May 13, 2009
A “Young and Restless” Response to a Fundamentalist Rant
On April 6-7, 2009 the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International had a southern regional meeting at a Christian camp and conference center in North Carolina with the theme being “Effective Leadership for the Next Generation.” Naturally, I am interested in the subject, but I am also very interested in the context and culture of the discussion surrounding this very important topic, particularly when fundamentalists discuss it.
I have known the president of the FBFI for many years and consider him to be a friend. Only a few years ago (last year?), he personally encouraged me to join the FBFI and hinted that young blood like mine would be useful to the fellowship and potentially directive. In other words (though he did not say it explicitly) I was made to feel that if I got into the mix, being the vocal person that I am, I would be rewarded with a more inclusive attitude on the part of the old guard of the FBFI toward Calvinistic and not-quite-as-separatistic Baptists like myself.
Since I did not get a satisfactory answer to my queries about the benefits of being a member of the FBFI for people like me, I told Pastor Vaughn (I’ve always called him “Pastor”) that I simply did not see any reason for membership. I personally like Dr. John Vaughn, admire him for so many things, have profited from his ministry through the years, and consider him a beloved brother in Christ that, at times in my ministry, has been a father figure to my wife and me. There are other leaders within the FBFI that I highly esteem as Christian men whose devotion and affection for God are of the quality that I still aspire to emulate.
All this is a necessary preliminary to the blazing criticism that I intend to launch in the next few pages about one particular message entitled “Young and Restless” that was delivered at the regional meeting by Pastor Dan Sweatt, a title inspired by Colin Hansen’s much talked about article in Christianity Today and subsequent book. Since this message seems to be indicative of the mood within the FBFI, and since it is not the only one of its kind to be preached (see Chuck Phelps’ message), I find it particularly incumbent upon somebody somewhere to issue a rebuttal because the message was a keynote message to an audience that included pastors, college presidents, and leaders within Baptist fundamentalism. It is especially necessary to respond to Dan Sweatt’s wrong-headed thinking since the message was preached under the rubric of “effective leadership for the next generation.” If the FBFI is serious about providing effective leadership for the next generation then this message was woefully off the mark.
In addition to the above caveat, one more is necessary: I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that participation in or presence at the conference necessarily implies an unqualified endorsement of what Dan Sweatt preached. This would put institutions like BJU and CCC in an undeserved bad light. The speakers included Stephen Jones, President of Bob Jones University, and my friends, Dick and Holly Stratton from Clearwater Christian College. It makes sense to have institutions of higher education present in a conference on “the next generation,” and one would rightly assume that the aforementioned educators are current with the trends and articulate analysts of the processes and methods for training a next generation of leaders. But it also makes sense (from the perspective of the FBFI) to have such notables when your agenda is to influence the leadership of the next generation. Thus, if the leaders missed the thinly-veiled warnings to colleges from Dan Sweatt that came through his message, they were not paying close attention!
Dan Sweatt and many in the FBFI are obviously fighting for influence and there is nothing wrong per se with that struggle. I do not fault them for this. Leadership is influence. Therefore, by writing this post I too am entering into the conversation and attempting to influence whoever may read these words. Will Sweatt’s influence prevail in the FBFI, or mine? Sweatt’s, of course. (Which is one reason why I will not join the FBFI and honestly wonder why some of my friends still stay in that charade of a fellowship.) But I too want to influence in some small way the Bible Colleges and Universities and Seminaries that have all become so tightly affiliated with the FBFI. I want to suggest the possibility that if they continue to dance with the kind of rhetoric that Chuck Phelps and Dan Sweatt are shouting from the pulpit that many churches like ours with our burgeoning lode of potential students will quit trying to cut in even though we remain attracted to their institutions. We’ll look for our own partners.
There’s nothing veiled about that. Nor is it a threat. It’s just common sense.
It is not my intention to be disputative or belligerent, just realistic and frank. But I must speak up, speak pointedly, and speak with a finger pointed at one of the teachers within the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International who gave a keynote address at one of their regional meetings. He must be called out, I think, for what I believe to be egregious misrepresentations of the facts and therefore ultimately harmful ideas, and the FBFI must decide once and for all if this is the kind of preaching they wish to promote. Sweatt’s skewed reasoning will result in the confusion and hurt of God’s people as well as become an unhelpful influence on some of the very people I hope to influence. We fight for influence, remember.
It matters to me that the FBFI is tirelessly working to recruit young pastors into its fellowship, some of whom are friends of mine, while presenting a platform with the kind of misinformation and unintelligent accusations and argumentation that seem to be regular fare for the FBFI meetings. They cannot distance themselves from such rhetoric on a personal level and persist in scheduling it for their platform at the same time. If they really are serious about balance then they ought to schedule a guy like me to come speak at their meetings where they are seeking to understand the present generation. I’d be glad to speak on the same platform as Dan Sweatt and Chuck Phelps and have the liberty to speak as unrestrained as they speak about the “young and restless.” (Now, wouldn’t that be a fun meeting?)
Alas! my good friends in the leadership of the FBFI have not invited me to the discussion yet, so I blog. ;-) And my blogging audience is larger than any FBFI meeting. Therefore, for the friends of mine that still imagine the FBFI to be more open-minded than it is, let me catalogue some of the bigger problems with Dan Sweatt’s message on April 7, 2009 because it gives a classic example of why so many “young” are “restless” within the fundamentalist movement.
A Classic Example of Why So Many “Young” are “Restless” = Preaching without exposition, poor reasoning, bad logic, and faulty conclusions combined with in-your-face dogmatism
Of the egregious things that Dan Sweatt said are, for example, these four serious issues which I will discuss in further detail in future posts:
1. There is a patently false claim that there is not one example in history of a ministry that survived one generation after the passing of its flamboyant Calvinistic leader. The purpose of this false statement, of course, was to show that the ministries of men such as John Piper and C.J. Mahaney and all other Calvinists are doomed to die a quick death. This claim was doubly ironic because the purpose of Sweatt’s rant was to give an answer for why so many young men are abandoning fundamentalism. He seems to consciously ignore the inconsistency of his claims: After opening up with a eulogy of the dynamic leaders in fundamentalism like Bob Jones, Sr. and John R. Rice who have passed on and declaring a dearth of leadership in subsequent generations, he proceeds to prove the evil of Calvinism by the same thing he claims is contemporary fundamentalism’s problem!
2. There is the stunning non sequitur that the rise of Calvinistic thinking necessarily leads to a battle on the inerrancy of Scripture coupled with a laughable illustration of a question of interpretation on John 3:16 being a proof of disbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture. In addition to this outrageous claim, the illustration itself was a straw man representation of what is said to be the universally accepted way of dealing with the text by Calvinists.
3. There is careless and slanderous characterizations of Christian leaders through guilt-by-association which Sweatt did either by deliberate deceit or by the ignorant guess work that comes from the sequestered isolation of hyper-separatistic sectarianism, a long-time trademark of fundamentalists’ rants against “them neos.” Rick Warren and C.J. Mahaney, for example, were spoken of as if the two are the same.
4. Finally, there is the insulting straw man characterization of how a Calvinist pastor would deal with a young boy who was doubting his salvation. It was so off putting that it is not only a insult to the intelligence of any thinking and charitable NON-Calvinist in the room but it cannot be otherwise described but a slanderous lie against all those who do hold to a Calvinistic theology. The King James Bible says, Mr. Sweatt, “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Lord willing, in the following posts of varying length I will illustrate these four problems from Dan Sweatt’s own words and refute them with sound words. I will also comment on more of his comments that he made at the FBFI with the unabashed intention of being some kind of antidote to that kind of misguided teaching.
One final thing. You bleeding hearts who have the silly idea that it is wrong to confront public statements publicly are invited not to get on my post and publicly (what a funny irony it always is) chastise me for not first of all appealing to Dan Sweatt in private. I have nothing personal against Dan Sweatt, admire him for a number of things, and appreciate what he has done for the cause of the Lord we both love. I am sure we would find many things in common if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him. However, in this very message he practically admits that his generation of leaders has failed so why should we suddenly listen to what he and his generation are saying without hard scrutiny? HIs tacit admission of failure is an open invitation to any careful thinker to put his words to the test.
Therefore, since he influences people that I love, and since I strongly believe that he is wrong, and since his strong pontifications castigate anyone that openly embraces the doctrine he has so falsely represented, and since that doctrine is one that I openly embrace, I cannot help but hear his message as a direct attack on those like me who embrace the doctrines we do, nor do I flinch from the responsibility I feel to counter-attack. It is he, not I, that fired the first salvo.
I would be perfectly happy to fellowship with pastors of his persuasion if we didn’t have to hear messages of this kind. I therefore intend to post my critique of his message here in the prayerful hope that those friends of mine who also listen to him (and others like him in the FBFI) will weigh his message with the facts. I am certain they will find that his message (and many messages like it in the FBFI culture) was weak at best and his case, if it is a good one, needs a better argument.
Posted by Bob Bixby at May 13, 2009 04:36 PM | eMail this entry! | 1976 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
Bob:
Thanks for standing up and saying these things. You are probably going to be on the bulletin board of dangerous neo-evangelicals who need to be avoided! You are right in so much that you say. Just like Kevin Bauder said last fall about John MacArthur if fundamentalism pushes people away it pushes them in the very direction it purports to warn them about. I am proud to call myself a fundamentalist but am increasingly feeling that I don’t belong because my view of the centrality of the gospel does not go along with what the fearful fundamentalists want to focus on.
Posted by: Jon Bell at May 13, 2009 09:02 PMAre you kidding Jon? Bob’s been on that board for years! lol
Bob, good post. I’m glad someone is graciously but forcefully standing up to these men. I don’t think these older pastors realise how dishearted we younger men are when we hear these types of messages.
Posted by: Jason at May 14, 2009 12:11 AMBrother Bob:
You wrote, “I want to suggest the possibility that if they continue to dance with the kind of rhetoric that Chuck Phelps and Dan Sweatt are shouting from the pulpit that many churches like ours with our burgeoning lode of potential students will quit trying to cut in even though we remain attracted to their institutions. We’ll look for our own partners. There’s nothing veiled about that. Nor is it a threat. It’s just common sense.”
As a preface I have not heard or read the message by Brother Sweatt in its entirety so I have no firm opinion to share. I would, however, like to react to your note above.
It is no secret (as you indicated) that Calvinistic men in the IFB camp are not just looking for partners, but actively moving toward and joining (partnering) with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals.
I did not take your comment as a threat. IMO, Reformed men are going to break (to one degree or another) from the IFB fellowships in preference to “conservative” evangelical fellowships. That break is well underway and IMO inevitable. It is also no secret that the primary attraction is centered on the likemindedness over Calvinistic theology.
My question is this: If among the “conservative” evangelicals you find a more tolerable fellowship, why don’t you openly join them and get it over with?
LM
“I really have been blessed by Mr. So and So’s ministry, he is blah, blah, blah to me. I really love what he’s done for the Lord. But the guy is a total bonehead and I wouldn’t attend his church if it was the last church standing, but I really do respect and love the guy.”
Posted by: JG at May 14, 2009 06:50 AMYou might find the following blogs of interest about C.J. Mahaney and the group he leads:
[Deleted by Bob Bixby]
They tell another side about C.J. Mahaney.
Hope this helps.
Note from Bob Bixby: I haven’t had time to check these sites out so I won’t let the link sit here before I have seen them myself and have verified them. I do the same for any Christian ministry.
Posted by: Steve240 at May 14, 2009 07:23 AMFrom one JG to another. Bob didn’t attack Sweatt. He was charitable to him and to the FBFI. He used strong words, but what he went after were ideas not people. There’s a big difference between the two.
Posted by: JG at May 14, 2009 07:47 AMLou, you asked:
My question is this: If among the “conservative” evangelicals you find a more tolerable fellowship, why don’t you openly join them and get it over with?
An answer to this deserves an entire separate post, but I’ll try to be brief. My response could be summed up in two paradoxical statements:
1. I have joined them.
2. There is nothing to join.
1. I have joined them.
For me a theological reality is a public reality. In Christ, I am united to whoever is in Christ. Therefore, those true believers in Christ who are under the tradition of “conservative evangelicals” are my brothers and I am quite happy to interact with them because they think very much as I do on so many important doctrines. There are some among them that I could not work with because our differences are too important.
You and I disagree on some things so much that we could not work together. In fact, we may disagree enough that we would publicly call each other out, believing the other to be in error. But you publicly are “joined” to me when you graciously called me “Brother.”
2. There is nothing to join.
I never “joined” fundamentalism. How do you join a movement?Even if I were to join the FBFI there are some fundamentalists that would say that I am NOT a fundamentalist. Or, if fundamentalism is only an “idea” as has been propounded by so many, how do you “join” an idea?
In the same way, how do you “join” conservative evangelicals? I suppose I could join the SBC, but then some would still say that I am a person who loves the idea of fundamentalism.
I am organizationally joined to no one, but my local church. We fellowship with so-called “conservative evangelicals” and so-called “fundamentalists” all the time. Some of my good friends in this city are pastors who have never been in the fundamentalist movement and have no intention of becoming a part of it. Others of my friends are part of “the movement.” I have had both groups speak in my church.
Soteriologically, I am joined to all those who are truly in Christ Jesus. Providentially, I am joined by tradition and heritage to a part of that glorious Body that is fervently committed to the idea of fundamentalism. As a grown man who has come to his own in his thinking I have found that the idea of fundamentalism is spot on. However, just as there are many so-called conservative evangelicals that I cannot cooperate with because they do not grasp the “idea” of fundamentalism (many do), there are also a number of so-called fundamentalists that I cannot cooperate with because they cannot grasp the theology of oneness and are unbiblically demanding an extra-biblical delineation of categories within the Church of Jesus Christ, though thankfully more and more are beginning to grasp this truth as well.
Thus, as I have said before, there is a merging going on. I dont’ call it a movement. I call it a maturation of two right points of view that have found that they do not have to be mutually exclusive.
In other words, Brother Lou, we are joined! There are some areas where I am sure we could cooperate and even though we strongly disagree on Lordship Salvation, I personally wouldn’t have difficulty going to hear you preach, expecting to be blessed by it. On the other hand, since our differences are significant, I don’t think we could cooperate in a local church ministry. In that sense, I guess, we’re not joined. Some would even say we have ‘separated.’ But I’m not sure how you separate from something you have never joined.
Alas! The conversation continues! ;-)
Posted by: Bob Bixby at May 14, 2009 08:45 AMBob:
You asked, “How do you join a movement?”
For the point I was making I might suggest we use the term “identify with.” Primarily identify with a movement.
OK?
LM
Bob,
Thank you for this post. Some of it was humorous but all of it necessary I believe. Fundamentalism will never be taken seriously again and will be doomed to nothing more than a small subculture unless they humbly acknowledge where they movement got off track.
Attacking Calvinism with an argument of little to no substance will only draw more and more young people away from the movement. That is sad because there are still many in movements like the FBFI who have much to contribute and I agree that the idea of the foundations behind fundamentalism are spot on.
No matter how others on the sinking ship of irrational fundamentalism try to paint a different picture the reality remains the same. Modern day fundamentalism vaguely reflects historic fundamentalism. The weak soteriology that characterized the movement for decades has caused many to rethink both the methods and theology of the movement. And that is a good thing!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Hess at May 14, 2009 09:17 AMIn that case, I identify with fundamentalism. In the Providence of God I was born in the movement, born again within the movement, reared by parents in the movement, ministered in the movement, and have consciously embraced what I believe to be an important idea of the movement (separatism and militance for the truth). I also am grateful to God for the heritage of the movement. Therefore, I identify with many, but not all fundamentalists.
I also identify with many conservative evangelicals that I know. I identify with a biblical understanding of grace, a biblical understanding of salvation, a biblical understanding of the church, a common love for the Person of Jesus Christ, and their devotion to fight for the truth. I also delight in how many of them are increasingly militant for the truth and decidedly separatistic. Therefore, I identify with many, but not all conservative evangelicals.
Again, for me the theological reality is my public reality. While I think it is wrongheaded to think that a believer must not separate from other believers who are in error, I also think it is erroneous to think that the lines of my separation have to be defined by a cultural and historical movement.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at May 14, 2009 09:17 AMBob,
First of all, I agree that Sweatt’s message was “woefully off the mark” and that his comments about the doctrines of grace were foolish at best - some being down right slanderous. I whole-heartily agree with your brief assessment of his message and I imagine that I will also agree with your coming posts on his message.
But I have two questions about your post. First, what do you mean by Sweatt (and Phelps) being “indicative of the mood of the within the FBFI?” You did note that the presence of Jones and Stratton did not necessarily mean that they endorsed Sweatt’s message but I wonder if they also are “indicative of the mood?” They, after all, along with John Vaughn (your friend), Ken Collier, and others (who I have not heard speak) also spoke at the conference. Do they fit this mood, or are they not indicative of it? Maybe the same could be said of the conference in which Phelps spoke. Are Dave Doran, Steve Pettit and Sam Horn indicative of this mood?
Second, how is that you can say that the leadership of the FBFI “have not invited me to the discussion yet” when you say the president just last year invited and encouraged you to join? I do recognize that they have not given you a slot to speak at their regional or national conference, but is it possible that you might have a voice at the table if you joined?
Posted by: David Stertz at May 14, 2009 09:44 AMBob:
I have only enough time for this last note.
Above you wrote, “I identify with a biblical understanding of grace, a biblical understanding of salvation…”
When I interact with men of Calvinistic persuasion I want them to be transparent. I know the terms that are in vogue with my Calvinistic brethren, but some (new believers or those unaware of the debate) may not be aware of the terms.
So, I like to ask my Calvinistic brethren to use the terms that accurately define the view they hold to.
So, if I may, I am going to post a translation that I believe accurately defines your view.
“…understanding of (IRRESISTIBLE) grace…a (CALVINISTIC) understanding of salvation…”
Kind regards,
LM
Bob,
Good job as always. I’m sorry I didn’t post something sooner. Busy days. The challenge with the FBFI is that it frankly does not speak with a single voice. There are men within its ranks that believe as the speaker has spoken. Then there are men who believe almost exactly as you and I. The problem is that the men who believe as you and I are too often not willing to speak what they truly believe because they are not willing to pay whatever political price they think they would pay.
I had a friend who ministers on the side in a certain fundamental learning institution who once told me, “Joel, I believe exactly as you do, but I stay out of trouble because I don’t tell anyone.” My thought at the time was “wow - that is very brave of you!…What great integrity you have….”
You and I have crossed that line years ago. We need to pray that the white hats of the FBFI will be willing to stand up to the kind of things that were in this message. Thanks for spending the time shining a light on the darkness.
Lou,
It’s probably hard for you to get this. Fundamentalism is a man-made movement. There is a bond that goes way beyond man-made movements. My brother, please listen to this and think about it before you respond. There are evangelical men who are Godlier, more Biblical and more “right” with the Lord than you or I will ever be. No they don’t agree with us on X, Y or Z. But X, Y and Z do not offend God. They might offend you. But you’re not God.
OK, there probably are things about evangelicalism that do offend God. But the very same thing can be said of fundamentalism. I’m sure there are multiple things about fundamentalism that grieve the Lord.
It’s one of the reasons why I’ve decided that for myself I’m going to move forward without a movement (at least for the time being). Sure I’m still a kind of historic fundamentalists because I agree with orthodoxy and militancy with the gospel….even to the point of separation from both non-believes as well as consistently disobedient brethren, but see this is the rube. I find there are just as many disobedient brethren with in fundamentalism (so-called) as there is evangelicalism. So what do I do? Well…for me I will follow Christ, those that walk in the same direction will be my friends. Most of my ministry friends are from the fundamentalist side of the isle. But a few are more Type C fund (militant cons evang). We will have koinonia (partnership) as we can.
I thought about making my own movement but couldn’t get past the idea of being accountable for more than I am already in trouble over. Besides the name I was going to use had a Latin base and I kept misspelling it. Which of course means Bauder wouldn’t join. And without him joining I will have a hard time secretly taking over the Central Seminary alumni base. Which of course I plan to do right after I conquer and subvert the alumni from DBTS and IBC. So the plan was to take over Fundamentalism in the West, then the Mid-West. Then we would secretly try to take over BJ in the South. We then were going to raise a flag over Greenville. It was to have a Tulip on it. Rats! We’ll have to go to plan B. Bob and I will meet for coffee twice a year. The rest of you are invited. This is kind of like the ecclesiastical version of “Pinkey and the Brain.” Bob is the brain….I’m the other guy. We will take over the world! Well….that’s what Bob says. The secret code will be “Pensee Monsure!” The response of course is “Wee-Wee!”
So Lou (and other Type A Fundamentalist reading this) - Man I’m trying to help you here. One of the major differences between what I call Type A Fund and Type B Fund is that Type B’s don’t see Fund as “all or nothing.” That is Fund defines a portion of what we are, but not all of what we are. There will be times we will be closer in fellowship with a Calvinistic, Conservative Evangelical because he preaches the same gospel we do as opposed to a Pelagian Fundamental Baptist. Some Pelagian Fundamental Baptist fail to preach the Gospel of the Scriptures. They preach a type of non-Lordship, cheap gospel. Some Fundamental Baptist are heretical also on Christ (the was mystical sprinkled in heaven). They are heretical on Scripture (The KJV guys re-inspired the Scriptures), etc….So then we would have more in common with the conservative evangelical who really believes and really preaches faith and repentance and believes as Scripture teaches on the key doctrines of the Faith. Lou, that is far more important than the style of music God’s children are using in worship. There may be other things that attract us to some conservative evangelicals. For instance many of them preach the Bible. That is they are careful with Scriptures. That is they do a better job with God’s Word than some like Pastor Sweatt did on this occasion. That is they understand “A Text can only mean what it only meant….and a text can never mean what it never meant!” Now thankfully I’ve met a whole slate of men within fundamentalism that have what I consider to be good music, plus they have good doctrine, plus they have the same spirit I like, plus when the practice separation they are careful and humble. So, healthy fundamentalism may indeed make it in the years to come. When I do enjoy koinonia with fundamentalists, I plan to do so with those kinds of guys. But because most of them believe in a kind of “Lordship Salvation” you would probably be uncomfortable with the group. To bad.
One more point about conservative evangelicals – many of them understand that Scripture is restrained by a principle called “authorial intent.” That is it cannot be stretched by “pastoral intent.” Fundamentalists have been guilty of these kinds of things for years. They want to “rant” so they find some verses that they can stretch to make it say what they want it to say. I try not to do that sort of thing because s have been doing that for years. Lou, I wish we could all just get along. I guess that will have to wait until Heaven.
Straight Ahead!
jt
I’m glad I’m not the only one who got a little bothered listening to the sermon. I’m not a pastor or church worker - I troubleshoot and fix computers all day - so I don’t have time to and therefore can’t keep up with all the goings-on in the IFB realm. I did, however, have time to listen to about half of this message before I got fed up, right around that John 3:16 fiasco (or the whole “no Calvinistic institution lasted a generation after the death of its leader,” whichever came last).
He did, I think, provide a great example of why folks are abandoning ship - I’m personally tired of misrepresentation to prove a point, pining after the “good ol’ days” when Fundamentalism was in its heyday, the black and white “for us or against us” attitude that permeates the movement, and shrill panicky reactions in general.
Wow, that was a mouthful. :) Point is, the sermon caused me to walk out the virtual back door, which, if your goal is to bring the flock back to the fold, is a little counter-productive. I hate to sound negative. I really do. But I gotta call this game from the stands because that’s where I live. Past all the theological reasons and different schools of thought on different passages, sometimes things just strike you badly, like you know what the guy’s saying can’t possibly be right and the more he goes on the more frustrated you get. That was this sermon for me, and in the end it’s straight up unfortunate that this is how it has to be.
Posted by: Tom at May 14, 2009 10:50 AMLou, you wrote:
Above you wrote, “I identify with a biblical understanding of grace, a biblical understanding of salvation…”
When I interact with men of Calvinistic persuasion I want them to be transparent. I know the terms that are in vogue with my Calvinistic brethren, but some (new believers or those unaware of the debate) may not be aware of the terms.
So, I like to ask my Calvinistic brethren to use the terms that accurately define the view they hold to.
So, if I may, I am going to post a translation that I believe accurately defines your view.
“…understanding of (IRRESISTIBLE) grace…a (CALVINISTIC) understanding of salvation…”
Indeed, that accurately portrays a portion of my view on salvation and grace, but it does not portray all my view or even the most important parts of my views on said subjects. Actually, I tend to avoid redundancy if I can so when I mentioned grace I was thinking, not of soteriology since I already assumed “irresistible grace” in the word “salvation”, but of the practice of grace in Christian living. However, the statement that I made concerning my identification with the conservative evangelicals is one that I could equally say about many fundamentalists. I was, in fact, trying to highlight where we hold things in common.
Though you and I differ on the doctrine of salvation, I still identify with you on those areas where we are clearly brothers. While I think that your understanding of soteriology is mistaken I am still quite confident that a soul will be led to Jesus through and by your ministry because you preach salvation in Christ alone.
Also, there are many fundamentalists both in times past and today who are Calvinistic in soteriology. So — unless I totally misread you — why do you continue to paint a Calvinistic soteriology as something incompatible with fundamentalism?
I’m not trying to be snarky. I seriously do not see it that way. Perhaps, I’m misread. My problem with Dan Sweatt’s message is not so much that he is against Calvinism, but that he uses caricature and misrepresentation and poor logic to paint a picture of those fundamentalists like me who disagree with him as something evil. I’m a big boy. I can handle disagreement. What I will not tolerate from the leaders within the movement who don’t do their homework.
Posted by: bob Bixby at May 14, 2009 11:19 AMDavid,
When the FBFI puts on their national or regional platforms men who are given free reign to dish out a rhetoric that is clearly alienating to a particular point of view (whatever that point of view is) it is safe to say that it is a tone that is being consciously embraced by the FBFI unless they immediately issue qualifiers and disclaimers.
It is true that others such as Stephen Jones, et. al. speak there, but their rhetoric does not deliberately try to alienate those people who are anti-calvinists, hyper-separatistic, and big-B Baptists. Many of these kind can come to the FBFI meetings where leaders from non-denominational schools speak (including, I believe, one time the Presbyterian Ian Paisley) because these men do not deliberately stick their finger in the eye of their non-Calvinistic brethren with silly argumentation and heated rhetoric.
If the FBFI really wanted my kind of people in their fellowship they would not have these kind of messages at their meetings unless, of course, they wanted to be fair and balanced and have the other side speak up too.
John Vaughn is a gracious person. If he ever found time to speak to my congregation I would have him come in a heartbeat even though we don’t agree on a number of things. But my joining the FBFI would not change the fact that I would have to go to meetings to hear a person preach that I wouldn’t walk across the street to hear since every lay preacher in my congregation can deliver a more substantive message than the one Sweatt delivered.
The messages that set the tone are the ones that stick their brothers in the eye. If everybody else in the FBFI just sits back and absorbs it without saying anything because it’s just too politically dicey to challenge these guys, why should I want to fellowship with them? I want to hang around courageous people. I want to be part of a fellowship where we can know what we disagree on and where, if someone makes an unwarranted attack on our view, we can stand up and say, “That’s not true.” I’m not going to be part of a fellowship of pastors that meekly sit on their hands while Pastor Big-Shot blasts away with intellectually dishonest attacks toward brothers who are theologically and organismally one with us.
And, I must add, that I have also defended certain FBFI pastors with the same vigor who were being caricatured as buffoons by some of my evangelical friends. The problem, however, is that if the FBFI keeps highlighting these kinds of messages it makes my job that much harder.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at May 14, 2009 11:38 AMMy problem with Dan Sweatt’s message is not so much that he is against Calvinism, but that he uses caricature and misrepresentation and poor logic to paint a picture of those fundamentalists like me who disagree with him as something evil. I’m a big boy. I can handle disagreement. What I will not tolerate from the leaders within the movement who don’t do their homework.
This is also what bothered me the most. It got almost comical if it weren’t so tragic. It reminds me of an article I read recently by Ron Comfort where he shows the same ignorance of reformed teachings.
The conservative evangelical church down the street (read Masters grad pastor) looks pretty enticing right now. But I also think that fundamental churches need guys like us to educate them in what Calvinists really believe.
For those interested, I posted an unofficial transcript of some of the more controversial comments Dr. Sweatt made here.
Posted by: Greg Long at May 14, 2009 12:12 PMOkay, I’m still making my way through this post, links and comments, but I just have to say they I love that Joel made a Pinky and the Brain allusion.
In the words of a teen girl, LOL!
Posted by: Coach C at May 14, 2009 12:26 PMBob,
You say: “The messages that set the tone are the ones that stick their brothers in the eye.” I do not understand why this is necessarily true? Why is it that one, or two stupid (I use that term purposely) messages make the mood or tone of the FBFI in a series of 6 or 12 messages? Why could we not say that that Mike Riley’s article about John Piper sets the mood or tone of the FBFI? http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/48/24/
Furthermore, I am not sure that even those attending the regional meeting where Sweatt spoke were of the same “mood” as he. For instance, if I remember correctly, Sweatt made statements to the effect that “some of you are getting really nervous” and “I should get in a car quick and go.” It seemed by his own admission that Sweatt was not indicative of the whole.
I like you am not sure of the befits of joining the FBFI. In fact, at this point I don’t see any reason why I ever would. Furthermore, I applaud you for pointing out the foolishness of Sweatt’s message. But I am not sure it is helpful for your cause nor is it necessarily true to say that his message is indicative of the whole.
Posted by: David Stertz at May 14, 2009 01:12 PMAny movement or organization carefully thinks about the message it is portraying to their constituency/desired constituency. Usually, no more important venue exists than the national conference to establish and communicate your message.
From the sidelines, from what has been heard at the last two national conferences, one can only assume that Phelps/Sweatt rhetoric and philosophy is allowable in key addresses at the national conference and obviously applauded by some. This would mean there is a philosophical difference between the FBF and the majority of young guys.
If it is a mistake and an oversight, then the problem is a crisis of leadership, not of philosophy. This speaks to David’s point. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is indicative of the whole. When you hear it from the horse’s mouth (national conference addresses), the toleration of it is at least indicative of the whole.
Either way, it should not take rocket science then to figure out why the FBF has not and probably will not garner a serious following in the 20 and 30-somethings generation.
Posted by: Jason Janz at May 14, 2009 03:45 PMJoel:
I read your extend note carefully, thank you for investing the time in it. I can’t possibly reply in depth to each point as I like, so I’ll just go with what follows.
You wrote, “OK, there probably are things about evangelicalism that do offend God. But the very same thing can be said of fundamentalism.”
I don’t recall ever disagreeing with that.
Wherever the teachings of Lordship Salvation (LS) interpretation of the Gospel appears- IFB, Evangelical or any camp I will always regard LS as a works-based, man-centered, non saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
I furthermore, as you know detest the egregious errors originated by the late Zane Hodges coming from Wilkin and GES. Their’s is the most egregious reductionist assault on the content of saving faith ever seen in the New Testament church.
Now, IMO the rallying point in the issue we are discussing is Calvinism. It is the common bond of Calvinism in IFB and Evangelical circles that is the magnetic attraction.
Movements, camps what have you, man made or not are not the crux of my concern. My loyalty is not any movement. I identify with certain movements, but that is all, identify with.
Fidelity to the doctrine is my concern. All movements have their issues. My issue in this discussion is that we are encouraging IFB people, whoise heritage is in part founded on obeying the biblical mandates of separation, to identify with the ce camp that in the opinion of many is (depending on the ce person) either soft, indifferent or antithetical towards the biblical mandates that call for separation, personal and ecclesiastical.
I made that point at SI, and then Brother Mike Harding articulated this and additional doctrinal concerns when he wrote, “I do think that the CE men have some important blind spots (some more than others) when it comes to personal or ecclesiastical separation. Also, with some of them I strongly disagree on ecclesiology, pneumatology, and eschatology.”
As I asked at SI a moment ago, “Why are men in our IFB circles overwhelmingly moving and encouraging others toward the ‘conservative’ evangelical community instead of encouraging the ‘conservative’ evangelicals to move in our direction (embracing the best of what we are)?”
I do not have time to discuss the same issue at two locations. Please read my comments in the thread at SI on this article by Bixby. See this link, then read comments #3, 7, 8, then page 7- #44.
Finally, you wrote, “Lou, I wish we could all just get along.”
Don’t take this wrong, but that is the war cry of the ecumenicals: Unity at the expense of doctrine and conscience.
I’m sure I lacked content and tact in places, but I had to get this done and posted ASAP. Apologies for any offense to you or my host, none intended.
Thanks again for investing time with me.
Lou
Bob:
I’d really rather have a sit down with you. Written communication can be stiff, but I’ll continue.
You wrote to me, “So — unless I totally misread you — why do you continue to paint a Calvinistic soteriology as something incompatible with fundamentalism?”
For me the issue of Calvinism is not one of incompatibility with fundamentalism. There is simply a huge resurgence of Calvinism in Fundamental circles and this concerns some men.
There are Reformed men in IFB circles who I appreciate. Some, a little less so.
Not trying to be harsh here, but for me, Calvinism, as I understand it and wherever I find it, is incompatible with the whole of Scripture.
That debate will never be settled this side of Heaven as we all I trust agree.
Lou
Bob:
You also wrote, “When the FBFI puts on their national or regional platforms men who are given free reign to dish out a rhetoric that is clearly alienating to a particular point of view (whatever that point of view is) it is safe to say that it is a tone that is being consciously embraced by the FBFI unless they immediately issue qualifiers and disclaimers.”
FWIW, at the 2001 (pretty sure it was 2001) FBFI national conference some of Calvinistic men really dished it (Calvinism) out from the platform and in some workshops. No small offense was initiated and taken by those in attendance who do not embrace Calvinism were clearly alienated.
I may not recollect thoroughly, but I do not recall any issuance of, “qualifiers and disclaimers” from the FBFI afterward.
Lou
Bob,
I waited until I had an opportunity to listen to the message before chiming in.
I really am amazed that you are taking so much umbrage against this particular message. It just seems very much like an over-reaction.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bob,
It’s disheartening for a young fundy like me who has moved from the Hyles, SOTL, IFBX wing of fundamentalism to the FBFI (which I joined last year) to find out they are having an identity crisis and almost inevitable collapse. I wish the other side of fundamentalism was having this crisis, I’d love to see them collapse into irrelevance, but they’re starting churches like crazy and they are not hurting for young recruits.
Will
Posted by: William Dudding at May 14, 2009 07:56 PMReally, Don? I found it very offensive in that it was a completely inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of Calvinism and those in the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” camp.
Posted by: Greg Long at May 14, 2009 09:39 PMAh, the good ole Fist-fightin’ Backbitin’ Fellowship International is still at it.
As an old geezer in his mid 40s, let me just say that quite a few of us got fed up with this kind of nonsense long before the current “Young, Restless, and Reformed” thing (God bless it) came along. The PCA and other “Conservative Evangelical” (as you guys say) groups are full of such guys.
I mean, what can you say to “preaching” like this:
“For God so loved the cosmos…”
“Well, it doesn’t really mean that. You know, he only loved the elect. He doesn’t love everybody.”
To make a point of using the word “cosmos” (instead of the KJV “World”), equating that word with “everybody” instead of its actual meaning of “everything” or “the whole ordered universe”, then proceeding to complain that it’s “Calvinists” who say the text doesn’t really mean what it says — what can you say?
Lou said,
FWIW, at the 2001 (pretty sure it was 2001) FBFI national conference some of Calvinistic men really dished it (Calvinism) out from the platform and in some workshops. No small offense was initiated and taken by those in attendance who do not embrace Calvinism were clearly alienated. I may not recollect thoroughly, but I do not recall any issuance of, “qualifiers and disclaimers” from the FBFI afterward.
Lou, did the Calvinistic men put forward a ridiculous caricature of Arminian theology? Were they dishonest in their portrayal of their opponents’ positions? If some speakers promoted a Calvinist interpretation of Scripture and some people got offended, then those people need to deal with the Scriptural arguments instead of doing what Dan Sweatt did. If the Calvinist’s pretended to know what Arminians teach and believe without doing any actual study of Arminian theology, if they made statements like, “Our doctrine, our philosophy, our sermons, our truths, must rise from the text” and then completely ignore the text they purported to use in their defense, and if they committed as many logical fallacies as Sweatt did, then the Arminians should have demanded an apology. I’d guess that wasn’t the case, but I wasn’t there.
Greg Long said:
Really, Don? I found it very offensive in that it was a completely inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of Calvinism and those in the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” camp.
Yes, really.
I am not defending this sermon as the most accurate or scholarly sermon I ever heard. Bob is right in analyzing the logic of the statement that “no Calvinist ministry survived to the next generation”, see his part two. Bob is right. Dan was over reaching with that point, no question.
But…
On the other hand, we have people throwing around the terms “Pelagian” [even in this thread, I believe] and “Semi-Pelagian” [don’t recall seeing it yet here, but it could easily rear its head, right?] and that kind of slander is just fine.
Dan is making, I think, a larger point. Yes, perhaps he is not doing the best job he could in articulating it, and perhaps he isn’t the best one to articulate it, but the larger point is worth making. And I don’t think he should be called on the carpet as Bob calls for in this piece because of the weaknesses that might exist in his message. Who among us is perfectly consistent in every thing we say? Could it have been better stated? Sure.
But here we are, yet again, shooting at one another because someone has stated his concern about the rise of Calvinism and the division it is causing within a body that used to not divide on this point. How is this outrage really contributing to the building up of the body? Is Calvinism such a perfect system that it is worth fighting with brethren about? Even if some of the brethren mischaracterize it in their arguments against it?
Some might say, well, Dan Sweat should think about the same things. Maybe he should. But let’s try to see a bigger picture here and hear what he is exactly talking about. In spite of weaknesses in the sermon, which Bob is planning to flesh out for all to see, there is, I think, a substantive issue that really needs to be addressed among those of us who like the label Fundamentalist. He is touching on it, from his perspective, however imperfectly, but it is an issue that needs to be much more carefully and charitably discussed than it has been.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
“it is an issue that needs to be much more carefully and charitably discussed than it has been.”
Aren’t you making Bob’s point?
Bob, your critique is SPOT ON!
I too was stunned at the prooftexting, the overall lack of Scripture and interpretation of it in this message [although I can kind of understand it because he was more ‘sharing his heart and concern’ than he was actually preaching, which is a totally different issue that I don’t want to deal with], and most importantly the idea that permeated the entire message that John Piper and the other seven names [Piper, MacArthur, Mahaney, Josh Harris, Devers, Sproul, Mohler, and Driscoll] he mentioned as unbiblical. Although he tries to get around it by saying that he’s not painting John Piper as the enemy, he does state, about 11 minutes in, that “many in our movement have run right past a Biblical Position into the arms of John Piper.” If you are going to call John Piper ‘beyond the Biblical Position’, then you have to call him extra-Biblical at the least, to put it kindly.
I was also upset at the washing away/covering up of the flaws of Fundamentalism [about nine minutes in] because “tens of thousands were saved, great churches were built, and missionaries went out”. Are we Fundamentalists [in idea], or are we pragmatists who excuse the ‘excesses’ of the past generation because we ‘won thousands of souls’? And if we did win ‘thousands of souls’ - where are they? If there were ‘tens of thousands’, we ought not to be concerned about some ‘young and restless’ Fundamentalists.
And for whatever it’s worth, I’m not excusing Driscoll. I’d just like to state that Phil Johnson’s rebuke of smutty pulpit speech was far, far more effective than this sermon could be in terms of exposing the flaws of Driscoll.
Posted by: Jay C. at May 15, 2009 08:23 AMWhile I sympathize somewhat with Brother Bixby’s concerns, its old hat. As Keith mentioned earlier this has been going on for decades. I remember sitting in a pastor’s conference in Canada, back in 92, listening to the speaker give an utterly fallaciouis, and slanderous message against the evils of Calvinism. You not only get used to it after a while, but you start to realize that there may be some accuracy in the characterization bestowed upon those who are “young and restless.” A young man reads some Edwards, some Spurgeon, falls into Piper, and pretty soon a sea change takes place. Mixed up in all of that is a sense of betrayal. He realizes that he has been misinformed by his earlier teachers. Feeling obligated he goes about kicking over tables, somewhat unbalanced in theology and practice. By God’s grace he evens out after a few years.
With all of that being said, what has bothered me about fundamentalism through the years is not the straw man attacks on Calvinism, but rather the utter disregard for Scripture from the pulpit. I think that was quite evident from the linked message. Some have commented here (and over on SI) that the handling of the text was less than honest, if it was handled at all. It should bother us more that the speaker blatantly mis-used the Word of God, rather than that he mis-characterized those of us who hold to a reformed soteriology. I think that in fundamentalism we are used to it, and consider it par for the course. I won’t go into any examples or names, but we all know individuals lauded as spiritual leaders within fundamentalism whose use of Scripture is at best, reckless. We tolerate them, and we go to hear them speak. (Btw, I don’t say that in pride, I often cringe when I listen to my own messages.)
I understand Bob’s outrage at his demographic being attacked. It is frustrating being slandered in such an inaccurate manner. I think though that there should be more outrage at the disingenuous use of Scripture. We’ve tolerated that for decades.
Garry
Posted by: Garry at May 15, 2009 08:49 AMRock on, Bob! Rock on!! :-D
Posted by: Camille at May 15, 2009 09:32 AMGarry said:
“I think that in fundamentalism we are used to it, and consider it par for the course.”
IMO, this is the real crux. After years of listening to “sermons” and being told to just believe it, I started studying Scripture for myself. As questions came up, no honest answers were forthcoming. The sermons seemed to contradict, stretch, or “massage” the Scriptures to fit the preachers point. (I heard a sermon on Daniel’s friends not bowing at the sound of the trumpets to justify music standards!!)
So after some prayerful, heartwrenching deliberation I left fundamentalism. I still appreciate many people in fundamentalism, but do not call myself one. I am also openly Cavlinistic. Do I agree with all Calvinists, no! But in my interpretation (which will be proven to be faulty when I reach glory) it is a more accurate portrayal of Scripture than is Armenianism. In essence, the extreme of Calvinism is more biblical (in my opinion) than the extreme of Armenianism. So, I prefer to identify myself as a Calvinist.
I don’t know what Pelagian and Semi-Pelagianism means. But that might be indicative of many of us non-theoglogical types. We don’t understand “your” arguments, and they don’t seem to be Scriptural. Since “you” can’t defend them in a way that I can understand I search for a place to grow Spiritually where Scriptures make sense. Not a place where the funadmentalist pastor actually said that lay people cannot understand the Bible!! Obviously that is not indicative of many fundamentalist pastors. But that is the reality that I am facing. And thus the choice that I needed to make for myself and for my family.
Warning - this is a rant and as I read back over it is…but…Bill, maybe you can have an influence on the FBF – because you are kind of a “name” in our circles. I have had nothing but bad experiences with the FBF - over the course of many years. I am a former card carrying member. I too appreciate Pastor Vaughn.
But…what is the point of the FBF? What is the purpose? Both myself and many of my dispensational, fundamental, independent, separatist pastor acquaintances have not been, were not ever, and have never been encouraged by their membership in the organization. When I accepted the call of my first church as a new “senior nobody under-shepherd” I was never contacted by the area “rep” – whatever that is. The first chance that an area FBFI “poster pastor” had to stab me in the back he did; other area FBFI pastors listened to him without ever contacting me; and then this poster pastor has an affair and has to resign his church. When I needed the support of my fundamental brethren the most (due to a tragic church discipline issue) – this poster pastor (and some of his cronies) welcomed the person we disciplined to attend his church. The same poster pastor and his group said nothing when he allowed an area “fundamental” pastor who split his church and was himself placed under church discipline to attend his church – no doubt to “grow” his church with some of the disciplined pastor’s followers – which he did. And do you have the energy to listen to many other examples? Including men that ordain a man in sin and do nothing about it?
And by the way: the FBF is not the only group with issues. I got to know a well known BBF type guy and he stopped being involved with them 10 years ago because of similar issues.
What do pastors really need from other pastors – especially fundamental in stripe? Especially the guys that aren’t in a church bigger than 200 with all the “respect” that a church that size gives them? In my experience pastors need unconditional love and support from one another. We need to do all we can to build one another up. God laid the fall of Israel at the feet of the priests in Malachi – and from my perspective, in many respects, I lay the fall of the church at the feet of 20th century decadent and unloving (1st Cor. 13) pastors. The one place we should be “safe” is in the fellowship of other like minded under-shepherds and tragically that is often the last place for us to be safe.
Posted by: John at May 15, 2009 10:22 AMDave, I don’t mind the topic being discussed, and as you note from quoting me, I am all in favour of it.
However, does attacking the brethren, calling them out, and vilifying them actually count as discussion?
~~~
On a pet peeve point, anti-Armenianism is racism. Anti-Arminianism is a theological position.
~~~
Last, regarding the last post in this thread, brother, you sound bitter. Be careful of rooting your positions in bitterness. I don’t think it will bear fruit you like.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
“On a pet peeve point, anti-Armenianism is racism. Anti-Arminianism is a theological position.”
Oops, I knew that. My bad!!
Posted by: cbixby at May 15, 2009 11:05 AMDon - I’m sure you’re a great guy - in fact since I don’t know you I’m certain you’re a great guy. But didn’t your comment just prove my point? “Burdened” is significantly different than “bitter.”
Bob - please forgive me that I mis-spelled your name “Bill.” As an excuse, I’m not just one to get into these meta things, in fact today was my first visit to this blog…
Blessings.
Posted by: John at May 15, 2009 12:20 PMDon - I’m sure you’re a great guy - in fact since I don’t know you I’m certain you’re a great guy. But didn’t your comment just prove my point? “Burdened” is significantly different than “bitter.”
Bob - please forgive me that I mis-spelled your name “Bill.” As an excuse, I’m not just one to get into these meta things, in fact today was my first visit to this blog…
Blessings.
Posted by: John at May 15, 2009 12:20 PMListening to the mp3 of the Rev. Sweatt. Twenty-two minutes in, and we have a text from Holy Scripture. What has been “preached” heretofore?
Posted by: Aaron D. Wolf at May 15, 2009 06:22 PMheh, heh, isn’t that good! Go away!
Can you feel the love? The fruit of the Spirit is just flowing around this place, isn’t it, Bob?
So gracious!
~~~
So what now, Bob?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
While Stanley’s comment was not loving and charitable, he is responding to a lack of love and charity that you have slready expressed. Yes it is ironic and sad that we tend to sin in excatly the same way that we are sinned against. That does not excuse Stanley. However, you seem to be painting everyone who does not agree with you with the Stanley brush. Your statement is not loving and charitable. It is sarcastic and derogatory.
That’s my main problem with fundamentalists like yourself. You seem to choose to focus on the worst of Calvinists and evangelicals and then paint them all with the same brush. If I chose to focus on the worst of Arminians and Dispensationalists I would have to reject as heretics all those who claim to have an Arminian or Dispensational theology. That would include my brother, my cousin(s) and many other godly friends and pastors.
While I may not agree with them on some theological issues, we do agree on the Gospel. Because of Christ we have fellowship. Maybe our fellowship isn’t all that close, but we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.
I know, now you want to say that I’m the evidence of the problem with Conservative Evangelicals. We just want to love each other no matter what. Again, you paint us all with a very broad brush. I believe in separation. I separate based on the Gospel. I associate based on theology. I associate with those who have a similar theology as I do. I fellowship broadly (but not always specifically) with those who believe in the same Gospel as I do. I actively separate from those who deny the Gospel of Christ and the authority of Scripture.
These forums are great for exchanging views and opinions. By hearding from people who love God and have a different theological position than I do, I am challenged to study and work out my salvation to be more fully conformed to the image of Christ.
Let’s discuss the things that divide us, but let’s remember what unites us.
Chris
Posted by: cbixby at May 16, 2009 11:30 AMChris B.
I think you miss my point. Please notice that I didn’t say “go away” to Stanley.
And I don’t think we should say sarcasm has no place in the discourse, especially on Pensees.
With respect to choosing to focus on the worst of the Calvinists, etc, I am afraid I don’t follow what you are saying. I don’t think all Calvinists are the same. But I do think that we have to be careful about anyone we choose to associate with.
But I think if we pursue that line of conversation we will drift off the point at hand.
This thread is discussing the merits/demerits (or is it the other way around?) of a particular sermon. I think that the reaction is blowing things up way out of proportion to the offense. I also think that “Doc” has decided to use this as the time to throw his weight around.
It is an interesting time. I wish it was less interesting.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Stanley,
I’m just now getting to this thread… Phew! Lots of stuff to read.. but, hey! It’s MY blog. Let me tell people when to go away! ;-)
And I have to say this about Lou Martuneac… He’s been very even keel in this whole debate and gracious even though he and I are totally not on the same page.
Don is Don. We mutually tolerate each other. I think the Bible word is forbearance. :-)
Thank you for writing this. Message after message that I hear from fundamentalists only drives me away from this dying movement. It used to dishearten me, but now that I have become so immune to it, I don’t even care any more.
Posted by: Davey McNight at May 18, 2009 01:01 PMBob,
Thanks for the honest and transparent postings. My heart has been strengthened. Yes, there is some chaff here and the winnowing process is no fun. Though my heart has been often grieved by the flesh of the brethren, it is more grieved by my own. God has been, and is, continuing to strengthen His body. Doubtless, the record for the last 30 years shows He has been doing so in many circles which we separated from years ago for blatant heresy but in recent years have seen true believers rise up within them. A biblical theology has been pursued by some in corners we wrote off years ago. Certainly, humble men can recognize this and, as you express, identify with the preaching of the true gospel and sound exposition of God’s Word going on in these places. And if a man is too proud to acknowledge the glory of God’s grace at work in a brother — even a former enemy — it is both his loss and his undoing. Such pride must be repented of or movements known once to be of God may well become nothing more than a monuments to men. Personally, I would rather be a part of the movement of God’s Spirit in my day than to spend my remaining years maintaining monuments of men. We have nothing to prove, we have only to obey. May God give us the grace and humility to avoid the error of “establishing our own righteousness” rather than His alone.
Bob,
Bleeding heart, here. I loved the post and look forward to listening to the message. But Davey’s post is where my heart starts bleeding. I am fine with you posting, but how do we fight the apathy that continued sin creates? I disassociated with the fundamentalist movement years ago (Okay, I got kicked out of BJ), but that was the beginning of a great work in my own life. But I find myself not caring. I don’t want to not care. But if all we do is blog, are we really helping ‘the body’ heal?
I think you and I are definitely on the same page (do you like Christian Rap, too!?), but how do we look through all of the man made muck that obscures our vision and help restore/encourage/heal? Public discussion is sharpening, but should there be more? Should we personalize our concerns in order to minister God’s grace?
To reiterate: I loved the post, but (to quote David Essex) ‘where do we go from here? Which is the way that’s clear?’ Can we do more for the body? And if so, what? If not, why?
Sorry about the contextualization :) and the not-easily-answered questions. Just a few things I’ve been wrestling with to keep my heart hot.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Willcox
I had a great reminder today that I wanted to share:
Christ plus anything equals NOTHING
Christ plus nothing equals EVERYTHING!
I have nothing to bring but it doesn’t matter!
Hope that encourages all of you like it did me today!
Love you guys!
Posted by: Big Jon at May 20, 2009 10:56 PMEven as a staunch Arminian I cannot see the productivity of gathering men of God together and instead of addressing prayer, and Bible study, and faithfulness, and souls, and a host of other core issues, he deals with the same old, tired Calvinist/Arminian dead horse.
And the Shepherd’s Conference deals in the same genre, only from the opposite perspective. The church needs Holy Spirit power and faithful men of God who live and preach the gospel. There are times for the election debate, but when conferences are gathered it is time to point the finger at ourselves.
Posted by: Rick Frueh at May 22, 2009 02:59 PMIt is ignorant messages like this preached with hateful attitudes like this defending this same behavior that made me not even want to be associated with fundamentalism for twenty years. Thank God for people like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran and schools like Central and DBTS for showing Fundamentalism in a positive light as a truly biblical movement.
Posted by: Michael at May 23, 2009 09:52 AMPASTOR DAN SWEATT IS NOT HATEFUL! He’s the best pastor and preacher. He’s also fundamental to the core. I’ve seen these “young preachers” and they aren’t being fundamental but are going with a “gospel pleasing to people”. The cross & blood of Christ are offensive because we as people are offensive without Christ’s righteousness to a Holy God.
Your “attacking” response to Pastor Sweatt’s message makes you just as guilty of hatefulness as you say he is.
I would not want to be in your shoes when you approach the throne of God after you’ve “attacked” a man of God. I am a sinner saved by grace but I won’t be accused of “killing the Lord’s annointed”. (See the story of David when he had 2 chances to kill King Saul).
You are shooting the message AND the messenger!!
Come down off your high horse, close the dictionary and read the WORD.
Pam,
I never said that Pastor Sweatt was hateful. I have strongly criticized him and will continue to do so. However, I said (and meant) I have nothing personal against Dan Sweatt, admire him for a number of things, and appreciate what he has done for the cause of the Lord we both love. I am sure we would find many things in common if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him.
You say that I am saying that he is hateful and I did not say that one time. I am reading the Word and it’s the Word that has persuaded me that Brother Sweatt’s errors need to be addressed. You do not reproach him for addressing the errors of those that he feels are wrong, you cannot reproach other pastors of addressing him for his errors. We are, as you say, all sinners. That includes Pastor Sweatt even as it includes me. And you.
Truth is what is at stake here and it’s absolutely important that teachers of the Word hash these things out for the sake of gospel clarity. I am sorry this offends you, but as you have already suggested, I answer to God for what and why I do things and not to your subjective and emotional analysis of the rightness and/or wrongness of my actions.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at May 27, 2009 09:41 PMHi Pastor Bixby,
A couple of questions, since I am currently unable to listen to Pastor Sweatt’s message on Sermon Audio….
1) What was his basic argument about the Calvinistic interpretation of John 3:16?
2) Did he mention anything about the issue of free will as it relates to the issue of “unconditional election,” and what would your own position be on that doctrine?
Thanks,
TQC
I wonder if the dispensationalists among us should put the “touch not the Lord’s anointed” line to rest.
In any case, Bob is as much the Lord’s anointed as Danny Sweatt. And Pam, I find your comments to Bob more abrasive than anything Bob’s said. I could be wrong. But since you brought it up . . .
Posted by: ben at May 28, 2009 11:01 AM
