on 'abusive' pastoral leadership

A good deal of recent discussion swirled around the idea of abusive pastors and the 'suffering' saints who sat under their leadership [also here]. I wouldn't say that there have NEVER been manipulative liars in pulpits, it stands to reason that there have been many. But just as with secularistic social workers, I tend to look askance at most claims of abuse. First is the matter of perspective, as some have pointed out. Rebels always think they are being abused. Second is the matter of choice - church membership and involvement is based on voluntary association. Those enduring the alleged abuse do have minds, wills, and feet. They are not 'trapped' and can leave. And, again, this is certainly not to say that manipulative leadership does not exist. It is part of the human condition.

Besides these issues, there is something of a matter of social psychology and prevalent moods. The days in which we live are without a doubt much more anti-authoritarian than the days in which I grew up. My childhood years were the 60s, a turbulent anti-authority decade ... among the teenagers at the time. Those of us who were children in those days still lived in the culture of the 40s and 50s for the most part. The rebellion and change began to filter down to us as the decade progressed and emerged full blown (but much less radical) in our teenage years, the 1970s. When we were in grade school and even into junior high, a high percentage of us still went to school in buzz cuts ... I remember the scorn we felt for those sissy guys who came to school with 'Beatle haircuts'. Of course, by the 70s, the restraint was long gone and hair was everywhere. (Not on me, though, I stuck to my tapered cut... but I did have long sideburns!)

My point in this little illustration is that the generation that is rising to leadership now is the fruit of an anti-authority generation, whereas my generation is the fruit of an authoritarian generation. Someone gave me a tape yesterday of evangelist Joe Boyd giving his testimony. Boyd is well known in some circles, was an All-American tackle on the 1939 Texas A & M national championship football team, winners of the 1940 Cotton Bowl. He rebelled from his Christian upbringing and went into secular life, by his testimony, a life of business, gambling, and drinking. After a few years, the Lord got hold of Boyd, he went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, earning a Master of Theology degree in 1947. He then went into the Lord's work as a pastor and evangelist. He was close to Jack Hyles and would tend to travel in those circles.

Listening to Boyd talk brings to mind the kind of preacher some folks would like to call abusive. Boyd is strong, rough, domineering in his speech, at least to some ears. One must remember, however the times in which he was reared. He is a product of the Second World War. Tom Brokaw called this generation 'The Greatest Generation'. The men of this era built the continent. They were coming out of the horse and buggy era into the modern era of automobiles and 'aeroplanes'. They fought the great fight of the war, or they were prepared to. (My own father was 18 when the war ended - had it lasted longer he could have been called into that struggle.) That generation built the interstate highway system, lived the oil boom, and brought an agrarian society off the farm to transform it into a society of cities. The men (and women) of that generation were strong, resourceful, opinionated, and successful.

Did they go too far? Are some of those preachers stuck in a time warp? I suppose one could say that. But are they entirely wrong? I am not sure about that. I expect that many of those crying 'pastoral abuse' today would have a hard time with the apostles. Too rough, too domineering. And what of the Old Testament prophets? Well! Suppose we had Amos for a pastor. How would our 21st century sophisticates hold up under his preaching?

The Scriptures teach that a pastor must not be a brawler, he must lead with love and serve the flock God has given him. But that doesn't mean that he must be some kind of emotional lightweight who just lets people do what they want and never hear a word of rebuke either. The claims of pastoral abuse are much overdone and are symptomatic of our times. I am struck by some of the comments we are seeing at how much like liberal Democrats and the left of public society they sound like. Are these people for real? Is this the future of fundamentalism? Lord help us!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on great expectations (sermon summary 11.22.06)

We looked at 1 Th 4-5 on Wednesday evening, considering the topic 'Great Expectations'. Of course, the big thing that people turn to 1 Thessalonians for is the Rapture, found in chapter 4. I recall the tragedy of sitting at a funeral for a lost friend of mine, dead at 19 (my age at the time) who was killed in a head on collision just before I returned to BJU for my sophomore year. They read this passage at the funeral. But they had no hope. The funeral was held in the Elks Lodge, and conducted by members of the Royal Canadian Legion - well meaning, but no God and no Lord Jesus. What a tragedy.

When we consider these verses, and the whole of eschatology, we have to ask ourselves what they are intended to do for the believer. The context of 1 Th 4-5 gives us the answer. Paul says in 1 Th 4.1 that he wants to exhort the Thessalonians about how to walk and to please God. Then he proceeds to deal with two subjects, sexual purity and loving your brother. If a man lives clean and pure in both these areas, he will be well spoken of even in the secular world. But life isn't just about success in the secular world, and our motivation isn't the praise of men or the hope of the good life here and now. First, our hope is in the Lord who will come back with a shout (the Rapture - 1 Th 4.13-18) and our promise is escape from wrath (the day of the Lord - 1 Th 5.1-11). From eschatology, Paul turns to concluding with his wonderful exhortations in 1 Th 5 (the second reason people turn to 1 Th). All of these are meant to guide believers to a life 'well pleasing to God'. Our motivation ought to be the hope of heaven and the promise of God's approval for a life lived for him.

on defining the church (sermon summaries 11.19.06)

The first message this Sunday had the pivotal chapter, Acts 15, as our text. The title I chose was 'How Should Christians Live?' The 15th chapter of Acts is the chapter that settled the Galatian question forever and really sealed the character of the Christian church for all time. The question the Judaizers were placing before the church was one of definition: What is the church? The answer was that the church is not a superior form of Judaism, nor is it simply another meaningless Gentile religion. It is an organism centered around faith in the living Son of God, separate from the world - the world that is Judaism and paganism at the same time.

The Old Testament religion of the Jews had long departed from God's intent, first by centuries of dabbling with paganism pre-exile, second by a few centuries of idolizing the forms of religion itself through the rise of Pharisaism post-exile. Was there ever a pure Judaism? Only in the hearts of some individuals, sometimes more numerous than at other times, but really only on an individual, not a collective basis.

In Ac 15, we see the Galatian dispute arise in Antioch of Syria, after Paul has written the book of Galatians. He has no small disputation with the Judaizers, and the church in Antioch calls for a meeting of the apostles to settle the issue (the last meeting of the apostles as a group). In Jerusalem, once the dispute is engaged, Peter rises to testify in favor of Paul and Barnabas and the 'anti-Law' position. Peter does this, employing very similar language to that with which Paul rebuked him earlier (compare Gal 2.14-18 with Ac 15.10). Peter also points out that Jews will be saved by faith, just like the Gentiles (Ac 15.11), a not so subtle slap to the Judaizers, putting the Jews in second place to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas then testify, followed by James the brother of the Lord, whose proposal carries the day. Four requirements are placed on the Gentile church: no food offered to idols, no fornication, no blood, no things strangled. The blood and things strangled are rooted in the Noahic Covenant (Gen 9.1-6) and pre-date the law. The point of the decision is this: The church is going to be an organization where the only entrance stipulation is faith in Christ AND it is going to be an organization that demands separation from the world (all four issues were pagan practices). Today, the church needs to come to grips with this. It is not Galatianism to insist on separation from the world. It is paganism to insist otherwise. Today's church is a pagan church and needs radical reformation.

Our second message dealt with the Third Missionary Journey, Ac 16-18, focusing on Ac 18.9-10, the Lord's encouraging vision to Paul while in Corinth. The title was 'Abased and Abounding'. I began by surveying the frustration of Paul's ministry as he entered Europe for the first time. In Philippi, he is beaten and imprisoned. In Thessalonica, he is driven out of town by a Jewish mob. In Berea, he is better received, but the Thessalonian Jews arrive to stir up trouble again, and he has to hotfoot it for Athens. In Athens, he is mostly mocked and ignored, with only a handful of converts to show for his efforts. When he arrives in Corinth, there is some success, but again rising opposition by the Jews. Paul knew what it was to be abased, he probably thought that he was about to be chased out of Corinth as well. But the Lord comes to assure him, giving him three commands: Fear not, keep on speaking, don't be silent. The Lord also gives him three assurances: I am with you, you will not be harmed, I have much people in this city. This encouragement enables Paul to press on in Corinth where he stays an additional 18 months. During this time the Jews try to haul him to court before Seneca's brother, the noble Gallio, who refuses to hear the case. The leader of the synagogue, Sosthenes, is instead beaten by the Greeks. Interestingly, a Sosthenes is named as an assistant of Paul in 1 Corinthians. It is possible that the Lord changed the heart of Sosthenes (otherwise why specifically mention his name?) At any rate, the Lord granted Paul a fruitful and succesful ministry in Corinth - much abounding. For our own ministry, we need the knowledge of the Lord's presence - he guaranteed it in the Great Commission, this promise is for us all. The Lord may not keep us from trial, but he will be with us to keep us through trial if it comes to that. The knowledge of the Lord's presence is the key to abounding.

Our last message covered the first three chapters of 1 Thessalonians, 'The Testimony of Growing Believers'. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians after being rejoined by Silas and Timothy in Corinth. He longed to be with them, but was prevented, perhaps by the bond Jason posted in Ac 17. In any case, he writes them a warm and affectionate letter designed to help them grow in the faith, something he desired to do by his presence, but could only do by way of letter in his absence. The first three chapters are sort of a 'love letter' between Paul and the church where he thanks God for their encouraging testimony of evident salvation (1.2-5, 9-10), for the remembered testimony of receptive hearts (2.13-16), and last prays for the desired testimony of ongoing faithfulness (3.8-13). The Thessalonian news was an encouragement for the apostle. The growth of Christians in a local church are encouragement for the pastor, and for any other Christians that observe them. We ought to grow for the Lord's sake, but the fact is your growth is a great benefit to those who minister to you.

We had a good day in the Lord with a few visitors who are former members. These folks made some poor choices in the past, and seem to be stuck in those choices at the moment, but we are glad for the opportunity to minister to them once again.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on sand in the lines (or, a look at the Sesame Street analysis)

The online fundamentalist world was buzzing last week over the 'Three Lines in the Sand' battle, instigated by the publication of articles on the blog, Sharper Iron. The ensuing discussion caught a good deal of attention by those fundamentalists who frequent the online sites of opinion with additional articles and comments appearing at several other sites as well. Here are links to Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 and other links here and here. For very negative reviews with not a lot of grace you can check these artiles here and here [hey, Kent, et al, I love ya, but 'Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt...', not the other way around. I know, I err like this, too].

I began to prepare a commentary on this issue earlier in the week, but as events have developed, I decided to simply re-write a comment from scratch. Before I really get into it, I should explain my term 'Sesame Street analysis'. Joel Tetreau, the author of the 'Three Lines in the Sand' article, analyses fundamentalism by calling various forms of it Type A, Type B, or Type C. I have jokingly referred to Joel's analysis as "Sesame Street analysis" this way: "This analysis is brought to you by the letters, A, B, and C..." If you are old enough, you will get the joke.

Now for my comments on the subject. I really am not so concerned with analysing Joel's article per se. We have seen enough of that in the last week. But I want to make some observations Joel's general thesis as I see it.

There is no doubt that there are at least two uneasy camps within self-professed fundamentalism. There is a more 'traditional' group, we'll use Joel's Type A for ease of reference, but I am not sure there is really a name for this group. This group tends to approach ministry with a more militant attitude than the second group. The second group Joel calls Type B. We have also heard of them being referred to as Young Fundamentalists or NeoFundamentalists. The men in this second group tend to be more recent graduates of fundamentalist institutions, whether it be fundamentalist Christian schools or colleges and universities. They tend to be more heavily represented by younger people who are between 25 and 35 years of age, although there are old fogies (my contemporaries) who sympathize with them and could be called part of this group as well.

Michael Riley's comments are helpful, especially where he says the real issue is what to do about a group labeled by Joel as "Type C". These men, the Type Cs, are not usually labeled as fundamentalists. For the most part, the Type C men would not want the label (there are some exceptions) and are not really looking for a common cause with fundamentalists. They represent conservative evangelicals who are willing to contend with other evangelicals over various issues. The Type B crowd apparently wants to label the Type C crowd as a 'non-identifying branch' of fundamentalism. The Type A crowd denies that Type C is fundamentalist at all.

The distinctions between Type A and Type B, however, are much more than simply 'what to do with Type C'. One other major issue to understand with respect to the distinctions is who has the best grasp of fundamentalist history and historic fundamentalist philosophy. Both Type A and Type B would view themselves as having this understanding down cold, and the other fellows to be all wet. I suppose that if we can answer this second issue, the answer to the question of Type C is obvious.

Typically in these debates, we all seem to discuss a certain word when it comes to fundamentalism: separation. There is no doubt that fundamentalists have often and do often separate themselves from other Christians because of perceived compromise of the gospel. In the last few days, I am wondering if this word is obscuring the issues and clouding our understanding. In the past, I have said that if you won't separate, you are not a fundamentalist. Lately, I am thinking that this description isn't adequate.

I am thinking now about another word that we should emphasize more strongly than 'separation'. That word is 'militancy'. The early fundamentalists who fought modernism in their denominations were militant. They struggled mightily to preserve their schools, churches, and other institutions. It was a 'battle royal' in Curtis Lee Laws' famous phrase. The battle royal led ultimately to separation, but some men stayed within their denominations, fighting a losing battle but still fighting. I wonder if we shouldn't be charitable enough to say that those who continued to fight, even in a losing cause, should still be considered fundamentalists because they were militant, though not always separatists.

Let's take this a step further, however. Is militancy the same thing as orthodoxy? Answer: No. One can be personally orthodox in theology but not militant about it, i.e., unwilling to do battle royal for the fundamentals (orthodox doctrine). You just go along with the flow, hoe your own corn, so to speak, and leave the politics alone. Many otherwise orthodox men have taken this position through the years.

The fundamentalist, in contrast, is militant. He is fighting for an objective: purity of the gospel, purity of the church. Historically, we saw fundamentalists agitating militantly for ecclesiastical integrity which inevitably createwd divisions with those unwilling to engage the battle. Sometimes these divisions led to complete separation, a refusal to associate, and I think this was, and is, right. The fundamentalist will also agitate militantly for the personal purity of Christians which inevitably involves repudiation of worldliness and worldly practices. This opens a whole can of worms that has been endlessly debated throughout the history church, but without a doubt the militant fundamentalist mindset will argue in favour of purging worldly elements from the lives of Christians. (The next question to decide is 'what is worldly', but we will leave that alone for this article.)

Are the Type Cs militant? Is militancy the same thing as saying hard things about the beliefs and practices of other Christians? In the 'Three Lines' article an example was given of Harold Lindsell and his book The Battle for the Bible. [This appeared in Part IV of the article which briefly appeared on Sharper Iron but was later taken down at Joel's request. I managed to snag a copy of it before it was taken down. Joel has promised to publish it elsewhere 'later', but I kind of wish he wouldn't. Let sleeping dogs lie, Joel. And this dog is one you need to put to sleep!!]

Joel refers to Lindsell this way:

Militancy to the Type C fundamentalist is kin to Ronald Reagan militancy. Reagan led our country through a rebuilding of a military arsenal that eventually led the Soviet Union to an economic implosion. They simply could not keep up with the arms race. “Fundamentalism” to a Type C is a verb. More specifically, it is an action verb. Fundamentalism is not something necessarily that describes their primary identity (Type A), nor does it really modify or explain where they are (Type B). Type C Fundamentalism is a description of what they “do.” These men are actively engaging the faith. They are actively contending within their associations, fellowships, conventions, or denominations. They are not attempting to “smoosh their way” (as in the new-evangelical ethos). They are actively doing “Battle Royal” for the faith. In my way of understanding, the rebirth of Type C Fundamentalism would have been in the late 1970’s and early 80’s. Type C fundamentalists are those conservative men who contended in groups such as the SBC and CBA. Harold Lindsell came out with his work, Battle for the Bible. Often Type A’s will not want to give Type C’s the title because these men often demonstrate a disdain for the term “Fundamentalism.” This does not mean they do not fit the historical pattern of Fundamentalism. It is more likely that they had the unfortunate occurrence of bumping into a “fierce” member of A+ Fundamentalism and were offended by their rudeness, theological illiteracy, and/or just bad manners.

I give you that quote for the purposes of getting the context. There are a lot of things wrong with this paragraph and with Joel's writing in general. Joel, I think it might be better for you to colaborate with someone when writing this kind of thing. It is often hard to follow your thoughts. I think I understand why, but you might be able to succeed better by collaborating with someone else to put your thoughts in a more coherent form. [I know Joel is going to be reading this and promised him my honest critiques. I like Joel and had an extra donut at Tims just this morning in his honour.]

What Joel seems to be saying is that we as fundamentalists don't respect the work done by evangelicals to fight for the gospel. I think Joel might be saying here that Lindsell is a prototype 'Type C' as an example of a Type C who is fighting for the gospel 'within evangelicalism'. If Joel isn't saying that, he is at least saying that the Type Cs owe their heritage to Lindsell's work, his books formed the basis for 'conservative evangelicalism'. Either conclusion (and perhaps I am missing something)... but either conclusion really is a misjudgement of history.

When Lindsell's The Battle for the Bible came out, it did cause a sensation in the evangelical world, but is it truly an example of a militant mindset? It may be belligerency, but is it militancy? At the time the book came out, Lindsell was editor of Christianity Today. (He retired from that post two years later.) From what I have been able to discover of his life, he maintained his new evangelical position until the end. He is credited as one of the 'founding fathers' of New Evangelicalism, a lifelong friend of Billy Graham, biographer of Ockenga, etc., etc. While his book created a divide within Evangelicalism, leading to the Statement on Inerrancy, was it really an example of militancy, crusading to purify the evangelical church, or was it a reaffirmation of the New Evangelical status quo? The New Evangelical philosophy began as orthodoxy minus militancy. Was Lindsell advocating a change of that notion or a return to it?

This example perhaps highlights the differences we have very vividly. The Type Cs are occasional crusaders within their groups for issues that are important to them, but are we seriously trying to say that they have the same militant mindset of the 1920s fundamentalists? Where is the active battle against modernism? Where is the active battle against the allies of modernism?

Should we be making common cause with these men? That was the argument of Jerry Folwell in the late 70s and early 80s, with his Moral Majority movement. He went even farther, and united with very strange groups in hopes of achieving political ends. The fundamentalists of the day labeled him a pseudo-fundamentalist. While the Type Bs today are not advocating the sweeping alliances of Falwell, is there anything essentially different in their philosophy?

Further, we should ask if co-belligerency is a justification for cooperation and fellowship? We are co-belligerents, for example with many people on the subject of abortion, but we will not cooperate with many of them, probably not with the majority of them because co-beligerency does not equal 'common cause'.

Above, I asked if the Type Cs are militant. Now I ask, are the Type Bs militant? They appear to be militant all right, but they are constantly fighting the Type As, not the modernists, not the compromised evangelicals, but their fundamentalist 'cohorts'. I am constantly dismayed to see all the energy of these young men spent trying to justify an increasingly loose position with respect to personal purity and a definitely loose application of ecclesiastical association. They justify it, as was done here, by claiming that the Type A fundamentalism is dictatorial, abusive, etc. etc. Where is the equal militancy against the doctrines and practices that are harmful to a pure gospel and a pure church? I don't mean that we should spend all day every day bashing MacArthur, Dever, et al. But don't you think there should be a murmur of protest over the rap artist and Piper? Shouldn't we speak up against incidents where one of these men disappoints us with a poor ecclesiastical relationship?

What we see in these debates is the political energy of the Type Bs being spent in fighting Type As. Why? Are the Type As, such as they are, the greatest threat to the current state of the church?

This is long enough already. I complained that Joel's article was too long, so I will leave this one here. I gave this article the title "sand in the lines". The current state of affairs are somewhat confused by the varying positions of the many players claiming the label 'fundamentalist'. The lines are pretty blurred. It isn't absolutely clear where everyone stands, but I predict that things will be made clear soon. Joel's article, with its flaws, contribute to the clarity. The discussions and debates we are having in various spots of cyber-space are contributing to clarity. And then new controversies will blur everything again... more sand in the lines...

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. As I was mulling this article over, I see Sharper Iron published on its front page more on this from Joel under the header 'Reflections on the Fight' or some such. Joel, Joel, Joel, give it a rest man! It isn't about you! Just shut up already! The more you talk about this fight, the more the pot will be stirred. You will get some oil in your wounds from your friends, but I guarantee you that you are just going to get more guys like me to pour salt in, instead of oil! You might want to look up the word, 'narcissism' and ponder its implications.

And, for the SI guys who might wander over here, what are you doing? Why keep this running? Most of the articles on your front page have achieved a certain quality. These are dragging you down. Are you thinking at all? Good night! You are only making yourselves and Joel look bad.

[See, I am a Type A!]

on my first fundamentalist heros discussing controversy

This will be the last installment on the contentions revealed by letters by my dad and by my uncle. The denomination in which I grew up had no sure touchstone by which to call men to account. One of their central mantras was 'no creeds'. The end of the day sees many in that kind of persuasion having 'no faith'. If there is no central accountability, there is nothing to measure by, and who is to say if one persons views are right or wrong. So the charming, feel-good unbelievers carry the day and infect a church group with grievous error.

These letters are personal correspondence between my uncle and my dad. The two previous letters were from my dad to officials in the denomination. My dad evidently sent copies to my uncle, who responded with the lettr that follows. My dad then replied which I am posting below. I am again leaving out personal names and since these are personal letters I will add a bit of editorial comment in brackets [like this] to explain things that might not be obvious.

June 5th,1980

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your letter and the copies of the letters sent by yourself to the Editor of the Contact and to XXX XXXXX. I felt that they were well written and to the point. I have written XXXXXX on several occasions, one in response to the same article your letter was directed to, and have not received an answer. I have written XXX XXXXX several times concerning the school and with regard to one comment he made towards conservative brethren who did not go along with him. I did not receive a reply to that particular thing but he has replied to some of my concerns regarding the school.

I must share with you the information that I wrote Brother XXXXXXXX, a reply to his article in the Contact. I had just preached a sermon titled: The Holy Spirit and The Holy Word in which I declared Bible truth concerning it's inspiration and how the Holy Spirit is received and companions us in relationship to it's direct authority to us. I used text in II Timothy 3 where Paul speaks to Timothy words given by revelation of the Holy Spirit concerning apostacy to come. He calls Timothy's attention to the Scriptures as "Holy" and thus a priority in direction of how to he saved and worship God in Spirit and in truth... Kingdom experience and Kingdom reality.

[The man mentioned here was a dear friend of our family, at this point in time sort of a senior statesman in the Church of God in Western Canada. He had been a pastor in the denomination and was a prolific author, championing especially amillennialism. He was a godly, saintly man, but quite loyal to the party machine.]

I pointed out to Brother XXXXXXXX the fact that Paul not only "Knew whom He believed" but what he believed and that many of his epistles to the churches were corrective of situations that existed in ethics and in doctrinal disarray. The Scripture does not just point to Christ it declares His authority and Lordship in all matters pertaining to godliness of mind, spirit and body. The idea of the power of opinions and existential discovery of truth apart from Scripture in these areas is dangerous and downright disobedient. His reply was cordial and appreciative of what I shared but he still seemed infatuated with his novel idea that the "Bible is a window not a Wall". To me that is a term that relegates the Scripture to a "Reference book" to he used if necessary and in emergency.

I don't believe he appreciated the fact I shared with him that God still has a witness in this matter and that He has raised up many brethren of insight and not particularly associated with the Church of God movement, although I have encounted [sic] some. Sad to say, some have already passed from the scene and are home with the Lord.

I have a distinct feeling that some of the pastors are beginning to view me with some suspicion and concern due to my conservative stand while other definitely are of like mind in many areas. Perhaps the Lord will turn some things around. It will not be without persistence and without a voice being heard. We must temper criticism with objective love declared for the Lord who bought us with so great a price and the Word He has given to be "The Faith once delivered to the Saints" of both covenant ages... that word of salvation and grace diligently heeded.

[signed]

The following letter is my dad's reply to my uncle:

June 12, 1980

Dear XXXXX:

I appreciate your letter, and encourage you in the firm doctrinal opinions that you espouse.

I recognize that you are looked at askance by the liberal minded and compromisers among your fellow ministers in the Church of God in Western Canada. My opinion is that they constitute about 2/3 of the fellowship between them. The liberals are always moving to the left as fast as they dare, and the compromisers, who constitute a majority with whichever of the left or right wing groups they choose to vote with, are too gutless and morally weak to take a position and root out the incipient heresy and declension that infects the organization.

The truth of the matter that you have been discussing with Mr. XXXXXXXX, and others, is that the Word illuminates and defends those who trust in the Word and are willing to be guided by it. Therefore the Bible is both a window, and a wall to these ones.

It appears to me that those who choose to compromise themselves considerably both as to doctrine and association, are rather firmly entrenched in the schools at Anderson & Portland and in Camrose, as well as in the management and distribution of the curriculum preparation for the Sunday School.

I believe that it is unrealistic to think that these situations can be turned around.

That is the major reason why my children are being educated elsewhere. The other primary reason is doctrinal emphasis. I believe that Arminianism readily lends itself to the trend to rationalistic, humanistic religious reasoning, due to its undue emphasis on the human part of the religious equation; and I believe that A-millennialism readily lends itself to a rationalizing of the Word of God and to minimizing the importance of an explicit adherence to the Word in doctrinal matters.

[These issues were bones of contention between my uncle and my dad. As a pastor in the denomination, he accepted their general theological framework. To the annoyance of many, my dad insisted on being premillennial. The CoG is fully Arminian, a church in the Wesleyan Holiness tradtion, teaching the Second Blessing of sinless perfectionism. I am not sure how much of the perfectionism my uncle would accept. In opposing the Arminianism, my dad is not asserting a Calvinist point of view. He opposed that as vigorously as he opposed Arminianism.]

I realize that there has been serious error and religious decline in many other religious organizations as well as the Arminian and A-millennial groups, but I believe that in these latter mentioned the trend is much more pervasive and pronounced.

Our primary responsibilities are first of all to God, Next to ourselves, and thirdly to our families, and after that to the Christian community. One cannot afford to sacrifice loyalty to God, to self and to family on the altar of an expedient relationship to any religious group. It just is not worth it and never can be. If we fail our God, ourselves, our families, who is able to recompense us for the loss. No man or group of men can do this.

Sincerely

[signed]

T. W. D. Johnson

A little more on the issue of 'creedlessness' I was reading over at the CoG website today and found this explanation of their position:

As affirmed in condensations such as “The Apostles Creed,” the Church of God holds to the teachings of historical Christianity:

* The Trinity.
* The Bible as God's written word, only rule of faith and practice.
* The Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.
* Salvation by faith in Jesus and His atoning death on the cross.
* The gift of the Holy Spirit to those who receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
* The return of Christ at the close of the age.
* Judgment and Eternal rewards, heaven and hell.

Orthodox Christians may hold varying opinions on secondary or peripheral doctrine. Within the Church of God there is no insistence that everyone conform their ideas on minute points.

Allowing people with honest hearts and minds to search the Scripture's leads, with the Holy Spirit's help to an amazing consensus. Experience has shown that formation of the great historic creeds of the church served a purpose in delineating orthodoxy from heresy. Experience has also shown that creed formation has exacerbated divisions between Christians when it was not necessary. For this reason, in the interest of unity, the Church of God Movement has shied away from the drafting of an official statement of beliefs. Such works of systematic distillation of doctrine from Scripture have severe human limitations and tend to be dated. The Movement has preferred to confine itself to the spirit-inspired Scripture, treating our own interpretations of it with humility and those of others who differ with charity.

The problem with avoiding the divisions caused by creeds is that anything goes. If you search through the CoG newsletters you will find numerous women pastors. I don't have access to any of the current positions of those teaching or leading the denominational school, I doubt that it has improved much since the days that prompted these letters.

My uncle passed away with brain cancer, my dad was one voice for conservative theology in a sea of opposition. As my dad aged, he was stricken by Parkinsons disease. His involvment has been severely limited since. They were unsuccessful in their efforts, but I applaud their efforts.

One of my uncle's sons is a pastor in this group. He has apparently not taken as conservative a stand as his dad did.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on my first fundamentalist hero opposing modernism part 2

This is the second installment in my series exemplifying a militant spirit within a compromising denomination. Here you will see my dad taking on the editor of the denominational paper on the subject of inerrancy, a vital topic for orthodox Christianity.

April 22, 1980

The Editor
Gospel Contact
4703 - 56 Street
Camrose, Alberta

Dear Sir:

Re. your editorial - March/April issue as to the matter of belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

You suggest the matter of belief or disbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible as a standard of Christian orthodoxy is unnecessarily divisive and should be scrapped. You also suggest that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is not scientifically accurate and you stress the value of personal experience with person of Christ as the primary evaluation of personal Christian faith.

In effect you are saying there should no standard as to Christian doctrine, Christian belief or Christian conduct except the vagaries of personal experience and the self qualified claims of those who may claim to be "true Christians", whatever that may be taken to be.

What would you or anyone know of Christ except for the revelation of Christ that is made known to man in the Bible? What is to be the qualification of a "true Christian" if the standards for belief and conduct set out in the Bible are not used? Whose "experience" is to be the authority in these matters, as personal experience is a very variegated thing? Many have been known to have had deluded experiences.

What is your motivation in taking the position that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible should not be a standard of orthodoxy? Are you an apologist for some person or persons who are unorthodox, and if so, what is their relationship to yourself? What are their supposed Christian qualifications and beliefs?

As to the "scientific" accuracy of a belief in the Bible, possibly you could explain as to what "scientific" accuracy is, and in so doing you might comment on the numerous "scientifically accurate" opinions that have later been invalidated by new discoveries in various fields of learning.

Sincerely,

[signed]

T. W. D. Johnson

The doctrine of inerrancy is usually at the heart of controversies with modernism and evangelicalism. This is the crux of 'the faith'. If we lose ground here, we lose ground everywhere. Those who waver have wavered somewhere either in their belief in the inerrant Word or in their submission to it.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on my first fundamentalist hero opposing modernism

Here is the first of the letters I promised to post. This one is from my dad to the president of the Bible Institute my mother graduated from in the early 1950s. At the time my dad wrote this letter, the Church of God in Western Canada was seriously troubled by certain liberal teachings in its schools. I do not know if any of this has been corrected in the ensuing years, I have been out of that loop for so long that I barely know the names of a few of the players anymore.

When I was younger, my dad used to represent our church as a layman during the annual meetings. He was involved with some of the other conservative men in trying to keep liberalism and charismatism out of the group. The conference was stacked against them and some pretty underhanded things were done in the meetings, as I recall.

This letter comes much later, actually during my first semester of my MDiv years at BJU. I believe my dad sent this set of letters to me a year or so later when I was taking church history with Dr. Panosian. In that class I had to write a paper on the history of the Church of God (a paper I remember staying up all night to type, literally). We were assigned our topic based on the group we came out of. I still have a set of outlines we all prepared for one another from each of our papers. Some interesting names in that group, I wonder where they all are now?

Back to the letter... You will see that the issues my dad was contending for was out and out liberalism. I am going to leave the man's name off the letter, although those who know the situation will likely be able to figure out who it is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

April 14, 1980

Rev. XXX XXXXXX
c/o Alberta Bible Institute
Camrose, Alberta

Dear Sir:

In April issue of "Worth Reading", you express a profound admiration for the "great" Dr. Elton Trueblood.

That he is highly educated in the humanistic sense is beyond question. He has written several books, and as you say he has no doubt managed to master the social graces.

An analysis of his books, however, reveal that his claims to "greatness" may be open to question from a Biblical perspective. His book, Philosophy of Religion, Harper Press, gives quite a comprehensive expression of his theological views, which are anything but Biblical, orthodox, or fundamental. He arrives at his conclusions by the process of human reasoning and human reference, quoting as reference many learned but generally unorthodox thinkers and theologians, including Tillich, Archbishop Temple, Martin Buber and many other learned but unbiblical thinkers.

His conclusions are a curious, compromised mixture of truth and error, that due to his educational status and due to his highly convoluted and complex rational meanderings may appear to the unenlightened to be very profound.

Some of the conclusions he arrives at in his mental exercises are as follows. Page references from "Philosophy of Religion."

1. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, consists in considerable part, of mythological and legendary elements. Man's logic and "scientific" scholarship alone can sort this out of the Bible and properly qualify it. Page 4.

2. The idea of the inerrancy of the Bible is incompatible with the reality of human life and expression, from which human sources the Bible has come. Page 43.

3. Life has evolved from simple unicellular organisms. Man has evolved and descended from the lower animals. He is not a special creation of God. Pages 97-102.

4. Religious thought has evolved from polytheism (pagan religions) through monotheism (Islam, Hebrew religion), to a composite conception, the Trinitarian idea. Christianity is only one of many stages in the evolution or human development of religion. It may be a superior, or "later" stage, but it has no right to claim any exclusivity as "The Way" to God. Therefore missionary activity apart from a primarily vocational or social effort is non-essential, unjustifiable and meaningless. Pages 224-230.

5. Personal existence will continue after death, but there is no hell or condition of eternal separation from God. Page 295.

He is a universalist. All will ultimately arrive. By conclusion therefore, we must assume that he does not believe in the sacrificial atonement of Christ. Christ's death would have value only as an example of supreme dedication to principle, even at the cost of life.

What might be called the positive elements of his philosophy are;

A. There is a personal God.

B. God is involved in a purposeful way in the ongoing of the Universe.

C. Man as a person is capable of communicating with the Divine Person, but it is implied by his other arguments that the sacrificial and mediatory offices of Christ are not essential to this.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and that one jot or tittle would in no wise pass away until all was fulfilled, and that he that broke the least commandment and taught others to break it would be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven.

It therefore appears from the published meanderings of the Trueblood mind, that by the standards of Jesus, Trueblood can by no means be considered as a "great" man. The true gospel is hid from his mind. The apostle Paul says that if the gospel is hid, it is hid to them that are lost. Unless Trueblood has changed his beliefs and convictions greatly since the writing of his religious philosophy, he is a lost man and will never see heaven, and he will never know Christ except as the judge of all men.

His considerable association with and acceptance by the Church of God organization is an evidence of the declension and departure by the organisation and many in it from Biblical standards of theology, teaching and association.

Sincerely

[signed]

T. W. D. Johnson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting, in light of some discussions elsewhere, to see my dad use the word 'meanderings'!! The 'bold' is mine.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3