Church Planting Thirty Years Later
In 1982 my wife and I planted our first church in Philadelphia – Faith Independent Baptist Church. The long church name seemed awkward back then but I wanted to be sure people knew up front where I stood. Fresh from eight years of ministry training at fundamentalist schools, I was a committed independent, fundamental Baptist. As extra insurance to validate my IFB credentials, I often added “militant and separatist” as well. The church’s doctrinal statement enshrined a dispensational hermeneutic essential for correct interpretation, the pre-tribulational rapture as the next event on the prophetic calendar, and the King James Version as the official translation. As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.
Fast forward to 2011 where in the same city I am now working with a team of elders to plant another church in a spiritual wasteland where we parachuted in with a few families but without a significant core group. After thirty years of church planting I claim no special expertise, offer no guarantees of success, and sense an even greater dependency upon the Lord to build His church. Similar struggles, resistance to the gospel remain.
This one-year-old church is elder led, non-denominational, non-dispensational, and uses the English Standard Version. Much has changed. Most remains the same. I would venture to add that what is essential has not changed. In areas where change has occurred, thirty years of ministry, of study, of relationships, and of experiences have conspired to bring me to the place I am today. For many years IFB was all I knew or cared to know. Now I find myself rarely at home in this fragmented movement of competing networks. I find myself increasingly on the outside looking in. This is my journey, but I’m glad I was not alone.
After planting a church in Philadelphia from 1982-1987 my family and I went to France and then Romania in church planting and pastoral training ministry. Those years spent overseas provided opportunities for fellowship with believers from different horizons and spared me the need to engage in many of the needless conflicts being fought in the States. There was less need to conform to others’ expectations of what it meant to be safely within the fundamentalist orbit.
During that time overseas I pursued further studies with Reformed Theological Seminary’s extension in Budapest and in time completed a degree in theological studies. For the first time I was challenged from a different theological perspective by men with whom I had strong disagreements. Yet I was persuaded of their evangelical commitment, their love for God, and their commitment to God’s authoritative Word. I began to see that we could differ interpretatively and still enjoy fellowship in the gospel. I was moving away from former positions for which I could still argue but could no longer support biblically with integrity.
In late 1998 we returned to the States where I began a short residency in Deerfield, IL at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and where in 2004 I completed a DMin in Missiology. Once again I was struck by the combination of scholarship and godliness among the professors. There were differences in some areas but the centrality of the gospel transcended those differences.
From 1999-2008, I was missions pastor and director of church planting at a well-known suburban church. I travelled frequently and taught overseas in Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Peru, China, and several other countries. There were opportunities to teach in the area of missions and church planting at several schools and seminaries and invitations to preach at various conferences. My visits to China were especially revealing as we looked for house church leaders with whom we could partner for training purposes. I found myself looking for “significant compatibility” and agreement with the historic Christian faith rather than agreement with my convictions. My time in Lebanon among Arab believers caused me to look at Scripture afresh and contributed to modifications in my views on eschatology.
Some might find it surprising that personal experiences have influenced my theology to such a degree. In reality our experiences or lack of them have a great part to play in how we read Scripture. We read it with the eyes of those around us, those who trained us or those we look to for guidance. Our experiences should not determine our theology yet how we read and understand Scripture cannot be separated from our outside influences and experiences. Some may consider it a badge of honor to hold the same beliefs and convictions they held thirty years ago. While I can say that for the fundamentals of the faith, I must confess that second and third-tier commitments and interpretations are held loosely and are no longer a cause for separation or hindrance in partnership in the Lord’s work. Perhaps it’s partly due to the fact that I recognize it is His work not mine and that I labor in His vineyard not one of my creation.
On one hand, I have no argument with fellow believers who affirm their identity as independent, fundamental Baptists. I have no difficulty in seeing them as legitimate representatives of the diverse body of Christ. I have no reason to demean them or to expect them to cease being what they are. I have no desire to avoid fellowship and friendship with IFB men of integrity who are sound theologically and choose to remain within an IFB framework. On the other hand I find after all these years in ministry, with experiences and exposure to global Christianity, that IFB fails to describe how I see myself in my relation to the Lord, in relation to other believers, and in relation to the mission of the church.
The last few years have been especially decisive in the direction I have taken. When I returned from Romania in 1998 I knew that both I and the spiritual landscape that I knew had changed. Then in 2008, while temporarily living in France and helping to plant a new non-Baptist church, I wrote an opinion article on Fundamentalism. It was my way of signaling at that time that although I was on a journey out of Fundamentalism as I had known it, I wanted to remain friends with Fundamentalists. I began to write, to challenge conventions and traditions. I have not always been irenic and have not avoided controversy.
When I described myself as a “soft cessationsist,” questioned elements of dispensationalism, took issue with unbiblical separation, did not clearly espouse literal six-day, twenty-hour creation days, expressed my dismay at the paucity of resources committed to church planting, or challenged traditional thinking in the church’s engagement with culture, I found more criticism than interaction with the ideas. The criticism wasn’t about the gospel. It was mostly about culture, tradition and even personalities who thought I was out of line and should keep a lower profile.
Whether or not I should’ve written some of those articles for publication is another story although I have few regrets. I know there are some who are so much surer in many areas where I have questions. I know others who do not want to rock the boat and, to mix metaphors, prefer to fly under the radar. I suppose that would’ve been a safer route for me but that bridge has already been crossed. I must confess that I have found somewhat amusing the wide range of men who have disagreed with me, attacked me, or separated from me. There has been something for many to dislike although certainly not the same things.
I have no one to blame but myself although these experiences reinforced in my mind how important agreement is to Fundamentalists in areas where I believe we have scriptural latitude to disagree charitably. The agreement demanded by many IFB gatekeeper leaders, churches, and institutions in order to play in their yard far exceeds biblical teaching. The loyalty required by many in order to be safe requires submitting to traditional rather than biblical standards. It is not a virtue to have an inquiring mind in much of Fundamentalism. I had to decide whether I would shut up or speak out knowing that speaking out might marginalize me.
There are a few glimmers of hope as some IFB brethren have begun to break out of their isolation. I think particularly of Northland University which has invited professors from outside IFB circles and of Calvary Baptist Seminary with Mark Dever at their ATC Conference. Of course these moves have triggered substantial criticism from within IFBdom which comes as no surprise. Many IFB factions, which contribute little to theological reflection, brook nothing which deviates from their long-held conventions. I encourage those who choose to stay within the movement to continue their pursuit of God-honoring unity with those outside the IFB pale.
As for me, the time has come to seek to identify with men and movements which demonstrate greater generosity with dissent and challenge than I have found in my IFB experience, to identify with those interested in productive gospel-centered, church-planting partnerships, and God willing, to seek teaching opportunities to train men for next generation church planting. I have no illusions that moving on will bring greater resources or guarantee success in church planting. I’m not looking for greener grass. At this point any grass will do. I still welcome friendship and even partnership with my IFB brothers who have not drawn unreasonable lines in the sand. But I’m too old to jump through all the hoops, too ornery to kowtow and prefer relative obscurity and a few warm relationships to playing ingratiating politics and pleasing men.
Much has changed over the years but God has not. He is faithful and He remains the Lord of the harvest in these challenging and needy times, the ultimate Judge who knows the hearts, and the Accomplisher of His divine purposes. Before Him only I lift my hands, bend my knees, and bow my head.
Steve Davis Bio
Dr. Stephen M. Davis is on the leadership team at Grace Church, a new church plant in Philadelphia. He holds a BA from Bob Jones University, an MA in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL), an MDiv from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), and a DMin in Missiology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). Steve has been a church planter in Philadelphia, France, and Romania.
- 175 views
What sector of fundamentalism are you criticizing? Those who are cessationists (to tug on one strand of your writing) and only allow cessationists to teach? Or those who claim to be concerned about cessationism, but really care more about dress and hair length?
Those are two entirely different branches of fundamentalism. Which one are you criticizing? It is not fair to do a bait and switch — mixing the two together to make a point.
For instance, I am not in any way shape, form or fashion a “hyper-fundamentalist,” and probably would fellowship with a circle nearly as wide as you do. Yet I take great issue with some of the theological premises you list in this piece. Does this make me some kind of an ideological gatekeeper who goes beyond what is written in Scripture?
Since the value of this piece has also become a major question in this thread, I think it is impossible to evaluate that without knowing more about why Steve wrote it (when he has already done so before) and why SI ran it (when they have already done so before). The article is actually quite vague in a number of ways. Perhaps the result it that lots of people here are talking past each other.
Hence, I made my comment above that this piece lacks the ability to sharpen iron. It is lacking in any real Biblical insight.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Jim Peet] Another question for Steve (if you aren’t sick of this thread already!):I would say that the new church plant is not significantly different than Living Hope. Of course what is not significant to me might be to others. We both hold to the fundamentals of the faith and separate from unbelief. Some of the differences might reflect the backgrounds of the leadership and our context which might be more diverse ethnically, economically, educationally in our part of the city. Our worship might be organized differently as we follow a pattern of Praise, Confession, Thanksgiving, Proclamation, Word, Response, and Lord’s Supper weekly and recite the Apostles’ Creed.
You said:Here is the link to the one we planted. It is now called Living Hope Church. http://livinghopephilly.com/Living_Hope_Church/Home.htmlOK … you’ve changed over 30 years
The name was changed a year or so ago when the congregation sold the building purchased when I was there and bought another building in a better location in the same general part of the city - Northwest Philly.
I would guess that Living Hope has changed over 30 years as well (besides the name). I visited the church website andSo I would surmise that they have changed (for the better in my view) in 30 years
- The have a plurality of elders
- Looks like they have a good doctrinal statement
- They even use a guitar in worship
Now the question: How is your new church plant different (if at all) than the church you planted is today!?
Among the leadership we probably have more diversity on eschatology from amil to historic premil. Our music is probably a bit more contemporary - guitars and a drum (djembe) with a couple tambourines among the audience, and maybe more clappers and hand raisers. I don’t recall what Bible version they use but don’t think it’s the KJV. I’m not sure how about their polity. We do not have congregational government but congregational affirmation of the decisions of the elders. There’s nothing that would prevent, from our perspective, full fellowship and partnership in gospel endeavors. We are both committed to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and are looking for laborers to enter the urban harvest.
[Paul J. Scharf] I am kind of losing track of what the point of the discussion here is supposed to be. However, to cut back to the heart of the matter, I would ask this of Steve:I’ve lost track myself Paul. Fundamentalism is so fractured with hypers, KJV Only, school circles, etc. that I haven’t felt part of a movement for years.
What sector of fundamentalism are you criticizing? Those who are cessationists (to tug on one strand of your writing) and only allow cessationists to teach? Or those who claim to be concerned about cessationism, but really care more about dress and hair length?
Those are two entirely different branches of fundamentalism. Which one are you criticizing? It is not fair to do a bait and switch — mixing the two together to make a point.
Here’s how I closed an article I wrote on Fundamentalism in 2008 where I still spoke of Fundamentalism in movement language. “I have—or hope to have—fundamentalist friends who, while not sharing all of my concerns and criticisms, share a bond in Christ that is stronger than our differences. But I will not allow a movement to define me and to choose my battles. The Word stands above every movement and every culture in every time and in all places. To that sacred and timeless Word and to its Author we must yield and give our allegiance.”
I’m not sure there’s any real movement and certainly no center. I don’t want my identity to be with an indefinable movement. I want to identify with men and churches, whatever they call themselves or are called by others, who share the same commitment to Scripture, to the fundamentals of the faith, and to God’s mission of making Christ known. I do not want to separate and/or associate based on a name or a movement. The term itself has become practically irrelevant. And many of those who still claim the term have little to do with historic fundamentalism. I don’t want to be known as a fundamentailst within a splintered movement but as a Christian with a message and a mission who contends for the faith once delivered unto the saints.
L Strickler
To Bob T…
1. I’m hesitant to offer any criticism of guys several decades my senior. But I also believe in the golden rule. So here’s how the logic works out for me:
- When I’m 72, I hope to still be growing
- Having my thinking and communication challenged for soundness of argument, good manners, etc., helps me grow now… and is likely to help me grow then.
- Ergo, when I’m 72, I hope I’ll be exposed to those kinds of challenges (It will have to come from younger folks at least some of the time. Law of averages: when I’m 72, most people will be younger than me—though the trend is for the size of that majority to shrink)
3. The leveling affect of the Internet. There are trade offs to the stituation. The downside is that cocky kids can step into a conversation and tell their seniors “You’re being ridiculous.” The upside is that sometimes they’re right. The other upside is that the older guys then get an opportunity to respond to the young ones in a winsome way and challenge their thinking in turn. I’m 45 now so just barely old enough to experience this. But so far, I enjoy it. It helps me. I hope it helps the younger people, too. I hope people are still challenging me when I’m 72 or 92.
Now to sort of contribute something more on topic: one thing I appreciate about Steve and his post is that his mind is in motion. Granted, many of us see some/most of his motion as being in a bad direction. Motion/change that should not have occurred. But who can deny that where there is no movement/change there is no growth?
If you read carefully, you might even see a few hints that Steve is not as idealistic about “non IFB” as he used to be.
Another decade, and he might be getting more conservative again. ;)
Fundamentalism needs a warm and winsome apologetic, not a “How dare you differ?!” and “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out” apologetic (the latter is not an apologetic at all… and we wonder why the quantity of fundamentalists is shrinking).
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.
When I was in my forties, I asked my fundamentalist leaders “Why?” and was branded a near neo-evangelical.
Now I’m in my sixties and I’m asking myself “Why?”
I’m much like Jim Peet:
I am a cessationistLike the people in “The Village”, I have heard of the dangers of those outside our city limits (those of whom we do not speak) and I’ve discovered that they are not evil. Different? Yes. But not dangerous. I believe in separation from false doctrine and from those who hold to it. I even believe in separation from those who fellowship with those who hold to false doctrine. What I’ve come to realize is that different kinds of music, different styles of dress, and other kinds of church church polity, different Bible versions, alternative views of eschatology and Calvinism are not false doctrine.
I am a young earth creationist
I believe in congregational government (with elders)
I believe and practice Biblical separation
I’ve given up on the label fundamentalist. I’m sick of “labels” and being labeled.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Aaron Blumer] I kind of opened a door to alot of tangential topics with my previous post. Hesitate to open it wider, but having opened it a little there are some things that don’t seem prudent to ignore.I may be one of those young bucks that’s a little harsh with Bob T sometimes. It goes both ways like Aaron says. When Bob T (or anyone else) is unduly harsh on these forums, he should be ready for a little harshness in return. Christ was very harsh to non-believing pharisees. He reserved care and compassion for his flock. Save the harshness for things we need to be harsh about.
To Bob T…
1. I’m hesitant to offer any criticism of guys several decades my senior. But I also believe in the golden rule. So here’s how the logic works out for me:2. Much of what you perceive as novices rebuking you (or other leaders) is not rebuke at all. You have misread more than a few comments that way.
- When I’m 72, I hope to still be growing
- Having my thinking and communication challenged for soundness of argument, good manners, etc., helps me grow now… and is likely to help me grow then.
- Ergo, when I’m 72, I hope I’ll be exposed to those kinds of challenges (It will have to come from younger folks at least some of the time. Law of averages: when I’m 72, most people will be younger than me—though the trend is for the size of that majority to shrink)
3. The leveling affect of the Internet. There are trade offs to the stituation. The downside is that cocky kids can step into a conversation and tell their seniors “You’re being ridiculous.” The upside is that sometimes they’re right. The other upside is that the older guys then get an opportunity to respond to the young ones in a winsome way and challenge their thinking in turn. I’m 45 now so just barely old enough to experience this. But so far, I enjoy it. It helps me. I hope it helps the younger people, too. I hope people are still challenging me when I’m 72 or 92.
Now to sort of contribute something more on topic: one thing I appreciate about Steve and his post is that his mind is in motion. Granted, many of us see some/most of his motion as being in a bad direction. Motion/change that should not have occurred. But who can deny that where there is no movement/change there is no growth?
If you read carefully, you might even see a few hints that Steve is not as idealistic about “non IFB” as he used to be.
Another decade, and he might be getting more conservative again. ;)
Fundamentalism needs a warm and winsome apologetic, not a “How dare you differ?!” and “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out” apologetic (the latter is not an apologetic at all… and we wonder why the quantity of fundamentalists is shrinking).
[Shaynus] I may be one of those young bucks that’s a little harsh with Bob T sometimes. It goes both ways like Aaron says. When Bob T (or anyone else) is unduly harsh on these forums, he should be ready for a little harshness in return. Christ was very harsh to non-believing pharisees. He reserved care and compassion for his flock. Save the harshness for things we need to be harsh about.Not quite…let me weigh in for a minute here as an admin/mod team member. This post is not intended as a correction, just as an pointer or update.
First off, everyone also needs to keep in mind that this is a site for adults. If you can’t take heat because someone disagrees with you, then maybe they ought not be here or learn to toughen your skin. This is a written forum, so it’s very, very easy to read something and take it the wrong way.
That being said, the right response to harsh behavior by any member is not to escalate the situation by replying in kind - it’s to tell the mods or admins about someone’s harshness. We have a http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] comment policy and a http://sharperiron.org/doctrinal-statement] doctrinal statement , and if someone believes that a member is out of line, especially if it’s egregious, they should contact one of us or use the ‘flag’ button that’s appended to each post by the Forum software.
Some have asked, well, who watches the watchmen - by which they mean, what if the moderator is the problem? Then they should appeal directly to Jim or Aaron.
Romans 13 does apply here…the mods and admins are the ‘authorities appointed by God’ for this particular website, and that’s a responsibility that we all take very seriously. Retaliatory tit-for-tat is against CP and, more importantly, contrary to God’s Law (Matthew 5:38-48, Romans 12:14-21).
Frankly - and other people have said it elsewhere - moderating can be a thankless and dicey task, and there are a ton of internal discussions about people and posts on a daily basis that 99% of non-staff will never see. Please don’t make it harder for the rest of us by retaliating and sinning against God and others.
"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
We hope and pray that people posting here also take time to have actual, personal conversations behind the scenes. All too often today, I tend to see a generation happy to discuss the weightiest of matters in electronic print alone, in an e-mail or text, leaving a huge aspect of relational conversation out of the picture. I’ve done that, too, it can be easy to rely too much upon.
So in short, we are thankful to all of you faithful servants who have answered God’s call in your ministries. So often I wanted to jump into the conversation and pick out one piece of this or that, and I decided to simply follow along, apart from an early comment on Creation, and take in the big picture, realizing how much I have to learn. Believe me, though, much was indeed learned in “listening”, and my son has a few more role models of the spiritual kind as a result.
Now please focus and understand this. I have not, to my remembrance complained of being mistreated on SI by any unless it was in response to a poster having gone off topic and first posted against me in a personal attack. I am not offended by personal attack except that it is off subject and usually by someone who has little else to say to the issues so attacks a poster.
My posts on this thread regarding SI, the internet, etc., were because you opened the door for general remarks and opinion. I do not view my post on that as overly negative but also a thanks and recognizing SI for the good but that it also has flaws.
In my opinion there is a definite bias on SI and some who have left off posting on SI had some valid observations. Why are you now addressing me? I have called no names such as Jim Peet did me? I have not rebuked anyone on here but only called Susan’s attention to the errors of her judgment regarding the situation here. My telling Steve Davis to not let the door hit him in the back was harsh but not overly or unduly harsh when compared to some of his responses on this thread and others with nasty remarks made to others (not me).
Steve has been standing in the door way leading from Fundamentalism and/or IFB for some time and calling our attention to look at him and his leaving and continually complaining about the attitudes of those he is leaving while giving classic New Evangelical reasons, and some double speak. Example of Steve doublespeak is trying to repeatedly convince me and others that he has not rejected literal 6 day creation but that he sees it as valid but also sees another theory (Revelatory day) theory as also valid. Oh, OK. So when Robert Schuller states that he believes in literal salvation thru Christ as valid but also believes that salvation may be possible thru other faiths, it is also valid. He has not really rejected Christ, but just believes he is not the only way. Thats OK if God will accept that. Of course he will not as that attitude lacks the sole reliance of real faith. Now, Steve’s view of the creation account is a lesser issue but with the same approach. If the Genesis literal day creation is valid, but also other views are also valid, then thats also OK if God will accept that. The problem is he won’t. He doesn’t intend to teach both. He wrote a clear account as part of a historical statement and expects us to accept it. Or was God having fun and being unclear and expecting us to have fun guessing as to what He really meant. Most all Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals dogmatically believe there are no valid reasons for doubt of the normal meaning. The issue is not salvation but is an issue of how we approach scripture and truth. A former professor at Biola University wrote a book titled; “God did it but how?” His conclusion was we just don’t know. His reasons were that we need to fit the Genesis account to the time line of uniformitarian Geology and the “overwhelming evidence of Evolution.” This of course is a classic principle of New Evangelicalism popularized in the fifties by Bernard Ramm. We must accommodate scripture to science. Steve Davis has done this but IMHO is behind the curve. Uniformitarianism has been shattered by solid science and evolution has fallen apart as its foundations have been doubted by even evolutionary science itself. New alternate theories are now set forth. Creation science is advocated by scientists with highly regarded credentials. On this one issue alone Steve advocates theory, approach and doubt, that is an unacceptable compromise of scripture. Then there is his advocacy of present visions and dreams which he calls soft but which has the same foundation as the signs and wonder evangelism espoused at Fuller and the Charismatic movement. These issues are now decades old but here on SI they have been presented as a new enlightenment indicative of a more accepting, spiritual, and loving Christianity. They are in fact as dangerous as when first advocated by the likes of Bernard Ramm, Russell Mixture, Daniel Fuller, Sanford La Sor, Oral Roberts, C. Peter Wagner, John Wimber, and Benny Hinn, among many.
There probably should be no objection to SI publishing these papers of Steve Davis. It was interesting information and worthy of debate. But I think there should great and serious objection to the accusations that those posting against Steve were overly harsh. There should be great question regarding the posting by some SI moderators.
I also did not now or at any time complain that I was offended by younger posters. I have not felt mistreated by them. The reality is that I am a lawyer still involved in constant debate and contest. I am also involved in ministry. SI is an occasional bump in the road. My approach is that people should stop try ing to correct or call attention to ones wording unless it is very extreme or is name calling. I would also recommend a reassessment of not only the words of Christ but of the Apostles in Acts and epistles before calling something too harsh.
That fact that this SI thread has degenerated from the serious issues to discuss posters is somewhat pathetic. The leadership of the moderators into opinions of how the debate was worded, or perceived attitudes of posters, is a perfect example of fireman discussing how a caller of 911 spoke or sounded when they called to report a fire instead of recognizing that the fire is the issue and it needs to be seen, assessed, and handled.
Now I have probably posted enough. I need to go have my care taker get me dressed.
Aaron said: Fundamentalism needs a warm and winsome apologetic, not a “How dare you differ?!” and “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out” apologetic (the latter is not an apologetic at all… and we wonder why the quantity of fundamentalists is shrinking).With this statement you have given evidence that you yourself and SI may fit the discription of being PSUEDO FUNDAMENTALIST as some former posters have labelled the site.
WHY?
Because you have failed to properly recognize the errors, misjudgments, and harmful attitude and dangers of Steve Davis and his opinions, as expressed on published articles at SI. As I said before, I have no objection to the publication of these articles. However, your attitude and the attitude of the moderators appears to be that those who sought to challange, expose, and rebuke, the opinions were overly harsh and lacking the apologetic of Christian love. In so doing you have gone against every Admonition and warning of scripture regarding confronting dangerous error.
Steve himself has repeatedly demeaned the fundamentalist and IBF movements as a whole. He has shown disdain for those who have and do hold to a different doctrinal viewpoint on doctrinal issues he has raised. In typical NEW EVANGELICAL fashion and method he has alluded to the lack of love and proper ecumenical spirit of others he is leaving while he himself demeaned them in an unloving manner. He often met posters who who disagreed with him with demeaning remarks and sharp words. All this has been accepted by you without admonishment or appropriate response.
Now you come and seek to admonish those who differed with Steve. NO ONE said or gave an attitude of “How dare you differ?” It was rather how could you differ? We argued against his reasons and rightly labelled his transition and change of doctrinal positions and view as the same as that expressed in history as New Evangelical and therefore labelled steve with the same label they did give themselves. I expressed righteouds indignation at Steve’s continued effort to make his leaving the general Fundamentalist and IFB movement an issue of the conduct and narrow doctrinal of others. He did so
Also, I received an Email yesterday from a longtime SI poster stating that he has posted his last post on SI with his last post on the Steve Davis thread.
Keep up the good work and you and the moderators will be able to post one another without any other posters interfering. Then you can admonish one another for your wording and get them all just the way you want.
This is said in Christian love. Love for Christ and his word and concern and distress for those who will not adequetly protect his flock and discern the truth.
An apologetic of love includes 1Cor. 13:6.
[Bob T.]Bob, two things. First, your original post with the comment about the door not hitting Steve on the way out was in fact about Steve, not the issues. Take your own advice in the future.
That fact that this SI thread has degenerated from the serious issues to discuss posters is somewhat pathetic.
Second, we all recognize that people are influenced by other people. You recognize that and fear that Steve is influencing others along a path you don’t like and think is dangerous. It’s not merely ideas that influence us. We’re more influenced by the men and women in various situations in concert with their ideas. Tone, writing style, examples, illustrations, the marshaling of various arguments to support a conclusion: all of these come together to form influence. I notice “ChrisS” and his teenage son who read these forums. I can’t help but wonder how we are influencing his son to be a better thinker or not. I believe that sometimes your tone, especially with a younger generation, causes us to become exasperated with you before we even start listening. If I were you, and you really do want to influence another generation, perhaps knock down the tone a little bit. I’m 28. Our generation doesn’t respond well do being told what to believe without arguments to back it up. Some have called us the “why” generation. There are probably downsides of such an attitude, but if you’re going to convince us of your points, you’ll have to take that into account.
Frankly, I find that the younger generation of fundamentalists has given up trying to convince much of the older generation of anything at all. We know that we’ll outlive the older guys… probably. I don’t like that approach. I’d rather engage in persuasion. So I’m not going to give up talking to the older generation. But it has to be on mutually respectful grounds.
I ignored your first last posting but you keep charging ahead. You state “My telling Steve Davis to not let the door hit him in the back was harsh but not overly or unduly harsh when compared to some of his responses on this thread and others with nasty remarks made to others (not me).” I don’t remember if I complained about what you said about the door but am at a loss about the “nasty remarks.” I skimmed my comments and don’t see nasty. It’s not that I’m not capable of that but please show me my nastiness. The closest to that may’ve been my response to a poster who said: “However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.” I may’ve been dismissive of his comment considering the source and his connections but nasty? And calling me “bit ugly!’ Did he see my picture? Anyway, yeh, I didn’t take much time to interact with him sensing a lack of experience and a combative spirit.
You on the other hand are a man of great experience (and I’m not being sarcastic). So I take you more seriously although you might be a “bit ugly” too. You accuse me of doublespeak because of my position on the 6 days. It seems that you cannot fathom how someone fails to see things as clearly as you do. You mistake interpretation with revelation. Then you go around the block with Biola, Fuller, Schuller, etc. and accuse me of accommodating Scripture to science although I’m “behind the curve.” What in the world does that mean?
You do puzzle me with some of your charges and I wonder if there’s another Steve Davis. You say: “Steve himself has repeatedly demeaned the fundamentalist and IBF movements as a whole. He has shown disdain for those who have and do hold to a different doctrinal viewpoint on doctrinal issues he has raised. In typical NEW EVANGELICAL fashion and method he has alluded to the lack of love and proper ecumenical spirit of others he is leaving while he himself demeaned them in an unloving manner. He often met posters who who [sic] disagreed with him with demeaning remarks and sharp words.”
If I have done demeaned “repeatedly” you can surely show me a few examples. Even though I expressly address my desire to not demean you find me demeaning others. When I said: “I have no argument with fellow believers who affirm their identity as independent, fundamental Baptists. I have no difficulty in seeing them as legitimate representatives of the diverse body of Christ. I have no reason to demean them or to expect them to cease being what they are. I have no desire to avoid fellowship and friendship with IFB men of integrity who are sound theologically and choose to remain within an IFB framework.” I have no reason to demean them but am demeaning them according to you. Of course when you talk about “the errors, misjudgments, and harmful attitude and dangers of Steve Davis and his opinions” that’s not demeaning in any way but needed rebuke and correction - of course.
The only reason I respond at this point is to let readers judge for themselves. I believe you sincerely believe you are defending the truth but it sounds more and more like something else. If you ever get to Philly look me up. We would have an interesting conversation.
Steve
“The Fundamentalists,” whoever they were, had some warning signs too, of higher criticism or liberal theology. One of the FIRST of them was “other theories” concerning a 6 - 24 hour day creation as defined and used in the Hebrew text(s). I watched the church I attended throughout my childhood “muse,” on this, then debunk completely: creation, Red Sea parting, Joshua, Sampson, Jonah, Sodom, crucifixion, resurrection…You Name It including the entire Book of Daniel/Revelation ‘myth.’ They went from 40 human pen-men to 200 or so, from grace to Buddah, from soldiers to yoga. This they did in my formative years as a Christian. Hippie mystics started preaching, then became professors, then DOCTORS even…
This was their…’journey.’
By Mr. Davis’ own descriptions, and being new to his writings here or elsewhere…I liked him better when he first defined that Indy Baptist Church plant in South Philly, even though he may have been at the front door measuring inches from the knee. Now he scares me right to the Da Vinci Code core. I’m no fundamentalist and not a Baptist.
I believe the Biblical Surgeon General’s warning label reads something like, “wolf among the sheep.” The more posts there are in this thread, the more stories we read of seminaries and Bible colleges who have also experienced this journey. Also, the more posts here, the more Mr. Davis replies, “you mis-read me…” etc.
Since watching a whole country and its churches go completely to hell from reading and believing mythology concerning Genesis 1-11, I have had no visions, no ecstatic speech or dreams that would tell me to read scripture any other way than how He intended it: literal. Dispensational. Genesis to Revelation…And I am staying away from those who would beckon me to “some other teaching.” Even if the angel Moroni appeared to me I would not believe! I am so sorry, The Book is never soft but Sacred.
Discussion