MacArthur, Fundamentalism, and the Emerging Church

On the flight today I started listening to the Master's Seminary lecture series on the Emerging Church, which includes presentations from John MacArthur and four seminary faculty members. I'm only about halfway through one session, so I'm not yet able to comment on the primary message of the series.

What has been most interesting to this point is MacArthur's description of the four primary battles over Scripture in which he has been involved over the past four decades. The first was the battle for the authority of Scripture, which dealt with inspiration and inerrancy. The second was the battle for the sufficiency of Scripture in which Charismatics and the psychiatric community added to the Word of God. The third was the battle with the seeker movement over the priority of the Word. Today's battle is for the clarity of the Word, and the opponent is the Emerging Church. MacArthur argues that the EC, largely in the person of Brian McLaren, applies its "hermeneutic of humility" to deny the possibility of doctrinal certainty.

I'll have to listen to the rest to see this theme fleshed out and documented. What's most interesting to me is that although many believe MacArthur has distanced himself from the name "fundamentalist" in the past, in his introductory lecture in this series he is certainly not doing so. Although I've not yet heard him say, "I am," he leaves no doubt that the only opponents of the errantists and the emergents are the fundamentalists, and he identifies himself as one of those opponents.

Could an announcement be on the horizon? Stay tuned.

More on Cancer

By now no doubt many of you have seen John Piper's article, "Don't Waste Your Cancer." Albert Mohler recently blogged about responses from both Piper and Donald Whitney, who has also received cancer treatment. A recent Mohler radio program featured as a guest Whitney, author of Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life and other books.

Would You Want Your Daughter to Marry an Ex-Homosexual?

Albert Mohler responds to this question posed to evangelicals by Dan Savage, an openly homosexual journalist, in the New York Times [free registration required].

The lynchpin of an evangelical answer must be a robust view of God' grace, according to Mohler, his guest (Alan Chambers of Exodus International), and various callers on his recent radio program devoted to the topic. It's worth a listen.

Shepherds Conference Shout-Out

Had to take a brief break from a ridiculously busy day at work to say I'd love to meet any readers who'll be at Shepherds' Conference this week. Although I did enjoy an opportunity to visit Grace Community on two Sundays last fall while I was in California for work, this will be my first visit to Shepherds'. You'll be able to recognize me because I'll be wearing this t-shirt. I only have one, so by the end of the week you'll probably be able to smell me too.

I'd love to get a group photo of all the self-professed fundamentalists in attendance. I thought perhaps right after Phil Johnson's "Dead Right Part Deux" might be a convenient time. For those of you who would like to maintain your anonymity (you know who you are), I will bring a healthy supply of paper bags with eyeholes.

Anybody else on a 10:00 a.m. flight tomorrow out of O'Hare?

A Belated, Counter-Cultural Holiday Observance

I had grand schemes of observing last week's holiday with a thorough review of some of the recent literature on singleness. Maybe I was just oblivious to what existed before, but it seems as though a wealth of teaching on the subject has sprung up in the years since Josh Harris wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Some of what is out there is enlightening, some is provocative, and some is just downright annoying. A healthy portion is helpful.

Of all that I've read and heard, nothing yet has surpassed the very first text I read on this theme—John Piper's foreword to Recovering Biblical Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Looking back now, it seems a little strange that this was the first chapter from Piper that I had ever read. The whole book is worth reading, but I doubt you'd regret buying the book for the foreword alone.

Piper observes eight principal themes related to life as a single person in the life and ministry of Jesus and his followers:

I. Marriage, as we know it in this age, is not the final destiny of any human.

II. Jesus Christ, the most fully human person who ever lived, was not married.

III. The Bible celebrates celibacy because it gives extraordinary opportunity for single-minded investment in ministry for Christ.

IV. The Apostle Paul and a lot of great missionaries after him have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God.

V. The Apostle Paul calls singleness a gift from God.

VI. Jesus promises that forsaking family for the sake of the kingdom will be repaid with a new family, the church.

VII. God is sovereign over who gets married and who doesn't. And he can be trusted to do what is good for those who hope in Him.

VIII. Mature manhood and womanhood are not dependent on being married.

Where Did All These Worms Come From?

Oh, someone opened a can of them.

I disagree with some of Dan Burrell's specific conclusions, particularly in his second article on this theme. For example, I have a much more positive view of independent Baptist seminaries, but the ones he's thinking of are probably different from the ones that I think of. Second, I don't expect myself to be endorsing some of the non-fundamentalist institutions he praises for a number of reasons. Finally, I'm not quite as optimistic about the SBC as he seems to be. My appreciation for the conservative resurgence in the SBC is tempered by some serious concerns with the prevailing winds in the churches and the halls of power (see yesterday's post). Perhaps I should emphasize that my concerns are substantially different from those that are typically thundered by independent Baptists. I don't doubt that Burrell senses similar concerns to mine, so perhaps we don't really disagree all that much.

Enough of the caveats.

This is a conversation that needs to take place. The concerns that Burrell articulates about Christian colleges are held widely enough that either a gross misperception exists, or there is a real problem. Either way, I sense a prevailing tendency to squelch criticism—constructive or otherwise—of Christian educational institutions. I'll gladly admit this is opinion and my breadth of experience is limited, but it seems to me that we fundamentalists have become more emotionally involved in the health of our colleges than the health of our churches, and I cannot imagine that we will avoid paying a heavy price for our priorities.

I'm particularly grateful for Burrell's emphasis on transformation over conformity, articulated succinctly in these paragraphs:

In the end, most Christian college students would benefit from a structured and discipline environment, but one that has as its goal “transformation” and not “conformity.” Conformity is always dependent upon “control”. Once the control is gone, you’ll find out to what extent they have been “transformed.” But across Christian education, we have become quite content expending our energy on “control” rather than mentoring, training, counseling, growing, developing, leading and interning our students toward greater accountability, personal responsibility and spiritual transformation. [emphasis mine]

A school without rules is impossible. Standards are necessary. But let’s face it, some of the battles we fight in Christian schools today are unnecessary and not even Biblical. Sure, a case can be made for dismissing the whole “excessive control” issue as a battle against compromise worth fighting, but is it not time for some reasonable discussion of eliminating stumbling stone rules which present an inaccurate image of Christian holiness, institutional excellence and the personal liberty of each believer?

Maybe the reason I agree so much is because I wrote something along these lines several months ago. Although if I had to do it over again, I'd call it a "different" paradigm rather than a "new" one.

Keep challenging our thinking, Dan. We need senior pastors like you to be asking these questions.

Draft Dever

I'm not exactly plugged into the SBC grapevine, but I first heard talk that Johnny Hunt would be the insider candidate to be the next Convention president about a year ago, so some of the recent scuttlebut isn't a surprise. Last fall, I saw a low-key plea for a Mark Dever presidency here, but I didn't make too much of it.

Last week, Tom Ascol at Founder's blog linked to some informed speculation here that the Johnny Hunt rumors are about to become reality. Almost immediately, more pleas for a Dever candidacy immediately sprung up in the comments section of Ascol's post, in his subsequent post, and on this "unofficial, unserious" blog.

Now, I realize that some readers may have no idea who either of these men are, and sense no real reason to care. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Suffice it to say, however, that though they are both theological conservatives and are both considered fundamentalists by their detractors (Dever calls himself one; I don't know about Hunt), they stand in very different strains of SBC tradition.

I don't know if Dever has the slightest interest in being elected. I don't know if he has a chance of winning. (Read Ascol's second post for the best analysis you are likely to encounter.) I also don't know if everyone who would share his emphasis on ecclesiology and his strong stand on the gospel would be willing to risk the thin veneer of SBC unity for the dream of a Dever presidency.

What I do know is this: I heartily agree with Ascol that support for a Dever presidency should be about far more fundamental issues than Calvinism. There should be no doubt that the doctrines of grace are closely related to the gospel, but they are not the primary issues the SBC needs to address. As I see it, a diluted, downgraded gospel; the sufficiency of Scripture; regenerate church membership; three-ring-circus evangelism; and a bucketfull of other issues are at the heart of the reformation and transformation that SBC churches need to weigh seriously.

Aside from my membership in the universal Church, I don't really have a dog in this fight. On the other hand, maybe that membership alone is enough to make one dog worth rooting for (sorry for the analogy, any CHBC friends reading—I couldn't find another one that would work). And maybe a broader platform for Dever's reformational ideas would lead to some spillover among my "unaffiliated Baptist" (i.e. independent) brethren in some places where they are sorely needed. Maybe.

There I go, sounding like an optimist again.

A Screwtape Letter for the Media Age

KB sent me this today. It doesn't read quite like Lewis, but it gets the point across.

UW-Oshkosh Goes Religious?

Stunning news. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh has been using its official web site to promote a special event in local churches!

Hard to believe? Mmm, not so much.

They're promoting Evolution Sunday, honoring Charles Darwin's birthday.

One wonders when Barry Lynn and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State will go to war against UW-O on this one. After all, they have an active chapter in Madison, Wisconsin, which is 90 minutes tops from Oshkosh. And yet all we hear is silence. Perhaps they spent all their resources suing the mainline denominational and African-American churches that were actively promoting the Kerry presidential campaign a couple years ago.

Olasky, You Can't Be Serious

As if we needed any more evidence that evangelicals have far too high a view of the value of religious movies, Marvin Olasky had this to say in the February 18th issue of World:

Fifth, praise and thank the filmmakers who, having made a mistake, made the best of it. Haven't we all made worse mistakes? A chorus of "gotchas" has rained on what should be a parade. The filmmakers should be hearing "attaboy" comments from those who wait for Christian-themed movies as old Simeon waited to see the Christ child.

Olasky makes some reasonable points in this editorial (full text), he also makes several bad ones and at least one plain factual error. Forget all that, though. The analogy in this conclusion is simply preposterous. The arrival of Christian-themed movies (which apparently need not even mention Christ) should be welcomed with a joy comparable to that appropriate to the arrival of the King? I wish I could imagine that this were intentional hyperbole.