The 2011 Gospel Coalition National Conference: See You There!

Over the years, I’ve blogged about quite a few conferences, from the sidelines. I eagerly downloaded the audio after the fact and helped spread the word about conferences such as Together for the Gospel Conference, The Gospel Coalition and others. This time, I get to go!

If you’ll be at The Gospel Coalition conference next week, I want to know. I’d love to arrange to meet you in person. The theme of this year’s conference is right up my alley: Preaching Christ in the Old Testament. Already, TGC is compiling a stellar listing of top-notch resources on this issue. You can learn more at their Preaching Christ in the Old Testament page.

I’ll try to bring some “live blog” updates if I have time. But I plan to be soaking up the ministry of the word at the conference. I’m also thrilled to be going with my fellow biblioblogger Shaun Tabatt, and we’ll both be attending the Band of Bloggers event Tuesday night.

Use the Contact page here, or message me on Twitter or Facebook to get in touch. Hope to see you there!

On another note, I’ll be meeting Phil Johnson in person the Sunday before TGC here at my church in St. Paul, Beacon of Hope. I’ve been following Phil’s blogging ministry off and on since his solo Pyromaniac days. He was a big help to me early on when I first started blogging about my journey out of extreme fundamentalism. Phil is in town for the Psalm 119 conference and will speak at our church in the services and for a special Q & A, dinner event following. If you live in the Twin Cities, contact me for more info.

Another Reader’s Story of Extreme Fundamentalism

Rather frequently I receive emails from readers who have stumbled across “my story.” Most of them thank me for taking the time to share as they have gone through similar circumstances and are helped by my own experience. Sometimes these emails include a detailed story from the reader, of their own journey with respect to fundamentalism. I shared one such story a while back, and now I have another reader’s story to share.

This particular story comes from an ugly side of fundamentalism. In my estimation, this kind of fundamentalism was quite widespread and common twenty or thirty years ago. It is less common now, I would think this kind of fundamentalism is at a decided minority when it comes to the movement as a whole. My prayer would be that people en masse would wake up to this problem and we would soon only encounter it in the history books. Sadly that is not true yet.

Feel free to comment on the story below, or contact me to share your own story.

Message:

I found your blog as I was doing some internet research on the heretical teachings of Charles Finney. Our pastor mentioned him in his sermon at church yesterday so I was finding things to copy and give to him. It is still beyond me how Finney is hailed as a hero in most Baptist circles, but that is another story for another day. While I visited your site, I was intrigued by your “story” and read it with all diligence. Everything you said rang true with me. I, too, was raised in an IFBx church in the Detroit area, with so much emphasis placed on the outward appearance that it has taken me years to come out from under that. The more “holy” you looked, the more “holy” you obviously were, true self righteousness at its finest. The men were not allowed to have facial hair of any kind as it was considered worldly. The deacon’s wives were not allowed to be seen in public wearing pants. We were preached sermons against playing cards of any kind, including Old Maid (I am showing my age here! HA HA). I remember one time during a period of economic decline of the church (which was VERY typical of the control freak stance of most pastors then who believed their authority gave them license to control everything, including the bookkeeping), our pastor even ordered the members to give their entire paychecks the following week. My dad was a deacon but thankfully did not allow himself to be led by such tyranny. Keep in mind this was during the late 60’s and early 70’s where most middle class people lived in modest frame homes, typically 2 or, at the most, 3 bedrooms and 1 bath. The fact that our pastor lived in a three-story home overlooking the lake and was provided a new luxury car by the church seemed a bit hypocritical to me. There was a mindset that prevailed in the church of extreme everything. It led to an over-the-top arrogancy on the part of its adherents, sometimes to the point of trying to “one up” the next guy by coming up with some new Pharisee-minded rule. True legalism leads to rebellion as people realize they will never be able to keep up, so many simply “jump ship” and pay the consequences of extremism in the opposite direction. I was no exception. I heard Calvinistic preachers like Spurgeon quoted by my pastor but obviously it was the Finney-style Pelagianism that prevailed in the church. I find it comical that many IFBs quote people like Spurgeon but don’t even realize the differences in their doctrinal stand. I am 53 years old and am so thankful that God truly delivered me from all that past. I shudder sometimes when I think of the sermons I regularly heard as a kid and which have stayed with me for all these years. The older I get and the more firmly grounded I get in God’s Word, I look back at these sermons not only with true regret as I see the impact they had on the people, but now it also seems almost comical that people would actually fall for stuff like that. Most of the young people I went to school and church with have simply walked away. Most of the older folks have continued with the legalistic mindset, with few of them being delivered from that. After all, it makes them feel better about themselves. When you mentioned Hyles-Anderson College, my interest piqued even more. My childhood was spent attending the church where ——— ———– of Hyles-Anderson College fame attended. I knew his family well as he, his wife, his three daughters and his sister and her family were church members there. I attended our church’s Christian school and made many trips to Hammond, Indiana for sports competitions against Hyles’ Christian school, of which I don’t even know still exists. I’m also very familiar with ——- ——– and his alma mater, Bob Jones University. Spent many hours there as well for musical competitions. By the time I was in high school, I began to question some of the things I was taught but was still too young and immature, both spiritually and emotionally, to fully understand the concept of my quandary. I wanted to thank you for expressing your thoughts and experiences with IFB theology. It has taken me many years and living through many experiences (many of them quite negative) to fully understand how grateful I am for God’s delivering me from that legalistic life. As I dug more into God’s Word, I realized that I was taught a very man-centered form of gospel. The list of rules and regulations seemed to team well with my already existent perfectionist personality but, as those who find “living by the law” unattainable, it only brought me to the point of defeat, guilt, remorse and a period of totally walking away from the church. I thank God for His ever-present nudging in my life and for Him bringing me full circle to where I am today. I have home schooled and raised my three kids, all are college graduates, faithful in church and thankfully see the heretical teachings of these extreme IFBPs (IFB preachers) that I grew up hearing. Even the never-ending “let’s-just-sing-one-more-verse” invitations still ring in my mind. Surely by playing on people’s emotions, they were determined to “get them saved one way or another”, only to be disgruntled when the “converts” would fall prey to “backsliding.” Instead of determining whether or not true conversion even took place, they always assumed the backsliders were just in need of revival. After all, they must be saved as they “walked the aisle and prayed the prayer.” Keep up the good work. I’m not a blogger (don’t have time) but consider me a faithful reader to what you so boldly have the guts to proclaim. God bless you for your efforts.

Then in a follow up email, she gave permission for me to share her story anonymously and provided some more reflections:

I was saved there at 9 years of age in 1967, although I have had to “come to grips” with all that since then. After all, “praying the prayer” doesn’t accomplish anything. “By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt. chapter 7)…. We left ———— after one of those famous IFB church splits, and went to —————- when I was in the fifth grade. It was at ————- all those impressionable years that I truly received my IFB indoctrination. I went to [their] Christian school from its formation until my junior year in high school when I begged my parents to let me go to ———– High School. I have always been one of those “independent thinkers” which kept me in trouble a lot at ————-. I began to question things at an early age and stayed in the principal’s office a lot for “attitude problems” as they would say. Governing the school on the demerit system, I certainly got my share of paddlings in the principal’s office! HA HA You would receive a minimum of 3 demerits for each infraction. When you accumulated 10 demerits, you made the infamous walk to the principal’s office and would get your paddling. It was quite humiliating at the time, especially as the very large and thick paddle was used on both the boys and the girls alike. You had to bend over the principal’s desk and simply “take it.” When you returned to your classroom in tears from the pain, you would see the smirks and giggles from those who knew where you’d been. With my dad being a deacon, he was on the board of directors at the school so I guess my “rebellious attitude” had to be tamed somehow! These period of years caused quite a rebellion in my heart as I began to see the legalism prevail. Grace was certainly not a doctrine taught on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, I remember hearing more sermons on the outward appearances rather than having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. While having that relationship was mentioned, it was as if your daily Bible readings and prayer were things to be “checked off” so as to ensure holiness. To this day, I still struggle with the idea of a frowning stern God ready to punish me as opposed to cultivating that personal relationship with Christ. After all, I was taught that if you dot your i’s and cross your t’s, dress a certain way, abstain from all those “worldly” things, then by default, you MUST be holy! A lot of the people I grew up around would be able to put the original Pharisees to shame! As a disclaimer, I certainly do not blame my rebellion on anybody but myself, knowing that I was, and still am, fully accountable to God for my actions. I would never embrace the current culture’s practice of “being a victim” and milking that for all its worth, just to explain away my own sin. I simply want to express the fact that those early years of legalistic indoctrination took its toll. To this day, I am able to see legalism in people much sooner than my husband who was raised in a very traditional Southern Baptist environment. In his early adulthood when he began studying God’s Word seriously for himself, he began to see the thread of Sovereign Grace unfold and began to also question some of the Arminian thoughts and ideas of childhood. About ten years ago we purchased from www.crosstv.com their Sovereign of God series. By far, more people have borrowed that Bible study from us than anything else we’ve purchased through the years! That study had such a profound effect on us that we purchased more studies from them, many of which were done by other teachers. The Sovereignty of God series was explained in such a way that we were finally able to fully articulate to others how our viewpoints of God’s sovereignty had changed us. While all Christian claim to believe in the sovereignty of God, they still try to explain away their man-centered approach to the plan of salvation and other doctrines. They will say that God is sovereign, but they believe it still depends on man’s choice to accept it. We believe it to all be a paradox but simply cannot explain away the last several verses of Romans chapter 8 and tons of other scriptures throughout the Word that dealt with the sovereignty of God. We’ve definitely taken some heat for our Calvinistic stand by our Arminian relatives, at one point even being accused by a relative of not being saved at all. However, this 70-year-old accusing relative had to admit that if we were indeed correct then he himself had been taught wrong and he simply couldn’t come to grips with that!

I did not mean to ramble on so long. I just took the opportunity to express some of my thoughts regarding our common IFBx upbringing. To this day, I literally RUN from any IFB-minded people and/or preachers. I won’t even read any books and/or sermons from IFBPs or authors, fully knowing the lingo they will use. Sorry, but I walked away from that many years ago. I got so tired of topical preaching and taking scriptures out of context in order to fit their own agenda. Instead of expository preaching, where the entire counsel of God is being taught, they are famous for coming up with an idea and finding some verse that will fit. My goodness, even in true fashion of the Pharisees, the IBFPs I grew up with could actually supersede the real scriptures with their own man-made doctrines. While many sermons were indeed truthful, I am sad to report that many of them were based on their own ideas and you were expected to follow along. As I’m sure you remember, ALL IFBPs are indeed the boss of their church and they had no qualms in admitting it. Oh, the times I would hear people being told to simply leave the church if they didn’t like what they were hearing. The deacon board was simply in place in name only. After being elected to the deacon board, those men figured out very quickly that they were required to be “yes men” and any man questioning anything was considered a troublemaker. Our pastor would actually sit on the podium and take roll like a school teacher. If you watched him carefully during the song service, you would see him take out his trusty little “black book” and write down the names of the deacons who weren’t there. My dad confirmed it was taking place as he would receive inquiries as to why he wasn’t there every time the doors were open. My dad didn’t graduate from college until I was in high school so many weeknights of his were spent acquiring his bachelor’s degree in business administration from a small college in ————-. When he was unable to be at church on Wednesday nights or visitation on Tuesday nights, he was certainly read the riot act as he was reminded of his obligations. Most of the time he was required to report to the pastor that he was having classes on any given church night (except for Sunday, of course) and ultimately resigned from the deacon board as a result of what I’ve always called “cult style” religion. That may be an awful word to use, but I’ve always likened the IFBPs of my childhood to cult leaders. They demanded total control over your life, your finances, your children, your homes, how you dressed, etc. and if you refused to comply you were considered substandard Christians. I even remember MANY instances of adults being “called down” from the pulpit if they were “caught” whispering to each other, passing a note of some kind and the infraction of all infractions……..chewing gum. Of course, they were always encouraged to “get right with God.” I remember the pastor’s kids being no exception as he would single them out for any infraction, even to the point of making them stand up at the end of the sermon in order to call them down in front of everybody. Of course, there was always an altar call to follow if they needed to “set things straight” and many times would publicly apologize. Certainly not being against public apologies, I feel those apologies come from the heart of those who desire to give them and not being coerced by an all-controlling IFBP whose desire is humiliate you into conforming. No wonder so many young people of my day decided to bail out and jump ship!

Thank you for having the courage to speak out against IFBx indoctrinations. While these churches don’t seem to be as extreme as they were in my childhood, they are still very legalistic and believe in a man-centered salvation. I cringe at the thought of ever having to step foot in another one. I hope you won’t think I’ve spilled my guts too much. It’s just nice to hear somebody with a similar background extolling the virtues of seeing God’s Word for the Truth that it is. There’s not a day that passes that I am not thankful for the Lord helping me find my way through the legalism of my upbringing. What true transformation, freedom and liberty occurs when you are finally able to shed that old Pharisee cloak and learn how to have a TRUE relationship with your Savior! Why He chose me at all is a wonder beyond my imagination. I feel sorry for those still in the IFB quagmire and I pray they, too, will be released from their bondage.

Thanks for reading my ramblings,
A Reader

Dave Doran on Why the Label “Fundamentalist” Doesn’t Work Anymore

Dave Doran has posted some reflections on where we are after the Advancing the Church conference, with respect to fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals (or at least where he is coming from). Of course separation and fellowship are the twin concerns for today’s fundamentalists: just how much fellowship can we permit with conservative evangelicals who don’t proudly wear the label “Fundamentalist”? Now that Kevin Bauder has clarified his current stance and hesitations over extending full fellowship to someone like Mark Dever, perhaps Doran sees the need to clarify some statements of his own. In any case, the last few posts on Doran’s blog have been meaty and traced the development of his thinking on these questions over the last 20 years or more.

In yesterday’s post, Doran discussed fences, shibboleths, fundamentalism, non-fundamentalist separatists, and more. His conclusion is worth posting here in full, but I encourage you to read his whole post (or better yet scroll down from here and read the last several “reflections” posts). I’m glad Doran continues to explain his take on things as the questions he’s exploring need to be hammered out by fundamentalists, and have needed to be for several years (or more).

…I am not advocating extending Christian fellowship to those who have denied the faith. I am not advocating toleration of those who do it. Just the opposite, in fact. I am advocating that these very specific questions be the ones that govern our decision making. Those questions are the baseline for fellowship and cooperation. A lot more matters to me than these, but anything other than the right answers here prevents it. The circle of people that can answer these questions satisfactorily is not limited to self-professing fundamentalists. IOW, there are separatists who don’t claim to be fundamentalists. My fellowship is limited to those self-professing fundamentalists who are genuine separatists and also other genuine separatists even if they don’t call themselves fundamentalists.

That last sentence prompts the real question of the hour””will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won’t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence? If so, is that a fence that can be defended biblically and practically?

I agree almost entirely here. I still consider myself a fundamentalist in many respects, but I’m not in a church which considers itself part of the fundamentalist movement. Yet the concern for doctrinal purity and biblical living is equal to or more than what I have found in many fundamentalist churches. I’m interested to hear your take on this, too. Do you agree or disagree with Doran? I’m all ears.

Fundamentalists & Evangelicals Together? — The Advancing the Church Conference Evaluated

I haven’t listened to the audio from Calvary Baptist Seminary’s Advancing the Church conference yet, as it wasn’t available until yesterday or so. I started listening to the panel sessions, and plan to listen to most of the messages. I have been reading several reactions to the conference, however, and I wanted to make my readers aware of the conference and the discussion it has generated.

The conference featured fundamentalist leaders Dr. Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, both in Allen Park, MI), Dr. Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), Dr. Tim Jordan (pastor of of Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA) and Dr. Sam Harbin (president of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA). The guest of note, and the keynote speaker, however, was Dr. Mark Dever (pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and president of 9 Marks Ministries). Mark Dever, is a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention and is not a fundamentalist (in the sense of the fundamentalist movement common in independent Baptist churches). Mark Dever is a leader among the conservative evangelicals, and his ministry focuses on equipping local churches and promoting historic Baptist church polity.

So at ATC, we had Fundamentalists and Evangelicals Together! Well, at least one evangelical, together. I don’t know if the acronym FET will work as well as the one which marks another contemporary Church phenomenon (ECT)**. And furthermore, I am not sure what we have here is any kind of official convergence bringing opposing factions closer to a mutual agreement. But I, for one, am encouraged by the participation of Mark Dever in the ATC conference, and the fellowship that was shared publicly and in private between the fundamentalist leaders mentioned and Mark Dever.

To help understand what happened at ATC, the following news reports will help.

Baptist Bulletin has three articles reporting on the conference:

Brian McCrorie and a few others, contributed several summaries of the panel sessions and individual sessions on the Sharper Iron Event Blog. Click here for all the Event Blog posts, and click here for Brian’s concluding thoughts about his experience at ATC.

Dr. Kevin Bauder gave his reflections, which amounts to a very long blog post detailing his own personal conclusions, presently, about Fundamentalists working together with Evangelicals. For those wondering if Kevin is ready to eject from fundamentalism, this should answer your question with a resounding NO. Personally, I think Kevin Bauder is defining separation to broadly and ready to apply it to quickly — but that’s my general take on most of fundamentalism in general. If you’re interested you can see a bit of an exchange between yours truly and Dr. Bauder in the comments under that long post. I think Dr. Bauder clarifies himself but I still disagree.

Here is the link to where you can freely download the conference audio. Warning the file sizes are quite big.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this. I’m interested to hear if anyone attended this conference or has listened to some of the audio/followed the blog conversation thus far. Are we looking at an eventual collusion between conservative evangelicals like Mark Dever and fundamentalists? Personally, I think both groups could be improved through such a scenario.

**I should note, that I am not in favor of the goals of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

Still a Fundamentalist at Heart: My Stance on Roman Catholicism

Some readers of my blog dismiss me as having in effect abandoned the faith. They are so committed to certain fundamentalist practices and positions that they refuse to look on me with any grace. I am a hopeless liberal to them, and have abandoned important implications of the Gospel, and rejected Scriptural teaching.

My blog professes to stand “for the Unity of the Faith for the Glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7”. In fact I strive for that. Much division in the body of Christ is avoidable and harmful. I’ve expressed my concerns over a radical separatism which views anyone who doesn’t self-identify as a fundamentalist with suspicion and distrust — even scorn.

I have found a wider grace in Christ through my experience with Reformed Theology, which rather than making me more narrow-minded has freed me to hope the best in people and let God do His work. This charitable spirit which many have taken time to thank me for, is nevertheless acknowledged by some critics to be just the spirit of this post-modern age. I’m nice and want to be nice. And niceness is all this is about. I don’t have the backbone needed to defend the faith as fundamentalists really should.

So I find it somewhat ironic that I am now being taken to task for my stance on Roman Catholicism by people to the left of me. I guess this is proof positive that I am still a fundamentalist at heart! In my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill, I added the following caution:

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

I am now said to be the harsh judgmental one, who refuses to extend grace to the millions of Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians around the world. I’m being denounced in no uncertain terms; here, here and here, and especially here. I’m hindering “the unity of the faith”, I’m the one who isn’t nice and is making harsh judgments.

Let me be clear, I still hold that the Bible does lay down guidelines and boundaries to the faith. We are not given the right to just blur those boundaries whenever we want. We don’t find Paul doing that, he names names and contends for the faith (as do the other Apostles). There is “another gospel” which is no gospel. The danger of false teachers looms large all over the New Testament. It behooves those who prize the Gospel, to defend the Gospel. Unity goes up to a point, but ultimately it must be tethered to the Gospel. Where the Gospel is in danger of being lost, unity can not continue.

So that makes me a fundamentalist, I guess. I think some doctrine is so vital to the essence of Christianity, that it must be defended and cannot be denied without serious consequences.

And I am not alone in my assessment of Roman Catholicism. Consider the words of one of the original fundamentalists from the 1920s:

I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions. [T. W. Medhurst, “Is Romanism Christianity?” in The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey, online here]

Or consider the eloquent and large-hearted Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it. [source]

I must say I haven’t read primary Catholic authors writing after Vatican 2. But in what I’ve heard and read about Vatican 2 it never abrogates the Council of Trent and it doesn’t change church teaching on additional things “necessary unto salvation”. I’m foolish enough to trust the Reformers and evangelical Protestants up through the middle of the 20th Century who have studied these matters and conclude that Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation is confusing at best and damning at worst.

Consider just a few of the statements from The Council of Trent, the reaction that Rome officially gave to the Protestant Reformation:

On Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

On Baptism
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

On the Eucharist
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

On Penance
CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

On the Mass
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

This is addition to the Gospel and hence it is “another Gospel”. See Galatians 5:2-6 and 1:6-9. That is my understanding and the understanding of the Reformers and most evangelical Protestant churches. I consider the trappings of the religious system which is Catholicism conspire to cloud out the simplicity of the gospel. Veneration of the saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, the role of priests, the place the Eucharist holds, penance, beads, icons, holy object, the holy pope “” all of these easily vie for central place.

UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem anathematizing me. The pope has no problem not recognizing my church as valid. Why isn’t that a big deal worth getting upset about?

I freely admit evangelicalism has its problems, and in many places another gospel is preached there too. But I cannot turn a blind eye to Rome’s problems. Call me a kook if you will. There are intelligent and careful responses to Rome’s doctrine available for those who search. Perhaps some of my readers can recommend good resources on this. I do respect and appreciate much that the Roman Catholic Church stands for and has bequeathed to us. But it is dead wrong on salvation and is misleading countless millions of followers around the world.

I realize this won’t win me many awards (except negative ones), and it won’t make me popular. But I aim for faithfulness rather than acceptance by the biblioblogging community.