Pensees: A Fundamentalist’s Hero?

Good for you, Bob. I was as shocked as you at the post, but I guess I didn’t have the guts to post something like this! :)

Glad you did. I agree wholeheartedly.

As I’ve said before, I’m amazed by the popularity of mockery. It almost seems to be a championship sport lately.

Is Webber a hero of mine? Absolutely. I make no apologies for that. Does that mean that I seek to emulate him in every area of faith and practice. Not on your life.

That’s why, in the article referred to here, I twice mentioned doctrinal disagreements I had with Webber. Funny that those weren’t cited here.

His contributions to the study and practice of worship are worthwhile. I’m not ashamed to say so. And I’m not ashamed to say “thank you.”

Are you serious? Or have you just had a bit too much fundamentalist Kool Aide lately?

I don’t know enough to unequivocally endorse Webber, but I do know that folks from places other than the emerging village did notice Webber’s passing.

Check out Christianity Today. I think they represent a few evangelicals — even if I wish they’d narrow their definition.

Also, here’s what Philip Ryken — HARDLY from emergentville — had to say about Webber:
—————————-
Bob Webber: A Short Appreciation
4/30/2007

Phil Ryken
I am saddened to learn today of the passing of Robert Webber, who was kind to me in my growing up years and happened to be one of the best professors I had at Wheaton College. It is good to think of him worshiping now in a higher, nobler key.

The incidental memories come back first, like eating peanut butter and honey sandwiches in the Webber kitchen, or getting hit with a fastball by Dr. Webber’s son John in a Little League game (no hard feelings — that’s baseball).

I took Dr. Webber’s “Theology of Culture” class when I was a freshman at Wheaton. Strangely enough, back in the day my mother had him for a theology class too, when she was a freshman at Covenant College. He was absolutely one of the best classroom lecturers I have ever heard.

I owe Dr. Webber a particular debt of gratitude for giving me an excellent basic foundation in the Reformed view of Christianity and culture. Although he fairly presented other Christian options in class, his presentation of the Calvinist worldview had his evident sympathies and made a lasting impression.
—————————————-

Furthermore, just because the emergents like someone doesn’t mean everyone else must disown them — classic fundamentalist “militancy.” I think the emergents also like the Apostle’s and the Nicene Creeds, should we stop reciting those too?

Good grief.

I think in our politically correct fundamentalism we focus so much on similarities that we pass over clear doctrinal error. Are there any biblical examples where we’re told “…so and so is a compromiser and is wrong in several areas of doctrine, but he’s still a good guy because he says he loves God.”

Can we please quit equating erroneous sincerity with holiness?

Phil Ryken is being very gracious, obviously. To a family friend. Even then I think it is remarkable that Webber, the “expert on worship,” is hardly remembered by Ryken except by the partially oblique statement that he is worshipping on a “higher, nobler key.”

Interestingly as well, Ryken credits Webber with teaching him the “Calvinist worldview.” The questions that comes into my mind is how many years ago was Ryken Webber’s student? About 20 to be exact. My own opinion — and I am not super qualified to say this — is that Webber’s stranger things have been intensifying over the past 15 years.

Steve,

“Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: the former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.”

While Paul doesn’t name the names of those to whom he’s referring, this might be an example for which you were asking.

I think the important fact of this passage is that he is commending the message not the messenger. His summary statement (vs. 18) is concerned with truth.

Paul is thankful that truth is being disseminated, but that doesn’t mean he is giving his blessing to the people or their motives for doing it. I think you are taking his argument one step further than Paul intends.

I’ll be honest, Bob….this seems more than a bit over-the-top to me.

Think of some of the men that you might look up to - Luther, Calvin, etc. I would suspect that, if you you were to write an article about those men, it would be overwhelmingly positive - you might even refer to them as “heroes of the faith”. Yet Luther taught “Sacramental Union” and wanted the entire Jewish race abolished. Calvin makes our present day “opressive pastors” look like pansies in comparison. Yet these men, even with these foibles - poor methodologies and questionable doctrine - are (rightfuly) held up as heroes.

I’m not saying that Bob Webber is in the same class, but I’m not understanding why you would attack a brother for his personal memories and appreciation for *some* of what is Bob Webber’s legacy. I read Brian’s article twice, and I’m still not really sure why you’re all worked up about this.

Your assertion that Brian doesn’t know what a false teacher looks like is unwarrented, IMO. I’ve always appreciated what you have to say here, Bob, but this just looks like your trying to start a fight where there isn’t one.

Maybe I did go over the top. I’ll think about that. But here is the thing, Brian and Ellis. What do you really believe?

Do you believe that worship can somehow be divorced from “come out from among them and be ye separate?” Do you really believe that a man can be on the faculty of a religious institution that practically canonizes Brian McLaren and still be an authority on the topic of worship to the Holy God that has made His will very clear in Scripture? While Luther and Calvin were reforming, trying to create things that did not exist, Webber consistently chose to associate with the most liberal institution even though countless more evangelical options existed. I hardly think he is hero material. Unless, of course, you’re emerging.

I also wonder how deeply people feel their beliefs about the Holiness of God and the clarity of Scripture, the purity of the Gospel, and the fact that gross error these ways results in the damnation of countless souls when they can herorize men who deliberately pursued ecumenicism (as I understand him).

We should worship God in spirit and in truth. Webber promoted all kinds of worship “techniques” that seemed to disregard both the spirit factor and the truth factor of real worship.

Ellis, the comparison is lame. Luther and Calvin both were in the process of reforming. They were pursuing clarity, not ambiguity. They weren’t perfect, of course, but they were not about encouraging a post-modern approach to Christianity. Vast difference, I think.

I’m feeling a tinge of compunction about hammering Brian that hard, so maybe I’ll see the light. But I think one can see where a man is by what he sympathizes with. When men like McCrorie seem to “feel” mostly with far-out compromisers although always offering the expected disclaimer (“I don’t agree on everything”), one begins to doubt even the disclaimers.

Truth matters men. And, frankly, I don’t care about being politically correct. I also think that if Brian truly understood the current evil of the emerging church, he would not want to misguide people by lavishing praise on their hero.

I don’t think Webber was as helpful as Brian thinks. He says I’m a mocker (as he defines the word). I say he’s way off the mark when it comes to who he herorizes.

Bob,

I don’t think that you were over the top at all. The only way that Webber can be a hero when it comes to worship is if we completely divorce the act of worship from the object of worship. The “Christianity” that Webber continually taught and was associated with is not the Christianity of the Bible. So the God he worshipped was not either. If he is an authority on worship then it is not because of whom he worshipped, only how. And when our worship of the God of the Bible starts to become influenced by those that are worshipping other gods then it truly is a sad day.

Perhaps Brian’s use of the word “hero” is where your hang-up is? If he simply said, “I benefited greatly from the life and ministry of Bob Webber. His passion for worship stretched, challenged, and drove me. For that I thank him.”, would that have been a better approach for you? Personally, I shun the word “hero” in nearly every conversation, but that’s just me.

I don’t know, Bob - you’ve accused Brian of being sympathetic to the EC and not being able to identify a false teacher. Do you really believe this, or is it simply so much rhetoric to incite a fight?

BTW, I completely agree with you that the Luther and Calvin analogies were “lame” - at least to a point. All I’m trying to point out is that each of us look up to men who were severely flawed -some even embraced theological error - yet we still count them as “heroes”. Maybe it’s just that Webber hasn’t been dead for 400 years yet….

FWIW, here’s a sample of where Webber was leading people:

The primary problem we evangelicals have inherited from the Enlightenment is its emphasis on the foundational nature of Scripture. The church has from its beginning confessed that Jesus Christ is the foundation of faith…. This foundation of Christianity is the incarnation of God into our humanity to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: Defeat the powers of evil and restore the creation in the new heavens and the new earth.
It was during the Enlightenment that the foundation of the Christian faith shifted from the centrality of the person and work of Jesus Christ to the centrality of the Bible. Theology shifted from the God who acts to the God who spoke. In the worst scenario faith shifted from trust in Christ to trust in the Book. Therefore, the first question we must address as evangelicals in a postmodern world is this: Do we believe in a book or a person? (Ancient-Future Faith, p. 45)

This is just a window into the false dichotomy he came to embrace and teach, and it placed him comfortably in the vanguard of the post-evangelical movement. Obviously, others disagree, but I am convinced that this kind of present threat to the gospel needs more than a mild disclaimer amidst positive commendation.

To be clear, I am not advocating trashing the man upon news of his death or refusing to acknowledge perceived contributions. But it seems very unwise to reduce the major problems in Webber’s later works to a passing mention of some unnamed disagreements. That gives the impression that there are only minor issues at stake. Webber’s errors were not minor, and they have provoked even larger errors by many who have followed him.

Thanks for the comments, Dr. Doran. If this is indicative of the theology that Webber embraced, I am certainly inclined to agree with this statement of yours:

“But it seems very unwise to reduce the major problems in Webber’s later works to a passing mention of some unnamed disagreements. That gives the impression that there are only minor issues at stake. Webber’s errors were not minor, and they have provoked even larger errors by many who have followed him.”

I too was looking through my copy of “Ancient Future Faith” and was concerned with how Webber seems to embrace Romanism as true Christianity. Here are a couple of other Webber quotes that indicate the issues aren’t just minor disagreements:

“So while we are all Christians, some of us are Roman Catholic Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Reformation Christians, twentieth-century evangelical Christians, or some other form of modern or postmodern Christians.” (p. 17).

“Today evangelicals and Catholics are enjoying spiritual camaraderie that was nonexistent a few years ago. For many years evangelicals were taught that Catholics were not fully Christian….We recognize that we belong to each other because there is only one church that results from Christ’s victory over the power of evil.” (p. 87)

I think Dave’s warning is much needed in this day.

Brian,

Read your verse again. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached. He didn’t call the mess-makers his heroes. He didn’t praise them. He didn’t even rejoice in them.

Right, Bobby. As I mentioned previously, it is not a perfect analogy.

Brian,

I wonder if there is an analogy to this situation at all. What Paul does cannot properly be compared to praising someone; he was rejoicing that Christ was preached. If your post had rejoiced that Christ was preached in spite of the problems associated with Dr. Webber’s ministry, then it might analogous. Your post, however, was designed to honor and thank the man for his ministry. These seem so dissimilar as to make the comparison unwarranted. If you’re looking for biblical precedent, you would be better served to look to the OT historical books and how they sometimes offered a summary of a king’s life with a mixed review.

Good suggestion, Dr. Doran.

Perhaps that is the better way to communicate my appreciation to people like Dr. Webber in the future, use a Philippians 1 model. I like the idea of keeping the focus on God anyway rather than man.

Brian,

I guess it’s kind of like getting one’s music checked by the “hall leaders”. You now also have to get your heroes checked. But just remember, there are parts of fundamentalism that don’t employ groupthink.

Ooooo; Bob is actually part of the dreaded fundamentalist groupthink?

Who knew? ;)

Keith,

That was an incredibly stupid post. If you actually applied it, then no one would be allowed to challenge another’s thinking or actions, including your own disapproval of Bob’s original post. You may feel better that you got to vent a little, but the discussion is no better of because of it.

Dave,

Now this feels more natural — we’re back on opposite sides. Although, before I write more, let me just say that I actually thought your first post in this discussion was very good. I don’t agree with you that Brian was out of line for not giving any more of a disclaimer than he did. Even so, I thought the post was quite appropriate, fair, and thought provoking.

As to your most recent comment: Of course it’s possible that my last post was incredibly stupid. Then again, it’s also possible that its deep satirical wisdom is beyond the reach of some.

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t “politically correct”, and a couple previous posts (not yours) seemed to indicate that we shouldn’t worry about political correctness in this discussion. It looked like a discussion where guys were supposed to just put their opinions out there boldly. So, that’s what I did. Perhaps, though, only one side in the discussion is supposed to have that freedom.

I don’t know what would make you suspect that I needed to “vent” in order to feel better. I felt just fine both before and after the post. I was just trying to make a point with satire and a very few words.

Since you appear to want me to help make the discussion better, I’ll try to make the same point in a more politically correct, prosaic, and verbose manner . . .

Bob’s been a vocal oponent of “groupthink”. However, when Brian claims that Webber is one of his heroes, Bob doesn’t say something like, “What! that guy’s your hero? He’s no hero of mine. Why would he be your hero? How can you overlook his faults, and by praising him publicly aren’t you concerned about inadvertantly leading others to embrace his errors?” (all comments that would be just fine in my opinion). Instead, Bob makes Brian’s qualified personal opinion an issue for fundamentalism. An issue of “truth matters.” He uses it to question “too many fundamentlist’s” discernment skills (a very good question in general). He publicly questions Brian’s understanding of what constitutes a false teacher. Then, several other guys jump on in agreement, saying things like “good for you Bob”, providing documentation of the dead guy’s errors (which Brian had already acknowledged), and claiming that such warnings are “much needed in this day.” All of this strikes me as bit of Bob’s dreaded groupthink.

Furthermore, Bob did not attack Webber with quotes from his writings (like you did), but with guilt by association — Webber taught at a seminary that recently promoted a lecture by an Emergent leader, and Webber’s looked up to by emergent types. Well, this approach also is very much like the old school fundamentalism that Bob and his buddies claim to want to reform. You know, “So and so was a Sunday school teacher for somebody who went to Talbot and spoke on the same platform with somebody else who didn’t speak out loudly enough against Billy Graham 15 years ago, so we must stand militantly against him for the sake of truth and historic fundamentalism.” Or, “We can’t recite that creed, Catholics and Lutherans say creeds.”

All that said, I don’t think Bob needs to have Webber as a hero. I don’t think it is wrong for Bob to disagree with Brian. And, I am not angry with Bob or anyone else.

Now, don’t you think that previous post was better?

Here’s Bob from the past:
“But fundamentalism has for too long been allergic to freedom. A truly free fundamentalist sounds oxymoronic, but that is changing quickly thanks to the blogosphere. People used to lose their jobs for being transparent. Groupthink prevailed unchallenged. You didn’t dare speak your mind. What you really thought about the standards, the issues, or the sermon could not be said because even the slightest disparagement was considered an irremediable insult to the only true keeper of the faith that was already so battle-weary with those compromising “neos” that it took incredible, thankless gall to voice your petty difference. Little by little, people are being liberated.”

So, is Brian free to voice his appreciation for Webber? Or, is that an irremediable insult . . .

Here’s Bob again:
“Now, the movement [fundamentalism] which had at one time Biblical truth as its singular distinction began to conform to the pressure of men who not only championed truth (thank God!), but could unfortunately never do so without also championing their overheated opinions on secondary principles.”

Webber’s positions on various things may objectively violate first principles (that’s a discussion for another day). However, surely the question of whether or not it is acceptable to appreciate some things about his life and work is a secondary principle.

Generally, I avoid the fundamental chatter vortex, but recents events have proved so curious that it’s been impossible for me to avert my eyes.

Regarding Keith’s post, will Bob of the present — or anybody else — be addressing this observation?

If not, this may provide a clue as to why Joe Z. bought a one-way ticket to South Barrington, IL.

“Will Bob of the present”…?

You guys crack me up. I am still trying to figure out how what I have said in the past is inconsistent with my statement about Brian’s statement, but since I’m pressed for an explanation I will try to do it next week. Until then, Sunday’s coming.

Keith,

I apologize for the delay in responding. I was on a quick trip to Minnesota until this evening.

It may be that the post I criticized contained deep satirical wisdom that I mistook for shallow sarcasm. I have tried to give that idea some thought, but it isn’t convincing to me.

I think I understand why you felt what was being said deserved sarcasm, and I am not, in principle, opposed to sarcasm. But I find it hard to agree that anyone was suggesting that Brian submit to the “hall leaders” (or the unnamed authority on whose behalf they operate). Further, I don’t see how it represents groupthink either, but I also was one of those who objected to Bob’s argument on that point, so I might be blinded to it.

In any event, I do appreciate that you do not seem to have taken my blunt comment personally. While you and I seem often to disagree, I do appreciate the fact that you normally set forth arguments for your positions. In this one case, you seemed to be making an illegitimate point by force of mockery. At least that’s what it seemed to me. I do appreciate the further explanation that helps me see what you were aiming to accomplish.

Is there room for having heroes whom we know are severely flawed? Can Wesley be a hero for his passionate evangelism, but not for his perennial absence from his wife? Can Mother Teresa be a hero for her humble service, but not for her theology? Can John Paul II be a hero for his courage, but not for his adoration of Mary? Can George Washington be a hero for his devotion to God and to country, but not for his Masonic involvement? I believe so. In the Bible there are flawed men and women of faith. Yet we can have only one perfect HERO, the man/God Christ Jesus.

PS - Before anyone jumps on me, I’m not guaranteeing that each of the people I mentioned was truly saved.