It means they haven’t found a replacement yet.

So when an institution offers a weakly worded statement of support for one of its adherents, what does that mean? It means that the adherent can see the handwriting on the wall. “No support here”, it says. And that’s the end of it.

Relativism about morality has come to play an increasingly important role in contemporary culture.  To many thoughtful people, and especially to those who are unwilling to derive their morality from a religion, it appears unavoidable.  Where would absolute facts about right and wrong come from, they reason, if there is no supreme being to decree them? We should reject moral absolutes, even as we keep our moral convictions, allowing that there can be right and wrong relative to this or that moral code, but no right and wrong per se.

And

The argument is significant because it shows that we should not rush to give up on absolute moral facts, mysterious as they can sometimes seem, for the world might seem even more mysterious without any normative vocabulary whatsoever.

Proverbs 26:18 As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, 19 So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?

I’ve never liked April 1 and the foolishness that goes on. I especially don’t like it when Christians join the ‘fun’.

HT: ‘danofsteel’, a commenter at Remonstrans

“Somebody told me one time that you know you are getting old when you know all the answers but nobody asks you the questions.”

Restore the local assembly to the center where God intended it to be. When your local assembly engages in Great Commission work outside its walls, find some folks you agree with and get busy doing it. Unity is built on agreement about the truth, not by politics. Few things are as political as trying to preserve movements once they have fragmented theologically.

Would that it were so simple. But it is not that simple. In the words of John Donne,

No man is an island entire of itself…

And certainly the pastor and church in question is no island, entire unto themselves. If we were talking about a small church in a small community it might be that simple, but … probably not.

Everyone influences someone else. That’s why our private decisions are important. They have influence on someone.

In particular, Dave is the pastor of an influential church, partly due to its history, partly due to its size, partly due to its location (in a major city), partly due to a particular aspect of its ministry (a leading fundamentalist seminary), and partly due to the impact of the ministry of its current pastor, i.e., Dave himself. When Dave speaks, many people do listen. When Inter-City Baptist Church takes a position, many people on the outside make observations, take notes, and some follow that lead. When Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary invites in speakers, the impact is felt not only by the current students, but by friends, alumni, and observers, both the like-minded and not so like-minded. That is the consequence of influence.

The fact is, God has blessed the ministry of this church and pastor for many years. That blessing enhances influence. Like it or not, that influence makes a difference in what others do and is subject to the public scrutiny, for good or ill, of outside observers. Some decisions will be applauded, others criticized. I suppose that every decision is likely to be criticized by someone, but I am speaking of the general constituency of influence that DBTS, Inter-city, and Dave Doran generally command. There are circles to whom these names mean nothing. But to those circles where these names mean something, they carry a measure of influence, and that influence is inescapable.

I guess it isn’t OK to call this Detroit/Doran circle of influence “fundamentalism”, but it does represent a group of people whose background, philosophy, interests, and ministries overlap and touch on one another in many ways. Some of this is due to the influence of other large educational ministries with overlapping constituencies and sometimes shared ministries (BJU, Maranatha, Northland, Central, et al). Some of this overlapping circle of influence is due to the influence of other large fundamentalist churches. Some of it is also due to the influence of parachurch entities like mission boards, the FBF, and even Sharper Iron and similar on-line communications hubs. What shall we call this group? The “Non-whack-job Conservative Fundamentalist Coalition”? The “Doran Axis”? I don’t know, you pick a name.

In any case, those of us in this group notice what others in this group, especially the influential leaders, are doing. We evaluate what they are doing and decide whether what they are doing is something we should also do. Maybe they have some speakers in that we think we should recommend to our people. Or not. Maybe they promote some new ministry that we think is worth gleaning some resources from for ourselves and our ministry. Or not. Everything that is done is watched, noted, observed, evaluated and decisions are made.

So it would be nice if one could simply reduce one’s ministry decisions to my local church and my local ministry, but it isn’t that simple. It probably isn’t even that simple for me, with a very small ministry compared to Detroit/IC/Doran, but it certainly isn’t that simple for Dave himself, no matter how much he might wish it is so.

The leadership Dave offers matters to a lot of us. The directions he goes matters. The people he cooperates with matters. The things he says matter.

It just isn’t that simple – there is more to the process than simply one’s own ministry and one’s own direction no matter how important the local church is.

And in the discussion from my revised article, it appears that at least one of my readers is missing the point also. (I am going to use some material from one of my comments on that post for the content of this one.)

What is NOT elitism?

Elitism isn’t about the possession of fine art, fine clothes, fine cars, fine educations, or even a fine vocabulary. Elitism isn’t about having expertise. Elitism isn’t about one’s opinions carrying extra weight in an area where you have expertise.

OF COURSE someone who is an expert has more authority in the area he has gained expertise! A doctor simply knows more about medicine, a trained musician simply knows more about music, a theologian (in theory) simply knows more about theology. That knowledge tends to carry weight, and it should.

I am not arguing against differences in authority, expertise, taste, what have you, when I am arguing against elitism.

Elitism is an attitude of the heart.

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism n.¹

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2.

1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Do you see the spiritual problems here? Do you see the ATTITUDES?

• “certain persons … DESERVE favored treatment”
• “sense of entitlement”
• “control, rule, or domination…”

Instead of this, the popular discussion over at SI is whether or not someone with expertise has something more to say about a particular subject, or whether the issue is the education of believers or not. It seems to be following a rabbit trail that is, for the most part, missing everything.

One poster did highlight this paragraph from Bauder’s essay which I also highlighted in my comments on the thread linked above.

People like to pride themselves upon being able to make their own choices and develop their own opinions. The fact is, though, that not everyone is equally qualified to make every choice or to hold every opinion. When unqualified people are asked to develop opinions and to make choices, they invariably look for leadership—often, the kind of leadership that will lead them to believe that they are acting on their own, while manipulating or stampeding them into doing its will. That kind of demagoguery has come to typify some branches of Fundamentalism.

This paragraph, while not fully developing its ideas, does lend itself to the view that the common people can’t be trusted. It is the key part of the essay which gives rise to questions about elitism and strength of support for congregational rule.

Note especially the sentence I emphasized in bold. Note the words “not everyone is equally qualified to make every choice”.

The concept of the Christian church is that every member of the body is filled with the Holy Spirit and is entrusted with the decision making process of the local church (while delegating certain individuals with day to day administrative and spiritual leadership responsibilities). When it comes to decision making, Biblical churches seek the will of God through the consensus of the congregation.

Perhaps some clarification will come regarding Bauder’s views, but the idea that the people of the church aren’t qualified to make every choice would seem to be an elitist attitude.

Bauder appears to be aiming at the manipulative efforts of “demagogic” leaders in inveighing against Fundamentalism. It is true that such leaders have existed in every branch of the church.

But with respect to what elitism is, it does seem that many are arguing past the point about something that is irrelevant.

• Elitism is the attitude of the manipulative demagogue.
• Elitism is the “just trust me” attitude of the expert.
• Elitism is the scorn of the “little people”.
• Elitism assumes that only “those in the know” should get to decide.

It is ironic how easily the populace is swayed off the point in this discussion. Popular opinion betraying its primary failing? Perhaps.

1. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.