Category: Contemporary Christianity

In the Box: New Titles from New Growth Press

~ Bob Hayton

In the Box posts highlight new books I’ve received in the mail.

Last week I received two new books from New Growth Press. I really enjoy the materials that NGP produces. Our college-age class is almost finished with The Gospel Centered Life study, and I am currently helping to teach How People Change for our adult SS. Both of these studies are very well done, and thoroughly Gospel-centered.

Here are the two new releases this month from New Growth Press.

Body Broken: Can Republicans and Democrats Sit in the Same Pew? by Charles D. Drew

ISBN: 1936768305
List Price: $15.99
Book Detail Page: Here
Links to Buy: Christianbook.com, Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, New Growth Press

This book intrigued me. The publisher’s description made me pick this book up right away and start reading it. I think the author is onto something very important. Christianity is about the Church of Jesus Christ, not the political welfare of one nation, or one party. Here’s the publisher’s description and some glowing endorsements of the book:

Can Christians Be Political Activists without Hating Each Other?

As the next presidential election comes into view, Americans are deciding where to stand on key issues. The church has often been as politically divided as the culture, but Charles Drew offers an alternative for people who care deeply about their faith, about Christian harmony, and about the church’s calling in the world. In this updated and revised version of A Public Faith (NavPress 2000), Drew helps Christians develop practical biblical convictions about critical social and political issues. Distinguishing between moral principle and political strategy, Body Broken equips believers to maintain the unity of the church while building their political activism upon a thoughtful and biblical foundation. Drew helps Christians of all political persuasions understand how to practice servanthood, cooperation, and integrity in today’s public square.

“Charlie Drew leads us sure-footedly through the difficult terrain of Christian political involvement. He points out the unique social impact of the ministry of the local church, and then guides us through a host of other issues with a biblical and balanced approach.” ~ Dr. Timothy Keller (Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Manhattan, NY; author of the New York Times best-seller The Reason for God)

“Here is a wise, gentle, Bible-based, low-key introduction and discussion-starter on a matter of huge importance for Christian credibility in this generation. May it be widely read, and taken deeply to heart.” ~ J.I. Packer (Board of Governors and Professor, Regent College, Vancouver, Canada, and well-known author)

“This book is a needed antidote to the worldliness of much Christian political involvement, whether of the conservative or liberal variety. It should be required teaching in our churches!” ~ (William Brewbaker (Professor of Law, University of Alabama; Ruling Elder, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Tuscaloosa, AL)

 

Loving Well: Even If You Haven’t Been by William Smith

ISBN: 1936768291
List Price: $15.99
Book Detail Page: Here
Links to Buy: Christianbook.com, Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, New Growth Press

This next book looks interesting, too. The endorsements make me want to bump this book higher up my reading list, too! Here’s the publisher’s book description:

Trade in Your Bad Relationship Habits for Something Better

Distance. Resentment. Avoidance. You want to love your family, neighbors, and coworkers. But all too often something goes wrong, and you find yourself tearing down the relationships you wanted to build. Are you doomed to keep repeating the same relationship mistakes? William P. Smith explains that destructive relationship patterns no longer need to control you. Experiencing God’s love will change you, so you can trade your bad relationship habits for real love.

“In a world that is losing its bearings, Bill Smith gives us clear and warm direction centered on the person of Jesus. In this richly nuanced book, Bill uses wisdom from the Word and his experiences as a counselor and father to offer us a template for love in a broken world.” ~ Paul E. Miller (Director of SeeJesus; author of A Praying Life and Love Walked Among Us)

“Bill Smith wants us to know that we can love because we have been and are being loved; no, not by our friends and family, but by our ever-present and ever-loving Redeemer. God’s love has the power to transform each of us into people who love joyfully, humbly, faithfully and well. Now, in a world where hearts and relationships are broken daily, that really is good news!” ~ Paul David Tripp, DMin. (President of Paul Tripp Ministries, author and international conference speaker)

“I have read dozens of books about love, so I wasn’t expecting anything new. But I don’t remember too many books that I wanted to read to my wife, inspired me, led me in confession, left me with enthusiasm to try some bolder forms of love, and will leave me poor because I want to get copies for so many friends.” ~ Edward T. Welch, PhD. (CCEF faculty member; author of When People Are Big and God Is Small, Running Scared and Depression)

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

Dr. Kevin Bauder Interviewed on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton

My friend, Scott Oakland, recently interviewed Dr. Kevin Bauder who was a contributing author to Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011). You can download the interview from Scott’s ReformedCast.com. I’ll be listening to this interview this week. I really enjoyed the book and especially Dr. Bauder’s chapter.

Dr. Russell Moore: A Gospel-Centered Response to the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood

~ Bob Hayton

Dr. Russell Moore struck gold in his comments Friday on the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s reversal of their decision to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. I really appreciated his viewpoint and wanted to share some of his article posted on Christianity Today here.

Some pro-life persons might wish that the Christian churches had as much influence in the public arena as Planned Parenthood, that we were able to mobilize as many callers and threaten as many boycotts. Some might see this as a sign that we need more money and respect. After all, if some Christian foundation had more financial firepower than Planned Parenthood, Komen might have stood firm…

In all of this, though, we can gain an opportunity to see what the abortion culture is all about: cash. Planned Parenthood and their allies use the thoroughly American language of freedom of choice and women’s empowerment, but what’s at stake, as seen here, are billions of dollars…

The answer for those of us who cherish the lives of women and their children, regardless of stage of development, isn’t to long to compete with Planned Parenthood in the influence that comes with massive amounts of wealth. It’s instead to see, first of all, how our own captivity to Mammon devolves us in the same way…

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.

What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth….

And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

Let’s stop highlighting how God “blesses” the millionaire who tithes. Let’s stop trumpeting the celebrity football players and beauty queens as evidence of God’s blessing. Let’s show that God has blessed us in a Christ who never had a successful career or a balanced bank account, but who was blessed by God with life, and with children that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.

Planned Parenthood has won this one. They spent a lot of money, and they’ll make a lot of money. And they’ll do so off the shredded corpses of children and the raped consciences of women. If Jesus’ kingdom were of this world, we’d be fundraising to keep up with them.

But what we have is greater than that. We have a word that tells a pregnant young woman that we believe her Down Syndrome baby is a gift, not a health care burden. And we can offer the kind of gospel that cleanses the conscience and offers what outlasts money and power: life and that to the uttermost.

Let’s work to legally protect women and children. And let’s grieve that old Mammon has won the day, again. But let’s not grieve like the pagans who have no hope. When it comes to the struggle for life, the color of victory isn’t pink like a ribbon. It’s red like a cross. [Read the full article]

Quotes to Note 32: John Piper on Godliness

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I came across this quote in reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, John Piper’s most recent book (Crossway, 2011). You can tell that Piper has thought about this more than just this little quote says. This resonates with me due to my experience in hard-nosed fundamentalism. But it’s not just fundamentalists, who can tend to think this way. Read the quote below and let me know what you think. This could be fodder for a healthy conversation.

Apathy is passionless living. It is sitting in front of the television night anfter night and living your life from one moment of entertainment to the next. It is the inability to be shocked into action by the steady-state lostness and suffering of the world. It is the emptiness that comes from thinking of godliness as the avoidance of doing bad things instead of the aggressive pursuit of doing good things.

If that were God’s intention for the godliness of his people, why would Paul say, “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12)? People who stay at home and watch clean videos don’t get persecuted. Godliness must mean something more public, more aggressively good.

In fact, the aim of the gospel is the creation of people who are passionate for doing good rather than settling for the passionless avoidance of evil. “[Christ] gave himself for us… to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). The gospel produces people who are created for good works (Eph. 2:10), and have a reputation for good works (1 Tim. 5:10), and are rich in good works (1 Tim. 6:18), and present a model of good works (Titus 2:7), and devote themselves to good works (Titus 3:8, 14), and stir each other up to good works (Heb. 10:24). (pg. 101, emphasis added)

Piper goes on to stress being fervent and zealous in good works, but the point I wanted to hone in on is called out in bold emphasis above. Too often, conservative Christians rest in the fact that they are avoiding bad works. They can pride themselves in “watching clean videos,” not using foul language and etc. The old adage was something along these lines: Christians “don’t drink, don’t chew, and don’t go with those who do.” But merely being decent people is not what true godliness entails. We should take thought to what we are doing, not merely what we are not doing.

Food for thought, indeed!