does it depend on whose ox is being gored?

I have put myself into contention with another brother over his choice of language in a rant against fundamentalism. In this particular case, I am generally in agreement with the main points the brother made. I was all set to post agreement with his general thesis in the article, but he chose to frame some of his points in "almost-not-quite-nudge-nudge-wink-wink" profane terms. Such language cheapens the discourse, but not only that, in my opinion, it is completely unbecoming of a Christian testimony.

So I pointed my opinion out. I am sure that my willingness to do so bothers some, and it could be that I am merely a proud hypocrit who loves to pick at specks. That could be true.

The specific language the other brother used bothers me, but another thing that bothers me is that other vocal leaders of the so-called Young Fundamentalist (or New Fundamentalist) movement are silent about it. One of them specifically stated in a PS to other comments on the post that he "was not offended" by the language. Another stated "I don’t understand what your problem here is. Bob is using strong language - He did not cross the line. IMO - your reaction is over the top. These phrases might offend the ears of Type A’s, but not Type B’s."

Everything is not a joke, Joel. We serve a holy God.

There is a rampant claim from the YF/NFs that Fundamentalism is rife with an 'old boys network' that won't clean itself up, that winks at offenses, that isn't accountable, etc, etc.

Yet when it is a vocal leader of the YF/NF crowd, nothing is said when an offense is given. The silence is deafening.

Does it depend on whose ox is being gored? Is the YF/NF crowd just building its own 'old boys network'?

Perhaps I should say nothing. It is true that I, a sinner, have no standing to say anything. But if I don't say something, who will?

I remain quite willing to delete my comments. Surely we can and should discuss the state of fundamentalism and try to correct problems that exist. But let us not wink at profanity because it is 'our boy' who said it.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

a disturbing post

I have an on-again, off-again friend in the blogosphere. I expect after this post it will be off-again. My friend is given to rants. I wonder if he always thinks before writing, or posting.

In a rant published today, he is arguing against the practice of putting on appearances. The general tone of the article is against something that most fundamentalists know to be a problem that does occur in fundamentalism. I agree that it is true that hypocrisy is alive and well everywhere.

But I want to focus attention on two specific statements in my erstwhile friend's rant:

So, really, who gives a rat’s behind about what anybody thinks about you? Stand up and be yourself. If people can’t hack the real you then don’t worry about being their leader.

Does that one bother you? Here's the second one:

Sometimes a Gospel-driven leader needs to conscientiously and publicly defy their pet righteousness. That requires a man with testicular fortitude and gutsy courage.

So... 'a rat's behind'? 'Testicular fortitude'?

In an article where the subject is 'being real', why does the writer not use the real profanity that these cleaned up versions hide? And is there any real difference between the "real profanity" and the gussied up version our friend uses?

Does the use of such language strengthen or cheapen the argument? Does it bring glory to Christ?

I know this man's father, heard him speak at the church we were members of when we were in SC a long time ago. I think their family were members there also. I recall seeing our pastor stop a preacher from making a joke about something my pastor would describe as 'bathroom humour'. He did this right in the middle of the sermon. Then he told the speaker to carry on. It was the strangest message I ever heard from then on! But I have to wonder, Bob, what would pastor Handford say about your post if you were giving it in his pulpit? Would he let you continue?

Would you call him someone who was concerned about perception, as well as reality? I would.

I will be happy to delete this post if you clean up yours.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

blogger weirdness

I am not too happy with the blogger setup. Hopefully it will not be long now before I migrate to a more permanent site (and a new name).

Two comments were posted today that show up on the sidebar, but when I check the entry where they are supposed to be, they are nowhere to be seen. Strange.

So if you have commented and can't see your comments, it is not entirely my fault. I have set comments to moderated in order to control what is said. I may or may not have comments at all in the future. Some of the best blogs don't have comments and I don't think they are absolutely necessary, although I do enjoy interacting with a few of my on-line friends via comments.

Anyway, just remember that I am only 'practice blogging' over here so if your comment doesn't show up it isn't because I am just ignoring you!

Usually!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

A quick summary of our Wednesday message

Well, tonight we looked at Christ Misunderstood. We covered three incidents that revealed the observers misunderstood what the Lord was all about. First was Simon the Pharisee, thinking Jesus couldn't be a prophet otherwise he would know what kind of woman was anointing his feet. I called this Cynical Misunderstanding, and the cure for it is confession. Certainly after the Lord's rebuke, he had only two options: crawl in a hole and die, or confess his faults before the Lord. His reaction is not given, I surely wonder what he did. The second misunderstanding I called Malicious Misunderstanding, where the Pharisees said Jesus cast out demons because he had a demon, Beelzebul. There is no cure for this misunderstanding, only rebuke. The last misunderstanding was the Concerned Misunderstanding of the Lord's family (Mk 3.21), "he is out of his mind". The cure for this misunderstanding is faith and obedience: "do the will of God". Interestingly, both his brother James and his brother Jude identify themselves only as "servants [doulos = slaves] of Jesus Christ. They got the message.

There are times when we as believers might misunderstand what God is doing. We might think God is even a little bit crazy. May God help us! We need to simply trust and obey. And may the Lord keep us from the other two kinds of misunderstanding!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

reflection on a month of blogging

I began getting serious about blogging again a month ago. At the time, I had grown increasingly disgusted with the constant stream of negativity emanating from one particular site (mostly, admittedly, in the comments). I went on a holiday from that site, determining to stay away for a month (which meant a return on Sept 11, coincidentally enough). I actually stayed away an additional day and didn't look at anything there until today. I checked the posts of the threads I had been active in. Some had gone on a good deal in my absence, filling up the bandwidth with many replies to the original posts. As I quickly perused the comment sections I came to the conclusion that I had not missed much.

One new development that pleased me was to see a very good friend from my grad school days posting book reviews there. What a blessing to see his name! We have had occasional contact through the years since graduating together in 1983. It is always a blessing to find friends still faithful in Christian service. Sometimes we find things otherwise and that isn't quite so thrilling.

But all in all, I am mostly glad to be out of that whirl. The comments sections of blogs (and especially that blog) are mostly useless. (Some of the best blogs don't entertain comments at all.) It is true that some good comments are made here and there, but the few voices of reason and biblical faithfulness are shouted down in the din of the banal, rebellious, and ungodly. I don't think I shall rejoin that legion.

Chris Anderson wrote when I started this up again:

BTW, isn't it nice to set the topic of conversation for a change?

I couldn't agree more. I have a different design in what I am doing here from what I was doing there and elsewhere. I especially am writing this material for my boys. Since their school keeps blogger inaccessible, I e-mail them every post and the more pertinent comments. I am hoping that doing this will help them formulate a truly fundamentalist mindset. I am writing for them, more than anything else.

So I won't be going back to the infamous site, other than as an observer. I feel no compelling need to comment there. In fact, I would prefer to comment here. Here I have control over what is said and I can say it to whom I want it said. Having done that, I think I will be satisfied with my blogging.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The 9.10.06 Sermon Summaries

This Sunday we went through the sermon on the Mount in just two messages. The material in the Lord's sermon is worth much more attention than we are able to give it in this survey series. I have two volumes in my library by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones which are basically the transcripts of his sermons on the Sermon. I have heard Mark Minnick preaching on the Beatitudes recently, sometimes devoting two or even three messages to each quality. So our sermons were on the 'thin side' in trying to do a survey-like view of this mountain of material.

The first message was devoted to the first 16 verses, The Characteristics of Kingdom Citizens. I was working on this central idea: The foundation of your philosophy of life should come from the preamble to the Sermon on the Mount: the Beatitudes should characterize your life. We first discussed the general characteristics of kingdom citizens, then noted the change in person from "they" to "you" in v. 13. At this point the Lord is beginning to make application of these principles to those who have embraced him as Lord (this sermon is primarily directed to disciples). The first application is a reiteration of the last beatitude, but personalized: 'blessed are you if men revile you for my sake'. The next two applications have to to with the kingdom citizen's influence: You are the salt of the earth, you are the light of the world. If you live with the beatitudes as your philosophy of life, you will have an impact on the world. Lives will be changed for eternity if you will give yourself to the Lord and his ways without reservation.

The second message was entitled, The Invitation to Exceed the Righteousness of the Pharisees. It was a summary of the last 95 verses of the sermon. I summarized it this way: The all-encompassing demand to exceed the Pharisees means that your whole life needs to be wrapped up in knowing and doing the will of God. You need to exceed the Pharisees in your understanding and application of the Law, you need to exceed the Pharisees in the manner of your ministry of grace (alms giving, prayers, fasts), you need to exceed the Pharisees in your view of treasure [value the treasure of heaven, not of earth], you need to exceed the Pharisees in your relationships (to others, antagonists, and God). The Lord concluded the sermon by contrasting the choices that lie before every man: the broad way vs. the narrow way, the false prophets vs. the true, the works of righteousness vs. the works of lawlessness (depart from me, I never knew you), and the sure foundation and the false foundation. If you will be characterized by the qualities of a kingdom citizen, your life will be occupied with discerning the false from the true, the earthly from the heavenly, the way of man from the way of God. And you will live out the way of God.

The third message involved the worry of John the Baptist. In 'Answering a Wavering Prophet' I preached on three questions, primarily in Lk 7.19 and following. The first question came from John: "Are you he that should come or look we for another?" The next two questions came from the Lord, "What went you out into the wilderness to see?" and "Whereunto shall I liken the men of this generation?" I used these questions to answer this question: The question for doubters and deniers is, ‘what will you do with Jesus?’. To John, the Lord replied by simply manifesting his wonderful works and quoting the words of Isaiah (29.18, 35.5-6). For those who doubt, look at what he did. Look at what the prophets said. He is who he said he is. Then Jesus turns to the crowd, doubters and deniers. He asks them what they went out to see. What was the attraction of this strange man? What they saw was the greatest prophet of all time, the one prophet who could see the object of his prophesying. Every preacher since then, every Christian since then, stands on the work of John and sees even further and better than John, but we don't see without John. For doubters and deniers, do you see what John pointed for you to see? The Lord goes a step further (in Mt 11.16ff.): What is this generation like? They are like spoiled children who complain about their playmates. Jesus warns them: If my mighty works had been done in Tyre, Sidon, or even Sodom, those cities would have repented. Jesus offers them rest if they will believe. So the Lord closes his sermon with an invitation: come unto me, and I will give you rest. The bottom line for anyone confronted with Christ should not be doubt or denial, but faith, which produces rest.

These passages are presenting a spectacular picture to us of our mighty Lord Jesus Christ. The unbelief of man, even men who witnessed his mighty works, provides a sober backdrop to the brilliant glory of the revelation of his person. It is incredible that men are able to persist in unbelief, but it is also undeniable that they stubbornly do.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

fundamentalist heartburn...

I wrote up my sermon summaries today, but left them at the office. I came home to check up on a few of the blogs I read and came across (yet again) the diatribes of the young against fundamentalism. One site is full of rhetoric like "hysteric fundamentalists", claims like this:

Yet, we have failed to see the importance of making our hair an issue of going to the stake for.

This comes after a whole paragraph of making hair the issue as in, "we wear it differently from the hysterics" (my paraphrase).

The writer also claims:

I know that much of this had a sarcastic tone to it and I sincerely do not have as my motive to offend anyone.

Right...

I am not sure why I bother reading this stuff. So many of the whiners and complainers think they are being original and it is the same old story. Constant stereotyping and whining about how we are going to be different. OK, then, be different. Quit defining yourself in terms of what you are NOT. (You sound like a lot of Canadians I know.) Quit the complaining and get out and do something. If your idea of what the church ought to be really is so different and so much more biblical, then that will surely show itself in time. But if you think writing diatribes will achieve your ends, then you have only learned the WORST lessons from the fundamentalists who went before you.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The grace of God ...

... spans the globe.

This evening we were visiting in the home of a family who started attending our church just over one year ago. They had just moved into town from Ontario, but six years prior to that they emigrated from Russia. The father of the family is the same age as I am. His father moved from Armenia to Soviet Russia when my friend was 10 years old. My friend grew up in godless communism. He was born again as an adult, after the Soviet Union broke up, through the testimony of faithful Baptists in Russia.

And here we were tonight, products of liberal, libertine Canada and repressive Soviet Russia, sharing Christian fellowship in a home on Vancouver Island. We were learning Russian (and Armenian) words and rejoicing in the fellowship of Christ.

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

MAY JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3