on the definition of fundamentalism

For our monthly men's meeting, I am doing a historical/theological survey of fundamentalism to equip them with a better understanding of who we are and why we are what we are.

For today's meeting, I was perusing Beale's In Pursuit of Purity. The first sentence gives a definition of fundamentalism that I find quite satisfactory.

"Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness."

Is there anything missing from this definition? Beale doesn't use the word 'militant' or its derivatives and he doesn't mention 'separation', but he does say 'defends' and use the phrase 'committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness'. Are these terms sufficient to carry the meaning of the term Christian fundamentalist?

on Horowitz in Moscow

My daughter's music teacher sent home a video recording of an amazing concert in Moscow, April 20, 1986, when Vladimir Horowitz was 81 years old. We took the time to watch and listen this evening. Horowitz was an incredible musician, marvelously skilled. Reviews I have read say some of the performances at this concert were his best ever. The pieces he played were these:

1. Sonata for keyboard in E major, K. 380 (L. 23) "Cortège" Composed by Domenico Scarlatti
2. Piano Sonata No. 10 in C major, K. 330 (K. 300h) Composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Preludes (13) for piano, Op. 32 No 05, Prelude in G major Composed by Sergey Rachmaninov
4. Preludes (13) for piano, Op. 32 No 12, Prelude in G sharp minor Composed by Sergey Rachmaninov
5. Etude for piano in C sharp minor, Op. 2/1 Composed by Alexander Scriabin
6. Etude for piano in D sharp minor, Op. 8/12 Composed by Alexander Scriabin
7. Soirées de Vienne, valse caprice for piano No. 6 (I; after Schubert D. 969 & 779) S. 427/6 (LW A131/6) Composed by Franz Liszt
8. Sonetto del Petrarca No. 104 (Pace non trovo; II) for piano (Années II/5), S. 161/5 (LW A55/5) Composed by Franz Liszt
9. Mazurka for piano No. 21 in C sharp minor, Op. 30/4, CT. 71 Composed by Fryderyk Chopin
10. Mazurka for piano No. 7 in F minor, Op. 7/3, CT. 58 Composed by Fryderyk Chopin
11. Kinderszenen (Scenes from Childhood) for piano, Op. 15 Traumerei Composed by Robert Schumann
12. Characteristic pieces (8), for piano, Op 36 No 6, Etincelles: Allegro scherzando Composed by Moritz Moszkowski
13. Polka W.R., for piano in A flat major, TN ii/18 Composed by Sergey Rachmaninov

The thing that struck me as I listened to this performance is that to enjoy this kind of music you must be patient. Each piece takes time to develop and to say what it is going to say. As the concert began, I found myself longing for a commentator to break in after a few minutes to tell me what is going on. I expect this is because we live in such a fast paced 'sound bite' culture. We can't sit still long. The music can't hold us, and we won't be held.

By the time the concert reached the mid-point of the first half, that sensation of impatience disappeared. The music unveiled itself at its own pace and seemed over all too quickly by the end. The entire video, including some interview footage with Horowitz, lasted an hour and 51 minutes.

on Wednesday evening's message: Relations among Disciples

Our midweek service was devoted to Matthew 18. Immediately when you announce this text, the mind of the well trained disciple goes to the process of discipline outlined in vv. 15-17. This is what Matthew 18 is about in the mind of many. In fact, we often refer to these three verses simply by announcing the chapter, "Matthew 18".

Tonight we wanted to get at the context for a full understanding of God's directions for us here. The sermon apparently occurs in a house in Caperaum (see Mk 9.33-34), possibly Peter's house. The child used for an object lesson might be Peter's child. The sermon follows hard on the heals of a dispute on the way down from Mt. Hermon, the mount of Transfiguration, to Capernaum. The Lord asks (in Mk), "what were you discussing on the way?" Silence ensues. At last, someone asks (Mt 18.1), "Lord who is the greatest in the kingdom?"

The Lord proceeds to adjust the disciples thinking concerning greatness in the kingdom. First, the kingdom is entered by turning around from self-centered pride to humble admission of personal inability. The issue of greatness in the kingdom is settled the same way, by humility. Having said that, the Lord rachets the discussion up a notch, to teach what it means when we as disciples argue and struggle with one another.

The Lord points out that anyone who receives a disciple (one such child) receives me, but anyone who becomes a stumbling block for a disciple (causes to sin), it would be better that he should be drowned ahead of such an event. He points out that the world is under a curse for such temptations, so the disciple should be extreme in cutting off those necessary things that might lead him to sin. He needs to be radical in avoiding sin. The Lord then proceeds to highlight the value of any individual disciple by telling the parable of the lost sheep — this is the value of the disciple in God's eyes.

It is in this context that the steps of discipline are offered, not as a new law to be exactingly followed in every case of sin, but in particular in the matter of offenses between disciples, one should follow wise proceedures in seeking to bring about reconciliation. The process may involve the whole church, but it most certainly should be pursued. The Lord takes such matters seriously: the judgements of the church are bound in heaven, the affirming presence of Christ occurs in every such gathering.

The passage concludes with the parable of the unforgiving steward, who, though forgiven much, refuses to forgive. The Lord offers this as a warning to those of us who will jostle and struggle in the kingdom to be seen and heard. We would do well not to trample our brethren under our feet in our efforts for preeminence.

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.' (Phil 2.5).

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on books

Today's mail brought my latest purchase, The King James Bible Translators by Olga S. Opfell. I have long had this book on my want list at ABE Books, a local Victoria BC operation. Over the last few years I have received notifications of this book being available somewhere for $45-50 US. Too rich for my taste. Last week, I was notified of a copy showing up at Zubal Books in Cleveland, OH for only $9 USD. I swallowed hard on the shipping charge $12 USD, but given the overall price, thought I would live with it. Total: $21 USD, about $23.50 Cdn.

The book is hardcover, in very good condition. A former owners name is inside the cover, but no other apparent markings.

My first glances make this one look promising. A fairly lengthy bibliography and a pretty good index in the back (this is a huge failing in many books, what is so hard about this, especially for newly published books?) The book has chapters on the various companies of translators, some chapters on attendant circumstances to the translation, i.e., "The Printing", "The Reception", "Some happenings and contemporaries" and a closing one on "The Influence". It also has four good Appendices: A list of translators, Bancroft's Rules to Be Observed in the Translation of the Bible, the Epistle Dedicatory, and The Preface to the King James Version.

All in all, I am quite pleased with this addition to my son's inheritance! (There won't be much money boys, so you'll have to be glad for the books!)

Some purchases don't look so good on first glance, and even worse after reading them. (Does the name Piper ring any bells???) Solomon said, "of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." Eccl 12.12. I have found this to be true in my life.

But books are necessary for the preacher. They contain the stimulus and stuff of sermons, the wisdom of counsel, and food for the soul. One of my professors advised me to stay away from the popular preachers books. You read them once, then set them on the shelf and never consult them again. He was right. I wish I had followed his advice more carefully. This particular purchase looks to be in the other category: reference books. It appears to be carefully researched and provides links to other resources as well as valuable reference material in itself. This kind of book is most helpful.

Time will tell, of course. You will find out what I think of this book if I start blogging about its contents. I have been reading a book by Marvin Olasky lately. I should be putting up a couple of pieces from that one shortly. It, too, is a worthy book, a brief history of charity work in America well researched and full of information. (He uses endnotes, though, a plague from the pit!) The book is called The Tragedy of American Compassion. I don't own it, I got it out of the local library, will wonders never cease. (We live in a very liberal town.) It's worth owning, but probably will not be added to my library unless I find a good deal used somewhere.

Books and more books... the stuff of a preacher's life.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the ministry of the Holy Spirit

Kent Brandenburg, a pastor friend and frequent commentator on this blog, poses an interesting question in his latest post at WHAT IS TRUTH. The question is, how can two people, faithful believers in Jesus Christ, led by the Spirit of God, arrive at opposite conclusions on any given issue? The question is an important one. We are confronted with a wide array of Bible teachers, and a vast storehouse of Bible teaching, more widely available than at any time in history. Sifting through all this teaching is impossible, but it is possible to observe a truly "Christian world view" that is generally consistent across denominational lines within "evangelicalism". [See Note 1 below]

Most conservative observers would agree that there is moral, spiritual, and theological deterioration at various points in the 'evangelical' spectrum. In spite of this deterioration, a Christian world view remains consistent across a wide variety of differing and sometimes antagonistic 'party' lines. If we move from the broad view down to the individual, we find that few individuals have complete unanimity of faith and practice. Even if you select some individuals from within the same 'evangelica' group, while there will be much agreement, you still find stubborn individuality making distinctions of some kind. Yet if you were to interview any decided disciple you would find the self-perception that he is faithfully following the leading of the Holy Spirit, consistent with the Word of God in every respect, and this even though he differs, sometimes quite strongly, with his brother.

How can such a situation arise that men who are disciples of Christ, seeking to follow the Spirit, arrive at different conclusions regarding matters of faith and practice?

It is one thing for differences to exist where there is disingenuity at work. Some differences certainly are the result of wolves in sheeps' clothing - the wolf professes sheep-hood, but holds the truth insincerely. Given the history of the church, it is foolhardy to deny that such situations exist, and it surely must exist in every church group.

But we cannot explain ALL different perceptions of the leadership of the Holy Spirit to false profession (wolf-hood). If we did, everyone else would be a wolf, and I would be the only sheep. Right???

Neither can we explain the differences with the notion that the Holy Spirit leads different men different ways for His own purposes. Titus 1.2 says God 'cannot lie'. 2 Tim 2.13 says God 'cannot deny himself'. Heb 6.18 says that 'it is impossible for God to lie'. Our understanding of the nature of truth would be stood on its head if we were to assume the Holy Spirit is some kind of divine relativist, leading one man to one 'truth' and another man to another 'truth'. Such a spirit wouldn't be very Holy, and such a god would not be very dependable.

My friend Kent answers the question with this: the problem is not the Holy Spirit and not disingenuity, but rather disobedience. He says:

These verses say that even His disciples will not receive some of His truth. They're either taught wrong and are not using discernment, they refuse to listen when told, or they won't start practicing or proclaiming what they now do know. Many of these sadly are pastors who have a loyalty to a non-Scriptural institution or a group of friends above God and His Word. Instead of submitting to Scripture, they stick with private interpretation...

First, I have to say that in general I agree that this is the case in many circumstances of differences over the leading of the Spirit. Many people stubbornly cling to 'private interpretations' as Kent says. I have described this before as 'doctrinal bonding'. There is a thing that psychologists (I know, I know) call 'bonding'. It is supposed to be very important in parent/child relationships, and it probably is. But bonding occurs with ideas as well. It occurs in theological minds when they give birth to a new thought. Occasionally the new thought will be the brainchild of the one who thought it. They bring this thought into the world, they nurture it, they develop it, they wrap it in swaddling clothes, they make it one of the unique aspects of their teaching and doctrine. In short, they are in love with the thought processes of their own minds. (We are ALL susceptible to this.) The new thought can also be presented to us by a much loved teacher. It is not our thought, we did not bring it to birth, but it is the 'thought-child' of our mentor, and since we love him, we love his 'thought-children' also. We warmly and uncritically accept all and everything that our theological hero teaches, replicating his errors in our own thinking by bonding to them.

In short, we are prone to disobedient thinking. We cling to notions that we love. The disciples themselves were prone to this as well. They asked the Lord, on the day of ascension: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" [Acts 1.6]. They still had not shaken the notion of an earthly kingdom in their own time.

Where we are disobedient, the Holy Spirit is not leading us. May the Lord grant us discernment to see our areas of disobedience.

But now, having set all this up (are you still reading this?), I want to go a bit further. Is disobedience the only explanation for differences between apparently Holy Spirit led individuals?

The Lord Jesus promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit would guide them when he left them behind. Here are his words on the subject:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. [John 16:13]

A couple of questions regarding this promise need to be answered. First, WHO will the Holy Spirit guide? Is the promise applicable to all disciples at all times or is it only applicable to the apostles? Second, WHAT is all truth? Does the Lord promise to guide his followers in every detail of truth, in every detail of Christian living, in every detail of daily living, or is his promise limited to some specific body of truth?

As to the first question, the Lord is AT LEAST promising to lead the apostles into all truth. The question, then, is whether this promise applies to other disciples besides the apostles. The notes of the NET Bible say:

"Since in the context of the Farewell Discourse Jesus is preparing the twelve to carry on his ministry after his departure, it is probably best to take these statements as specifically related only to the twelve. Some of this the Holy Spirit does directly for all believers today; other parts of this statement are fulfilled through the apostles (e.g., in giving the Book of Revelation the Spirit speaks through the apostles to the church today of things to come)." [NET Bible notes, Jn 16.13]

There is a sense in which the ongoing ministry of the Spirit of God is to lead every disciple, but in this passage, the primary sense is that the Lord promised to lead the apostles into 'all the truth' by means of the Spirit.

As to the second question, I think we can demonstrate from Scripture that the Holy Spirit did not lead even the apostles, let alone all the believers, to know all the truth about every detail of Christian living or every detail of daily living in the same sense that the Spirit led them to 'all the truth' about divine revelation. When Peter erred in Antioch, he was apparently not being led by the Holy Spirit, 'because he was to be blamed' [Gal 2.11]. Was Peter's disobedience a failure to be led by the Spirit? In one sense, yes, but was the Lord's promise intended to protect him from such failure? I don't think so.

Wiersbe has an interesting comment on Jn 16.13 here:

"When you compare John 14:26 with 16:13, you see the wonderful way that God arranged for the writing of the New Testament Scriptures. The Spirit would remind them of what Jesus had taught them; this gives us the four Gospels. The Spirit would also 'guide' them into all truth; and this would result in the epistles. 'He will show you things to come' refers to the prophetic Scriptures, especially the Book of Revelation." [See Note 2 below]

The promise of leading into all the truth was fulfilled in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. God led these men perfectly in their activity of 'inscripturation' (to use a Minnick word). God led them into 'all the truth' [article present in the Gk].

From this operation of the Holy Spirit, the same spirit continues to lead the disciples who follow the apostles, but he does so in this way:

"There is a sense in which all truth was committed to the apostles in their lifetime. They, in turn, committed it to writing, and we have it today in our NT. This, added to the OT, completed God’s written revelation to man. But it is, of course, true in all ages that the Spirit guides God’s people into all the truth. He does it through the Scriptures." [See Note 3 below]

Thus, the promise of Holy Spirit leadership is not a direct promise to direct our thoughts. We may find ourselves sincerely in disagreement with a Spirit-led brother, and neither of us be really in disobedience to the Holy Spirit's leadership. The Holy Spirit has not promised to "possess" us so that we will arrive at some sort of position of spiritual infallibility. We can be as sincere as we can be in attempting to follow the Lord, but we can fail to completely discern his will and leadership through a variety of causes, including disobedience, but not excluding just plain dullness and stupidity.

We should not expect Spirit-led disciples to arrive at complete unanimity since this is not what the Lord promised. The leadership the Lord promised is that of the apostles, into 'all the truth' (i.e., the written revelation of the Old and New Testaments). We need to put our trust in those documents, seek to know what they mean in their context and in application to our lives today, and not be exceedingly disturbed when our brothers don't quite see everything as perfectly as we do.

None of us sees everything completely clearly. We all see through a glass darkly.

And we shouldn't be afraid of differences between brethren. Some of those differences are important enough to limit fellowship, and some are not. They should be expected (and corrected if possible), but they should not cause us to doubt the perfection of the Holy Spirit's leading. The differences are not to be laid at the Holy Spirit's feet. He didn't cause them.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Note 1: I am using the term "evangelicalism" in its old sense, a sense which describes essentially non-liberal Protestantism ... and Baptists (a little sop to my Baptist friends who don't think they are Protestants).]

[Note 2: Wiersbe, W. W. (1996, c1989). The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. (Jn 16:12). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.]

[Note 3: MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments (electronic ed.) (Jn 16:13). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]

The 9.24.06 Sermons

This week sees us progressing through a series of events leading up to the Transfiguration with a few events following. There is a real progression in what the Lord is teaching the Twelve also, which is interesting to watch unfold and has much application to our own development as disciples. There is a lot of repetition in the events that we covered this week. Several commentators notice a cycle in Mark which I think is relevant here:

1. First cycle:

• Mk 6.31-44, Feeding of the multitude [5,000]
• Mk 6.45-56, Crossing of the sea and landing
• Mk 7.1-23, Conflict with the Pharisees
• Mk 7.24-30, Conversation about bread [syro-phoenician woman and crumbs]
• Mk 7.31-36, Healing [deaf man]
• Mk 7.37, Confession of faith [he has done all things well]

2. Second cycle:

• Mk 8.1-9, Feeding of the multitude [4,000]
• Mk 8.10, Crossing of the sea and landing
• Mk 8.11-13, Conflict with the Pharisees
• Mk 8.14-21, Conversation about bread [beware leaven of Pharisees and Sadducees]
• Mk 8.22-26, Healing [blind man (two stages)]
• Mk 8.27-30, Confession of faith [thou art the Christ]

Why are there two feedings of crowds? The Lord is teaching the disciples the same lesson: faith and trust in him.

The first message picked up on the theme from Wednesday night with some alteration, but still generally the same basic theme. The title was 'Messiah Under Attack' covering these passages: Mk 6.53-8.13; Mt 14.34-16.4, with a subtitle this time: 'training the twelve in the midst of crisis'. The proposition: The essential spiritual quality to sustain ministry under pressure is absolute faith and dependence on God. In this message we moved from the first conflict with the Pharisees (and scribes from Jerusalem) and the second conflict with the Pharisees (and Sadducees from Jerusalem - first mention of Sadducee opposition, which means the chief priests are getting involved and are closing ranks with the Pharisees, normally their opponents). Most of these events occur outside of Galilee, partly in response to the interest of Herod and partly in response to the growing Pharisaic opposition. The Lord isn't afraid, but he is in control of events and will be heading for Jerusalem in short order. His interest at this point is developing the faith of his disciples in the midst of increasing opposition.

The second message was entitled 'Slow to Understand' from these passages: Mk 8.14-9.13; Mt 16.5-17.13; Lk 9.18-36. As the faith of the disciples is growing, wavering, taking shape, I preached on the theme of spiritual growth. The proposition was: The process of spiritual growth is often slow and painstaking, but if you keep looking to Christ, the process leads to full revelation. Picking up on the cycle of events noted above, we moved from the second conflict with the Pharisees to the confession of faith and subsequent rebuke of Peter for his rash argument about the Lord's new teaching of crucifixion, to the Transfiguration. The message covered these points:

I. The miracle of spiritual growth occurs in stages
(In this point, I noted that the two stage healing of the blind man was a parable for spiritual growth - the disciples had been blind spiritually, but were now seeing truth "as trees walking", and would see clearly if they looked to the Lord in faith and obedience.)

II. The maturity of spiritual growth is not always entire
(In this point, Peter's Great Confession and then the Lord's rebuke were highlighted.)

III. The heights of spiritual growth are not easily discerned
(In this point, the disciples are confused after having seen the glory of Christ at the Transfiguration, they don't quite get it all and are puzzling over the meaning of the Lord's statement about resurrection.)

The point of this message is to encourage believers who struggle with their own spiritual failures. At times we seem to have insight and maturity, accompanied with all too apparent weakness and immaturity. If we keep looking to Christ, we will see clearly in the end.

The third message dealt with "The King of kings and Taxes" as we trace the Lord's steps down Mt. Hermon from the Transfiguration to Capernaum and the payment of the voluntary temple-tax. Our passages were: Mk 9.2-32; Mt 17.1-27; Lk 9.28-45, although we primarily stayed in Mt 17. In these passages, we proceed from the glorious to the mundane. (What could be less glorious and more mundane than paying taxes?) The proposition then: Without divine condescension, there could be no redemption. The subject was the nature of Christ: at once the glorious divine God-man and the obedient, devout Israelite, paying his temple taxes. Our object in the message was to highlight once again the glory of God becoming man for our sake.

All in all, we had a great day in the Lord this Sunday.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3