Pensees: An FBFI Board Member Says…

Brother Harding wrote (at SI), “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.”

At SI I noted the same concern over biblical separation just prior to Mike’s posting that comment you have repeated here. I concur with him entirely and we have discussed our shared view on that subject.

Many of you Reformed men are drawn toward the “conservative” evangelicals because of the likemindedness over Calvinism. There are other reasons, but the magnetic attraction of unity around Calvinism is the one of the primary.

Furthermore, along with the disconcerting doctrinal issues Mike noted above there are additional considerations among the “stars” of the conservative evangelicals. Such as:

MacArthur’s Resolved (Youth) Christian Rock concerts, Piper’s RAP in the church, chipping away at the baptism and church membership issue, affinity for the sign gifts, Driscoll’s ireverent “corrupt communication” (Eph. 4:29). Al caal those things the, “baggage.”

One residual problem I see for you is that while the conservative evangelical men are touted for their theology, the other baggage of that group, which men in IFB circles would never allow for or tolerate in their own ministries, will be picked up on and adopted by some who are gravitating toward the conservative evangelicals.

As some IFB people seek out greater fellowship and encourage others toward the conservative evangelical camp, you will get some back who will be very much like the conservative evangelical camp in theology and in practice they saw and learned from them in the conservative evangelical camp.

You may seek out and enjoy fellowship around Calvinism, but some, possible many of you are going to get the whole package, i.e. the “baggage” included, IMHO.

LM

LM said:

MacArthur’s Resolved (Youth) Christian Rock concerts, Piper’s RAP in the church, chipping away at the baptism and church membership issue, affinity for the sign gifts, Driscoll’s ireverent “corrupt communication” (Eph. 4:29). Al caal those things the, “baggage.”

And once again, I am confident that most the young men who you see as moving toward CE will funnel these issues through a biblical grid. I think that most of these “young, restless” men would probably oppose Driscoll’s language as fervently as they oppose Keswick sanctification.

Most of us don’t have a big problem with Christian rock or rap, because the Bible doesn’t say much about music styles (Garlock notwithstanding) but many think that the whole issue of music has been blown out of proportion by both sides. I personally think that most of this type of music is inappropriate for the corporate worship service of the church and I have no taste for this style of worship - but this is my preference, not a biblical conviction. I also have lost patience with many of our traditional IFB hymns with poor theology as well as man-centered solos and choir numbers…

As for baptism and church membership - I don’t know any young Calvinist who is a paedo baptist or views baptism as preceding salvation.

As far as church membership, many YCF’s (young calvinist fundamentalists) have a higher view of the practices of church membership - attendence, edification, discipline, Bible study, etc. - but less patience for the formal, institutional aspects of church membership that seem to follow tradition more closely than the New Testament model.

I know that you were not giving an exhaustive list, but you need to know that no one is following Piper, MacArther, etc. in lock-step. What the afformentioned men have given us is the confidence to act and practice our faith in a way that is only bound by Scripture and conscience - not BJU, the FBF, or Bible college presidents.

The sooner that fundys (of any stripe) can wrap their minds around the fact that music is a matter of preference and *not* a biblical conviction, the sooner we can move out from the pool of mud we’ve been swimming in for so many years! You’re a pastor and you prefer not to have a drum-set on your platform… fine. I’m more than ok with that! I’m classically trained, and any instrument (drums included) not played well can detract from the message of the music being played.

But the moment someone starts going off on how “the Bible tells us that ‘x’ (insert any style you wish) music is biblically wrong” is the moment I know that they have more issues than just music!

Many of what I call the hard-core fundys are running scared because the younger generation is (rightfully) moving away from the pope-ishness and control that the hard-core fundy crowd has thrived upon for so long. What “Coach C” said in the comment above really sums it up for me.

Quite frankly, Piper’s “Rap” and MacArthur’s “Resolved” events are actually encouraging to me… it is so completely refreshing to see that those who take the Bible for what it is (and who leave off the trappings of the extra-biblical elements of fundamentalism) can be unafraid to engage the culture of any generation! How different that is from what so many of us have sat under for so many years.

I grew up under Phelps and Woetzel (Garlock’s friend and co-author), and I have personal respect for those men (I consider Woetzel a friend), but it pains me deeply to see the product (ie. the next generation) that comes from such teaching… teaching that so willfully adds on to the truth and message of the Holy Bible!

“What the afformentioned men have given us is the confidence to act and practice our faith in a way that is only bound by Scripture and conscience - not BJU, the FBF, or Bible college presidents.”

Exactly. I hear a lot of claims that Calvinism is bad because it leads to rock music, paedobaptism, non-dispensationalism, you name it. But what these arguments fails to address is whether these things are actually wrong. They need to back up a few premises to make their syllogism, IOW. There are a lot of assumptions floating around in there that we just don’t buy. After a while it just sounds like cultural preservation, not theology.

Coach:

What men allow for and/or tolerate today, that they would never tolerate at their own ministry, the next generation will take to an extreme. I speak of the doctrinal and practical.

As Harding noted, “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.”

LM

>

I have heard this preached as truth for many years, but never have I heard it backed with Scripture. Is this what is commonly referred to as the “slippery slope” fallacy?

Sorry, I see my quote was not included. I am referring to Lou’s statement about the next generation taking to extreme what their elders permit or tolerate.

The “Slippery Slope” argument works both ways if one is to use that “logical” argument. For many fundamentalists, they fail to realize that a slippery slope towards legalism exists and must be guarded against with similar vigor as the mythical slippery slope to worldliness.

Legalism will send many people to hell, perhaps more than worldliness. Those who beg “Lord, Lord, did we not do many mighty works in your name?” Perhaps those who seek to earn their salvation are those that Matthew 7 describes. They didn’t intend to put their trust in their works or their connections or the praise of men, but they were deceived and in that false knowledge lies the damning truth.

As a former fundamentalist with friends still in many of these churches, my overwhelming emotion is sadness for those trapped in these systems, followed by an abject sense of my own unworthiness. Why was I chosen? Why did God choose to open my eyes to His truth?

Yes! They’re heading in the right direction. My question is, why does dispensationalism still have to divide?

Without divulging any of my own positions, I’d like to note that it’s intriguing to observe the relative degree of importance that a person places on any given area of theology.

Harding said,
“I encourage all our college presidents to be strong Fundamentalists, Separatists, Dispensationalists, Baptists. Whether some are Calvinistic or not should not be a point of rancor.”

He mentions five arenas of thought. I appreciate his point, you understand; but, having said that, how much weight is he placing in this or that area, relative to this or that other area?

Important questions, when analyzing this, would include, “What does he mean by ___________?” and “How clearly is __________ taught in Scripture, relative to how clearly _____________ is taught in Scripture?”

LM,

I’m sure that you’ll be glad to hear that, were you to listen in on the conversations of some whom I know, who represent the “converging middle,” you might be surprised by the level of discernment that is demonstrated—the willingness to call out various CE leaders for their shortcomings.

In any case, whatever separatism issues you have in mind may be more complex than Fundamentalism has been willing to recognize. That is not give an opinion about them—only to mention their complexity.
And, if there were black-and-white separatism issues in view, it would certainly be inappropriate to classify musical style with them.

Thanks very much, though, for your perspective and insight.

God bless!

I am in the midst of a decision of which “tribe” of the church to join and which seminary.

I like much about both groups

Fundamentalists: (good stuff)

1) hatred of sin
2) hold to good traditions
3) don’t like sensual/subversive music
4) high view of authority
5) high view of scripture
6) moving to allow calvinists as myself
7) speaking out against own groups absurdities
8) well educated despite criticisms
9) no desire to cow tow to dead culture
10) desire to be relevant to God not world
11) women are valued and loved
12) God honoring lives
13) well behaved children

Calvinistic Evangelicals (the good)

1) Arms open wide to all cultures
2) well educated
3) correcting own absurdities
4) moving away from 7-11 music
5) open to biblical criticism
6) use principals not rules when not stated in Bible
7) young
8) seperatist on almost all things needed
9) not divisive on matters of conscious
10) evangelistic
11) women are valued and loved

Fundamentalism (the bad)

1) not wiling to reject the absurdity of KJV only debate once and for all.
2) use rules instead of principles to teach when Bible does not use rules but principals (i.e. modesty and music)
3) too many angry men and lone ranger pastors
4) often unwilling to reason with detractors
5) confusing doctrine of separation
6) fight about non essentials
7) church dictators
8) tendency to reject other cultures
9) Elijah syndrome
10)Tends to chop heads ask questions later with lack of due process

Calvinistic Evangelicals (the bad)

1) can be seen to be tolerant of sin
2) sensual and carnal music/bands in the group
3) too weak a doctrine of separation from some
4) compromise with false teachers (B. Graham, Driscoll)
5) weak doctrine of church membership -as noted from above quotes
6) lacks some class at times (grungy pastors)
7) tends to berate fundamentalism with haughtiness

Excuse me, Phil? Mark Driscoll is a false teacher? Do you care to defend those comments?