Preserving the Truth: An Interview with Mike Harding about the January Conference

I have some suggestions for names for this conference:

Preserving The Truth: Answering Popular Questions of the 1930's

Peripheral Truths: Highlighting the Non-Essentials of the Faith

Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your Church

Missing the Truth: How to Subjugate the Core Teachings of Scripture to Separatism

Corner on Truth: A Gathering for those with Elijah's "I'm the Only One Left" Syndrome

There is much discussion on this site as to why historic conservative fundamentalism consistently loses men and women to a conservative evangelical worldview. This conference highlights some of the reasoning. Why do we promote things Jesus didn't promote? Why do we lead with things Paul taught to hold as a last resort? Why does fundamentalism continue to be reactionary? "T4G and Gospel Coalition and SBC are ok, but not pure like us. Let's have our own conference to highlight our doctrinal purity."

The once powerful bite of historic fundamentalism now soaks in a Polident-filled glass brought out occasionally to speak to the challenges of yesteryear with little regard for culture's current issues or mainstream Christianity's current direction.

1) While these speakers represent some of the best fundamentalism has to offer and will doubtless make the sessions interesting, the topic would lead me to say that this would probably be one of the last conferences I would attend. I guess between my WELS Lutheran upbringing and my college chapel experience, I have probably had enough teaching on separation to last a lifetime -- and some bad memories along the way.

2) "Q: Do you think the conference has much potential to draw folks who don’t necessarily consider themselves “fundamentalists” and stimulate their thinking about biblical separation?
A: I certainly hope so. The doctrine of biblical separation has been greatly neglected. My desire is to expose men even from different circles in order to encourage them to become biblical separatists".

I hope this is true. But in order for it to be so, the conference would have to be targeted and marketed in a very specific way. Also, when "Pastor Joe" from the EFCA, IFCA, CMA, PCA, SBC, ABC, CRC, UMC or community church, etc., shows up, are they going to call him by his title, honor his ministry and truly seek to establish him in his pastoral ministry? (I saw that done recently at AiG's Answers for Pastors conference, and it made for a very interesting dynamic!) Now if that were really done in this context, things could get REALLY interesting!

3) Micah -- wow!! Coffee a little strong this morning??

Harding said:

Since this is not so much about what fundamentalism was but what it maybe should be or will be, I wonder if these baptist men will actually and finally call for separation from those who practice infant baptism, since they are disobedient brethren.

It will be interesting to see if they actually apply their theology across the board or if they will shrink back. I am a hopeful person, so I hope they advance their application to actual NT standards as well.

For starters, the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16, 34; 16:27; 17:3; Rom. 8:3)), the Father and Son sent the Spirit into the world (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7, the Father, Son, Spirit send the church into the world (Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 10:2; John 20:21, Acts 22:21; I Cor. 1:17).

We have to ask ourselves why, in your word, younger guys are "enamored" with men like Piper and Dever. I wouldn't describe it that way and it's not only younger guys who have found something refreshing. You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like "missional." I affirm that "missional" not only sounds good but is good when rightly understood. And missional does not neglect the other "worlds" you mention. But these "worlds" are often views - prophecy for example - which have their place but are the subject of far too much speculation, posturing, and positions that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. Attaching “biblical” to prophecy doesn’t make it so.

In my opinion a conference like this may keep some in but won't bring any back and may send others on their way to be enamored elsewhere.

DMicah,

A question, if you don't mind.

You talk about the issues being addressed at this conference as being "challenges of yesteryear" rather than "current issues" or a "current direction."

Here is the list of issues Harding gives: "the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship." He later includes the missional movement.

In your view, which of those issues is not an issue of current debate in evangelicalism?

At least at the early stages of a movement's growth, it isn't possible to accept because it is popular. 'Popular' is a word we use to denote something that is currently being accepted by many people. Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?

Hi Paul:

"Incarnational" is another word that some like to beat up on. We use it in urban church planting, for example, to explain why church planters should live in the community where they minister rather than living in the suburbs and traveling into the city for church services. Incarnational Christians desire to be visible in their community, involved in their community for the gospel’s sake. I often challenge pastors to ask their people how many contacts or relationships are being made or built with the unsaved. To whom are they speaking the words of life on a regular basis? When was the last time they sat down for a meal or conversation with a lost person? I’ve had pastors tell me that they can go for weeks without witnessing to an unbeliever. If people don’t like the term incarnational, that’s fine. What is important is what they are doing to engage the lost with the good news. When I hear criticism of “missional” or “incarnational” it sounds like critics are speaking a different language and/or are certainly in a different context.

Of course we can't mimic the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God in human flesh. But I fail to see how heavenly citizenship (Phil. 3:20, 21) absolves us of earthly responsibilities. We are not destined for eternity in heaven as disembodied spirits but destined in resurrection bodies for a new heaven and a new earth.

At our church we use TRIM to help people understand our core values undergirded by our commitment to the gospel.

Transformational - Prayerfully depending on the power of God's Word and the Holy Spirit to transform any life.

Relational - Joyfully offering love and grace to everyone regardless of where they are on their spiritual journey.

Incarnational - Practically living out the gospel of grace within the culture.

Missional - Intentionally committed to engage those who do not know or misunderstand Jesus.

Steve

I found this to be a great question, and I can at least answer for myself concerning the issue of "why enamored." A few years ago (getting close to ten), I came into contact with Piper's writing. It was an absolute breath of fresh air. Of course, when one becomes acquainted with Piper, he will then become acquainted with quite a few other individuals as well. One of those individuals was Jonathan Edwards. I began to read sermon after sermon from Jonathan Edwards, and I was utterly amazed at the level in which he delved in his sermons. I had only heard sermons like that from, maybe, seminary presidents or theology professors. I was shocked that a congregation could actually handle such teaching week after week. Edwards, though certainly embodying a difficult style to read, pushed me mentally. He made me think through various issues to a degree that none had ever done. In short I enjoyed, and still do to a great extent (only time prohibits now), the stretching I received from him. It was not difficult to see where Piper got a good chunk of his material from.

While Edwards stretched me, he and Piper did something much more. This is the point that I find the most significant! I repeat, the following is most significant!! Edwards and Piper not only shoved me, but they flung me headlong into a desire to get to know God more. Piper's emphasis is "joy", and so long as you interpret "joy" along the lines of loving God with all your being, then I think that you are getting Piper's point. Edwards emphasizes (not that Piper does not) the affections being in play. A person is to have both the heat of affections and the light of a biblical understanding of God. In Iain (sp?) Murray's book on Jonathan Edwards, I found a comment very profound. It was that Johnathan Edwards could have pursued almost any topic, discipline, or vocation that he wanted, and he could have been exceedingly proficient at it. However, he chose to study God because of His love for God. His relationship with "the Divine being" was the paramount relationship of his existence. Knowing God was his greatest pleasure.

One could go to Deuteronomy 6 and Matthew 22 and find that the main thing is to love God with all your being. These two men pointed me in a way, like no other, toward a passionate pursuit of God. No doubt, the men were clearly in conjunction with Scripture. God asks the question in Isaiah 40 (Holman), "'Who will you compare Me to, or who is My equal?' asks the Holy One." In context, the question is the most rhetorical question that can possibly be asked. Of course, none can compare to the incomparably great God! None is His equal!

A huge detour is about to be made. A while back I was utterly blown away by a thread or front page article that basically called "Dispensationalism" the ultimate theology. Now, I've studied it, read the books; but NEVER would I ever call dispensationalism the chief theology. When I saw that thread it struck me at utterly wrong headed (sorry to whoever wrote it). It got the emphasis on the wrong thing in a huge way. Of course, the doctrine of God is dealt with to some degree in dispensationalism, but this doctrine is obviously not the main thing in the theology. Hours and hours, page after page is put into demonstrating that Israel is not the church, or that a literal hermeneutic (whatever that is) is the way to go. The sine qua nons are the main thing, not God. Perhaps, this just means that I've misunderstood dispensationalism, or I've been miss-taught it. If you are reading this as an argument against dispensationalism, then you are not reading it correctly. This is a statement on misplaced emphasis. Covenant, New Covenant, Progressive Disp, Revised Disp, Classical Disp, or Proto Disp does not matter if your doctrine of God is off. And then again, you can have a great doctrine of God (mentally), and have a knowledge of dispensationalism that would make Ryrie step back and pause, but if your heart is not aflame with a love for God and joy in His person, then all that knowledge is for naught.

Presently, I have not had hardly any interaction with Piper and Edwards for the past year or perhaps more.

People that know me would probably not say that I'm enamored with Piper or JE; they are men just like any other, to be taken with discernment (stating the exceedingly obvious). The point of this example is to provide one angle on an answer on why some are so enamored. This is not so much a response to anyone in particular, but it is a response to the question of "why enamored?" Charlie's question, "From where did this popularity spring?" provided me the occasion to suggest this answer. I am trying to present the great contrast I see between flawed men who correctly present the Main One as the main thing, and other flawed men who elevate "perhaps good matters" to a status they should never every be in. If there is one issue where I 100% agree with Piper and Edwards on, God is to be loved, adored, cherished, and regarded as the incomparably great One that He is. None else compares, and this highlights my often utterly stupid idolatrous heart, and it also highlights His mind-blowing grace.

Dr. Davis,

My concern with those who have denied a literal six day creationism is along two lines:

1. Against the Hugh Ross types (day-age) - I have strong disagreement with the concept that science is the 67th book of the Bible, along with the problem of animal death before the fall. Ross has to create a different redemptive history that explains moving from a good universe to a perfect universe, as opposed to a perfect universe falling and being redeemed.

2. Against the modern evangelical movement within OT studies (denial of Adam's existence) - If you deny the historicity of Adam (and thus that sin brings physical/spiritual death), then you have no basis for the death of Christ being an actual propitiatory, atoning death.

These are serious theological problems that are easily solved by a literal reading of the Old Testament accounts on creation.

Credo Ut Intelligam

Here's a good place to start in understanding Missional."Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America" (The Gospel and Our Culture Series) Darrell L. Guder (Editor), Lois Barrett (Editor).

Also Tim Keller: http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/missional.pdf

In some sense, missional is the new buzzword that incarnates 1 cor 9:22 ... It is all things to all men. When someone says they are missional, you have to find out what they mean by that.

To add to Steve's post, another and more accessible resource (meaning you don't have to buy it) is Ed Stetzer's blog (edstetzer.com) where he has a number of articles on what it means to be missional, including a series on The Meanings of Missional. You can also read Francis Dubose The God Who Sends, or Charles VanEngen, God's Missionary People. Guder is considered a high missional proponent, while Dubose and VanEngen would be low missional and mid missional. These categories of low, mid, and high have to do with the relationship of the church, world, and mission.

The essential idea is that of being sent (which you can see in the title of the book Steve mentions). In being sent, the general idea is that God is a missionary God and the church joins God on his mission. The mission itself is variously conceived (from "high missional" to "low missional"), but it generally holds the idea that God is on mission redeeming and restoring his creation. This is connected almost unanimously with the Kingdom of God. There is almost always a social justice aspect of some sort tied to it, and usually (though not always) an emphasis on gospel proclamation. Usually, missions is a subset of mission.

It is often connected with the sending of Jesus and John 20:21 (as Steve does). Christians are sent into the world like Jesus was sent into the world. This is sometimes cited as the basis for "cross cultural ministry." In this some form of incarnational ministry is prominent, which is that the idea that our lives should incarnate the gospel, or that our lives should "show and share the love of Jesus," or that living lives of love and kindness are just as important as proclaiming salvation in Jesus alone. They would say that it is hypocritical to proclaim salvation in Jesus from sin without working towards social justice and repairing the brokenness of sin. Again, there are varying conceptions of how this incarnation should look, and how it is connected to the gospel itself (identical, essential, parallel, necessary but unconnected, etc). For some (such as Keller on the conservative side and McLaren on the liberal side) it involves some corporate attempt to repair and restore social structures that perpetuate things like racism, poverty, etc.

Another of the key ideas is that every believer is a missionary to his own community. It is not the job of the clergy, but the job of everyone.

Christopher Wright is another fairly well known proponent of the idea. He says (and he may be quoting someone else, I can't remember, or I may have my citations mixed up), It is not that the church has a mission; it is that the mission has a church. In this scenario, mission is broader than the church, and for some (towards the high missional end) mission can take place apart from or outside the church; in other words the church is unnecessary for mission. In some ways, this latter group come close to the social gospel emphasis, that reconciliation is more horizontal than vertical.

So in a nutshell, missional is pretty broad and can be dangerous in the hands of some though it is not necessarily so.

I have a couple of articles on this at my blog, and some others that I am holding off on publishing for now. Some may disagree, which is fine. You can google "missional" and find a lot of perspectives on it.

Let's think about this for a moment...
If 10M years occurred before or during the creation "week," then we have death before sin and the gospel is lost.
If 10M years occurred between the Biblical fall and the calling of Abraham -- at which point everyone pretty much starts to agree on dates -- then the Bible (or at least Genesis) becomes a book of absolute absurdities.
If you accept the Noachian Flood, the need for 10M years is instantly petrified.
If you reject the assumptions of atheistic evolutionism (which is not science but a set of presuppositions based in faith every bit as much as any creationist has), the need for 10M years vanishes again.

And Steve says that YEC is distracting from the message of Genesis?!? Try again, friend!! You've been watching too much N.T. Wright!!

Thank you, Larry, for the explanation and the links to read. Buying a book isn't hard, but the time it takes to get it here can be something else unless I want to pay a lot.

Where's the authorial intent clause in/about Genesis?

Assuming this is true (meaning assuming that the author of Genesis intended to tell us absolutely nothing about time frames or the specific mechanism by which we received the earth we now have), then the what you assert above is also true of Theistic Evolution.

I have no reason to think that you aren't as vociferous with people who would import TE evidence into Genesis. Fair enough.

It does seem to me, however, that some TE proponents and even "origins agnostics" are more comfortable with the TE framework simply because it isn't as offputting to the pagans who are increasingly idolizing science.

I recently did a post on the topic myself. In a simpler sense it boils down to "going" or "sending". Do we tell people to "go" to the church where they will be evangelized at various evangelistic events or drawn in by various church programs? Or do we equip and "send" our people out into the wider community with the message of Christ? Many times the fundamentalist model of "doing church", really doesn't jive with the model we find in Scripture. Being missional sounds like a Biblical pattern. The rub is how much do we focus on the community is answered differently by various missional models.

A poignant application point for all of us would be this: how much contact with the lost people in the world around you, do you really have? Is our involvement in the church and its programs, and our business about "doing church" and learning the Bible in group studies, and our desire to fellowship with believers and find our identity in the church, is all of this detracting from our ability to meaningfully interact and take the Gospel to the lost? Are we so busy talking about the world, and keeping away from its influences, that we aren't actually taking the Gospel to the world around us?

I don't agree with you here. One can actually have absolute certainty in their understanding of a text because of the methodology they employ in their hermeneutic? Even if a dispensational literalistic hermeneutic is the ultimate hermeneutical approach, it doesn't follow that such a hermeneutic results in certainty, or absolute certainty which seems to be what is intended. We can understand the text with a high degree of certainty, and yet still allow for difficult passages and limitations in our abilities to perceive all the text is saying. We can do this and still learn about God. It is one of God's graces to us, that even though we struggle with interpretations and sometimes scratch our head over competing textual variants, yet the message of the Gospel shines through loud and clear, and our personal relationship with Jesus Christ remains untouched. Such a statement as that I quoted can belie an approach that enshrines the Bible as a spiritual talisman and could lead to bibliolatry. We can know God through prayer, and there is much in interpretation that the Christian church is almost unanimous on, and that is the Gospel, and the doctrine of God. That remains most important, irrespective of exegetical squabbling.

I understand, Paul. I was just compelled to say something on those two points. Obviously these posts are snapshots in time and don't represent our entire views on a matter. I respect that you're busy, I wasn't really itching for a fight anyway.

Ah, but I wrote my post not knowing the topic was being discussed over here! Still, your post is worth reading too. And I liked this one, you had linked to earlier in this thread.

Bob,
A follow-up thought. What I was saying was in response to Caleb:

My point was that if you have a "whatever" attitude toward a literal hermeneutic, then you are really hamstrung to go anywhere from there, as you could never know for sure what any text was saying. This DOES tie, not only to the differences between Reformed Theology and dispensationalism, but even to the ongoing theological debate about the issue of certainty of the knowledge of Scripture.

Thus, my point was not that dispensationalists are 100 percent correct all the time or that only dispensationalists understand the doctrine of God, etc., but that intentionally throwing hermeneutics to the wind to just focus on knowing God, etc., would be foolhardy. That is probably not what Caleb was advocating, but his post could leave one with that impression, and I was challenging him on that assumption.

BTW, neither Piper nor Edwards operate in a hermeneutical vacuum either -- so it would be utterly simplistic to think that one can just empty his mind of hermeneutic approaches and dwell on their writings.

What is wrong with advocating an emphasis on the literal understanding of Scripture -- unless someone has an agenda that is opposed to that...?

Caleb, can you point out a single advocate of the literal hermeneutic does not acknowledge metaphors, figures of speech and other literary techniques?

Was Herod a fox?

1. He was not an animal.
2. He was cunning and crafty.

Therefore:

A literal hermeneutic realizes that the comparison is made to reflect actual and literal characteristics of Herod.

It just gets old after awhile. These reasons are like vampires, they just won't die and they suck the life out of good hermeneutics.

I found John Gerstner to be quite insightful on the whole "literalism" debate.

Gerstner goes on to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don't interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis "point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol." (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the "literal method" is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn't try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee or the postmodern theology).

A few responses, Alex. You posted probably before seeing my most recent comment above which may be worth checking out re: literal interpreation.

I think presuppositions and other factors weigh into why some don't "get the Gospel" more so than hermeneutics. Also, studying the word can be a substitute for communing with God. I think it should be a vehicle for such communion, but it can tend to be a replacement of it. At least I find that in my life. It's a means not the end. That's what I was getting at, not so much revelatory prayer, but the message of the Gospel is communicated and grasped in oral cultures and communion with God through prayer and worship can happen, even when the written word isn't possessed in their language.

As for bibliolatry, it can be a tendency. Using the term is a shock tactic, I realize people don't worship it, but some forms of Christianity use it as a holy book and revere it mystically but don't truly commune with God. Not sure if I'm making sense here, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I may have expressed what I was getting at a bit better in my most recent post where I'm quoting Gerstner about how "literal hermeneutics" really isn't the defining difference between dispensationalists and Reformed Christians.

Bob and Caleb,
Dispensationalists account for figures of speech within their literal system of interpretation by allowing the context to determine when something other than a denotatively literal understanding is called for.
Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.
All Bible-believers intend to interpret literally. The difference is that non-dispensationalists allow factors other than the context to control their interpretation (i.e., 1,000 years in Revelation becomes 10x10x10, the perfect number, because one's theology necessitates it).
FYI, John Hagee is not an extreme dispensationalist, but an errant dispensationalist.

When I took hermeneutics, my professor had a great explanation of what literal interpretation means. He said,

"A literal system is the Biblical system that rises from Scripture, and it produces a true Biblical theology...What, then, does 'the rule that rises from the Bible' mean? It is the view that all texts are meant to be viewed as natural as they are. Like all literature, what the text says is what it means. There are indeed times when the text makes it clear that the material being presented is a symbol, type, or allegory, but when the text clearly indicates that the subject is a symbol, then that is the literal interpretation of that text." (Dr. Clay Nuttall)

In my opinion, this is a great explanation.

Ricky

Your opening question is making my point for me. If a "literal" hermeneutic encompases the non-literal devices like "metaphor," "figures of speect," etc, then what exactly is the criticism against those that take a non-literal interpretation on a various text. We are told that one is consistently literal, and the other is not. But the "consistently" literal interpretation encompases the non-literal too, so what is the problem? What is the criticism? If the other side isn't literal, then they can point to your figures of speech as not being literal too. Is the criticism "rather" that someone else takes a passage non-literally that you have decided is literal? If this is the criticism, then it would be much more clear than saying, "well, I'm just consistently literal, and you are not." In other words, I'm trying to call the bluff on the double standard and push others to really get to the heart of the issue without resorting to cliche thoughtless comments like, "I'm literal, and you're not." I'm trying to push others to be clear about where it is they actually disagree. Again, I'm against the overly generalized use of the term "literal".

I noticed that you didn't deal with the 70 times 7. Are numbers sometimes not literal? Where exactly is the "literal" offer of the kingdom?

Obviously, it would take a long time to go back and forth point by point, and this is a complex issue. So, if you don't mind, I am just going to get to the heart of the matter, where I believe this point takes us.

Dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally. They have a literal system (at least this is the goal and direction of dispensationalism). This is macro-literalism.
Within that system, dispensationalists recognize that not every word, phrase or concept is to be taken in a denotatively literal sense. Thus, on the micro level, not every word is taken in a denotatively literal sense -- even though when it is not the interpreter is still practicing literal interpretation -- because he has yielded his interpretation to the text, which in that case demands an understanding of some type of figure of speech.

All Bible believers probably would claim to have a macro-literal system of interpretation, in the sense just described. Coming out of a strong conservative Lutheran background, I think I have a good handle on what I believe to be "non-literal interpretaton," if I can use that term. In other words, dispensationalists believe they are justified in pointing out the weakness of an interpretation which is controlled by something other than the immediate context.

A non-emotion producing example: Rev. 6 talks about four horses and their riders; Ex. 15:1 also talks about a horse and rider. But unless you can show me from the context of Rev. 6 -- not from your theology or "worldview considerations" -- why Ex. 15 should be used to interpret Rev. 6, I am going to say that it is illegitimate to do so. I am going to interpret Rev. 6 in its own context -- starting with the denotative meanings of words, trying to deal with obvious idioms and figures of speech and then looking for interpretive clues within the text to show me what other metaphorical figures are used, as well as what they might mean.

This is what I am talking about in principle.

BTW - these are complex issues that aren't easily unraveled in 2-minute sound bites. And its application to any and every specific text -- well that's a lifetime job

Larry,

If I you are referring to me, I actually was trying to speak quite precisely, and I do not think I am contradicting anything in your citations...

Paul,

Thank you for responding back with clarification. I do not wish to push the matter any more at this present time, as I feel like doing so would be uncharitable. I hope that everyone has a great weekend. Thank you for your time (Paul and others). This whole discussion about literal vs not-literal was only a passing thought when I began interaction with this thread. The main point was that a love for God was to be the main thing, as He is the Incomparable One. Paul, if "theology is the queen of the sciences, and dispensationalism is queen of all theologies," as you believe; then I would strongly suggest that theology proper is king of all theologies. That was the main point. So long as God is truly ultimate, then I don't mind so much disagreeing on dispensational theology.

Shalom