A few more thoughts from last week...
~~~
The first two days last week were spent at a meeting in Calgary, AB, sponsored by Foundation Baptist Church and Cornerstone Baptist Church. These churches are pastored by friends of mine from my student days in Greenville, SC: Bud Talbert at Foundation and Rod Alsup at Cornerstone. The conference featured the preaching of Dr. Bob Jones III and Dr. Stephen Jones, both of Bob Jones University, our alma mater.
We all profited from the preaching of the Joneses. Dr. Bob is very familiar to me, and his messages 'felt like home'. I have heard him preach countless times over the years. This was my first occasion to hear Stephen preach - he was 'just a lad' when I was a student at BJU. My wife, when on staff at BJU, frequently was asked to take care of Stephen and his siblings when their parents were away. Thus, to hear Stephen preaching now as president of BJU was a special treat for me. He gave us a fine message on the confidence we can have in the Bible as our sure Word from God.
I guess about fifteen or twenty preachers managed to attend the conference meetings. Most were from Alberta, with a few from as far as Manitoba and me representing the opposite extreme in British Columbia. The distances between towns [something I exulted in with my earlier post] is a factor in the difficulty of ministry in Canada, especially in the West. From the ferry to the meetings is almost 700 miles for me. If my kids had not been attending camp, I would have been unlikely to attend. I am sure others considered the distance too great to make a special trip.
The camaraderie in such meetings, even regular fellowship with like-minded preachers in a local coffee shop, is a great encouragement in the ministry. Our geography makes this difficult. The work of several fellows to build the fellowship of preachers on the prairies is commendable and a great help to them. Of course, distances make it prohibitive for some, but I appreciate the effort that is being made. I want to make it a point to support at least the major meetings of the fellowship and to encourage younger fellows coming up to do the same.
*****
A few words about church planting in Western Canada:
The two churches I mentioned in Calgary both meet in Community Centres. Property of their own would be a great blessing, but property isn't easy to come by in Calgary. Land costs are high. Even with congregations that are becoming self-supporting, the necessary funds are long in coming. To build churches in such an environment requires long term vision and diligent effort.
There are similar challenges to church planting in Victoria. The people of Calgary will tend to be less left-wing politically than those in Victoria, but they are just as secular. Calgary is a city of over a million people now. Yet it has only a few really solid fundamental churches. It has a few other churches in the evangelical camp, but most of these wouldn't be considered conservative evangelicals.
The dearth of solid fundamental churches in Calgary is replicated in every city in Western Canada. We need more churches and men who are willing to spend years in small, difficult works. Occasionally God will bless with tremendous results in a particular church, as has been seen in Meadowlands Baptist in Edmonton, pastored by Jim Tillotson. Yet the usual pattern is slow growth which requires long-term commitments.
In the real estate world I was told that Japanese mortgages are sometimes taken for terms of 100 years. Their view of the family is that the investment is not for the first generation, but for the third generation. In some ways, ministry in a secularized culture (from a formerly 'Christian' culture) must take on this same outlook. Our labours are not in vain, they are not for ourselves, they are for the Lord and for the future, if He tarries. May God find us faithful.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
on a dangerous reactionary response to legalism
Dr. Thurman Wisdom in his excellent book, a Royal Destiny: The Reign of Man in God's Kingdom made this little comment near the end of the first chapter:
This quote came to mind reading the blog of a fellow who was raised in a fundamentalist church of some kind. He apparently continues as a member of such a church. I don't know him or his church. I only know what he has written on his blog. Some of the things he says show a discontent with fundamentalism as such, something all too common among many. In fact, my involvement in the fundamentalist 'blogosphere' is largely due to my dismay at the attitudes so many openly express.
While I often contend that legalism is in the eye of the beholder, there is no doubt that Pharasaic tendencies exist within fundamentalist ranks. (The fact is, these tendencies exist in any social group, especially and including doctrinaire evangelicalism, but that is another post.) I am currently working on a series of messages about Christian standards and legalism, contrasting the difference between legalistic hairsplitting over minutiae and personal devotion, the practice of submitting one's whole life to the searching gaze and approval of the Holy Spirit. Pharisaism is about pleasing man - either self or others - with one's own efforts. Devotion is about seeking to please God.
The fact is, personal devotion may look like Pharisaism to an outside observer. David Hesselgrave makes that point clear in an article posted by Bob Bixby, referenced earlier in my blog. The devotee is earnest about following God and eschewing the world (i.e., personal separation from the world). Both the Pharisee and the devotee can coexist within one local church body without either really being aware of the difference. On the outside, the lifestyle is the same. The Pharisee, in fact, may even appear more holy than the mere devotee. The difference is largely a matter of heart. It is an attitude towards Christian living, a matter of goals and objectives.
The presence of Pharisaism on the one hand and the devotee on the other can and does lead some to cry, 'a pox on both your houses'. In reaction to Pharisaism, some will entirely abandon the heart attitude fundamentalism intends to foster. To them, fundamentalism equals a myriad of rules, establishing the length of men's hair [short] and women's skirts [long] and a host of other things.
Fundamentalism is not really about establishing how long a man's hair or a woman's skirt should be. The devotee will want to answer those questions for himself and to some extent will answer them for others, even making such applications a part of his preaching. But fundamentalism isn't a new Pharisaism, it is a political position within 'broader Christendom'. Fundamentalism is a reaction to the abandonment of doctrine and holiness by modernists/liberals and a resistance to the compromise of doctrine and holiness by evangelicals.
As movements decay (and they always do) proponents can descend into petty nitpicking about minutiae which can produce a drive to maintain 'the standards' as the be all and end all of spiritual life. Quite frankly, such an approach reduces religion to the minimums and quenches the development of personal devotion to some extent. That is, it quenches the Spirit. The pursuit of minutiae leads to Pharisaism, the attempt to please self or others by the perfections of one's own disciplined life.
Individuals tend to react to Pharisaism in differing ways. Some try to 'out-Pharisee' the rest, perpetuating the ossification of the movement. Others rebel, one way or another. Usually rebels don't just move 'one notch' over, to a more 'reasonable' position. Instead, they cast off all the restraints they feel imposed on them and move fairly far afield from their original moorings. Some may even abandon Christianity altogether. Most will at least abandon fundamentalism.
All of these reactions are a great concern to me. I believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism is biblical, though the practice of fundamentalists (including, alas, myself) often is not. My writing and thinking on this subject has one aim: to urge others not to abandon fundamentalism while wrestling with the biblical applications of fundamentalist thought. In other words, don't abandon holiness and separation from the world, false teachers and disobedient brethren just because no fundamentalist is perfectly obedient!
Having said all that, let me get back to the blog that motivated this post. The fellow has a somewhat oxymoronic section on his blog called 'Current Status of My Beliefs' [...how can something in a state of flux be a belief?]. This fellow evidently comes from a King James Only background. He is seriously questioning that position as well as a number of other points of his fundamentalist background. Evidently along with the KJO position, his background includes a seemingly heavy dose of Pharisaism [although I make that statement based only on his observations, I don't know anything about the reality of the churches this fellow has been involved with].
For example, on a page re-evaluating fundamentalism, he says this:
The points following this post indicate the fellow senses something wrong with the church and identifies the problem as 'fundamentalism'. [At least, that is the way I am reading it.] As I understand what this fellow is saying, his response is typical of many who are wrestling with the fundamentalist label. They are disgusted with something which they think equals fundamentalism. What they are disgusted with is Pharisaism. I would suggest that their disgust with Pharisaism is appropriate. The Lord never intended for us to descend to the level of the Pharisees. In fact, Jesus said our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees.
On another page our blogger friend also questions what he calls 'teetotalism'. The page illustrates my point in making today's lengthy post. It is a reactionary approach to Pharsaic legalism. Once the tent pegs are loosened, the whole tent comes down. Consider this statement in that light:
To be fair, the points that follow on this page are barely a cursory examination of the premise. Further, I don't really want to debate the issue of alcohol itself in this post. I draw attention to the post since this is one of the areas that a reactionary response to legalism seems to immediately go.
I have gone round and round on this with many people who claim to be fundamentalists. It is shocking to me that there is an argument at all. Alcohol is a drug with particularly harmful side-effects. The arguments made for its use 'in moderation' could be made for almost any illegal drug - and sometimes are, by Christians. The only restraint on illegal drugs in the minds of some is that they are illegal.
An online friend, Scott Aniol, notes that perhaps after music, no subject is more contentious than the question whether Christians should use alcohol as a beverage. Scott points us to a fine sermon by my friend Gary Reimers as well as an article Gary has written on the subject. Bob Bixby posted a passionate article in opposition to the use of alcohol some months back. He posts on the topic here as well. I have posted the notes from sermons I have preached on the subject here and here.
But as I said, I don't want to rehash the arguments against alcohol here. What I want to point out is that antagonism to Pharisaism often leads people far from their fundamentalist roots to a place of casting off restraints and indulging the flesh. Though right in suspecting the legalistic excess of Pharisaism, they fail to exceed the Pharisees in righteousness as Jesus calls us to do.
Recall Dr. Wisdom's comment:
Is it true that fundamentalists are guilty of legalistic excesses? Well, are fundamentalists human? Of course some of them are guilty. Perhaps all of us are guilty of it at one point or another. What human being isn't? We all like to approve ourselves and we all are most impressed with our own righteousness. Sometimes we are able to impress others with our righteousness as well.
But how should we react to the legalistic excesses of others? Is the right response a move towards less restraint? Towards more self-indulgence?
We see many young people raised or trained in fundamentalist homes, churches, and institutions moving lemming-like towards increasingly wilder forms of music, lowering the restraints on alcohol, lowering the bar on various forms of entertainment, spending their leisure in increasingly self-indulgent ways. They embrace the world and call it godliness. Is this a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees? Is this kingdom living?
Is this a violation of Dr. Wisdom's wise counsel?
It really ought to be a concern to us when the 'solution' to fundamentalism is self-indulgence. In particular, the instinctive reaction of spiritually minded Christians against alcohol use is not Pharisaism. It is wisdom. It is holiness. It is Christian love. It is self-preservation.
There is no need for using alcohol as a beverage today. It serves no purpose but self-indulgence today. It is a means Satan uses for seducing the unwary into all kinds of licentiousness.
I urge any Christian, of any kind, to turn away from the temptation to indulge self with alcohol. I especially urge young fundamentalists to consider the danger of falling into bitterness over Pharisaical failures by some fundamentalists. Bitterness will only propel you to ruin. Beware of your own brand of Pharisaism, seek to help others caught up in Phariasaism, but don't be tempted to abandon the cause of holiness and orthodoxy that Christian fundamentalism truly is.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]
This quote came to mind reading the blog of a fellow who was raised in a fundamentalist church of some kind. He apparently continues as a member of such a church. I don't know him or his church. I only know what he has written on his blog. Some of the things he says show a discontent with fundamentalism as such, something all too common among many. In fact, my involvement in the fundamentalist 'blogosphere' is largely due to my dismay at the attitudes so many openly express.
While I often contend that legalism is in the eye of the beholder, there is no doubt that Pharasaic tendencies exist within fundamentalist ranks. (The fact is, these tendencies exist in any social group, especially and including doctrinaire evangelicalism, but that is another post.) I am currently working on a series of messages about Christian standards and legalism, contrasting the difference between legalistic hairsplitting over minutiae and personal devotion, the practice of submitting one's whole life to the searching gaze and approval of the Holy Spirit. Pharisaism is about pleasing man - either self or others - with one's own efforts. Devotion is about seeking to please God.
The fact is, personal devotion may look like Pharisaism to an outside observer. David Hesselgrave makes that point clear in an article posted by Bob Bixby, referenced earlier in my blog. The devotee is earnest about following God and eschewing the world (i.e., personal separation from the world). Both the Pharisee and the devotee can coexist within one local church body without either really being aware of the difference. On the outside, the lifestyle is the same. The Pharisee, in fact, may even appear more holy than the mere devotee. The difference is largely a matter of heart. It is an attitude towards Christian living, a matter of goals and objectives.
The presence of Pharisaism on the one hand and the devotee on the other can and does lead some to cry, 'a pox on both your houses'. In reaction to Pharisaism, some will entirely abandon the heart attitude fundamentalism intends to foster. To them, fundamentalism equals a myriad of rules, establishing the length of men's hair [short] and women's skirts [long] and a host of other things.
Fundamentalism is not really about establishing how long a man's hair or a woman's skirt should be. The devotee will want to answer those questions for himself and to some extent will answer them for others, even making such applications a part of his preaching. But fundamentalism isn't a new Pharisaism, it is a political position within 'broader Christendom'. Fundamentalism is a reaction to the abandonment of doctrine and holiness by modernists/liberals and a resistance to the compromise of doctrine and holiness by evangelicals.
As movements decay (and they always do) proponents can descend into petty nitpicking about minutiae which can produce a drive to maintain 'the standards' as the be all and end all of spiritual life. Quite frankly, such an approach reduces religion to the minimums and quenches the development of personal devotion to some extent. That is, it quenches the Spirit. The pursuit of minutiae leads to Pharisaism, the attempt to please self or others by the perfections of one's own disciplined life.
Individuals tend to react to Pharisaism in differing ways. Some try to 'out-Pharisee' the rest, perpetuating the ossification of the movement. Others rebel, one way or another. Usually rebels don't just move 'one notch' over, to a more 'reasonable' position. Instead, they cast off all the restraints they feel imposed on them and move fairly far afield from their original moorings. Some may even abandon Christianity altogether. Most will at least abandon fundamentalism.
All of these reactions are a great concern to me. I believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism is biblical, though the practice of fundamentalists (including, alas, myself) often is not. My writing and thinking on this subject has one aim: to urge others not to abandon fundamentalism while wrestling with the biblical applications of fundamentalist thought. In other words, don't abandon holiness and separation from the world, false teachers and disobedient brethren just because no fundamentalist is perfectly obedient!
Having said all that, let me get back to the blog that motivated this post. The fellow has a somewhat oxymoronic section on his blog called 'Current Status of My Beliefs' [...how can something in a state of flux be a belief?]. This fellow evidently comes from a King James Only background. He is seriously questioning that position as well as a number of other points of his fundamentalist background. Evidently along with the KJO position, his background includes a seemingly heavy dose of Pharisaism [although I make that statement based only on his observations, I don't know anything about the reality of the churches this fellow has been involved with].
For example, on a page re-evaluating fundamentalism, he says this:
A lot of the legalism that our church teaches is due to their understanding of "Holiness". Are they correct? Holiness is why we can't wear shorts to church functions in summer. It's why we can't go to the movie theater. Why we can't drink, smoke, have piercings or tattoos. Why we can't listen to music with drums. How do you quantify holiness?
The points following this post indicate the fellow senses something wrong with the church and identifies the problem as 'fundamentalism'. [At least, that is the way I am reading it.] As I understand what this fellow is saying, his response is typical of many who are wrestling with the fundamentalist label. They are disgusted with something which they think equals fundamentalism. What they are disgusted with is Pharisaism. I would suggest that their disgust with Pharisaism is appropriate. The Lord never intended for us to descend to the level of the Pharisees. In fact, Jesus said our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees.
On another page our blogger friend also questions what he calls 'teetotalism'. The page illustrates my point in making today's lengthy post. It is a reactionary approach to Pharsaic legalism. Once the tent pegs are loosened, the whole tent comes down. Consider this statement in that light:
Teetoalism [sic] is taught by my church, most of the ideas of which I am suspect [sic] right now.
To be fair, the points that follow on this page are barely a cursory examination of the premise. Further, I don't really want to debate the issue of alcohol itself in this post. I draw attention to the post since this is one of the areas that a reactionary response to legalism seems to immediately go.
I have gone round and round on this with many people who claim to be fundamentalists. It is shocking to me that there is an argument at all. Alcohol is a drug with particularly harmful side-effects. The arguments made for its use 'in moderation' could be made for almost any illegal drug - and sometimes are, by Christians. The only restraint on illegal drugs in the minds of some is that they are illegal.
An online friend, Scott Aniol, notes that perhaps after music, no subject is more contentious than the question whether Christians should use alcohol as a beverage. Scott points us to a fine sermon by my friend Gary Reimers as well as an article Gary has written on the subject. Bob Bixby posted a passionate article in opposition to the use of alcohol some months back. He posts on the topic here as well. I have posted the notes from sermons I have preached on the subject here and here.
But as I said, I don't want to rehash the arguments against alcohol here. What I want to point out is that antagonism to Pharisaism often leads people far from their fundamentalist roots to a place of casting off restraints and indulging the flesh. Though right in suspecting the legalistic excess of Pharisaism, they fail to exceed the Pharisees in righteousness as Jesus calls us to do.
Recall Dr. Wisdom's comment:
Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]
Is it true that fundamentalists are guilty of legalistic excesses? Well, are fundamentalists human? Of course some of them are guilty. Perhaps all of us are guilty of it at one point or another. What human being isn't? We all like to approve ourselves and we all are most impressed with our own righteousness. Sometimes we are able to impress others with our righteousness as well.
But how should we react to the legalistic excesses of others? Is the right response a move towards less restraint? Towards more self-indulgence?
We see many young people raised or trained in fundamentalist homes, churches, and institutions moving lemming-like towards increasingly wilder forms of music, lowering the restraints on alcohol, lowering the bar on various forms of entertainment, spending their leisure in increasingly self-indulgent ways. They embrace the world and call it godliness. Is this a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees? Is this kingdom living?
Is this a violation of Dr. Wisdom's wise counsel?
Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]
It really ought to be a concern to us when the 'solution' to fundamentalism is self-indulgence. In particular, the instinctive reaction of spiritually minded Christians against alcohol use is not Pharisaism. It is wisdom. It is holiness. It is Christian love. It is self-preservation.
There is no need for using alcohol as a beverage today. It serves no purpose but self-indulgence today. It is a means Satan uses for seducing the unwary into all kinds of licentiousness.
I urge any Christian, of any kind, to turn away from the temptation to indulge self with alcohol. I especially urge young fundamentalists to consider the danger of falling into bitterness over Pharisaical failures by some fundamentalists. Bitterness will only propel you to ruin. Beware of your own brand of Pharisaism, seek to help others caught up in Phariasaism, but don't be tempted to abandon the cause of holiness and orthodoxy that Christian fundamentalism truly is.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
on J. C. Ryle's work on the Gospels
Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service has just announced a deal on the newly published 4 volume set of J. C. Ryle's commentaries on the Gospels. Ryle is an Anglican and Calvinistic, but an excellent and godly man. His book Holiness is well worth having. I expect these volumes are also worthy. This 4 volume set is on for just $32.99.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
