Preserving the Truth: An Interview with Mike Harding about the January Conference
A Fresh Look at Biblical Separation
Q: My impression is that the Preserving the Truth conference is a brand new event. Am I right about that?
A: Yes!
Q: Where did the idea for a “Preserving the Truth” conference come from and why that particular emphasis?
A: The idea for this conference originated with myself and a group of pastors that I have worked with over the years. We are concerned that the next generation of young ministers appreciate the principles and applications of biblical separatism without falling prey to the doctrinal error that exists in some quarters of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Every other year Dr. Doran has an excellent missions conference for young people entitled SGI (Students for Global Impact) which we strongly support. We thought this conference could provide a complementary emphasis for our college students, singles, and ministerial students during the off years.
Q: There are already lots of conferences going on. What’s different about this one (in addition to differences you may have already mentioned)?
A: We are attempting to provide an avenue to teach biblical separation in the context of a sound, biblically accurate, theologically astute environment. We have invited some very bright and articulate separatists who have years of ministerial experience such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Mark Minnick, and Bruce Compton as well as younger separatists such as Matthew Postiff, Scott Aniol, Mike Riley, and Chris Anderson.
Q: I noticed that the subtopic/theme of the conference is “A symposium on biblical separation.” Why that particular topic as a starting point and what can you tell us about the “symposium” format?
A: All the speakers will be invited to participate in a discussion time regarding the specific topics addressed during the conference. Furthermore, the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.
Q: I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for Calvinists? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?
A: The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.
Q: Some of this information is at the website, but for those who don’t find their way to it, what are some of the subtopics that will be addressed under the “biblical separation” heading?
A: Dr. Matthew Postiff will address the importance of young earth creationism. I anticipate that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles. The subject of worship will be addressed by Chris Anderson and Scott Aniol from a conservative framework. Though we don’t believe in traditionalism, we are concerned that an overt pragmatism and experience-oriented worship will do great damage to the Christian church. Regarding apologetics, most believers have bought into some form of evidentialism and have unwittingly forgotten the most fundamental presupposition of our faith—that the one true and living God has self-attestingly revealed himself through the sixty-six inscripturated books of the Bible. Mike Riley, who is finishing his doctorate on this very subject, will address the separatist implications of both positions.
True separatists are also concerned about identifying a genuine disobedient brother. This is a difficult topic with far-reaching implications. Dr. Bruce Compton has done excellent exegetical work on this subject and will present his findings. In addition, he will speak on the significant dangers inherent in non-cessationism. Additionally, Dr. Doran is very concerned that some separatists have ignored the doctrinal aberrations involved in the translation debate. He will address where the lines should be drawn and how we should react to those who have clearly stepped over the lines.
I have asked Dr. Minnick to address the issue of the gospel itself. I am convinced that the biblical concepts of belief, repentance and the person and work of Christ have been compromised today. We can’t have gospel-driven separation unless we can define the gospel carefully and completely. Finally, Dr. Bauder will address the issue of a fundamentalism worth saving in two general sessions. The obvious implication is that there is a type of “fundamentalism” not worth saving.
Q: At the conference website, I noticed some perks for young guys—discounted registration, free housing—and I see at least one “younger” guy on the speaker schedule (Chris Anderson). Has there been an intentional effort to bring younger and older together at this event? How important is that in your view?
A: We have purposely invited four younger men to speak in order to encourage our younger men in college, seminary, and ministry. I have a heart for these men and appreciate them very much. We are presenting young men who love God, love truth, and work hard in their ministerial preparation. May their tribe increase!
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.
Q: I see that Kevin Bauder is scheduled to do two sessions on “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.” Do you believe fundamentalism is still disintegrating and degenerating or has it finally “hit bottom” and begun to develop in a more positive direction—or what? What’s your estimation of its condition and future?
A: I am a fundamentalist. However, I agree that the “movement” has lost definition and purpose. Nevertheless, I personally believe that fundamentalism both as a movement and an idea is worth saving. Most important, however, is that the ideas championed by historical, biblical fundamentalism continue to be proclaimed with a spirit of godly aggressiveness and also be protected with a passion for biblical separatism.
Q: There has been some controversy about Calvary Seminary’s decision to invite Mark Dever to speak at their Advancing the Church conference. What are your thoughts on that?
A: My opinion is that Mark Dever has written some excellent material regarding the local church, is known as a serious expositor of God’s Word, has a conservative approach to worship in his church, and has taken some difficult stands within the SBC. On the other hand, I was very disappointed with his interview on Christian “rap” and his bizarre comment regarding the sinfulness of including millennial views in one’s church constitution. Mark represents some of the best men in the SBC; however, there are too many problems with the SBC for me to invite one of its pastors to my pulpit.
I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.
Q: One of my concerns is how to reach fundamentalist believers and leaders that are, shall we say, “to our right,” and influence them toward a better biblical balance. Do you have any thoughts on that?
A: My greatest concern for our fundamental brethren is that they become careful students of Scripture, better expositional preachers, take systematic and exegetical theology very seriously, and be more fair minded toward good theologians who are not in our circles. Biblical separatism has its foundation in exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology. Without that foundation one has no idea what violations are worthy of separation. Thus, some to our right are very sincere in their separatist stand; nevertheless, in some cases they are taking their stand on very tenuous ground.
Q: Whom do you mainly hope to reach with the conference? Can you give me a brief profile?
A: The conference is for everyone. We would be thrilled if those who have attended SGI would also attend PTC. I think our conference will contribute to an excellent balance emphasizing both truth and mission.
Q: Any final words you’d like to aim at folks considering attending to persuade them to come?
A: The men speaking at our conference have the ability to help us understand the nuances in the fundamental and evangelical world. Impulsive and uninformed responses to the current ecclesiastical landscape produce compromise on the one hand or extremism on the other hand. We hope to avoid both. Our speakers are the kind of men who will encourage us to be separatist theologians and mission-minded servants, believing that biblical truth is our ultimate guide.
Mike Harding Bio
Mike Harding (MA, MDiv) has served as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Troy, Michigan since 1985. He holds BA and MA degrees from Bob Jones Univ. and MDiv and ThM degrees from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Jennifer, have four children.
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.
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.
[Mike Harding]…the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.I will be looking forward to this, and hope to attend. The case for separation on one of these is written in stone. What could be more central to the faith, for instance, than the gospel?
The case for a few becomes a bit more muddy, does it not? On several of them (non-cessationism, translations, worship), the reasons and principles by which another group of believers arrive at their conclusions are almost more important than what they conclude, in my opinion. “Is there a Biblical thought process going on here?”, with a description of what it is, is far more important than “Are their conclusions the same as ours?”
The disobedient brother is another than fascinates me. Where does it stop becoming “disagreement” and begin becoming “disobedience”? Given autonomy of the local church, what are the “notification” obligations, if any, to a brother pastor or evangelist or college president that he has become disobedient? How is the confrontation managed? If there is no such confrontation, a la Matthew 18:15-17, why not?
I hope that these questions will be answered, along with many others.
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?? 8-)
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?? 8-)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I look forward to the conference. It will be interesting in light of the Calvary conference with Mark Dever in February with some of the same speakers (Doran/Bauder). Mike obviously has concerns with some of Dever’s statements/positions. Perhaps this illustrates the tensions we all face in applying the principles of biblical separation. And shows that not all our disagreements involve disobedience requiring separation. There is a larger context to “his [Dever’s) bizarre comment regarding the sinfulness of including millennial views in one’s church constitution.”
“Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture. So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.”
That being said, it should be asked if a certain millennial view is required for church membership. It does not mean a church or pastor cannot have a view (Dever does) but whether a church requires uniformity in that area of doctrine. I would not say it is sin to have a millennial view but in our church a particular view is not a requirement for church membership. Do we ask new converts to agree to a doctrinal statement in detail that they cannot yet understand in order to join? I think not. Most guys I know planting churches don’t have a millennial view in their statement of faith. Many pastors wish they didn’t.
Concerning the topics, I wonder if “young earth creationism” is or is going to be made a separation issue. Has that been the case with historic fundamentalism? I can’t answer that. Maybe they can. I understand Mike’s point “that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles” but am not sure where that is happening. Of course this assumes that all other positions besides YEC are not literal. I can see making the argument for the six 24 hour day interpretation but fail to see how that demands YEC. Does a belief in a 6-10,000 year old earth have unambiguous scriptural support? I don’t’ see that. Anyway, I look forward to the hearing these presentations.
Mike expresses great concern about “the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting.” I don’t know if that is a subject that will be treated. If so, hopefully there will be church planters’ perspectives. I am not aware of “the” missional model for church planting since the term is as broad as “fundamentalism.” There may be some forms of missional which, in Mike’s words, “will lead to the social gospel.” There are societal implications but I remain skeptical that missional leads to the social gospel. Here’s an excerpt from a blog I recently posted on http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/03/5k-on-sunday/#more-21
It is true that the world has crammed countless activities into Sunday. This is one indication that Christianity and churches are more and more on the margins of society. This is one way of understanding the idea of “missional” which has been applied, misused, and misunderstood in countless ways. The church, that is God’s people, is God’s mission in the world. As God sent His Son into the world, as Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world, so Father, Son, and Holy Spirit send the Church into the world. The church is on mission daily and not only when gathered on Sunday. God’s people are in the world, in their communities, in the lives of unbelievers – for the gospel’s sake, to make Christ known, to be a visible expression of God’s power and proclamation.
That being said, it should be asked if a certain millennial view is required for church membership. It does not mean a church or pastor cannot have a view (Dever does) but whether a church requires uniformity in that area of doctrine. I would not say it is sin to have a millennial view but in our church a particular view is not a requirement for church membership. Do we ask new converts to agree to a doctrinal statement in detail that they cannot yet understand in order to join? I think not. Most guys I know planting churches don’t have a millennial view in their statement of faith. Many pastors wish they didn’t.
Concerning the topics, I wonder if “young earth creationism” is or is going to be made a separation issue. Has that been the case with historic fundamentalism? I can’t answer that. Maybe they can. I understand Mike’s point “that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles” but am not sure where that is happening. Of course this assumes that all other positions besides YEC are not literal. I can see making the argument for the six 24 hour day interpretation but fail to see how that demands YEC. Does a belief in a 6-10,000 year old earth have unambiguous scriptural support? I don’t’ see that. Anyway, I look forward to the hearing these presentations.
Mike expresses great concern about “the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting.” I don’t know if that is a subject that will be treated. If so, hopefully there will be church planters’ perspectives. I am not aware of “the” missional model for church planting since the term is as broad as “fundamentalism.” There may be some forms of missional which, in Mike’s words, “will lead to the social gospel.” There are societal implications but I remain skeptical that missional leads to the social gospel. Here’s an excerpt from a blog I recently posted on http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/03/5k-on-sunday/#more-21
Harding said:
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.
The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic.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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Steve Davis] As God sent His Son into the world, as Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world, so Father, Son, and Holy Spirit send the Church into the world. The church is on mission daily and not only when gathered on Sunday. God’s people are in the world, in their communities, in the lives of unbelievers – for the gospel’s sake, to make Christ known, to be a visible expression of God’s power and proclamation.Steve,
What Scripture do you base this on? While it is well-written and sounds logical, I see numerous problems with it Biblically.
I think the concern Harding is addressing is the fact that many of the “younger guys” within fundamentalism — enamored with Piper and Dever, but without adequate theological grounding to evaluate their perspectives and arguments — buy into things like the use of the word “missional” because it sounds good and is something different than the frumpy fundamentalism of the past.
(I would rather they open their eyes to the exciting worlds of creationism, dispensationalism, Bible prophecy, Biblical worldview, etc., and accept those alternatives to the froth of the past.H:))
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
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.
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.
Steve,
I do not believe that the church has an incarnational ministry in the world which mimics the incarnation of Christ as God in human flesh. Phil. 3:20, 21 and many other passages would seem to offer a different slant to the entire issue. To me, the “missional” (incarnational) approach ties directly to Covenant Theology, Theonomy and postmillennialism. I am sure the subject is bigger than we can solve here in short order. “Mission,” like prophecy, is also a view with a variety of interpretations.
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
I do not believe that the church has an incarnational ministry in the world which mimics the incarnation of Christ as God in human flesh. Phil. 3:20, 21 and many other passages would seem to offer a different slant to the entire issue. To me, the “missional” (incarnational) approach ties directly to Covenant Theology, Theonomy and postmillennialism. I am sure the subject is bigger than we can solve here in short order. “Mission,” like prophecy, is also a view with a variety of interpretations.
[Steve Davis] We have to ask ourselves why, in your word, younger guys are “enamored” with men like Piper and Dever.Because much of what they have seen in fundamentalism in the past is inadequate — sub-standard preaching by men untrained in exposition and theology; unbiblical, altar call-heavy, evangelism-centered ministry; preaching on extra-biblical standards and theological oddities; mind-bending legalism, etc. We probably agree on many of the ailments, but disagree on the cure.
[Steve Davis] You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like “missional.”Yes. My thing is — if you want to be Reformed, be Reformed! We will still be friends :D. But don’t tell me about a 22-year-old young fundamentalist, who may or may not have had adequate teaching in Bible college even to the point he is at, who has tried dispensationalism and found it wanting — and is now heading off to the land of Piper and Dever. He may be rejecting the froth of the past (see above), but he is either untaught or ill-prepared to make the decision to reject other things (like creationism or dispensationalism) that he thinks are intrinsic to said froth, and that makes me sad :cry:.
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
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?
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?
[dmicah] I have some suggestions for names for this conference:I think you’ve misread these guys. Do you know them? I’d just say go and see. You may be very surprised. This is not the obsess-on-the-past corner of fundamentalism.
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
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.
As for promoting things Jesus did not promote and leading with things Paul taught as a last resort, I think this partly misjudges Jesus and Paul but mostly misjudges these fundamentalists. What they lead with is what they’re doing the other 363 days of the year. This conference is aimed at particular problems and approaches them differently than they’ve been approached a good of the time in the past. It’s aimed at the future.
“To highlight our doctrinal purity”… do you think that might be a slightly cynical way to characterize their motives?
Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your ChurchI’m not sure what you mean by this one. The theology is erroneous? The delivery is boring? Barring that, how can theology limit the influence of a church? Size.. alas, yes. It can limit that! But influence and size don’t correlate because “influence” occurs when ideas are dismissed and rejected as well as when they are welcomed and embraced. The task is to expose folks to “all things that I have commanded you,” and the results are not really our department.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Paul J. Scharf]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?
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] 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?Charlie,
I am not sure I have the answer to your profound question. Is it possible that initially the fundamentalists were trying to beat something with nothing and the Reformed resurgence was there to fill the void? This thing has been building for quite a while.
I look at the guys I went to Bible college with who were ministerial/Bible-type students, and it would not take me long to go down the list of names of those who are still within the orbit they started in. The rest have moved on to either Reformed, Seeker, Emergent, Purpose-Driven or some other realm.
In some cases, they either never attended seminary, or made their jump before going to a seminary of a different stripe. Thus, they may not have truly understood what they were leaving behind.
What turned them off was not six-day creationism or the church being separate from Israel, but in most cases it was growing up in a church/school where they had to wear a tie six days a week, use the KJV, spend 300 hours per year in church and avoid theaters.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] Steve,Hi Paul:
I do not believe that the church has an incarnational ministry in the world which mimics the incarnation of Christ as God in human flesh. Phil. 3:20, 21 and many other passages would seem to offer a different slant to the entire issue. To me, the “missional” (incarnational) approach ties directly to Covenant Theology, Theonomy and postmillennialism. I am sure the subject is bigger than we can solve here in short order. “Mission,” like prophecy, is also a view with a variety of interpretations.
“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
It sounds like a well-planned conference with some wonderful men of God speaking. I trust it will have a wonderful outcome.
Separation is such and important doctrine, but it is not the only doctrine. I think one of the problems in fundamentalism is that this doctrine is raised to a level and given more attention than other teachings. When this happens, you get the extremes. You also get this problem of everybody trying to dictate to everyone else exactly how separatism ought to be implemented and division when everybody does not follow the ones trying to do the dictating.
Separation is such and important doctrine, but it is not the only doctrine. I think one of the problems in fundamentalism is that this doctrine is raised to a level and given more attention than other teachings. When this happens, you get the extremes. You also get this problem of everybody trying to dictate to everyone else exactly how separatism ought to be implemented and division when everybody does not follow the ones trying to do the dictating.
[Charlie]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.[Paul J. Scharf]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?
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
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.
[Caleb S] 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).Caleb,
I think that would be me ;)
http://www.sharperiron.org/why-i-am-dispensationalist
If you have time, please go back and read my article, especially points 6 and 7. I do not think that my article contradicts the essential points you are making.
Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc.
The other sub-points you make are between you and God. You will have to decide for yourself what you believe and why — then stand on those issues as you understand them from Scripture. 0:)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
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
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
I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.I know I’m showing my ignorance, but what is the “missional church model”? How is it different from any other kind of church planting?
Becky, I’m not really familiar with the term either. Hopefully we’ll get some audio or something from the MACP Conference here since they are focusing on that topic at that event.
Alot of the trouble with evangelical trendiness is that certain buzzwords become prominent for a while. If you are not embracing them, you’re seen as out of touch, stuck in the past, etc., but if you do embrace them you often have to redefine them biblically, so… I say, why bother.
In this case, I think “missional” is a term some use innocently enough because it’s a cool word right now. Others mean something distinctive by it and the “something distinctive” is not, in Harding’s view (or the DBTS folks, apparently) good.
(By “something distinctive” I mean something newfangled as opposed to plain ol’ New Testament church model… let’s call it the “PONT model” make it sound cool and start a trend!)
So I hope to get an opportunity to learn a bit about it. I can’t get to Detroit this month though, unfortunately.
Anybody want to blog the MACP conference for SI?
Alot of the trouble with evangelical trendiness is that certain buzzwords become prominent for a while. If you are not embracing them, you’re seen as out of touch, stuck in the past, etc., but if you do embrace them you often have to redefine them biblically, so… I say, why bother.
In this case, I think “missional” is a term some use innocently enough because it’s a cool word right now. Others mean something distinctive by it and the “something distinctive” is not, in Harding’s view (or the DBTS folks, apparently) good.
(By “something distinctive” I mean something newfangled as opposed to plain ol’ New Testament church model… let’s call it the “PONT model” make it sound cool and start a trend!)
So I hope to get an opportunity to learn a bit about it. I can’t get to Detroit this month though, unfortunately.
Anybody want to blog the MACP conference for SI?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer][dmicah]First…Paul Scharf may have been correct when he said that i had too much coffee before i wrote that response. Re-reading, i must apologize for sounding snarky. i don’t know how to roll out smiley faces and such :-). i am serious in my disagreement for a conference of this nature, but the titles were certainly tongue in cheek.
I think you’ve misread these guys. Do you know them? I’d just say go and see. You may be very surprised. This is not the obsess-on-the-past corner of fundamentalism.
As for promoting things Jesus did not promote and leading with things Paul taught as a last resort, I think this partly misjudges Jesus and Paul but mostly misjudges these fundamentalists. What they lead with is what they’re doing the other 363 days of the year. This conference is aimed at particular problems and approaches them differently than they’ve been approached a good of the time in the past. It’s aimed at the future.
“To highlight our doctrinal purity”… do you think that might be a slightly cynical way to characterize their motives?Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your ChurchI’m not sure what you mean by this one. The theology is erroneous? The delivery is boring? Barring that, how can theology limit the influence of a church? Size.. alas, yes. It can limit that! But influence and size don’t correlate because “influence” occurs when ideas are dismissed and rejected as well as when they are welcomed and embraced. The task is to expose folks to “all things that I have commanded you,” and the results are not really our department.
I know none of these men personally, only through their writings, and they are very conservative men. My issue w/a conference of this nature is that leading with the topic of separation, interpreting current issues through the matrix of separation, focusing on separation, having a passion for separation is an incorrect starting point on the map. Therefore, I don’t need to know them personally, I know their frame of reference. The interview and their website indicates a major disconnect with reality. People are searching for the matters that unite, not that divide. The heartbeat of traditional separatism is pride. I am not saying these are proud men or that they are traditional militant separatists. I am not saying separation from heresy and sin are unimportant. But rallying a group of people around ecclesiological separation is not what Jesus did.
My overarching point has to do with the reasons younger fundamentalists recoil from these things. We understand that Jesus’ great commission actually does imply separation. By making disciples, men/women become set apart to God, away from evil and worldliness and those who would preach a self-serving false gospel. Yet, the mission of this conference as stated on their website is “presenting accurate theological positions on important, current doctrinal issues from a biblical, separatist viewpoint.” The What Is PTC page goes on to deliver an academic oriented description of its purpose. My passion on this is for those who care to step back for a moment and see how magnificently devoid of spiritual power this appears to be. From their website “Our conference will endeavor to bring together some of the brightest and best biblical separatists, young and old, in order to address these issues.”
This sounds nothing likeAnd I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:1-2 ESVI am not trying to be cynical. I can only go on my lifelong experiences with those who trumpet the subjects of doctrinal purity. Their Christianity is usually characterized by looking with disdain on those who approach topics like creation or eschatalogy with varying viewpoints, sneering at others’ statements of faith, or dripping condescension with statements like “he does a lot of great stuff, but i’d never have him in my pulpit because of XYZ.” This is why I speak of separatists claiming a corner on truth. This is why I speak of separatists highlighting a powerless theology that relegates the Holy Spirit to its rightful place…a study in Pneumatology, thereby limiting the size and influence of their church. The Spirit will not work where he is not allowed. Like Apollo Creed said in Rocky III, “Don’t tell me what you think, go out there and do it.”
Remember, i am a separatist. Ecclesiologically, I have no problem slamming an evangelical preacher like Furtick who recently put on a 24 hour preaching marathon that invoked God’s power while selling Furtick’s book QVC style. Yet I have learned many things from watching his ministry. Though I’ll hang out with non-Christians who enjoy intoxication, smoke like chimneys, curse like military personnel, and engage in other nefarious behavior, personally, I will not maintain friendships with Christians who revel in sinful behavior. My lines of demarcation are different than many traditional conservative fundamentalists, but I still separate from that which is unholy.
What I cannot accept, and why so many of my generation have blurred the distinction between a fundamentalist and an evangelical, are those who have commandeered militant and aggressive separation with strictly regulated theology and immaculate doctrinal statements as the clarion call of the body of Christ. I recognize the two-edged sword. But there is a nuance to it. I am a separatist because I cling to the power, purity and presence of Jesus, and take action based upon this. I am not a separatist because I define all of the other folk as wrong, or not as fundamental/mature as me. And that is what I see when I see Preserving the Truth conferences. I foresee a lot of talking, back-slapping, glad-handing, education honoring and self-congratulatory teaching that unintentionally converts the gospel of reconciliation into a gospel of separation.
I’ll finish my diatribe by saying that I appreciate that these men hold God’s Word in high regard and preach Jesus as the way, truth and the life. However, I think it is going back in time, and a mistake to lead with the doctrine of separation and focus on elements of theology rather than the God of the theology.
[Becky Petersen] I know I’m showing my ignorance, but what is the “missional church model”? How is it different from any other kind of church planting?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
DMicah… I guess I can’t say a whole lot in response to your last post. I’m really not familiar with whom you are reacting to. Haven’t had that experience.
If there ever was a day to downplay doctrinal precision, the current day does not seem to me to be it.
Mike specifically mentions the every-other-year Student Global Impact conference and explains that PTC is intended to complement that. SGI has been going on for years. As has the Mid-America Conference on Preaching… both in the same basic neighborhood.
Clearly separation is not “leading” in this case. It is not the “starting point.”
If there ever was a day to downplay doctrinal precision, the current day does not seem to me to be it.
leading with the topic of separation, interpreting current issues through the matrix of separation, focusing on separation, having a passion for separation is an incorrect starting point on the map.They are not “leading with the topic.” There are already conferences on missions, church planting, etc. going on. There is no conference on separation, especially one bending over backwards to root solidly in careful exposition of Scripture. So this is filling a void, not lifting a topic above all others.
Mike specifically mentions the every-other-year Student Global Impact conference and explains that PTC is intended to complement that. SGI has been going on for years. As has the Mid-America Conference on Preaching… both in the same basic neighborhood.
Clearly separation is not “leading” in this case. It is not the “starting point.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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 http://www.edstetzer.com/the-meanings-of-missional.html 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.
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 http://www.edstetzer.com/the-meanings-of-missional.html 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.
[CAWatson] Dr. Davis,I understand and share your concerns and firmly hold to fiat creation, historical Adam (because Jesus and Paul do), etc. My point is simply that a YEC is not the only valid evangelical interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and adds to the text and to authorial intent. I don’t care if someone holds to YEC but it doesn’t come from the text. An emphasis on the age of the earth misses the point of Genesis, distracts from the message of Genesis. In my opinion it’s the wrong battle to fight. There’s nothing to gain by arguing for a young earth in the face of science when (and this is important) the Bible doesn’t present that kind of evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text. I don’t know how old the earth is, whether 10,000 or 10 million years old. Some seem to think they know and that we need to take a stand on that! I don’t because I can’t support it biblically. Others think they can. I am not unable to be convinced but remain unconvinced of the arguments (appearance of age, etc.) at this point. I do know that God created all things, provided redemption after the Fall, and will in the end bring about new creation.
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
Steve
[Steve Davis] I don’t care if someone holds to YEC but it doesn’t come from the text. An emphasis on the age of the earth misses the point of Genesis, distracts from the message of Genesis. In my opinion it’s the wrong battle to fight. There’s nothing to gain by arguing for a young earth in the face of science when (and this is important) the Bible doesn’t present that kind of evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text. I don’t know how old the earth is, whether 10,000 or 10 million years old.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!! :Sp
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
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.I’ve read all of Christopher Wright’s work and don’t remember him saying that mission can take place apart or outside of the church. Do you have a source for this? In all of his works that I have read, he is very God-centered and church centered. He does allow political, social, and economic dimensions as part of mission, but with evangelism as ultimate and always connected to the church. Also, I feel we fundies throw around the social gospel term a little too loosely these days. The social gospel of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s is much, much different than what Christopher Wright is advocating in his book Mission of God and his role in chairing and influencing the upcoming Lausanne conference on evangelism.
[Larry] 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.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.
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,
:)
I’ve read all of Christopher Wright’s work and don’t remember him saying that mission can take place apart or outside of the church. Do you have a source for this? In all of his works that I have read, he is very God-centered and church centered. He does allow political, social, and economic dimensions as part of mission, but with evangelism as ultimate and always connected to the church.No, I am not saying that Wright does that. I am saying that those on the “high missional” end do that. Wright is not one of them. I think Guder would be, probably. There are many who conceive of the work of the kingdom being done outside the church and separate from the church. Back at Madras in 1938 (I think) Stanley Jones complained that the mission was being too closely connected to the church. The church was relative while the KoG was absolute, and therefore mission can’t start with the church. (You can read a bit about that http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1573&C=1519] here .)
But my reference to Wright was only the reference that “The church doesn’t have a mission; the mission has a church.” I believe that is in the first few pages of “The Mission of God.”
Also, I feel we fundies throw around the social gospel term a little too loosely these days. The social gospel of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s is much, much different than what Christopher Wright is advocating in his book Mission of God and his role in chairing and influencing the upcoming Lausanne conference on evangelism.You are probably right that we throw it around too easy, but again, don’t forget the distinctions I am making (that others make) between high, mid, and lo missional. And don’t forget that there are many who believe that the gospel is more about reclaiming social structures and redeeming people from social oppression than it is about individual personal redemption. I don’t know anyway to describe other than a social gospel.
[Dr. Davis] YEC … adds … to authorial intent.Where’s the authorial intent clause in/about Genesis?
[ibid.]. . the Bible doesn’t present [YEC] evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text.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.
[DavidO]Correct. You have no reason to doubt that I am equally or more vociferous toward TE (not with the people but the theory). Actually I am not vociferous at all toward young earth creationists or their view. I have much more in common with them on Scripture than with TE proponents. I look forward to Preserving the Truth, how they defend YEC, and learning from that, although I’m not sure I should show up. But Mike Harding is a good friend, still, I think :bigsmile:[Dr. Davis] YEC … adds … to authorial intent.Where’s the authorial intent clause in/about Genesis?[ibid.]. . the Bible doesn’t present [YEC] evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text.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.
Correct: What I assert about timeframes and YEC importation into the text is “also true” of Theistic Evolution. Genesis does not teach TE. Even if TE were demonstrated to be true, it was not Moses’ intent to teach about those processes.
Steve
…probably belongs in another thread. It’s related to this one in some ways, but it tends to get pretty involved and passionate so it might work better in a separate thread. Maybe post a link to it here so it’ll be easier to find.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This post at paleoevangelical may be helpful. He contrasts DeYoung and Gilbert with Russel Moore on the mission of the church.
http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2010/10/two-starkly-different-view…
http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2010/10/two-starkly-different-view…
[paleoevangelical] The problem is that unqualified identification of our mission with the mission of Jesus invariably introduces ambiguity and confusion. Unless this ambiguity is clarified biblically, I suspect we’re looking at the fault line that will form a crevasse, dividing evangelicals—even conservative, reformed evangelicals.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I recently did a http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/10/05/go-or-send-how-best-to-… 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?
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?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Paul J. Scharf][Steve Davis] You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like “missional.”Yes. My thing is — if you want to be Reformed, be Reformed! We will still be friends :D. But don’t tell me about a 22-year-old young fundamentalist, who may or may not have had adequate teaching in Bible college even to the point he is at, who has tried dispensationalism and found it wanting — and is now heading off to the land of Piper and Dever. He may be rejecting the froth of the past (see above), but he is either untaught or ill-prepared to make the decision to reject other things (like creationism or dispensationalism) that he thinks are intrinsic to said froth, and that makes me sad :cry:.
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
[Paul J. Scharf]I’d be careful in generalizing about the kind of people who journey out of fundamentalism to the land of the Pipers and Devers. It sounds like they’re all just totally incompetent fools to ever stare in the face of true fundamentalist learning and thumb their nose at it. How dare they![Charlie] 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?Charlie,
I am not sure I have the answer to your profound question. Is it possible that initially the fundamentalists were trying to beat something with nothing and the Reformed resurgence was there to fill the void? This thing has been building for quite a while.
I look at the guys I went to Bible college with who were ministerial/Bible-type students, and it would not take me long to go down the list of names of those who are still within the orbit they started in. The rest have moved on to either Reformed, Seeker, Emergent, Purpose-Driven or some other realm.
In some cases, they either never attended seminary, or made their jump before going to a seminary of a different stripe. Thus, they may not have truly understood what they were leaving behind.
What turned them off was not six-day creationism or the church being separate from Israel, but in most cases it was growing up in a church/school where they had to wear a tie six days a week, use the KJV, spend 300 hours per year in church and avoid theaters.
Could it possibly be due to the fact that they have studied things out, and made some difficult decisions? (It generally isn’t easy for people to leave fundamentalism lands.) Could it just be that like Caleb’s testimony above so eloquently explains, that some find the ethos of the ministries of men like Dever and Piper is so much more gospel-centered and gospel-magnifying that they are drawn irresistibly toward them? Could it be that the structures of fundamentalism with its emphasis on the margins and the fences and the rules and all of that, can lend itself toward a promotion and facilitating of a deceptive legalism?
I’m not putting such men beyond reproach, and I’m not cutting off the debate. Furthermore I speak of this from my own personal journey as well. What’s interesting to me, is how often fundamentalists like Paul here, have this idea that if we could just educate Joe Christian enough, he would automatically turn out a Fundamentalist. Education is what’s lacking. I wonder why that is? And furthermore why it seems that the majority of educated fundamentalists (in fact some of the most conservative fundamentalists decry education for just this reason) eject from the movement? That happens, and yet education is what’s lacking! I don’t have the answer to this last tangential thought here, but just wanted to interact a bit here on this point.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Paul J. Scharf] Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc….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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I do not have much time today — that is not a cop out but just to preface my answer —
RE Post 35: Look at my bio and the things I have written and you will find that I am not necessarily a died-in-the-wool rah, rah fundamentalist. I was raised WELS Lutheran and made my own choice to move into a realm I was not raised in after studying things out for myself.
I was merely relating the fact that probably most of the guys I sat in “preacher boys” class with in a strongly fundamentalist college are no longer going that direction. Ironically, I who did not belong to the group by pedigree am still here defending the post — even to the point that you refer to “fundamentalists like Paul” :bigsmile:
RE Post 36: I am sure there would be an awful lot to sort out here, so the best I can say is — reverse the trends, let’s do something novel and read our Bibles! :|
RE Post 35: Look at my bio and the things I have written and you will find that I am not necessarily a died-in-the-wool rah, rah fundamentalist. I was raised WELS Lutheran and made my own choice to move into a realm I was not raised in after studying things out for myself.
I was merely relating the fact that probably most of the guys I sat in “preacher boys” class with in a strongly fundamentalist college are no longer going that direction. Ironically, I who did not belong to the group by pedigree am still here defending the post — even to the point that you refer to “fundamentalists like Paul” :bigsmile:
RE Post 36: I am sure there would be an awful lot to sort out here, so the best I can say is — reverse the trends, let’s do something novel and read our Bibles! :|
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] I recently did a http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/10/05/go-or-send-how-best-to-… 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.Since Bob is shamelessly promoting his recent blog posting, which is worth reading, I want to imitate him in http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/07/missional-church-planting-mode…] my recent posting . This is a discussion worth having.
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?
Steve
[Steve Davis] Since Bob is shamelessly promoting his recent blog posting, which is worth reading, I want to imitate him in http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/07/missional-church-planting-mode…] my recent posting . This is a discussion worth having.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 http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/03/5k-on-sunday/ this one , you had linked to earlier in this thread.
Steve
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] 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 http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/03/5k-on-sunday/ this one , you had linked to earlier in this thread.You are far more prescient than I or clairvoyant. I’ll keep reading you anyway.
[Bob Hayton] 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.Bob,
A follow-up thought. What I was saying was in response to Caleb:
[Caleb S] 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.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…?
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
“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.”
I have no time, so I will be brief. What I was saying here was not that “literal” has no place in language. What I “literally” meant was that the tendency of the dispensational paradigm is to read into the term literal their whole system. The term then means everything, and then it means nothing. One can ask really basic questions then. So if you are going to employ a “consistently” literal hermeneutic, then (1) “God is a shield” needs to be interpreted literally. God is literally a block of wood and metal used for fending off arrows and other weapons, or should we go beyond the literal here? (2) We should literally forgive 70 times 7: 490 times no more and no less. Or should we go beyond the literal here? (3) Herod.
Luke 13:31-32 At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” 32 And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.
Herod is literally a furry animal that just happens to be a king, or should we go beyond the literal here? I mean “hey” Nebuchadnezzar acted like a wild animal, so I guess that it shouldn’t be too far a stretch to say a “literal” animal really was king.
I simply disagree with the overly generic label of “literal” constantly being set against other interpretive methods when it is flatly impossible to be fully consistently literal in one’s hermeneutic. It ignores the issues of genre, systematic theolgoy, testament priority/complementary, linguistic conventions, etc.
Time is telling me to move on, sorry for the typos, no time to proofread. And further, this was entirely beside the point as to the intent of my last post, but it seemed that a clarification was needed.
Shalom
I have no time, so I will be brief. What I was saying here was not that “literal” has no place in language. What I “literally” meant was that the tendency of the dispensational paradigm is to read into the term literal their whole system. The term then means everything, and then it means nothing. One can ask really basic questions then. So if you are going to employ a “consistently” literal hermeneutic, then (1) “God is a shield” needs to be interpreted literally. God is literally a block of wood and metal used for fending off arrows and other weapons, or should we go beyond the literal here? (2) We should literally forgive 70 times 7: 490 times no more and no less. Or should we go beyond the literal here? (3) Herod.
Luke 13:31-32 At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” 32 And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.
Herod is literally a furry animal that just happens to be a king, or should we go beyond the literal here? I mean “hey” Nebuchadnezzar acted like a wild animal, so I guess that it shouldn’t be too far a stretch to say a “literal” animal really was king.
I simply disagree with the overly generic label of “literal” constantly being set against other interpretive methods when it is flatly impossible to be fully consistently literal in one’s hermeneutic. It ignores the issues of genre, systematic theolgoy, testament priority/complementary, linguistic conventions, etc.
Time is telling me to move on, sorry for the typos, no time to proofread. And further, this was entirely beside the point as to the intent of my last post, but it seemed that a clarification was needed.
Shalom
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.
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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Aaron Blumer] YEC debate probably belongs in another thread. It’s related to this one in some ways, but it tends to get pretty involved and passionate so it might work better in a separate thread. Maybe post a link to it here so it’ll be easier to find.Here we go:
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-creation-yec-24x6x7-and-other-theor…] Creation, YEC, 24x6x7, and other theories
Or
http://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-should-si-add-young-earth-creationism…] Should SI add young earth creationism to its doctrinal statement?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I found John Gerstner to be quite insightful on the whole “literalism” debate.
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.
…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.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)
Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theolgical. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner, 2009 edition, pg. 80)
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.
The real point of divergince is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.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).
Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.
At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I realize the exchange was directed at a comment of Paul’s but it is worth weighing in here.
It may sound sarcastic but it isn’t. You are implying, within the context of “knowing God” through the Scriptures, i.e. his revelation of himself and his plan to and for mankind, that it can be substituted through prayer. It is as if one is allowed to say:
That is because prayer was not designed as a substitute for learning God’s Word and maturing in the faith through the Word, in spite of sincere and well meaning arguments. Prayer is not a vehicle for revelation and indoctrination. That is accomplished through the Word of God. The argument that one can know God through prayer in the context of the order of knowing God by means of his revelation is a very fragile argument that, when taken to its ends, cannot be sustained.
As to that on which the church agrees, namely the Gospel and the doctrine of God, again, this is not true. But to that segment of the church that does agree but hold to hermeneutics that are not identical, I submit that the reason they agree on these is that the departures regarding their hermeneutics are not so severe as to strain these basic tenets and not because hermeneutics really isn’t such a great issue. It is. But again, even the person of Christ has been argued within the church for 2,000 years. Why? Differing hermeneutics.
Bibliolotry or the threat of bibliolotry is always an interesting claim. I know of no genuine confessing group of believers that worships the bible. This is a straw man argument. Some might say it is done practically. Maybe, but I have yet to see this pointed to and argued concretely. Show me the group who is guilty. But remember to keep your evaluation of the group’s words and practices within the rules of fair and proper interpretation. :) But really, this simply does not happen as its threat of possibility and warning indicates. If it does it would be the rarest of eccentricities.
But what does happen is the Word of God is treated as it should be, as divine revelation and the means by which we can know God with respect to the revelation of God to man. In other words there is no additional revelation. Yes, God’s Spirit illuminates us (and this cannot be under emphasized but the context of the argument was about hermeneutics, hence my response focused on that element) , yes prayer has a role in our relationship with God and even in learning God’s Word but that role is not to substitute or replace learning God’s Word.
[Bob Hayton]One cannot have certainty about a text if they begin without a certain hermeneutic. While methodology alone is not the only qualifier, to diminish the overriding value of a proper hermeneutic (methodology) by miscasting it as the only element, therefore arguing against its role in an invalid equation (proper methodology = absolute certainty) which no one has presented, does not make for a response to the initial premise. Without a certain or proper hermeneutic (I realize the nuanced difference in certain and proper and both apply)one cannot decipher or interpret the text properly or certainly and clearly cannot learn more about God.[Paul J. Scharf] Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc….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.
[Bob Hayton] 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.First, to understand the text to a high degree or certainty or absolute certainty is not an argument against a necessary hermeneutic, frankly it argues for one. We understand it with such certainty because we are confident in the rules of interpretation on which or by which our conclusions are based. The uncertainty is not with the hermeneutic, it remains in place, rather with our inadequacies. Notice what you have said, “limitations in our abilities to perceive”. We are not uncertain because we question our hermeneutic, otherwise we need to put down our work of interpretating and go back and re-learn or unlearn and replace our hermeneutic until we have one with which we are confident has specific rules and boundaries for interpretation.
[Bob Hayton] 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.Actually, no, this is not true. Many men argue over the Gospel and the elementary truths of Scripture. Why? Hermeneutics.
[Bob Hayton] 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.What does God say to you in your prayers? Does he provide new revelation? This is an interesting claim, that through prayer God provides revelation of himself.
It may sound sarcastic but it isn’t. You are implying, within the context of “knowing God” through the Scriptures, i.e. his revelation of himself and his plan to and for mankind, that it can be substituted through prayer. It is as if one is allowed to say:
“Well, I am having trouble learning the Bible and I don’t have an understanding of how to interpret it (most people to have a basic hermeneutic btw or else they could not communicate with others and survive so people do understand and use rules of interpretation everyday) therefore I will circumvent this necessity and just go to God in prayer and he will reveal to me what is revealed in Scripture but this time I won’t have to interpret it, he will do it for me”. Eh?If it is not a substitute then what is it? It certainly ends up as a very, very, very lesser means with respect to studying the word if used this way.
That is because prayer was not designed as a substitute for learning God’s Word and maturing in the faith through the Word, in spite of sincere and well meaning arguments. Prayer is not a vehicle for revelation and indoctrination. That is accomplished through the Word of God. The argument that one can know God through prayer in the context of the order of knowing God by means of his revelation is a very fragile argument that, when taken to its ends, cannot be sustained.
As to that on which the church agrees, namely the Gospel and the doctrine of God, again, this is not true. But to that segment of the church that does agree but hold to hermeneutics that are not identical, I submit that the reason they agree on these is that the departures regarding their hermeneutics are not so severe as to strain these basic tenets and not because hermeneutics really isn’t such a great issue. It is. But again, even the person of Christ has been argued within the church for 2,000 years. Why? Differing hermeneutics.
Bibliolotry or the threat of bibliolotry is always an interesting claim. I know of no genuine confessing group of believers that worships the bible. This is a straw man argument. Some might say it is done practically. Maybe, but I have yet to see this pointed to and argued concretely. Show me the group who is guilty. But remember to keep your evaluation of the group’s words and practices within the rules of fair and proper interpretation. :) But really, this simply does not happen as its threat of possibility and warning indicates. If it does it would be the rarest of eccentricities.
But what does happen is the Word of God is treated as it should be, as divine revelation and the means by which we can know God with respect to the revelation of God to man. In other words there is no additional revelation. Yes, God’s Spirit illuminates us (and this cannot be under emphasized but the context of the argument was about hermeneutics, hence my response focused on that element) , yes prayer has a role in our relationship with God and even in learning God’s Word but that role is not to substitute or replace learning God’s Word.
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.
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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Kevin DeYoung posted today on his recent talk on “being missional.” I highly recommend it.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/10/08/my-missiona…
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/10/08/my-missiona…
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Bob Hayton]Bob and Caleb,
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).
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.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Paul,
Please don’t pretend that only dispensationalists care about the context! It boils down to a disagreement about prophecy, and when to stay literal and when not to. It’s too convenient and self-serving to say “it’s just we, who appreciate the context, and you don’t”.
Please don’t pretend that only dispensationalists care about the context! It boils down to a disagreement about prophecy, and when to stay literal and when not to. It’s too convenient and self-serving to say “it’s just we, who appreciate the context, and you don’t”.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Discussion