MR. BROKAW: You were in an early stage in your life, as you once said to me, kind of a hellfire and brimstone guy. You went...
MR. TURNER: I was. I went to a very religious school that had evangelists come periodically and I was saved, I don't know, six or seven times, including once at Billy Graham's Crusade.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Fruit of Revivalistic Christianity
From Tom Brokaw's November 30th interview of Ted Turner on "Meet the Press":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
According to Wikipedia, Turner went to The McCallie School, a prep school in Chattanooga and Brown University. Not sure if either would qualify as a "very religious school" in the sense you mean by "revivalistic Christianity". Turner was expelled from Brown for having a female in his dorm room.
Don't know if he went to any other schools, Wikipedia doesn't say.
Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Regardless of where exactly he was/who exactly he heard (I really think that's non-essential to the problem itself), Turner's story is a carbon-copy of mine (minus the Billy Graham part and the never being actually saved part) and countless others I know.
So...we are NOT the only generation living out the condemning consequences of man-centered, small-God views/methods of evangelism and a dearth of Word-derived doctrinal foundations? (Can't say that's good to know.)
Still, God has used and does use the weakest of theologians and Bible scholars, and the most foolish of ministry strategies to point sinners AWAY from man-centered thinking and TOWARD the Word instead. He does use them/us to accomplish His work in hearts. In spite of all.
Praise God it's God that does the saving, not methods or memories. If Ted Turner goes to hell, he will have to climb his way there just like everyone else who's heard the Truth and trampled on it.
That being said, revivalism is a huge reason why I work for Kids 4 Truth (http://www.kids4truth.com).
Turner's story is a carbon-copy of mine
You don't know what Ted is talking about. He makes a statement that resonates with something in your experience and you read your experience into his statement, but you can't know what he means by it without further information.
The schools he attended don't lend much credence to the kind of experience most ex-fundamentalists are talking about when they criticize revivalism.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Mr. Johnson, as usual, I appreciate your criticism. Since I'm subscribed to the thread, I did see your deleted comment and appreciate its revision immensely.
Revisions of my own:
I shouldn't say his story is a carbon-copy of mine--it would've been better to say that the quoted portion of his "testimony" (i.e., what I thought this blog post was focusing in on) could be mine, nearly word for word. "Saved" six or seven times under well-intentioned preaching by evangelists who ascribe to Finney-esque, man-centered methods with all their hearts. It wasn't my point to prove that there's a connection between what I react to as "revivalism" and revivalistic techniques and what Turner describes as his experience. (Ben did that by quoting this in the first place and titling it has he did.) But I agree with you that the "camps" Turner's words indict may not be necessarily indicative of the "camps" of revivalism that come automatically to my mind.
My comment about K4T materials was to emphasize that while I agree that we can't blame our conversions or non-conversions on revivalism, we can do what we ought to try to direct children to the WORD rather than to man-centered methods and interpretations of that Word. The curriculum/program is an effort to help kids cultivate a genuine relationship with God based in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible and helping them connect those doctrines with the Bible passages from which they're derived, RATHER than directing kids to trust in their own understanding, their own prayers, their own accomplishments. Because I hate the long-reaching effects of an emphasis on secondary conclusions and personal interpretations, I rejoice to work toward helping kids understand (from the Bible) WHY they ought to believe what they ought to believe, not just telling them what they ought to believe.
Another revision of my own:
Not sure I stick 100% behind my "climb to hell" paragraph. When I reflect on it, I think I heard that line during a revival sermon and probably ought to think on it some more before expounding on its validity. =}
P.S. This conversation is a super reminder of why I no longer write for (or read) Sharper Iron. I can only express myself to certain degree before I reach the bumbling point, and then it's kind of a loss, usually better un-begun. =} Almost without exception, I find that what limited time/resources I do have to offer are far better spent on other endeavors than trying to "amen" someone else's point articulately or argue my own semantics.
Well, I do get overheated in these blog exchanges and sometimes regret what I said. My apologies for your inbox!
I am a reactionary, I am afraid. I disagree with almost all of the current criticism of revivalism. It seems to me to be an effort to deny the fruit of the Spirit in the church for more than a century of history. I agree with some criticism of revivalistic excesses, such as manipulative invitations, etc., but it is quite a stretch to cast aspersions on essentially the entire evangelical-fundamentalist orbit for the last 150 years.
In any case, Ted Turner is hardly the fruit of those abuses or that orbit, especially given the schools he attended. To use his testimony to make some kind of point here is a stretch in itself. Apples and oranges...
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Does the present condition of the evangelical-fundamentalist orbit look healthy to you?
Think of all the surveys that point to millions of people who claim to be Christians on the basis of a born again experience somewhere in their past, but who don't have any grasp of the gospel or even attend church. Does that seem like the fruit of the Spirit?
How is Ted Turner apples to oranges? What could be more revivalist than Billy Graham?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is your criteria for identifying the fruit of the Spirit?
Hi Ben, I would say that evangelicalism on average is pretty unhealthy. Some of the same affliction is in fundamentalism, especially in some of the more materialistic churches.
I have a hard time ascribing that to revivalism, at least as I understand the term, so perhaps we are talking past each other.
When I say fruit of the Spirit above, I am thinking of all the work done by Moody, Torrey, Hudson Taylor, the Niagara Bible Conference, and a host of others, leading up to the whole fundamentalist movement of the 20s, on into the war years and the 50s and 60s, where even evangelicalism at the time was relatively healthy. The whole body of the church from which our currently more healthy churches derive their historical base was essentially revivalistic in philosophy. Quite a bit of hubris is needed to dismiss all of that because of present abuses. (And that is not to say that everyone in that 150 years or so did everything right.)
Re the apples and oranges comment...
Your headline says "the fruit of revivalistic Christianity", as if the blame for Turner's unbelief is exactly the same thing you mean by revivalism today in 2009. My point is that it is quite likely that what you mean by revivalism would not have been experienced by Turner in his school days because of the nature of the schools he went to. Hence... apples and oranges.
To clear up what I meant by the 'fruit of the Spirit', I am talking about the souls saved and discipled over the last 150 years in the Bible believing churches. I guess it is probably not the best term because we usually mean the display of grace listed in Gal 5.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Post a Comment