You are here: Home / Archives for Issues / Separation
by on 3.4.11 14 Comments

the discernment deficit

I just posted an article about the default tolerance of conservative evangelicals, part of their new evangelical heritage. This is a second instance of the same affliction.

John Piper blogs today about the death of a Christian politician in Pakistan. In his article, he says:

This is my small tribute to another Christian killed for Christ’s sake. I read his story with great admiration.

I encourage you to follow the link in Piper’s post. In the article, just before a section that Piper quotes in his article are these words:

Extremists wanted to kill him because of his opposition to the blasphemy law and to Sharia legislation, and because of his work for “the oppressed and marginalised”, the Catholic politician said sombrely into the camera.

Do you catch the religious adjective? The Wikipedia article about the man clearly identifies him as a Roman Catholic.

Now… clearly this is a tragic and senseless death. Poor, bleeding Pakistan. We lament the needless loss of life and the intolerance of radical Muslims. We deplore the use of force in the name of religion.

But our concern is discernment. Here we have a prominent Christian preacher, one who influences thousands. One who is ‘Together for the Gospel’. And yet he misses a key descriptor and calls this tragic death the death of a “Christian killed for Christ’s sake.” Really? A Christian? For Christ’s sake?

Well, maybe he missed it. It is just one word in a lengthy article, after all. But we have noted a long pattern of discernment issues for this man in the past. I would urge those who are heavily influenced by John Piper to be discerning. He tends to demonstrate little discernment himself.

don_sig2

UPDATE: Baptist Press shows the same lack of discernment.

Filed Under: Personalities, Piper, Separation
by on 3.4.11 25 Comments

news flash: conservative evangelicals *still* not fundamentalists

My headline may come as a shock to some. That would be those who equate talking about error with separating from error. But, sadly, while conservative evangelicals are more bold in their criticism and rebuke of error, they can’t quite bring themselves to treat false teachers as the Bible calls for them to be treated.

A case in point is the recent brouhaha over Justin Taylor’s rebuke of Rob Bell. Already many pixels have been brought to bear on the specifics of the case, some in support of Taylor, others attacking him. One interesting little detail is noted by Christianity Today’s Liveblog, but is largely overlooked by most commenters, and is the point that launches my post today.

This is the detail noted by CT:

Taylor updated his post, changing some wording and deleting a reference to Cor. 11:14-15: “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” Instead, Taylor ended the post with the following paragraph:

  • Let’s remember to pray. Rob Bell needs to know and teach the liberating gospel of grace—including that Christ absorbed the Father’s wrath on behalf of those who trust in him and repent of their sins. And there are tens of thousands of folks who look to Rob Bell as a biblical teacher and leader. May God give much mercy.

Doesn’t that demonstrate my point about conservative evangelicalism? Almost… but not quite… separation.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Issues, Separation
by on 3.1.11 29 Comments

a fundamental failure?

Recent discussions here prompt a longer response, hence a new post on the question: Have Fundamentalists failed to separate from heretics on their ‘right’?

For context, I am going to quote from two of my correspondents. I’ll link to the comments of each so you can see the whole context. First, from Larry:

on the KJVO thing, there are two points: (1) KJVO people deny what the Bible teaches about itself and therefore have denied a fundamental of the faith; as fundamentalists, if there were ever a cause for separation surely this would be it. Fundamentalism’s willingness to tolerate doctrinal aberrancy in this situation is why many people are leaving it. (2) I am for not making it an issue. KJVO people make it an issue which they have done by their vocal stands. I am fine if someone uses only the KJV or believes it is the best translation or believes that the TR is the best text. I can and will work with that kind of person. There are no problems there for me. I would only make an issue of it if they did. (Full comment here.)

We should be willing to speak out about "us" just as freely and strongly as we do about "them." People should not get a pass on doctrine or practice simply because they separate from the same people we do. (Full comment here – different comment from above quoted paragraph.)

And from Dave

The issue with the "nutbars," as you call them, is not that they haven’t separated from mainstream fundamentalism themselves, but that they have not, by and large, been clearly repudiated by mainstream fundamentalism.  …

Even brothers can be noted and avoided that they may be ashamed, and fundamentalism should clearly do this with the extremists, just as they do with the NEs.  Not dealing with the extremists on the right absolutely contributes to the young people then not believing what is said about those on the near left, especially when what they hear from them is much sounder doctrinally than the preaching they hear from those on the right that are tacitly accepted. (Full comment here.)

You can see, I think, a common thread. Larry and Dave are arguing that Fundamentalism by and large has tolerated errors on its right, leaving itself open to the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy. Larry uses phrases like “denied a fundamental of the faith” and “doctrinal aberrancy.” Dave uses the term “extremists.”

Regular readers will not be surprised that I don’t think Fundamentalism is guilty as charged. In fact, I think quite the opposite.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Issues, Separation, Versions
by on 2.27.11 Leave a Comment

contend for the faith – quotable (3)

Commenting on Gal 1.8, Vincent of Lerins says:

“‘Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. ‘Though we,’ he says, ‘or an angel from heaven.’ Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen, – if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.”

Vincent of Lerins , “A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies,” in The Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. C. A. Heurtley, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 8.22.

don_sig2

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Quotables, Separation
by on 2.25.11 Leave a Comment

contend for the faith – quotable (2)

“Again: Hippolytus refers to the action of the suburbicarian bishops in provincial council. And here is the place to express dissatisfaction with the apologetic tone of some writers, who seem to think Hippolytus too severe, etc. As if, in dealing with such ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing,’ this faithful leader could show himself a true shepherd without emphasis and words of abhorrence. Hippolytus has left to the Church the impress of his character as ‘superlatively sweet and amiable.’ Such was St. John, the beloved disciple; but he was not less a ‘son of thunder.’ Our Divine Master was ‘the Lamb,’ and ‘the Lion;’ the author of the Beatitudes, and the author of those terrific woes; the ‘meek and gentle friend of publicans and sinners,’ and the ‘lash of small cords’ upon the backs of those who made His Father’s house a ‘den of thieves.’ Such was Chrysostom, such was Athanasius, such was St. Paul, and such have ever been the noblest of mankind; tender and considerate, gentle and full of compassion; but not less resolute, in the crises of history, in withstanding iniquity in the persons of arch-enemies of truth, and setting the brand upon their foreheads. Good men, who hate strife, and love study and quiet, and to be friendly with others; men who never permit themselves to indulge a personal enmity, or to resent a personal affront; men who forgive injuries to the last farthing when they only are concerned, – may yet crucify their natures in withstanding evil when they are protecting Christ’s flock, or fulfilling the command to ‘contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.’ What the Christian Church owes to the loving spirit of Hippolytus in the awful emergencies of his times, protecting the poor sheep, and grappling with wolves for their sake, the Last Day will fully declare. But let us who know nothing of such warfare concede nothing, in judging of his spirit, to the spirit of our unbelieving age, which has no censures except for the defenders of truth: -

“‘Eternal smiles its emptiness betray,
As shallow streams run dimpling all the way.’”

A. Cleveland Coxe, “Elucidations on ‘The Refutation of All Heresies’ by Hippolytus,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 5, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 12.

don_sig2

Filed Under: Church History, Quotables, Separation
by on 1.25.11 1 Comment

contend = defend?

I recently listened to a message purporting to be an exposition of the book of Jude. Several points in the message were derived out of the speaker’s experience (or his perception of his experience). These points in the main were questionable. One man’s experience is no authority and another man’s experience quite often differs. One man sees fundamentalists as primarily lovers of the fight, whereas another man sees them as lovers of the faith. But whose experience is right? It is true that some men seem simply to be contentious, but how well do we know them and the entire scope of their ministry?

In addition the message purported to be on the subject of separation, but Jude is not a separation passage. As such the message seemed conflicted from the beginning, as text did not match subject.

The weakest point of the message was the heart of the message. We all know Jude 3 as the rallying cry, the banner of fundamentalism. Here it is:

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

In the message, the speaker called his hearers to the Christian duty of defending the faith. Over and over again came the phrase, defend the faith, defend the faith, defend the faith.

Well… is that what Jude said?

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Issues, Separation
by on 1.24.11 30 Comments

something I don’t understand

The big question we are wrangling about in the fundamentalist blogosphere in 2011 (and preceding 5 or 10 years) is our relationship to Conservative Evangelicals.

We are asking:

  • Are Conservative Evangelicals the same thing as New Evangelicals? – varying answers: ‘not at all’, ‘somewhat’, ‘very much like’
  • Should we cooperate with Conservative Evangelicals in some Christian endeavors? – verbal answers: ‘not at all’, ‘maybe’, ‘in some limited arenas’; practical answers: ‘not at all’ … at least up until this last six months or so…

You can debate the merits of these questions, whether they are important to ask or not, whether they are the right questions to ask, whether we are too obsessed with separation and this is evidence of that, or what have you. Regardless, these are the questions we are asking and the central theme around which most discussion on fundamentalist blogs have been obsessed for the last while, maybe since fundamentalists took up blogging at all.

All right then. We are wrangling about these questions. Up until the last six months or so this wrangling has mostly been talk. Now we are seeing some fairly important figures answering the questions practically by involving themselves in some kind of cooperative Christian endeavor with Conservative Evangelicals.

But here is where we  have something I don’t understand.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Issues, Separation
by on 1.21.11 17 Comments

gospel-driven separation: is it enough?

What would you say to a group that believes the following:

We affirm the Trinity – God who is a community of three persons … We believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the Word made flesh, the Savior of the world, fully human and fully divine … This new life is the loving gift of God’s grace that becomes ours through faith and repentance.

Does that sound OK to you?

Suppose the group is one that holds to high moral values and eschews worldliness. What would you say?

A Canadian evangelical magazine asks:

The question Evangelicals must ask is: What shall we do about how much we have in common?

The magazine concludes its article on this group with this paragraph:

There is a tremendous opportunity for Canadian Evangelicals when it comes to the _________ of ______. They are a relatively small group within Canada that gives much independence to each congregation. They have a good orthodox statement of faith and a focus on Jesus Christ. … Can we as Evangelicals come alongside the _________ of ______, not denying our differences, but embracing our common faith?

The group in question is called the Community of Christ. Not familiar with that name? Try this one:

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Issues, Separation
by on 1.3.11 14 Comments

another quote game

Who said this:

What you do as a pastor, what you do as a college president, what you do as a missionary agency executive, does indeed matter to the whole fundamentalist cause. Who you invite to speak on your platform says volumes about the seriousness of your dedication to Biblical separation. We must be fundamentalists who realize our responsibility to the whole cause of Scriptural separation from apostasy and compromising evangelicals. It’s a matter of Biblical integrity. Let’s be obedient fundamentalists.

Remember, no googling!

don_sig2

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, Separation
by on 1.1.11 9 Comments

thinking it over

Everybody does it about this time of year, don’t they? Look back through the year and take stock; look forward to the new year and anticipate, I mean.

I thought I’d look back over the year of blogging and note my most commented posts. It might be instructive concerning the things that interest me which also interest a generally fundamentalist oriented reading audience. It might also serve for us to consider the issues facing us in the coming year.

The numbers of comments following these posts may be somewhat surprising. Some may think my numbers are kind of low. This is a function of several factors.

  1. My readership isn’t huge, although it has picked up considerably at the end of the year (largely due to SI linking on some controversial posts).
  2. Most blog chatter is generated by the most passionate few, there are many more readers than commenters.
  3. Blog commentary does have a way of wearing itself out after the arguments have been beaten to death ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

With all those caveats in place, I’ll start with the list of most commented posts (in reverse order of posting):

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Issues, Separation
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »