The Emperor Goes Soul-Winning

or, "Why in the world is this guy bragging about THAT?"

Here is a quote from a prominent church's website, touting their pastor's career stats as his bona fides:

"Before becoming the pastor of the [church name], [pastor] served as the youth pastor. Under his leadership, the [church] teenagers have been used by the Lord to see over 260,000 people won to Christ, with over 30,000 of those following the Lord in baptism."

In other words, just over 1 in 10 of these supposed converts actually demonstrated obedience to God. Why in the world is this guy touting this statistic? All it proves is that either (a) God is really bad at follow-up, or (b) this pastor has no CLUE about the Gospel.

He Didn't Sweatt the Details

I finally got around to seeing what all the kerfuffle was about (and to finding an opportunity to use the word "kerfuffle").

Last month, at a regional FBFI conference, Pastor Dan Sweatt of Berean Baptist Church ranted (one could hardly call it "preaching") about the mass defection of young preachers from the ranks of fundamentalism (read: fundamentalist circles approved by the IFB pantheon) toward conservative evangelicalism as represented by men like MacArthur, Piper, et al.

This message was particularly significant to me, as I was reared in fundmentalist, independent Baptist circles. And I, too, have begun to identify more with the preaching ministries of John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, and others. I made the move because fundamentalism absolutely refuses to police itself. Fundamentalism, as a movement, has no problem with shepherds who have mutton on their breath. At the same time, in MacArthur, James Kennedy, et al I sensed a love and compassion for people and a commitment to careful expository preaching -- something else sadly lacking in those hailed as heroes of fundamentalism. So, it sounded like Sweatt was going to tell my story.

And he did, though not, I would guess, in the way he intended to. His talk (I refuse to call it a sermon) consisted of a heterogeneous blend of personal anecdotes (of which he was the hero, or into which he somehow inserted himself regardless of the point of the story), quick head-bobs at prooftexts, fawning devotion to men that he SHOULD identify as hirelings but instead venerates, and red-faced invectives against other Christian leaders.

And, of course, he manages to work in some Calvin-bashing as well. Good times.

Here's a news flash for ya, Dan-o -- that is EXACTLY why I fled your camp, never EVER to return. You represented, on that platform, everything that is wrong with fundamentalism, everything that drives thinking people away. Everything from your mistreatment of Scripture, to your gross misrepresentation of Calvinism, to your internally inconsistent critiques of anyone who falls outside your self-erected boundaries of orthopraxy -- all of this drives us away. In a nutshell, we're leaving fundamentalism because the guys being allowed to drive fundamentalism are jerks.

I'm not going to bother with an item-by-item reply to the nonsense that was belched out at that conference. Others have devoted time to that task. For a detailed (and much more level-headed) rebuttal of Sweatt's offal, see this article from Central Seminary's Kevin Bauder (HT: John Piper).

But the bottom line, for me, is this: until fundamentalism does a better job of repudiating this sort of behavior, my prayer is that more and more young preachers leave. I am GLAD to hear of empires crumbling, of indoctrination centers closing. It's a GOOD sign. Until fundamentalism discovers a love for real expository preaching and a hatred of eisogetic spleen-venting, until fundamentalism discovers a love for people and a hatred for numbers-oriented pragmatism, until fundamentalism discovers that holiness is defined by Christ-likeness, not activity . . . then the best thing for the body of Christ would be for fundamentalism to continue to shrink into irrelevance.

And, if you're going to interact with any theological discussion, Danny Boy, you need to stop playing for cheap amens and Sweatt the details before you speak.

Facing the Freedom

It is often easier for someone brought up in conservative circles to follow Biblical principles that will paint them as right-wing, hard-nosed, etc, than it is to follow Biblical principles that will paint them as more liberal. Yet it would be just as much a matter of COMPROMISE to abandon Biblical teachings or, in "doubtful things," to violate your conscience, for the sake of being thought more conservative.

Charles Hodge wrote:

"It is often necessary to assert our Christian liberty at the expense of incurring censure, and offending even good men, in order that right principles of duty may be preserved. Our Savior consented to be regarded as a Sabbath-breaker, and even a 'wine bibber and a friend of publicans and sinners'; but wisdom was justified of her children." Hodge, Romans, 429-430

Just Thinking.

One of the great ironies in fundarnmentalism is the way their anti-intellectualism drives them to found Bible colleges.

We've Got Spirit, Yes We Do! (But Which One?)

2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline."

I was reflecting this morning on some past experiences and this verse came to mind. One of the warning signs when you step into any ministry--whether joining a church, visiting another ministry, listening to an evangelist or special speaker, or signing on to work with a church or para-church ministry--there is a warning sign you need to watch for. Over the years I have learned how to spot it. Unfortunately I had to learn the hard way. Several times.

If the people involved in that ministry are driven even a little bit by fear of the man in charge, you need to run--don't walk--away from there. I don't care how many gazillion people they've seen saved and baptized, how many missionaries they support, how many attend their services, etc etc ad nauseam. If you see people freely sharing ideas until they're in the leader's presence, at which time they immediately shut down, get out now. If a man's name is all it takes to win an argument ("Well, Dr. So-and-so would/would not like that.") turn your knees to the breeze. That fear is unhealthy. It is a sign that God is only in control insofar as that man allows Him to be.

It won't seem all that bad at first. That's the nature of a honeymoon. You'll find ways to rationalize things that you see that bother you deep down. Don't do it. Leave now. Get out. Don't even stop to collect your red Swingline stapler from your desk. There's something wrong. Respect for a Godly man doesn't make people clam up. It doesn't produce forced conformity in nonessentials. That's fear. And it's not of God. There's something seriously wrong -- get out before you get hurt.

Pragmatism is another warning sign. I may post on that later, but only if it will get me more readers.

Living by Lists 2

Listen as Paul Washer articulates the difference between legalism - living by lists - and Christlikeness:

Living by Lists

There is something very . . . convenient . . . about the way legalists define legalism. When I was growing up in a very legalistic church I was told repeatedly that legalism was teaching salvation by works. Recently I came across a book in which legalism was being defended by cherry-picking definitions from more or less obscure sources. Not surprisingly the author of this book is a part of an institution that is known far and wide for maintaining some very bizarre rules governing behavior and appearance. As Chesterton put it, there is something "purely acoustic" in this sort of selective definition.

Here is the definition of legalism that appears in Webster's dictionary:

———————
le•gal•ism \ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\ n
1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code 〈the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice〉
2 : a legal term or rule
- (Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.)
———————

Dictionary.com has compiled this definition:

le·gal·ism /ˈligəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-guh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology.
a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
3. (initial capital letter) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.
[Origin: 1830–40; legal + -ism]

In one sense, then, the word carries the idea that "salvation is gained through good works"; however that is not the extent--nor, I would argue, the most insidious form--of legalism. And by limiting the definition in this way, legalists have given themselves a free pass for their works-based brand of Christianity, all the while bearing more resemblance to those who called for the crucifixion of the very Christ they profess to serve (and do serve, in their mind).

The far-more-prevalent form of legalism is the more widespread use of the term: "the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws". These are the modern offspring of the Judaizers whose accretions of external observances as an end in themselves prompted the writing of the epistle to the Galatians: those for whom particular appearances and behaviors are guarantors of spirituality; those who have entire lists of expectations in these areas that are founded on inference from the Scripture rather than Scripture Itself. But so long as they can convince us that legalism is restricted to requiring these works before salvation, rather than after, they are allowed to roam freely--snacking on the occasional sheep for sustenance.

Don't dismiss this as frustrated venting. There is a great HIDDEN danger in redefining away real legalism. Paul spells it out in Colossians:

"20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." Col. 2:20-23, NASB

The last phrase struck me like a thunderbolt. All of these lists, these observances, appear to suffice, but they "are of no value against fleshly indulgence." This strikes close to home for me, as I am still reeling from the news that a missionary pastor whom I respected has been forced to come back from the field in disgrace. So prevalent is the problem that caused his departure from the ministry that I don't have to articulate it--you knew what it was the moment I said he had come back from the field. Why is fundamentalism so fraught with these failings? I would argue that it is because we are living by lists that have supplanted the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. There is far too much evidence mounting up to deny this: as long as we have lists, we don't need the Holy Spirit. We don't have to wrestle with Scripture when our pastor will oblige us with an ex cathedra proclamation as to whether something is right or wrong.

More on this later. But for now, just think about it. Please.

Stay in Your Box!

Immediately after leaving the ICU at McKay-Dee hospital, where a parishioner had just passed away, I heard a Christian make what is without a doubt the tackiest, most thoughtless statement I have ever heard--and I've heard some doozies, having grown up in a Hyles-ite church (pausing to check that the garlic & crucifix are in place to ward off the fundarnmentalists). I won't tell you what he said, since it was SO egregious that you probably wouldn't believe me anyway; but it underscored an important lesson that I've learned about this sort of thoughtlessness.

Think back to the woman taken in adultery. The Scribes and Pharisees caught a woman in sin. What was their reaction to her? "How can we use this woman to achieve our ends?"

Now, what was Jesus' reaction? He defended the helpless and, more importantly, provided for her deepest need--real forgiveness of sins.

Nothing has changed. Legalists use people; Jesus loves them. We must be on guard against the creeping blight that would start us thinking of statistics instead of people. Numbers NEVER trump relationship. I would remind you that Jesus left the multitudes behind to minister to individual needs. Pragmatism has begun to drive our ministry decisions, and twisted good people into something hard and grotesque. Keep your focus where Christ kept His--on real people with real hurts and real needs. Losing that focus has brought fundamentalism to the place where people are little more than a commodity--numbers to pad our stats and impress our seminary buddies. And it's one of the main reasons that modern fundamentalism, as a movement, needs to pass into extinction.

EXPELLIARMUS!

Something I've been noticing more and more lately is the way prayer has been transformed into a series of magical incantations. And I'm not talking about the Ken Copeland "prayer is the container of the force of faith" gibberish. I'm talking about US. We are told to "pray on" God's protection, to "pray a hedge around" someone. Or how about the classic preaching on "the power of prayer". We don't really mean that the power is in our prayers, but in God; nevertheless this kind of sloppy terminology leaves its mark.

Prayer is treated like a series of magic spells, and if we can just use the right words our conjuring will be successful. Don't believe me? Charismatics aren't the only ones with a "prayer language". Where else would you use phrases like "travelling mercies," "lead, guide, and direct," or constant repetitions of the name of the addressee? ("Lord, I pray, Lord, that you would help me, Lord, to do what's right" etc. -- next prayer meeting, just count the number of times you do it.)

How about we substitute "the power of prayer" with the phrase "the power of God" for starters.

For All the Blissful People Out There

There are those who condemn teaching on such difficult topics as election on the basis that "we shouldn't pretend like we understand everything about God". Setting aside the fact that this is the biggest straw man since Ray Bolger, is that really the goal of theology? Of course we will never fully understand God, but are we not called upon to understand God to the extent that He has revealed Himself? Shouldn't the fact that certain teachings of Scripture are difficult cause us to grapple with them more diligently? And, does understanding God better somehow cause us to marvel at His immensity less?

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has an excellent post this morning. Well worth the read.

Luddite Homiletics

A mad brilliant post about Luddite fundamentalist homiletics -- I remember many of these from the theological train wreck of a Bible college that I attended. Check it out:

Signs That You Might Need to Study

Be afraid. Be very afraid.