Shedding Some Light on Conservative Evangelicalism

[Don Johnson]

Here are some of the problems from my perspective:

1. The growing influence of charismatism - the charismatics have major problems when it comes to inspiration, inerrancy and the canon. They either believe in ongoing revelation (denying a closed canon) or they believe the Bible is in error when it expressly says that Agabus spoke his prophecy by the “Spirit”. The influence of charismatism has widely altered the shape of evangelicalism at large. Next year at 9Marks, one of the Sovereign Grace men will be teaching from 1 Cor 12-14. What do you suppose will be the topic of discussion?
2. The tolerance of worldliness on many levels, including the widespread tolerance of men like Mark Driscoll, and such discussions as you see here on SI where gambling and drinking are openly approved. In moderation, of course.
3. The continuing relationship between CEs and the Billy Graham organization itself. The most conservative CE of them all, John MacArthur, has spoken in recent years at Graham’s training center, the Cove, and has published articles in Graham’s Decision magazine. The connections between Southern Seminary and the Graham organization are well known. Mark Dever is chairman of the board at Southern.
4. The widespread use of worldly music undermining the gospel message that is preached. Almost all the CE ministries that are usually touted here are affected by this.
   You might not find these things problematic. Regardless, these things are huge stumbling blocks for me and preclude ministry cooperation with these men. They are not trivial differences.

Don, your items 1 and 3 represent doctrine and separation from men who won’t separate over doctrine. I don’t think many at SI find those to be trivial, even if they wouldn’t always be applied exactly the way you do. Your points 2 and 4 are more related to definition and application, and I don’t think our generation of fundamentalists really handled this well in most cases other than saying “don’t.”

Because of the differences in definition of “worldliness” and applications taken from it, different positions are reached, and not only by CEs. I’m personally a little uncomfortable with the current discussion on gambling, for example, but I think it’s a discussion that should be had (rather than just ignoring it outright) because it helps (at least in my mind) to hash out what it means biblically to be worldly, and then what actions and applications we should make from that. If you’ve kept up with that discussion, you might have noticed that it’s a CE (Phil Johnson) whose writings are being referenced as taking a very strong position against gambling. This helps demonstrate my point — because fundamentalists have for years decried worldliness, with good reason, but without really delving into what it means other than “being like the world” (and that hasn’t been well-defined), today’s generation of CEs and YFs are having to wrestle with this, and they are coming to conclusions that make the old guard uncomfortable. Worse, the old guard is just saying things like “Well, that’s the SI crowd,” rather than wanting to tackle the issue more than just repeating the old mantra of “don’t.”

I’ve never understood, for example, why Christians think the “dress for success” look (representing greed and lust for power) is better than the biker look (rebellion). Why shouldn’t Christians be different from both? If we divorce the power look from the sins of those who dress that way, why don’t we do the same for leather and chains? This is just one of the issues that was never dealt with in the fundamentalism of my day; it was just assumed, but it’s representative of the larger issue — today’s Christians don’t really have a good handle on worldliness, and it seems the leadership is loathe to go into this too deeply because they haven’t really studied it out all that well themselves and they don’t relish the idea of not having all the answers, which might lead those under their leadership to come to different conclusions on some of those areas and practices. So it’s either ignored, or worldliness ends up representing whatever the preacher’s convictions are against. Then the people assume there is no good scriptural backing for his position on those issues (because one isn’t given or if it is, taught well), and start taking positions on those “worldly” activities that you associate with CE, or even leave to go to a CE ministry, where the problems are much more than different applications — there could be the separation and doctrinal issues you refer to.

As a final example, when I asked about a piece of music and why it was considered wrong (or at least, we couldn’t listen to it) at my Christian college, the answer I got was: “You’re a junior; you should already know this.” If today’s western Christians need any special teaching, it would be a serious examination of what it means to be worldly, and not just have that topic brushed off as “You ‘claim’ to be a Christian; you ought to know better.”

Dave, I can’t really disagree with anything you say. There is no doubt we have been much too glib and ready to give ‘pat’ answers when various topics come up. There is no doubt we need more instruction in this area. FWIW, I did a series on godliness-worldliness in our church last summer (I think that’s the time frame). If you go to gbcvic.org, click on the Our Sermons link, then filter by series and you can find it. I post pretty detailed notes if you don’t want to spend the time listening.

As to my post, I wrote in response to Ron Bean’s question. I think we need to do a better job educating our people on all of these topics. But they do remain reasons why I can’t enter ministry cooperation with conservative evangelicals regardless of any weakness we may have had in teaching these subjects to our own.

Don -

Thought you might be interested in a book edited by CJ Mahaney titled ” http://www.amazon.com/Worldliness-Resisting-Seduction-Fallen-World/dp/1…] Worldliness ” that is on the market. I bought a copy two years ago, and it’s been a fantastic and helpful work for referencing on this subject; so much so that I’ve given a second copy out to someone in my church who is working on this. Mahaney and the others do a good job articulating the “why” behind traditional Fundamental cultural mores.

I’d also agree with Dave that I’m not comfortable with the discussion on gambling either, but I do think that if we don’t have those kinds of discussions, then people aren’t going to be able to explain to others why gambling is wrong, and people will dive into it without realizing that there are good, strong, Scriptural reasons not to do so.

But I wouldn’t want to put any $$$ in Mahaney’s pocket. Maybe if I find it used somewhere I’ll look at it.

I’ve never understood, for example, why Christians think the “dress for success” look (representing greed and lust for power) is better than the biker look (rebellion). Why shouldn’t Christians be different from both?

I understand your point, but this is a difference in dress that even non-Christians would agree to. There is a reason why most businesses around the world hiring for professional positions or positions that deal with customers or vendors look much more favorably on people that “dress for success” as opposed to the “biker look.”

Someone who looks sharp and is well presented is far more likely to make an immediate favorable impression that someone who looks sloppy.

I feel outward appearance and actions are often a reflection of the inward heart and level of spiritual maturity. Certainly outward appearance and behavior is NOT a fail-safe litmus test regarding spirituality, but I will say that we can’t say that it doesn’t matter either.

In my personal experience both in fundyland and with being around Evangelicals from time to time, it is my observation that in general fundies tend to think that rules and standards for church or personal life are everything. If you follow the rules and obey the standards then you are OK. However, evangelicals seem to think that anything goes as long as you believe in Jesus - so to that point I would agree with RPittman.

Both viewpoints are wrong.

One other point / question I would like to make is regarding Christian “Liberty.”

In my personal experience, the farther left (towards CE-land) you go from the right (fundyland) the more likely a person is to be much more negatively reactive regarding challenges to their “liberty.”

Seems to me a kind of test regarding spiritual maturity is when someone’s liberties are challenged. Show me someone who puts aside their liberty so it isn’t a distraction to others or for the greater good of an organization and I’ll show you someone who has a definite level of spiritual maturity.

I went to a fundy college. The students and teachers there that were much more predisposed to Evangelicalism were way, WAY more likely to openly flaunt their personal “liberty” no matter what the institutional handbook or administration said. They were also significantly more likely to very open about their “liberty” no matter the pain or hurt it caused their parents or others. Their liberty or what they thought of as their rights took precidence over their God-given authorities, heritage, church, Pastor, etc.

I have just witnessed a fundy church taking a reasonable stand regarding the issue of drinking. The people opposed to it were incredibly over-the-top rude, obnoxious, and were extremely hurtful to the pastor. These people led about 70 people out of around 200 to leave the church to start their own. Pastor’s of CE-type churches in the area called this fundy pastor and told him off saying he was wrong.

Not saying that all fundies are mature and that all CE’s aren’t, but I think I am making some reasonable observations and assumptions based on years of experience.

[JoeM]

I understand your point, but this is a difference in dress that even non-Christians would agree to.

Emphasis above mine.

That’s just my point, though. Of course NON-Christians would see dress-for-success as better, but then they don’t see anything wrong with seeking riches, pride, or power, and in fact they would see those as “noble” goals, whereas Christians should see those as no more noble than being anti-establishment. The lust of the eyes and the pride of life are just as wrong as the lust of the flesh. Why should we as Christians resemble power brokers any more than we should bikers? We could be neat and orderly without being either. I think the reality is that many Christians tacitly desire riches and power as well, they are just not as blatant about it as the characters in “Wall Street.”

[Don Johnson] FWIW, I did a series on godliness-worldliness in our church last summer (I think that’s the time frame). If you go to gbcvic.org, click on the Our Sermons link, then filter by series and you can find it. I post pretty detailed notes if you don’t want to spend the time listening.

Thanks, Don. I started downloading these, but you may want to check if there is a problem on your site. After the 6/20 installment, the next 3 weeks’ PDF files appear to me to be the same as the 6/20 one, even though the filenames are different. The 7/18 one appears to be OK. Haven’t checked the others yet.

On my response, I was trying to distinguish between reasons you couldn’t cooperate from reasons something is wrong. Doctrine and separation over doctrine are certainly both, but there can be disagreement between godly men on the applications. Simply calling those who hold a different application worldly, without a good agreement on what the definition of that term is, and what it encompasses, puts those differences in a whole different category from direct biblical teaching.

I’ve noticed that those that “lean left” tend to put pretty much anything beyond direct scriptural command in the Romans 14 bin. However, those that “lean right” tend to put almost nothing in there at all beyond choices in pew styles or color of carpet. The truth is somewhere in the middle, otherwise there would not have been a recognition from Paul that there will be really strong differences between the two sides, and strong teaching from him that these differences should be accepted, even when they make us extremely uncomfortable.

Why should we as Christians resemble power brokers any more than we should bikers? We could be neat and orderly without being either. I think the reality is that many Christians tacitly desire riches and power as well, they are just not as blatant about it as the characters in “Wall Street.”

I agree. Thanks!

[dcbii]

[Don Johnson] FWIW, I did a series on godliness-worldliness in our church last summer (I think that’s the time frame). If you go to gbcvic.org, click on the Our Sermons link, then filter by series and you can find it. I post pretty detailed notes if you don’t want to spend the time listening.

Thanks, Don. I started downloading these, but you may want to check if there is a problem on your site. After the 6/20 installment, the next 3 weeks’ PDF files appear to me to be the same as the 6/20 one, even though the filenames are different. The 7/18 one appears to be OK.

Those would be weeks where we got bogged down in discussion and I didn’t finish the material. I have since started to break my outlines apart or otherwise note that the notes are the same for several lessons. These were done in our Bible study session where we try to involve a lot of discussion and thus proceed at a slower pace. I’ll have to go back and make it clear what is available for those sessions.

[dcbii] I’ve noticed that those that “lean left” tend to put pretty much anything beyond direct scriptural command in the Romans 14 bin. However, those that “lean right” tend to put almost nothing in there at all beyond choices in pew styles or color of carpet. The truth is somewhere in the middle, otherwise there would not have been a recognition from Paul that there will be really strong differences between the two sides, and strong teaching from him that these differences should be accepted, even when they make us extremely uncomfortable.

Well, not to get off into another discussion, but I think that is a key difference. Romans 14, as I see it, is clearly about indifferent matters, not matters that have a real moral component. It is not the same as 1 Cor 8-10, although some of the language is similar to 1 Cor 8. Some want to broaden the application of Rm 14 much further than is warranted.

Seems like we’re a bit off track here on a few points.

Isn’t it obvious that professing (and actual) Christians of all flavors have some who are worldly, use foul language, etc.? I saw plenty of sinners in the student body at BJU during my years there (one showed up in the mirror occasionally, even.)

The better set of questions was one that appeared much earlier in the thread: Do all or even most who choose fundamentalism over CE do so because they haven’t had enough exposure and don’t know what they’re missing? What reasons have several thoughtful fundamentalists given for why they choose the doctrine and practice they do? Let’s remember that we’re not just talking about claiming labels—at least, thoughtful people are not just claiming labels—rather, we’re talking about actual differences in belief and practice on some points.

What the differences are can’t be settled once for all for everybody for several reasons. For one, we’re talking about groups that do not have strictly controlled “memberships.” Nobody is rigorously testing applicants for the right to claim the term and nobody is counting heads or performing exit interviews to maintain precise numbers and tallies of “reasons why.” In other words, anecdotal evidence of one thing or another is not going to persuade anybody because their experience is different. Exercising one’s own personal judgment on what the differences are is unavoidable and differences of opinion should be both expected and accepted.

That said, there are a few differences that are pretty generally agreed, aren’t there? Most CEs have a different view of the practice of separation than most fundamentalists. Most CEs also have a different view of the forms, expresions, etc. of worldliness (and relationship to culture) than most fundies. Most CEs are more open to continuationism than most fundies.

Are these really in dispute?

And if they are agreed, then don’t we have to admit that some of these differences might actually be a little bit important?

[RPittman] BTW, the “plenty of sinners in the student body at BJU” probably were not doing it openly with the full knowledge of the school. They were living double lives, no doubt, which is hypocrisy. Now, someone has noted that hypocrisy is testimony to the rightness of truth.

Aaron, I wish that you would try to deflect some of the criticisms against Fundamentalists as you do for the CE. If it’s open season, then all game should be fair game, not just some species.

Now, I’ve been to both Fundy schools, CE schools, state schools, etc. and I can assure you that many, many more people are living ungodly lives (profanity/vulgarity, partying, carousing, etc.) more openly at the CE schools than at BJU. The reason that it stands so much at BJU is because our expectations are higher and the behavior is rarer. However, I do think that the incident rate may be increasing in our more conservative and fundamental schools. Can you contradict any of this?

Rpittman-

External actions do not indicate the holiness / righteousness of the human heart. The Pharisees had all their acts together…until Jesus ripped off their hypocrisy.

[RPittman]

[Jay C.]

[RPittman] BTW, the “plenty of sinners in the student body at BJU” probably were not doing it openly with the full knowledge of the school. They were living double lives, no doubt, which is hypocrisy. Now, someone has noted that hypocrisy is testimony to the rightness of truth.

Aaron, I wish that you would try to deflect some of the criticisms against Fundamentalists as you do for the CE. If it’s open season, then all game should be fair game, not just some species.

Now, I’ve been to both Fundy schools, CE schools, state schools, etc. and I can assure you that many, many more people are living ungodly lives (profanity/vulgarity, partying, carousing, etc.) more openly at the CE schools than at BJU. The reason that it stands so much at BJU is because our expectations are higher and the behavior is rarer. However, I do think that the incident rate may be increasing in our more conservative and fundamental schools. Can you contradict any of this?

Rpittman-

External actions do not indicate the holiness / righteousness of the human heart. The Pharisees had all their acts together…until Jesus ripped off their hypocrisy.

Jay, this is simply not true! You are simply spouting the standard party line without giving thought to what you’re saying. Jesus condemned their actions when He condemned them for their hypocrisy. Obviously the Pharisees didn’t have “all their acts together … .” Furthermore, I don’t see what your comment had to do with my points. Would you please connect and explain?

However, Jesus did say, “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it (Matthew 7:16-27).”

You’re wrong, Roland. Over and over and over again Jesus said that the Pharisees were by all accounts outwardly “righteous”, but inwardly they were sinful. They were whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones. They strained at gnats while swallowing camels. They ceremonially washed their hands but were defiled by what went out of them from within. I’m surprised you would even dispute this. It’s seems fairly obvious to me.

[RPittman]…Furthermore, I don’t see what your comment had to do with my points. Would you please connect and explain?

Roland, it’s very simple. You seem to prefer Fundy schools and churches because of the bad experience that you had with the one CE woman, and point to the fact that immoral behavior like that of the one woman isn’t displayed at schools like BJU or elsewhere. You argue that those schools are better than CE schools because of this. My point is simply that there is no law or rule that can possibly restrain the wickedness of our hearts, and that what you see at a school or in an church doesn’t mean anything about that that person meditates on, desires, or finds worth emulating in their heart or mind. That is the whole point that I was making in post #71 - I was specifically thinking of Matthew 23:23-28. The Pharisees looked like they had their act together, like they were really close to God, that they were holy and blameless when it came to matters of sin and judgment. Jesus destroyed their charade, pointing out that it was all just a giant act and that their hearts were full of greed, slander, and lies.

This passage is also apropos to the discussion:

[Matthew 15:1-20]

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

What Defiles a Person

And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Aaron, I wish that you would try to deflect some of the criticisms against Fundamentalists as you do for the CE. If it’s open season, then all game should be fair game, not just some species.

What I try to do is deflect criticism that is unfair or untrue… I’m not really for “open season” on anybody.