Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

Introducing: “A Survey of the Reformation”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

At my church this week, I started a 10 part Adult Sunday School series called “A Survey of the Reformation: Its History and Doctrine.” Here is the schedule of the lessons, and the slides and audio from lesson 1. You can also view the SS page at our church website for this information as well.

    HISTORY

  1. Introduction & An Overview of Church History – Download the Audio, View the Slides.
  2. Forerunners of the Reformation
  3. The Protestant Reformation
  4. Puritanism & The Legacy of the Reformers

    5. DOCTRINE

  5. Reformation Doctrine: The Big Picture
  6. Total Depravity & Irresistable Grace
  7. Unconditional Election & Particular Redemption
  8. Perseverance of the Saints & Answering Objections
  9. The Other “Points” of Calvinism
  10. Why the Reformation Matters Today

Jack Schaap’s Fall & the Future of the IFB Movement: Act 2

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just seven weeks ago the news broke about Jack Schaap’s fall. The pastor of the largest independent fundamental Baptist Church in the world had been fired under suspicions of sex abuse of a minor. Well today it was announced that he reached a plea agreement with the authorities and has admitted that he “he took a minor over state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity” (source Northwest Indiana Times). The Chicago Tribune adds that “Schaap admits that he had sex with the girl, the girl was under his care or supervision, and he used a computer to persuade the girl to have sex with him illegally.”

Following on the heels of that news, Ed Stetzer, an author and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, posted another article on the future of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement (see his first article, expressing outrage over IFB leaders refusing to call this “sexual abuse”). In his piece he applauds Dr. Paul Chappell (pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College), for his response to the original news of Schaap’s fall. Far too many IFB leaders, in Stetzer’s opinion, were excusing Schaap and refusing to stand up for the reported victim of his sexual abuse.

Stetzer’s piece is worth reading, as is Chappell’s article. I hope that this high profile event does help the IFB movement to rethink its future. Instead of circling the wagons, I hope they rethink their philosophy and ask the hard questions. Something Chappell seems ready to do. And there are signs that other leaders in the IFB movement are also changing in positive ways.

Regardless, IFB leaders need to come to grips with the fact that their movement, whether fairly or not, has become identified with sexual abuse by predatory pastors in a very public way – and this is how the general public may think of the IFB movement going forward. The time for change is now. Now is the time to correct course, admit mistakes, stand up for victims, and take clear steps toward addressing even the hint of improprieties in this regard.

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s piece and join the movement for real reform in the IFB.

Don’t misunderstand me. Please know that there are very many good IFB churches, there are countless scores of faithful believers and sincere pastors. Ditching the movement, and maligning everyone in it is wrong. But so is acting like the problems of other IFB churches don’t say something is wrong with the wider IFB movement. It doesn’t matter where you think you are in the IFB movement, you must realize and admit this error and take pains to expunge it. Falling back on your “independency” will only allow the problem to grow and may blind you to some deep problems that aid and abet the spread of insular thinking and a mindset which facilitates abuse of all kinds.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.

Reformation Gems 1: David Chytraeus on Creation

~ Bob Hayton

The Reformation Commentary on Scripture is a beautiful set of books compiling exegetical thoughts and pastoral comments from the Reformation era. Most of the content of this new commentary set is largely inaccessible to the average pastor or teacher today. Indeed, many of the works quoted have not been translated into English, and some that were have long been forgotten.

Each work in this series, culls from the printed works of dozens of Reformation era figures to compile a variety of selections arranged in order by chapter and verse for the given biblical book. Each entry, is given a heading by the editors, and then an excerpt from an original source follows. The resulting collection of comments on Scripture from leading voices of the Reformation is as beautifully presented as it is a joy to read.

I want to start a series where I excerpt some choice selections from the gems contained in this commentary series. The first three volumes in this series have only recently been printed: Galatians & Ephesians (Vol. 10), Ezekiel & Daniel (Vol. 12) and Genesis 1-11 (Vol. 1). Today’s selection will be from the Genesis volume that just arrived in the last week at my doorstep.

The following excerpt is from David Chytraeus (1531-1600), one of the authors of the Formula of Concord (1577), and a Lutheran professor and theologian. He is giving some introductory comments on the book of Genesis in his own commentary on the entire book. I thought this selection brilliantly shows that these Reformers were not cold scholars or ivory exegetes, rather they were passionate for God and His Word, and this passion bleeds out through their writings.

Created to Share All of God’s Goodness

David Chytraeus: God created human beings for this reason, so that there might be a creature to be seen in this world with whom he could share himself–his goodness, wisdom, righteousness and happiness for all eternity–and by whom he might in turn be acknowledged and celebrated. Indeed, God does not impart himself or his blessings except to those who acknowledge him and who knowingly delight in his wisdom and goodness. God therefore wishes to be known by us human beings: and in order that he might be known, not only did he disperse rays of his light and wisdom into human minds, but he also disclosed himself to our first parents right away, speaking with a clear voice, and revealed the hidden promise of his Son, the mediator. Later, he also committed to writing the trustworthy teaching handed on through the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, which he wishes to be read by us, heard, pondered, set forth and explained to others. By our reading and reflecting on these writings, he kindles in our minds the true and eternal light, righteousness and life. (pg. 3)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of this latest volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

What Jerry Sandusky’s Fall Teaches Us about the Christian Basis for Morality

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Like most everyone else, my heart was sickened by all the news surrounding Jerry Sandusky. Now that he has been convicted on 45 counts of child sexual molestation, it seems that justice is served. Setting aside the questions of whether Penn State should have done more to ferret out Sandusky, his conviction offers an opportunity to ponder the moral impulse of our society. By and large, the general public is shocked and outraged by Sandusky’s behavior, especially since he was in a position of authority. Pedophilia is universally condemned, and this by people of many different world-views.

The Gospel Coalition blog alerted me to an excellent article in the Catholic World Report that explores why Sandusky is guilty in the public opinion. The answer is Christianity and its effect on our culture and its undergirding of our moral fibers for hundreds of years. Let me excerpt the article and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

This is 2012. Turn the historical clock back 2000 years, and find yourself in the pagan Roman Empire before Christianity arose, i.e., before the Christianization of the West. In Rome, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was completely acceptable. To be more exact, homosexual activity was frowned on (but not very diligently) when it occurred between two free-born men, but it was cheerfully affirmed between a master and his slave, and even more, a man and a boy between the ripe ages of about 12 to 17—just the target age of Sandusky. The man generally presented himself as a kindly benefactor to the boy, taking him under his wing, so to speak, and (in return for sexual favors) helping him up the social ladder. Just like Sandusky.

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He would not even have been noticed. His actions would have been entirely unremarkable. There would have been no disgust, no anger. The verdict would have been innocent, and in fact, the notion that he was guilty of anything would have been unintelligible.

There is one and only one reason, 2000 years later, that Sandusky is guilty now…Our consciences, our minds, our hearts, our legal system in America have been formed by Christian moral teaching about sexuality. Subtract Christianity from history, and we would be back in Rome. In pagan Rome, Sandusky would be innocent.

The piece goes on to illustrate how natural morality, darwinianism, democracy, psychology and philosophy all fail to lead to a condemnation of the kinds of acts that Sandusky is convicted of. But the article concludes with a warning:

But again, here’s the problem. Our society is being successively and successfully de-Christianized. The moral formation is wearing off rapidly. Now that we’ve answered the why of Sandusky’s guilt, we’ve got one more question to ask: How long will we continue to feel guilty?

That is a good question indeed. But I would demur. We still have many Christian underpinnings in our society, and for that we should be thankful. I often bring up this free attitude toward pedophilia or even ritualistic sex that was so pervasive in Rome and Corinth, and other ancient cultures, when I encounter the widespread Christian pessimism about how bad things are getting today. Christianity thrived in the most pagan of cultures, and it will continue to thrive the darker it gets today. Saving our society and improving our secular culture shouldn’t be the primary focus of Christians. Living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its tranformative moral power should be. May God help us “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom [we] shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” (Phil. 2:15b-16a).