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.
- 73 views
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
…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.
Discussion