Fighting the Bantam Roosters: Baptist Fundamentalism Still Grapples with Its Colorful Heritage

Ninety years ago we gave ourselves a name: Fundamentalists.

“We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the great fundamentals shall be called ‘Fundamentalists,’” wrote Curtis Lee Laws in the July 1, 1920 issue of the Watchman-Examiner, a Baptist newspaper with loose ties to the Northern Baptist Convention.

And 90 years later, we still discuss the implications of the Fundamentalist label. Back then, the issues seemed crystal clear: either you believed the Bible was true, or you didn’t. Simple to articulate and easy to defend, the idea of Fundamentalism was expressed as core doctrinal beliefs. Lines were drawn. Positions were staked. Ink was spilt, often.

But language is elastic, meaning is elusive, and sometimes words just wear out.

In an era when the media uses “fundamentalist” to describe suicide bombers and child molesters, is it wise for Baptist churches to continue using the term? Does the label still describe a simple set of historic beliefs, or has it come to mean a complicated system of dress codes and organ music, five simple ideas fractured by six degrees of separation?

If we all believe the same thing, why can’t we get along?

These were the issues that were addressed in the “Resolution on Revitalizing Biblical Fundamentalism” passed unanimously by messengers to the 2010 GARBC Conference on June 22 in Schaumburg, Ill. The resolution attempts to summarize several years of realignment among various Baptist groups that splintered in the 1970s. “While we recognize that the term has suffered at the hands of our critics and society at large, we can think of no other term that adequately reflects the heritage and the position of those who have historically stood for the truth of God’s Word,” the resolution says.

The resolution also calls on GARBC churches to “initiate relationships among fundamentalists where barriers have existed due to misunderstanding or political expedience, in a spirit of kind affection and brotherly love, in honor preferring one another.” While questions of inter-church cooperation have sometimes been difficult for Fundamentalists to answer, the resolution asks churches to “establish networks of labor and ministry to meet the challenges of the future, equipping older organizations for the present task where possible, or establishing new ministries where restoration of the old is either impossible or inadvisable.”

James Maxwell, president of Faith Baptist Bible College and member of the GARBC Council of Eighteen, drafted the resolution, assisted by Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (“Doctor Maxwell wrote 99 percent of it,” Bauder says. “He’s been thinking about this for a long time.”) Maxwell also consulted with George Houghton, retired dean of education at Faith Baptist Bible College; and several GARBC pastors, including Tom Alexander, Bryan Augsburger, and David Strope.

“It’s been my desire to see the structures of Fundamentalism rebuilt,” Maxwell said to the GARBC Council of Eighteen when the proposed resolution was discussed a day before its vote. “Fundamentalist unity really started to deteriorate in earnest in 1977, when John R. Rice tried to put together the largest meeting of Fundamentalists ever, at Cobo Hall in Detroit.”

But Rice ended up inviting people who were not historic Fundamentalists, Maxwell says, and as a result, the GARBC and several other groups pulled out. “Since that day I believe the infrastructure of Fundamentalism has been fissured,” Maxwell told the council.

In a later interview with the Baptist Bulletin, Maxwell offered another reason for Fundamentalist rifts.

“I grew up on a farm. My father owned one bantam rooster, an extremely colorful and gorgeous bird. He was beautiful—and he knew it!”

“Back in the 1970s, Fundamentalism became a bantam rooster scratching in the barnyard dirt. We ended up separating over personalities and politics. If you weren’t sufficiently abrasive and in-your-face, you weren’t worthy of being called a Fundamentalist,” Maxwell says.

For the past several years, John Greening has been leading the GARBC to patch up some of the fissures caused by the bantam roosters. “There are other independent Baptists who share our convictions. I want to make new friends with them,” Greening said during his annual address as national representative to the conference messengers. “The GARBC is not a closed club. The speakers we have had at our conference last year, this year, and will have next year, are indicative of that.”

One such example is Tim Jordan, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Lansdale, Pennsylvania. He arrived at the conference a day before he was scheduled to preach, just to hang out and hear the other preachers, meet people, and rub shoulders with ministry leaders he knew from other places. And Tim freely admits his outsider status.

Old-timers called Tim’s dad “Chief,” as in, the chief of a different tribe of Baptist Fundamentalists, one that rarely intersected with the GARBC. Now pastoring what was once his father’s church, Tim no longer sees a lot of difference between the two groups.

“So, why is it that we weren’t fellowshipping sooner?” Tim asked before his sermon on Wednesday of the conference, pronouncing his words with at least a little sarcasm—and exasperation. “So … what was the difference?”

Jordan made it clear that he is all for the recent change of mood among Baptists, calling it “an enormous ‘Duh.’”

“So, yeah, kind of like amazing,” Tim says of the conference week. “It has been a joy to be here and I want to thank all of those involved in allowing me to come.”

And the dress codes, the organ music, the war over Bible translations? Jordan addressed these during an afternoon workshop, making a clear distinction between the baggage of cultural fundamentalism and the ideas of historic Fundamentalism.

“If we produce ‘biblical’ reasons for cultural fundamentalism, they [the young Fundamentalists] know you are lying,” Jordan said. “And why do they know you are lying? It’s because you are!”

Jordan stressed the idea of historic Fundamentalism as a way of defending the movement’s ideas to younger pastors and seminary students. “They’re not going to do the ‘emperor’s clothes’ thing anymore,” Jordan said of the young leaders, suggesting “they won’t leave if you don’t lie to them!”

Dan Davey, pastor of Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia, was keynote speaker for the GARBC conference. Like Tim Jordan, Davey leads a congregation that is also not in the GARBC, but he agrees with Tim’s summary of the week, and his definition of Fundamentalism.

“I’m a historic Fundamentalist and I use that term a lot with my church,” Davey says, feeling comfortable using the term “as long as you read it from my dictionary.” Both he and Jordan credit consistent expository preaching as their main teaching tool. “Our pulpits are a treasure from the Lord,” Davey says. “In our pulpit, we can provide the definition for our terms. We are a Baptist church—here’s what that means. We are historic Fundamentalists—here’s what that means.”

But Davey also warns of the complicated road ahead for Baptist Fundamentalists who attempt to restate a common set of beliefs—starting with nuanced terminology that can cause some regional confusion. “I would never use the phrase ‘biblical Fundamentalism’ with my congregation,” Davey says, referring to the title of the recently passed GARBC resolution. For Baptist Fundamentalists in the South, the phrase “biblical Fundamentalism” usually means a particular brand of KJV-only church, Davey says.

Having studied with Richard Clearwaters at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, Davey arrived in Virginia Beach still calling himself a “biblicist” (Clearwaters’ preferred label). But Davey discovered that “biblicist” didn’t work so well for Baptists in the South, what with Pat Robertson just a few miles down the road, famously calling himself a … biblicist. So Davey learned to adjust the terminology he uses, patiently teaching his congregation a new dictionary to replace preconceived notions.

Evangelicals who are reading over our shoulder at this point may feel tempted to gloat about the Fundamentalist identity crisis—until they recall their own struggles over labels. Having dropped the “neo” tag long ago, evangelicals adopted lifeless adjectives like “ecumenical,” an optimistic word describing their willingness to cooperate with anyone and everyone in mass evangelism. Kevin Bauder once described this misstep as “more and more people being converted to less and less Christianity.”

Haunted by their own unfulfilled promise, some evangelicals began adding adjectives such as “conservative” to clarify their intention to build orthodox, gospel-centered churches. And David Wells, writing in The Courage to Be Protestant, suggested “evangelical” may have outlived its usefulness. “Despite its honorable pedigree, despite its many outstanding leaders both past and some in the present, and despite many genuine and upright believers who think of themselves as evangelical, it may now have to be abandoned,” Wells said of the term.

Organizations such as the Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals made enormous strides in distancing themselves from the excesses of their own movement. Carefully articulating a set of doctrinal beliefs, the conservative evangelicals then did a curious thing: they distanced themselves from other Christians who were disorderly in conduct and doctrine.

Over in our neck of the woods, we would call it “separation,” but that term had its baggage, too.

“After 1960, biblical separation became a badge of honor that replaced Bible exposition in the pulpits,” Davey says, choosing his words carefully. As a younger pastor, Davey was mentored by Ernest Pickering, the author of Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Davey continues to affirm Pickering’s ideas about so-called “secondary separation” (another label!). But Davey also warns that the right separation idea, wrongly coupled with a misapplied cultural fundamentalism, could well destroy the movement. The key, for Davey, is a return to expository preaching and doctrinal clarity, the sort of pulpit ministry that was consistently modeled during the recent GARBC Conference.

John Greening emphasized the same thing when addressing the conference messengers. “I want doctrinally compatible churches and ministries to feel comfortable and confident enough in the GARBC to say that they have found in us a new friend. We should cultivate relationships for fellowship, but also for ministry initiatives such as publishing, training church leaders, global missions, and assisting stateside church planting.”

Meanwhile, James Maxwell is already at work. “Today we are seeing coalitions that would not have been possible 20 years ago,” he told the Council of Eighteen earlier in the week. He should know. One such coalition is the proposed merger between his school, Faith Baptist Bible College, and Bauder’s school, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, Minn. Other signs of growing Fundamentalist cooperation include the annual Men for Christ rallies, local efforts to support Baptist social agencies, annual meetings of the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit, and support of Baptist missionaries by churches in several different Baptist fellowships.

“I believe there needs to be a voice for biblical Fundamentalism that is broader than our own fellowship of churches,” James Maxwell told the Council of Eighteen. And despite Fundamentalism’s long history of bantam roosters, no one on the council looked particularly surprised.

In Tim Jordan’s words, the idea is “an enormous ‘Duh.’”


Kevin Mungons is managing editor of the Baptist Bulletin and editorial director of publications for Regular Baptist Press (Schaumburg, IL). He has previously ministered as an associate pastor and a high school music teacher. He and his wife, Carla, have ten children and live near Chicago. This essay will appear in the September/October issue of the Baptist Bulletin. See www.BaptistBulletin.org for links to 2010 GARBC Conference audio, photo galleries, and conference stories.

Discussion

Well, for one, you have MacArthur’s thorough criticism of Driscoll’s puplit habits, especially re. Song of Solomon. http://beforefoundation.com/2009/04/macarthur-addresses-driscolls-handl…

Mac on Manhattan Declaration: http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4444

I’m sure you can find several CEs decrying the whole “Purpose Driven” phenomenon as well as seeker-church-growth-ism in general.

(I would add that the whole reason for T4G, GC, ACE etc. was to orchestrate a return to clarity about the gospel within an evangelicalism that has lost sight of it. I think you’ll find rhetoric to that affect in their founding/promotional writing.)

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.

Don, I think it’s an interesting question to watch—and I think it should be watched. [Another SI frequent reader sent me an email with the same question]

My goal in writing those paragraphs was to show that evangelicals struggle with the same kinds of issues that befuddle fundamentalists. Can we define and articulate our own position? Can we implement it consistently and graciously?

For instance, in the Gospel Coalition’s foundational documents, the framers said, “We have become deeply concerned about some movements within traditional evangelicalism that seem to be diminishing the church’s life and leading us away from our historic beliefs and practices.” You can pretty easily find similar statements made by leaders of the other two organizations. So, yes, I think it is fair to evaluate these organizations on the basis of their stated position—and to commend that which is commendable.

Have they fulfilled their stated objectives consistently? It’s a fair question.

Have we? [Another fair question, I think.]

Where any Christian takes an appropriate stand against worldliness and ungodliness is certainly worthy of note.

But the push in these commendations from some sources seems to be something along these lines: “See, the Conservative Evangelicals are becoming like us, no need for any more division.” Some modify that by saying, “less division.”

But really, what does it prove if someone is willing to speak against the errors of Driscoll, as MacArthur has, yet at the same time is quite willing to engage in similar errors like the Resolved Conference, as MacArthur does. Talk is cheap. Can you spell hypocrisy?

I am not attempting to make the claim that Fundamentalists are pure as the driven snow. We certainly have our own problems. But we shouldn’t be naive and think that the Conservative Evangelicals are almost nearly becoming just like us in so many ways. If you read their own writings about Fundamentalists, you will see that they get where we are different and repudiate our position as unacceptable. They may be tightening up some of their standards in comparison to other evangelicals, but they are not becoming fundamentalists.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

the push in these commendations from some sources seems to be something along these lines: “See, the Conservative Evangelicals are becoming like us, no need for any more division.” Some modify that by saying, “less division.”
Can this statement be documented? :)

I’ll concede that I think I’ve read the equivalent of “less division” in one place or another. Though what I’ve seen from Bauder, for example, is not “let’s have less division” but rather “less division exists than many seem to suppose” (paraphrasing). That is, there is division that exists or doesn’t exist objectively, then there is “division” in the form of what we choose to not do together. I don’t think it can be denied that objective unity exists wherever you have people who are truly believe the gospel and are seriously fighting for it.

About Resolved conference… one of the many examples of evangelical lack of discernment about where we are as a culture. But fundamentalists have their own versions of cultural cluelessness. I don’t think we have to embrace either the evangelical version or the fundamentalist version.

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]
the push in these commendations from some sources seems to be something along these lines: “See, the Conservative Evangelicals are becoming like us, no need for any more division.” Some modify that by saying, “less division.”
Can this statement be documented? :)

I’ll concede that I think I’ve read the equivalent of “less division” in one place or another. Though what I’ve seen from Bauder, for example, is not “let’s have less division” but rather “less division exists than many seem to suppose” (paraphrasing).
Is that last a distinction without a difference?

For some documentation of the first point, see, I think, [URL=http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2007/08/04/the_emerging_middle…] this[/URL] and [URL=http://sharperiron.org/2006/11/15/three-lines-in-the-sand-part-3] this [/URL] (and the related posts). It isn’t really hard to find people advocating these changes.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

But really, what does it prove if someone is willing to speak against the errors of Driscoll, as MacArthur has, yet at the same time is quite willing to engage in similar errors like the Resolved Conference, as MacArthur does. Talk is cheap.
Can you specifically explain why you think MacArthur’s Resolved conference is similar to Driscoll’s indulgence in sensual language in Song of Songs?

[Joel Shaffer]
But really, what does it prove if someone is willing to speak against the errors of Driscoll, as MacArthur has, yet at the same time is quite willing to engage in similar errors like the Resolved Conference, as MacArthur does. Talk is cheap.
Can you specifically explain why you think MacArthur’s Resolved conference is similar to Driscoll’s indulgence in sensual language in Song of Songs?
The music of the Resolved Conference represents the same basic philosophy with respect to sensual cultural expressions. One is more overt because it is language, the other is a little more subtle because it is music. But the cultural accommodation is essentially the same.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

By assuming that the music played at Resolved is sensual in nature, aren’t you being influenced more by cultural fundamentalism that historic fundamentalism? Throughout history the church has always resisted cultural change when it came to music. When Gregorian chants were being sung in the middle ages, there were certain R.C. bishops and priests that wouldn’t allow certain pitches (major and minor 3rds and 6ths, rather than perfect 4ths and 5ths) to be allowed because it was thought to be worldly and sensual in nature. Issac Watts was accused of being worldly by his contemporaries, and the list goes on and on. I guess I am curious as to what makes Resolved music sensual and worldly as apposed to the music that you have in your church?

Suggest starting a (nother) music thread rather than getting any further into it in this one. But “assuming” is not the right word, in any case. It asserts that the evaluation has not been made thoughtfully.

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.

Joel, if you can’t see what makes the music of Resolved worldly, nothing can help you.

So let me point out some other errors of MacArthur et al that are to the point. To review the point I am bringing up, I am discussing Kevin Mongon’s paragraph:
Organizations such as the Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals made enormous strides in distancing themselves from the excesses of their own movement. Carefully articulating a set of doctrinal beliefs, the conservative evangelicals then did a curious thing: they distanced themselves from other Christians who were disorderly in conduct and doctrine.
I am pointing out areas where the so-called conservative evangelicals are hypocritical in any “distancing” they are making with some who are disorderly in conduct and doctrine. They say conservative things in some cases, but either say or do things that are still disorderly in these two areas.

So let’s consider MacArthur again… the author of Charismatic Chaos who regularly cooperates with Charismatics. Or Al Mohler, who signs the Manhattan Declaration (and who cooperates with Billy Graham). BTW, MacArthur will make noises about Billy Graham’s compromises and refused to participate in Graham’s last crusade in LA, but then goes and speaks at Graham’s conference center, The Cove, and published at least one article in Decision magazine since that last LA conference.

As I said earlier, the list goes on and on.

And this same group, these conservatives, are going to make clear statements dismissing the fundamentalist position on these types of issues as “too narrow, too separatistic, too divisive” etc.

So my point is that their alleged distancing of themselves “from other Christians who were disorderly in conduct and doctrine” is a hypocritical sham.

Finally, please note that I am not conceding anything about the wickedness of the Resolved Conference. But since you appear unable to see the point, I am moving on to other points.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

So my point is that their alleged distancing of themselves “from other Christians who were disorderly in conduct and doctrine” is a hypocritical sham.
Don, you’ve got some good points here, but you’re overstating. It’s certainly debatable whether any substantive distancing has occurred. Calling it a “hypocritical sham” is unwarranted even if you believe no distancing has occurred at all. Hypocrisy comes into play when you are claiming a virtue you don’t possess and you know you don’t possess it.

If your point is that sufficient distancing or actual distancing has not occurred, it would be more persuasive to focus on that point and make a case for it.

I don’t personally know how it’s possible to characterize the gospel-centric (and usually doctrine-in-general centric) movements lead by these men as anything other than a distancing of themselves from the gospel-diluting/distorting evangelical mainstream, but if you believe these efforts are something else, help us see them as you see them (using overheated terms won’t do that, though).

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.

But there is a difference between “say” and “do”. The conservatives talk a good game doctrinally, but they practice the same old game in reality. I think I have offered sufficient examples to establish the point. It is not that these things are done in a corner, there are plenty of other examples. It does appear that one has to keep repeating them because the attention span of conservative evangelical fans is exceedingly short.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson] Joel, if you can’t see what makes the music of Resolved worldly, nothing can help you.
[Tim Jordan] If we produce ‘biblical’ reasons for cultural fundamentalism, they [the young Fundamentalists] know you are lying,” Jordan said. “And why do they know you are lying? It’s because you are!
Don,

I think this is exactly the type of statement that has frustrated many Christians in fundamentalist churches. I have searched for Biblical reasons to support this type of conclusion, but I can’t find them. First, it is certainly a patent untruth that nothing can help us. If the music of Resolved is directly contradictory to the gospel (a definition I am substituting for “worldly”) - then I want to know. But I want the reasoning to be based on the gospel rather than cultural fundamentalism. And if indeed it is contradictory to the gospel, than the gospel CAN help us! Second, I think our discussion of music has often been centered on what is acceptable to God. Please read me carefully here, but I don’t that is the correct goal. Radical alert: I believe that all of our music is completely unacceptable for worship of an infinitely holy God. So the answer is not to search for what is good enough to merit God’s favor. Indeed, the only reason we can worship God with any music is because we, and our music when pursued for God’s glory, have been clothed in Christ’s righteousness. We have to directly connect our understanding of worship to what the gospel says about our state before Christ and what God has done for us in making dead hearts alive by uniting them to Christ.

I’m utterly amazed at how radically Christ-centered /everything/ is at a conference like Next (thisisnext.org) and similarly Resolved. Having actually been to Next, I’ve been blown away by how much everything is directly connected to the importance of the gospel. These people are seeking to have the good news of Jesus Christ affect absolutely everything they do. Especially their music. So, to say that they are pursuing worldliness - a direct contradiction to the gospel - is a hard connection to make. If true, it means that while they intentionally pursue Jesus Christ they are ignoring the work of the Spirit in their lives that convicts them on their sin.

So, I beg you to detail for us the “wickedness of the Resolved Conference”. If it contradicts the gospel, I desperately want to know so it can inform my faith and practice. But I will not accept cultural fundamentalism’s preferences as gospel informed reasons.

I, for one, am so excited to see that people like Tim Jordan are recognizing that the gospel has to be our primary emphasis, not preferential concerns. If we truly get the gospel right and give scripture full say in lives, everything else cannot help but fall into place as pursue our savior recognizing that even our best attempts at pleasing him are radically sinful unless they are clothed in Christ’s righteousness.

When Jordan says “cultural fundamentalism” in a negative sense, I do not believe he means “all efforts to apply Scripture to cultural choices.” Let’s be clear about that. There is absolutely no sphere of life that is exempted from the Lordship of Christ. So looking at some of these events and the “cultural trappings” they accept and trying to apply biblical principles to them is an obligation we all have.

Just want to be clear what our choices are here: it’s not like on one hand we have “cultural fundamentalism” and on the other we have “anything goes as long as its ‘cultural.’” The former is the error of much of fundamentalism. The latter is the error of most of evangelicalism. By “cultural fundamentalism,” Jordan (and several others I’ve heard use the term) is referring to the practice of taking a particular set of applications (or just opinions, for the many who never bothered to think them through) and making them them (a) equal in status to Holy Writ itself and (b) the defining essence of fundamentalism.

The cure for this is not to look at the evangelical landscape and say “none of this cultural stuff matters”!

But we do need to acknowledge that these areas are difficult. It’s a bit like a doctor attempting to do exploratory surgery on himself. It’s really tough to think clearly about what you have absorbed and is part of your every day life to the point that you don’t even notice it. And it’s hard to do that with features of “normal American life” that everybody takes for granted. But we’re called to do it.

And the fact that many of these lines are very, very hard to draw doesn’t negate the fact that some of them are actually obvious to anyone who is giving them any submissive (to Christ) reflection at all (including at least a little digging into history).

In the case of Resolved, as an example, I don’t doubt in the least that they are putting a great deal of energy into focusing everything on the gospel… everything verbal. I seriously doubt they have given much thought to what musical forms (and other cultural elements… like how stuff looks) mean. I wouldn’t go all the places Bauder goes w/that, but he’s wright that in a culture, what we wear, how we talk, what we paint, what we create musically, what we view for entertainment, etc., all has meaning. There’s meaning on the individual level (“what does it mean to me?”) but also on a larger, more objective level. Why has one sound replaced another and one form of dress replaced another, etc.? What sort of thinking was behind it? In the years that have passed since the transition (from one form to another, whether music, fashion, speech patterns, etc), has the connection w/an underlying set of beliefs and principles eroded? Is it gone entirely?

Culture is a moving target, but you can look at how features of it have moved and get an idea of their trajectory and form some reasonable guesses about what it “means” in the present.

And some of those “guesses” are no brainers.

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.

To be clear, I’m not attempting to say that none of this cultural stuff matters. Rather I’m saying that our discussion of what we do with culture has to be informed - actually has to springing from our understanding of the gospel rather than cultural preferences. When one comes to the conclusion that if someone else doesn’t see the worldliness in a certain activity there is no hope for him, then we need a better understanding of how the gospel changes our lives constantly as we pursue Christ and God pursues us.

I also believe there is a big difference between some of the stuff Driscoll has done compared to the music at Resolved. Scripture clearly marks sensuality as contrary to the gospel’s work in our lives. However, the reason this discussion has been had so many time is that scripture does not clearly mark styles of music as contrary to the gospel. I’m not suggesting that it does not at all inform our musical choices. Rather, I’m saying that we have to be extremely careful to not elevate the exact applications that our Lord leads us to in our lives as being equivalent to scriptural authority for another. Instead we have to encourage those others to examine how the scripture affects their own choices. But in areas where scripture doesn’t draw immediate fine lines, then we must recognize the evidences of grace in another’s life even as they come to different conclusions than our own.

Also, though I’m not as familiar with the people at Resolved, I do believe that from reading and listening to people like Kauflin who organize the music at conferences like Next, I do believe they have given much thought to their practice. And they believe that it is not contrary to the gospel. And if it is true that they have intentionally thought about this and made these choices, then if we say that their practice is wrong - we have two options: to say that they knowingly sinned or that the Spirit has led them contradictory to scripture. Neither is any way an attractive option!