Thanks for the comment. Well, a couple of things…

First, I agree that we need people to function as prophets calling wayward Christians back to the right path.

However, I would have a much bigger problem with Ray Comfort than CMI. First, his ministry is not as narrowly focused nor as specialized. Second, he clearly boasts about his connections with Billy Graham et al on his site and promotional material. This seems incongruous when BG’s terminology and compromises carry a lot of the blame for the watered down gospel preaching Comfort preaches against. Third, I am not entirely comfortable with Comfort’s emphasis on the law. I think there is something wrong with the way he does it, a misplaced emphasis and to some extent an unbiblical methodology. Compare the evangelistic efforts of the Lord and the Apostles (such as we have recorded in the Bible). Hardly the same as Comfort’s. However, please note that I am not entirely against him on this point, but just think he has a misplaced emphasis here, and possibly some theological problems. I haven’t studied him enough to come to anything more than that, however.

As for your example of Paul, it’s just not a parallel. Not at all. If Paul had been consorting with the false teachers that were troubling Corinth, then showing up in Ephesus, then it might be a parallel. As it is, Paul served as a missionary-apostle in both places, not giving any place to false teachers. But Ray Comfort is quite proud of his associations with many compromised evangelicals. There is a huge difference.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

PS, I should add that you should consider all my points in totality rather than isolate just the one. If it were only one of those points that were true, I would probably have ruled against having CMI in.

Is such a thing possible in fundamentalism? Perhaps, but it seems that we don’t have pastors with the kind of public persona that the T4G pastors do. As a result, we tend to mostly default to institutions, like the colleges, for that kind of leadership. The FBF could be a vehicle for local church leadership, but I think it is going through a bit of a changing of the guard as well. It remains to be seen where the FBF as an organization will end up. And of course it isn’t representative of all who would call themselves Fundamentalists.

In the end, I think that the Lord will use whatever he chooses to lead the faithful fundamentalist-like movement. We should try to do what we can, but realize that the final decision will be up to Him in the end.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’ve been thinking about the future of fundamentalism, and I’ve concluded that whatever movement survives the current fundamentalist mess must not be controlled by the educational institutions (colleges and seminaries, in particular). Somehow we must locate the nurture and direction of a new movement within the context of local churches, and not in the self-serving and crusty institutions that’ve grown, in many respects, rich and fat and unresponsive.

Is that possible?

At least, many leaders are keeping quiet about religious trends. The ones who are vocal seem to be supportive of the new changes and the rest are silent. It makes one wonder where they stand.

And I suppose if you just stand there silently, you aren’t really leading anymore, are you?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Do you think this statement is true: While fundamentalism is burning, it’s leaders are fiddling?

tjp

I think your explanation is a reasonable one. I’m glad you offered it. I too thought your association with CMI (especially given your militant, separational stance) was a little puzzling.

Perhaps I’m wrong here, but your explanation for using the CMI men sounds eerily similar to the rationale that many old fundamentalists gave , such as Rice and Jones, Sr., for cooperating with certain SBC men.

I’m glad consistency isn’t a be-all and end-all with you. I once heard an old-line fundamentalist say, “Outside of Christ, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

tjp

Our meeting was a local church meeting, primarily for the edification of our own people, with a secondary purpose of attracting a few outsiders. That would be a little different from a “National Leadership Conference” where you are teaching and training pastors in the way they should go. If a local ministry wanted to use a Welch or an Adams to talk particularly about counseling issues to train and edify their own people that would be one thing. But it says quite another thing when a fundamentalist conference that is billed as “National” uses someone with those kinds of associational issues.

All that to say that I think the venue and purpose of the meeting would make a difference.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

With respect to Welch, however, my argument there would be that his ministry is much less tightly focused than these creation ministry men are. That may be a weak justification, I don’t know. And as I said, I still have some misgivings about using CMI in this way and I am not inclined to do so again, at least at this point.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Thanks for explaining your decision-making process on this. As I said earlier, I wasn’t looking to debate, just wanting to understand your thinking. Kent was right that my reason for questioning was related to the matter of consistency. IOW, I think that Tim Jordan would offer the same basic explanation that you did for including Ed Welch in the recent Leadership Conference. You seemed to be concerned about that.

Well, you have fulfilled my request, so I will recede back into cyberspace. Thanks.