or if I put myself on a platform with him and join in conference work with him. Associations matter.
Is MacArthur a fundamentalist? No, I don't think so. His associations tell me he is not. Oh, he is fundamental in his doctrine, he just isn't a fundamentalist.
2. As to the substance of the article, I agree in principle that we are not after unanimity. Fundamentalism would be a very small movement if that were the case. (It is small enough as it is!) Unity is the answer. But... unity around what? It seems to me that the article is saying unity around the fundamentals is sufficient. (There have been several listings of 'the fundamentals' or 'the essentials'. I think that a collation of these lists adequately describe the essence of the fundamentals. (For an itemization of several such lists, see THE SELF-IDENTITY OF FUNDAMENTALISM by Roland McCune in DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 9–34 - this is available here on the Detroit Seminary website.)
Historically, fundamentalism has involved more than just an adherence to a list. It has always involved an attitude -- a "mood" as they used to say. That attitude is best expressed by Jude, "earnestly contend for the faith." The early fundamentalists did so. They shared doctrinal views with conservative counterparts in their denominations. They were not willing to hold those viewpoints silently, they would not shut up about them. Ultimately, the contending led to the act of separating, including separation from men who held to identical doctrinal systems. Contending and separating cannot be... well... separated. They go hand in hand, and always have.
So the unity of fundamentalists has always been around the area of doctrine plus the willingness to contend for the doctrine. Some might contend that MacArthur does this. But does he? He makes strong statements about the charismatics, but then he speaks at Greg Laurie's "Preach The Word: Not Ashamed of The Gospel" Bible Exposition conference in September 1999. I am not arguing at this point about separating from MacArthur. My point is that MacArthur often speaks strong words, but then he makes inconsistent associations. It is not speaking the strong words that is sufficient, or the mark of the fundamentalist. It is the willingness to back the strong words up with strong action.
Fundamentalist unity includes doctrine and action (contending and separating when necessary). But... what about those fundamentalists who are constructing shibboleths that must be adhered to or else... what of them? What are they? I suppose we could call them hyper-fundamentalists. When a preacher makes the use of the King James Version a test of fellowship, he is a hyper-fundamentalist. When someone makes Calvinism a test of fellowship, he is a hyper-fundamentalist. When someone makes dispensationalism a test of fellowship, he is a hyper-fundamentalist. On this point I would refer you to another Roland McCune article, DOCTRINAL NON-ISSUES IN HISTORIC FUNDAMENTALISM (DBSJ 1 (Fall 1996): 171–185), available here.
It appears that some of the objections made in the article are linked to the preaching of standards and so-called legalism. In my experience, those who love the term legalism are looking to get away with questionable behaviour. The favorite question is, "What's wrong with X?"
However, I will grant that many fundamentalists think that if people will conform to an outward moral code, they are spiritually OK. I don't know how widespread it is. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not an insignificant proportion of fundamentalism. This has been the case for the last thirty years that I know of, probably longer. I agree that it is a problem, but it has not been a problem for me in my ministry.
In many cases, the so-called "legalist" is merely a brother with a weak conscience a la 1 Corinthians 8. He needs our love, not our knowledge (1 Cor 8.1). These matters of conscience are tricky... The conscience is a funny thing. There are some things that are just not an issue here in Victoria, BC, that was (or still is) an issue in the South. There are other issues that even the evangelicals here have problems with that people in the South just didn't make a big deal of. Some of our matters of conscience ARE just matters of culture and not of Bible.
I think it is a fruitless excercise trying to go around policing every other man's conscience. Or criticising the same. Rather, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. There IS a limit to how much we should engage in the culture of this world. But there is no hard and fast rule that enables us to determine with surety what that limit is. And we are often inconsistent in our own applications of these standards.
Do our choices here limit our fellowship? Sure they do. Some who eschew the standards of someone with a weaker conscience will find that those with the weaker conscience will not walk with them. So be it. For example, there are fundamentalist brothers who I can fellowship with on a personal level, but I would not take my young people to their church or to their camp ministry or what have you. Why? Standards of behaviour are not high enough. Music standards are not quite where mine are. Does that make me right or wrong? I don't know. Does it make me more spiritual? Hardly! What it does make me is someone who is guided by scriptures in protecting myself and my own ministry from what I perceive to be a too loose relationship with the world.
But let's get back to your thesis: Unity, not unanimity. I agree that this is the essential question. And I agree that some have grievously erred in adding to the fundamentals. The solution, however, is not in divorcing fundamentalist practice from fundamenatal doctrine.
Well, that is enough for now. There are more things that I would like to address in your article, but that will have to be on another day.
(DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions of organizations or institutions of which I am a member.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
