Pensees: My Criticism of Zichterman’s “Coming Out”

Sounds like a man who has been burned and hasn’t learned how not to live by his emotions, but rather by biblical truth.

Well put. Thanks for the analysis.

Bob,

Thanks. I needed that.

Yup…you called this one exactly right my friend…

What were the two Hollywood movies that sparked his “Damascus Road experience”?

The Village

and

Population 436

Bob,

Not to disagree with your overall point - believe me, I don’t and I am greatly saddened by this whole situation as one who knows Joe (or at least used to know Joe, but has lost contact with him).

However, the PCC Ph.D. was not an indication of his agreement with their brand of Fundamentalism. He got it there because it was the situation that allowed him to get his Ph. D. while he was teaching at NBBC, Pastoring a church and taking care of a large family, not because he viewed their philosophy as the correct philosophy. (He did say that they treated him well despite being from a school that was on the other side of the KJV issue.)

Ironically, he received his Ph.D. from PCC and his honorary doctorate from BJU the same weekend.

I have not had a chance to listen to his presentation, yet, so I am reserving my main comments on the situation until I have had the opportunity to do so.

In Christ,

Frank Sansone

Bob,

Your columns are outstandingly excellent. I think you have taken about as many good lessons out of this whole sorry episode as could be humanly expected.
Here’s to a BALANCED fundamentalism — which is not groupthink, a good ole’ boys club, or a human institution which must be obeyed above and beyond the Bible in order to please God. It had better be nothing more than historic orthodox Christianity — and it had better be nothing less.
If it doesn’t exist in your area — then create it. Don’t rely on some human institution to save you. This is where Zichterman fails miserably.
Let’s judge all things by Scripture alone!

Speaking only for myself,
Paul J. Scharf, M.Div.

Bob,

Well written analysis. The question that plagued me in all this was how a guy can write 300+ page dissertation and then four years later (I think he received his degree in 2003) reject it completely. It’s supposed to be his original work and thought. He claims to have read all the literature available on CGM when he wrote it. Yet four years later he rejects his own conclusions? Has something happened in the past four years in the CGM movement that is thought-changing that I’m unaware of? Can you think of any other Ph.D. that has done that? Even in the field of religion guys don’t reject their own work that quickly. Maybe at the end of a lifetime, but four years later?

Kraig

He’s got an honorary doctorate — how old is this guy? Doesn’t look like he could have lived and worked long enough to have accomplished sufficient to merit an honorary doctorate.

Zichterman’s leap from high-control fundamentalism (his Ph. D. was from Pensacola) to Willow Creek is really not so much of a leap. Both are extremely man-centered. Zichterman did not replace the hero-worship of radical fundamentalism. He merely replaced the hero.

Where did you ever get that? I’m a graduate of PCC and have been one of its more vocal critics, but one thing I can say in PCC’s favor is that they never came close to promoting hero worship.

Thank you for your wonderful article. Great information. Love your writings here and elsewhere. Blessings to you.

Ryan,

PCC doesn’t embrace man-centered theology? Do we need to watch the video again?

The potential weakness in Bob’s argument here is that I think the people who’ve known Zichterman would agree that his ties have been far more close to Northland, Bob Jones, and the Wilds than to Pensacola. Although I wholeheartedly agree with Bob’s implication that it is the very smallest of steps from revivalistic theology to the CGM and the EC (my personal belief is that the former produced the latter two), I suspect that many people who would willing to line up behind the charges of man-centered theology at PCC wouldn’t accept similar suggestions about institutions closer to home like BJU, NBBC, and the Wilds.

Now maybe Bob means to make that argument. I’d be interested to observe the fur fly in that discussion.

As usual, your comments were very well stated. My observation to this situation is that he has made his move oddly and inordinately highly publicized, which I find somewhat suspicious. Frankly, I would not be surprised that within 10 years he will have moved on to another type of church movement or denomination.

I believe DeBarr was taking exception particularly to the “hero-worship” connection. As I discussed it with him, he noted that specific platform personalities were not especially emphasized there.

Ryan,

I understand your complaint, but my parenthetical statement - “he got his Ph.D. from PCC” - in the original context was merely to reinforce the fact that he hails from fundamentalistic circles, circles that are, as he implies, “high-control.” PCC was my euphemism for high-control fundamentalism.

Or, put this way, PCC is merely the far fringe of the group Zichterman has abandoned which includes BJU, NBBC, and the Wilds, but as far as I am concerned it is still the same group, and I would be willing to wager Zichterman would agree. I will grant that BJU et. al. have come a long ways from the man-centered theology they once championed (the positive evidence of BJU’s bookstore transformation over the past 15 years is most heartening), but as much as BJU supporters are quick to differentiate between them and PCC (they love to get as much mileage as they can out of the version distinction), they are, in the minds of most evangelicalism very close to the same thing. And, I would add, in the real world of their constiuencies the lines are more blurry than either one of the parties would like to admit. It is not uncommon to go to a church and find a BJU poster right next to a PCC poster.

While PCC may not have specifically promoted hero-worship (neither does BJU), it is still an institution that represents that extreme edge of the fundamentalism that Zichterman dislikes. And because most of my friends in fundamentalism hail from BJU and NBBC I was not as inclined to highlight that point. I do have a modicum of self-preservation.

Yet, since Ben wonders, I would not hesitate to say that places that embrace Tom Farrell-like preaching and manipulative invitationalism are man-centered in their theology and we all know where those places are.

Bob,

I’m working on a post on this issue which I hope to release tomorrow. I just finished writing the same points, however, before I noticed your post: the soteriology which I understand Joe promotes really makes the jump far less surprising than most think. Fundamentalist easy-believism is but a stone’s throw from church-marketing easy-believism. And I agree, the difference between Hyles & Hybels’ names is more significant than the differences between the core of their philosophy of ministry. In a sense, Joe’s just carrying Arminianism to its natural end.

Thanks.
As one who sat in Z’s classes, his decisions leave me with much to think about, but I too sensed a very hurt (and possibly bitter) attitude in his writings. I pray that the Lord will use him in many ways.

I would like someone to spell out the weaknesses of the CGM, as I’m not “up” on all that—like are the critism Zichterman mentions it? or are there more? are these critisisms actually true? or are they contigent on the situation? or are they just generalizations—like the mention of ‘easy believism’—is that a definite characteristic of all CGM churches or is that just our perception or is that only sometimes true, or do we not really know?

I would like to post some thoughts about the Nature Of An Organization, specifically as it regards these fundy institutions.

These colleges/camps were once just fledgling places, but now, they have reputations, histories, personalities, constituents, great influence in certain circles, and a “following.”

Now, when they consider how to respond to current issues or even think about changing a rule, they have the weight of their corner of christndom to take into consideration. So, their stands on standards and responses to things are not just considered in the light of the Bible. it’s considered in the light of their organization and it’s preservation (or even promotion).

I’m not necessarily faulting them, just explaining what I think is very often going on. I will also say that confusing these two things (Organizational Considerations and What the Bible Actually Says) can be very hurtful to people involved and they can even be confused by the well-meaning leaders of these places.

For example, when BJ (my alma mater) changed it’s stance on interracial dating/marriage—was that decision based on the Bible, or did they just see that the culture (even Christian culture) had changed enough to make this idea acceptable (thereby not jeopardizing the standing of the organization)? (I’m trying to pose a non-threatening example here.)

These organizations have myriads of rules. However, you would have a hard time finding one person who agrees with every one of them. Many of these standards and rules are for the sake of the organization. But students (and maybe teachers, etc) come to see these rules as conscience-binding, Biblical truths. Some were intended for that, others were not.

I will desist, but that’s a huge factor i’ve noticed as I’ve pondered fundamentalism.

Also, about easy believism and the way we see other churches, I’m probably sticking my ignorant foot in my mouth here, but I could easily see how someone would say that about us, too. We’re all about a mental assent to the Roman’s Road, then pray a prayer (that i will even pray myself and you can just repeat after me if you’re not comfortable) and then be baptized asap.

is it not so? i myself am guilty of this.

Anne, You are absolutely right that much, perhaps most of Fundamentalism has been, and still is, guilty of easy believism. I think that is the point of what Bob and others are saying. It is not such a big jump from “Hyles” - the ultimate Fundamentalist version of easy believism, to “Hybles,” on the other end of evangelicalism. Easy believism is not unique to either Evangelicalism of Fundamentalism.

Your points about what motivates Fundamentalist institutions are also valid observations. But I doubt those issues are unique to Fundamentalism either. It is in the nature of organizations with constituencies to be political. That will probably never change, and that alone cannot explain what appears to be such a drastic swing. But I guess Bob’s whole point is that, theologically, it was not such a drastic swing after all. A really drastic swing would be to join a group that really cares about God centered theology and Historic Christianity.

Bob, there is at least one aspect of Joe’s change that is significant theologically. By joining Willow Creek and attending a Charismatic Church regularly, he has rejected the idea of separation. To whatever degree he held to separation before, that is a significant change.

Also Bob, after looking at Joe’s website, I think there may be another reason for Joe’s changes. Of course this is subjective, but my impression was that there is a desire to be thought of as an intellectual. (Or less cynically, to be an intellectual.) Many have a certain image of what an intellectual is. An intellectual must always be asking questions and interacting with ideas that seem radical to what he currently holds. These ideas are always intriguing and challenging. They expand the intellectual’s formerly narrow mind. He is willing to discuss and enter into conversation. This brand of intellectual is growing and freeing himself from his former binding dogmas. (I find it interesting that it is only in vogue to interact with left wing, progressive ideas, not with conservative thought. That is not quite so appealing. It does not promote the right image.)

Assuming I am correct in my assessment, this is hardly unique to Joe. I think this desire to appear clever and intellectual explains much of the impact the New Perspectives and the Emergent Church are having on Evangelicalism.

I don’t think there is much profit in any of us trying to figure out the mental/emotional state which produced these changes in Joe.

Was he hurt? I don’t know and I really don’t think it matters. Others have been hurt (whatever that means to each individual) and have not abandoned their once firmly held convictions. I think Bob is dead right on this point.

Joe has made choices that reflect the desires of his heart and the nature of his thinking regarding biblical truth. Frankly, the Bible is clear that he can’t even figure out the complexities of his own heart, so why should we try to do so via cyberspace. His actions and ideas deserve discerning scrutiny.

It would do us all well, I think, to reflect on how much psychology’s theories have influenced our thought and language. The dominant theories all are needs theories, i.e., humans have needs which if unmet produce undesirable behavior. Much of the talk, especially at SI, about this situation has proceeded along that line. This “victim” mindset is not only unproductive, it is unbiblical. Our problem is inside, not outside. If Joe has turned away from biblical truth, and I think he has, it’s an inside problem, not outside one.

Bob,
Thanks to your last two posts. I will now declare that I am aligned with the BBF times 2.

Biblically Balanced Fundamentalist
and a
Bob Bixby Fan

Thank you for your discernment of the issues.

Bob,

In light of the last post, will you continue to decry “hero worship” so vehemently? :D

Hmmm. Now that I have at least one fan, I need to totally re-think my views on hero-worship. I have fully understood how hurt could cause someone to pyschologically reel and lose his theological equilibrium, but I was totally unprepared for the intoxicating and disequilibrating effect of having ONE fan would have on my theological and methodological convictions. Maybe hero-worship is okay after all.

Bob Bixby University will be opening this fall. The man that sends the most students will get an honorary doctorate with the signature of yours truly on it. I may even use the fountain pen I got from the Shepherds Conference just to prove how open-minded I am.

…and that is why I read Pen-seeze!

And, Skip, though I am flattered that you are a Bob Bixby Fan, the fact that your email address is bosoxfan (which I decipher to mean Boston Sox Fan) totally undermines your credibility.

This is hugely disappointing to me.

Back to the conversation. . .

Ben said: “PCC doesn’t embrace man-centered theology?”

But I had said,”one thing I can say in PCC’s favor is that they never came close to promoting hero worship.”

The two are not exactly the same thing.

so . . . . is anyone going to tell me why CGM is bad? Anything can be done bad, like it can be done well. Or are there inherent flaws?

is CGM part of the emergent church movement?

So many interesting topics could come off of this area. For example, I would like to hear how fundamentalists witness to people. What I noted earlier about using the romans road is not an extreme in fundamentalism. it is the basic way we are taught to witness. Emergent churches (and CGM churches?) are trying other ways. Not that i approve of it all, but the romans road doesn’t work so great here in Ukraine. you can’t just say ‘i agree with those verses.’ so much of your public life here has to change if you follow Christ.

Bob,

Great post. You are exactly right in calling it “pap.”

Dave,

Great reply.

All,

Has anyone else who listened to Joe’s message thought about all of the influence and clout that Beka Horton has at PCC and how that would totally contradict much of what Joe had to say about the “high-control groups” and “sexism” that he has been involved in. I have many problems with PCC, but how could one act like THAT place is men-only?

Oh, and he said that if all the white, affluent males had to walk in the shoes of the oppressed for a couple of weeks there would be no more sexist jokes and no more racial slurs. What? So, I guess that rap music would disappear because there is more sexism and racial slurs there than in any of the white male crowds I’ve ever hung with. Are only white affluent males capable of these sins, Joe?

Anne,

In answer to your question about CGM, I suggest that you get a copy of Joe Z’s dissertation. :) Apparently it’s a little outdated, but probably gives a decent summation of what some think is wrong.

Another source can be found at http://dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/market.pdf
and
http://dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/market2.pdf

(of if you’d like it in print from email the author via the website).

Other sources:
MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel
Guiness, Dining with the Devil
Gilley, This Little Church Went to Market
Pritchard, (forgot exact title and can’t find it quickly) on the Willow Creek Model

Anne,

It is my understanding that the church growth movement has essentially bought into the theories of secular marketing. Some time ago the pastor at a church I was attending at the time showed us a documentary that was done on the CGM back in the 1990s, when Hybels was just starting out. What they did was they took a survey and found out what people wanted in church in order for them to come. Then that is exactly what they did. They made church a comfy place. Perhaps one of the more informed theologians on this site will correct me, but it is my understanding that the “gospel” that is presented in these churches is a softened message that doesn’t present man as hopeless without Christ but that Christ will meet all his needs. Essentially, if you come to Christ, He will take away all your problems. One thing I remember specifically on the documentary is that Hybels intentionally did not put a single cross in the sanctuary. His reasoning, the cross is offensive. That speaks volumes about the CGM.

Ryan,

If you’re drawing a distinction between PCC as man-centered and PCC as hero-worshiping, fine, I’ll not argue. But you responded to a quote from Bob that is specifically making the point that “both [PCC and WC] are extremely man-centered.” I interpreted your response as a repudiation of PCC’s man-centeredness, but I’m glad to understand that you would agree with Bob on that portion of his point.

Perhaps PCC’s man-centered theology is not manifested in hero-worship. Or perhaps PCC, like other institutions, merely makes all men (as self-determining beings) objects of worship.

I guess I don’t understand what Hyles & PCC have to do with this. His PCC degree wasn’t earned in residence and he never went to Hyles. He spent about oh, say twenty times as much time in the BJU\Northland sphere of influence.

Maybe I’m picking at nits.

I guess I don’t understand what Hyles & PCC have to do with this. His PCC degree wasn’t earned in residence and he never went to Hyles. He spent about oh, say twenty times as much time in the BJU\Northland sphere of influence.

Maybe I’m picking at nits.

Ryan,

I agree. I made a similar point last night, and Bob seemed to agree.

I too have said that Hyles and Hybels were philosophically/theologically the same. Add Billy Graham. The former emphasizes regulations and the latter reduces them. Right-wing and left-wing flesh. In the end, they’re both flesh.

I thought that Joe’s lecture could be a classic Scriptural defense for pragmatism. He used almost all the cliches. I bet it feels great for Northland, BJU, and the Wilds to be trajectoried back to Utah polygamists. How could it be summer school at PCC he’s talking about? He didn’t get accreditation at BJU. He mentioned money. Are they paying them the big bucks up at Northland? He listed three books and two movies, and I was waiting for at least one comic book. That’s all for now, but some good thoughts, Bob. I could get something out of the lecture too, somewhat like I’m getting something out of a biography of Stalin I’m reading right now (I know Stalin wasn’t saved; that’s not the point of comparison).

Ben,

You’re right… he posted that last night but I didn’t read it with any comprehension. He admitted it was a matter of self-preservation. :) Which was basically my point.

The fact that someone would change their mind about religion seems hardly noteworthy — fundamentalist churches are full to the brim with people who are first or second generation mind changers about Roman Catholicism, or Lutheranism, or some other mainline denomination.

What seems noteworthy to me is that a guy this young could be such a big deal within the BJU/Wilds/Northland universe (he must have been a “really sharp guy”) and that when he leaves that universe for something unapproved his views are blamed on Hyles and PCC (Not by Bob but by quite a few others I’ve read).

If Arsenio Hall still had a show it’d be one of those “Things that make you go HMMM.”

Good work, Mr. Bixby. I don’t think one has to know anything of his experiences to know what this fellow is all about. One only needs to read his “About Me” page. “Don’t I inspire us?”

This is great: “A singer jumped ship, doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to be anywhere unless he can be the loudest proponent of the groupthink of his most recent favorites from the safety of the preaching-to-the-choir pulpit. What loss is that?”

Well, Pastor, now I am torn between two conflicting emotions— regarding Bob Bixby University, that is. I mean, we don’t really have the space at the new church building for that and we’re kind of ready for a break from new projects after the Ladies Conference. Besides, you need a secretary first. However, if BBU means finally getting some single men in our church… :-)

I believe the book that Bob referred to is “Willow Creek Seeker Services”, by G.A. Pritchard. The ISBN’s are 0801052742 or 9780801052743.

I have some remarks and questions for Dave Doran about the “Market-Driven Ministry” article he referred me to as a reference for learning about CGM. Thank you for posting those. We live overseas, so getting things online is a lot easier than buying a book or finding a dissertation :o)

How is CGM related to Emergent? I think in some ways they are opposed to each other—cmg is all about “big” and emergent is all about de-emphasizing bldgs, programs, etc. Are the two somehow related?

I agree with the overall analysis of your articles, but it does raise several issues.

First, I think the definition of marketing is flawed. Marketing is defined as FINDING and MEETING felt needs. But i think marketing (or advertising?) is more a matter of CREATING a desire for something. This seems to be a truer way of looking at evangelism. And i will clarify that it is the Holy Spirit’s action to create a desire in someone, and Christians are usually part of how the Spirit accomplishes this.

Then, we are missionaries, so reaching out to people is a huge part of our lives. My husband is Ukrainian and I am American, and we talk a LOT about culture, adapting, and how to find common groud with people. CGM churches seem to strain at this at with target groups, researching what they want, demographics, what appeals to them, what their “felt needs” are, etc. But as missionaries, we do this to a great extent, too. For example, my husband wants to target men. So the activities he would plan around this goal would be appropriate to that end. So some of this marketing stuff is common sense.

But a point I think is rather unbiblical about this target marketing approach is that is prejudiced. The church is a place where people become equalized spiritually (Ephesians-type equalized), so i think having a mix of races, genders, ages, societal status, marital status, wealth, etc. would seem to be more in line with what the Bible is encouraging in the church body.

Also, I think the question we wrestle with is not so much how to market in order to meet felt needs and therby “grow,” but how to “market” in order to get listeners, how to find (or create) some common ground with people that allows us opportunity to share the gospel. That requires analysis and adaptation to a great extent. Like who can i attract with English classes or summer camps? We have to be appealing and culturally adaptive in order to gain hearers.

Anyway, some of those thoughts are beyond the scope of your article, which showed the problem of prioritizing marketing as the primary view of church operations, but if fundamentalists were involved in evangelism more, we might think more along those lines, hopefully in the right way.

Thank you for writing,
Anne

I’ve been talking this over with my husband and I would like to belabor this point a little more now, as we tend to discard or distort what might be OK ideas b/c of the source. Vitaliy thinks that the “felt needs” concept is worth some attention, citing this example:

His mom is not a believer. He’s witnessed to her on many occasions, but didn’t actually try “compromising standards” in order to reach her. But when we got married, we started evaluating what is important to her, specifically.

Social events and traditions are very important to her. An important person in her life died and she was in charge of the funeral. If unbelievers are doing a funeral, believers usually go to the graveside service but not the meal afterwards b/c alcohol is served. If they do attend the meal, they are seated separately without alcohol. So we discussed this, and we decided (as a Baptist pastor and his wife—can you feel the pressure?) that we would attend the meal with everyone else as well, as this was important to his mom. So we turned our shot glasses over at the table and had nice conversations with those around us. (About events in general where alcohol is served that we would for some reason consider attending, we’ve decided that if it’s profitable for making contacts with unbelievers, we go early to talk while people are in their ‘right minds’ and leave early, before people are really drunk. But in general, these are very rare occasions in our lives. People reading this also need to understand the place alcohol (and I’m not taling so much about wine) has in this culture.)

In our relationship with Vitaliy’s mom, we have specifically considered things that are important to her and to “meet” her in some of those areas. She now invests more in her relationship with us, and she is attending church, reading her Bible, and praying. I’m not sure I would call it “seeking” though, maybe more like searching or evaluating.

I’m not saying it will always turn out, but there might be validity to certain angles of the “felt needs” idea, that maybe the “felt needs” concept isn’t all bad.

As I read this well-written article about Joe Zichterman’s switchover from one branch of Christianity to another I noticed criticisms of Tom Farrell’s preaching an invitation style.

Frankly, I don’t see what problem some of the young fundamentalists have with Tom. He’s a personal friend. He’s a man of God. He is passionate about souls and the future of the church. He is being used mightly of God as a mouthpiece calling leaders into the Lord’s work.

If you ever heard him discuss his personal walk with the Lord and his reliance on the Holy Spirit’s power in his preaching and in his invitations you’d back off.

So…either talk to the man or back off!

We NEED more fire in the fundamentalist pulpit - not more “orthodoxy on ice” - as I once heard my friend Bryan Samms call it.

Intellectualism and blogs are not calling sinners to repentance or rallying God’s people into service.

PREACHING the Word with power and authority accomplishes that.

By the way…I’m not shouting, but I am convinced. Don’t take these bloggings too seriously. Let’s talk on the phone or sit down over a cup of coffee sometime. I’m FOR you, but I don’t always UNDERSTAND this medium.

Keep talking…

As I read this well-written article about Joe Zichterman’s switchover from one branch of Christianity to another I noticed criticisms of Tom Farrell’s preaching an invitation style.

Frankly, I don’t see what problem some of the young fundamentalists have with Tom. He’s a personal friend. He’s a man of God. He is passionate about souls and the future of the church. He is being used mightly of God as a mouthpiece calling leaders into the Lord’s work.

If you ever heard him discuss his personal walk with the Lord and his reliance on the Holy Spirit’s power in his preaching and in his invitations you’d back off.

So…either talk to the man or back off!

We NEED more fire in the fundamentalist pulpit - not more “orthodoxy on ice” - as I once heard my friend Bryan Samms call it.

Intellectualism and blogs are not calling sinners to repentance or rallying God’s people into service.

PREACHING the Word with power and authority accomplishes that.

By the way…I’m not shouting, but I am convinced. Don’t take these bloggings too seriously. Let’s talk on the phone or sit down over a cup of coffee sometime. I’m FOR you, but I don’t always UNDERSTAND this medium.

Keep talking…

As I read this well-written article about Joe Zichterman’s switchover from one branch of Christianity to another I noticed criticisms of Tom Farrell’s preaching an invitation style.

Frankly, I don’t see what problem some of the young fundamentalists have with Tom. He’s a personal friend. He’s a man of God. He is passionate about souls and the future of the church. He is being used mightly of God as a mouthpiece calling leaders into the Lord’s work.

If you ever heard him discuss his personal walk with the Lord and his reliance on the Holy Spirit’s power in his preaching and in his invitations you’d back off.

So…either talk to the man or back off!

We NEED more fire in the fundamentalist pulpit - not more “orthodoxy on ice” - as I once heard my friend Bryan Samms call it.

Intellectualism and blogs are not calling sinners to repentance or rallying God’s people into service.

PREACHING the Word with power and authority accomplishes that.

By the way…I’m not shouting, but I am convinced. Don’t take these bloggings too seriously. Let’s talk on the phone or sit down over a cup of coffee sometime. I’m FOR you, but I don’t always UNDERSTAND this medium.

Keep talking…

As I read this well-written article about Joe Zichterman’s switchover from one branch of Christianity to another I noticed criticisms of Tom Farrell’s preaching an invitation style.

Frankly, I don’t see what problem some of the young fundamentalists have with Tom. He’s a personal friend. He’s a man of God. He is passionate about souls and the future of the church. He is being used mightly of God as a mouthpiece calling leaders into the Lord’s work.

If you ever heard him discuss his personal walk with the Lord and his reliance on the Holy Spirit’s power in his preaching and in his invitations you’d back off.

So…either talk to the man or back off!

We NEED more fire in the fundamentalist pulpit - not more “orthodoxy on ice” - as I once heard my friend Bryan Samms call it.

Intellectualism and blogs are not calling sinners to repentance or rallying God’s people into service.

PREACHING the Word with power and authority accomplishes that.

By the way…I’m not shouting, but I am convinced. Don’t take these bloggings too seriously. Let’s talk on the phone or sit down over a cup of coffee sometime. I’m FOR you, but I don’t always UNDERSTAND this medium.

Keep talking…