Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Perspectives on Change
I think this (PDF, HT), written by an FBFI and Baptist World Mission board member, makes the same point I made here, just from a completely different perspective. Perhaps I should point out that his article is riddled with factual inaccuracies, so maybe just take it with a grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It's actually really difficult to read, on a grammatical and logical level.
"The SBC of yesterday is the SBC of today! There were conservatives in it when Mikado pulled out, and there are conservatives within it today."
First, um no. Secondly, doesn't trajectory count for something? If a certain trajectory grieves him so much within fundamentalism, why doesn't the trends in the SBC warm the cockles of his fundamentalist heart?
While there are too many errors to list throughout this piece, the one that makes me the most sad is this:
"While I may not always agree with Drs. Bauder, Jordan, Doran, and Olson, they are my brothers and not my enemies". Would that Arrowood and others would recognize that Dever, Mohler, MacArthur, Piper, Holland, etc. are also their brothers, co-heirs of the grace of God by the blood of Christ!
"T4G has attracted an assortment of our young men, exposing them not only to doctrinal error, but also a steady diet of Sovereign Grace Music." *GASP!*
Yeah Greg, no kidding. To think that you and I had probably never even brushed up against doctrinal error until we went to T4G!
That part is ironic of course, but I just can't stop chuckling about how it's as if the so-called errant doctrine is semi-dangerous on its own, then the SG music is the clincher that pushes it over the top.
*GASP* "No, not SG music! Anything but that!"
I to struggled to read the majority of it . . . but does this guy believe in the autonomy of the local church? He probably does, but is he applying it here?
I also wonder if he realizes what side of the equation he represents in this point: "He was not manipulated by the popular politics of his day, nor the threats and pressures of his contemporaries. Therefore, principle prevailed. When he was backed into a corner, he evaluated the situation, and with balance, did the right thing to maintain that which was right."
Could "American fundamentalism" be contributing to the "popular politics" of the day or could other fundy pastors be the contemporaries who are "exerting pressure"?
*too
I learned today, by Lou, that Dr. Arrowood has posted a follow up editorial.
(btw, that's an attribution, not an interjection)
Where can we find Dr. Arrowood's follow up post?
Mike, if you want to find it just google "Lou Martuneac blog." I'd link to it, but there seems to be some complaining over there about people linking to sites on the internet without permission!
Well, that and I just don't really want to link to it.
Here is Dave Doran's response. It's a pretty good read. Good mix of charity towards this man and tough words.
http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=495
Post a Comment