Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

“Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality” by Wesley Hill

~ Bob Hayton ~ 49 Comments

Homosexuality. The word stirs many reactions today. Many Christians who don’t know homosexuals personally, remain puzzled and scared by this term. Many suspect the word does not picture a reality, only an intentional perversion of God’s created order. Pat answers are easy, and when it comes to homosexuality a simple Bible-based condemnation seems all that is in order. It is easier and more convenient for us to file the word, and whatever reality it represents, away into a tidy corner — far away from our experience.

But in today’s world, we can no longer afford to ignore homosexuality. It is all around us, and if we open our eyes, we’ll see it is affecting people we rub shoulders with at work, it’s in our children’s schools, and even has entered our churches. The debate is here, and more. It’s not just a debate, there is a secret battle being waged in countless hearts around us. A battle to believe in Jesus despite personal homosexual attractions.

When the church takes a very public, vocal and aggressive stance against homosexuality and perceived encroaches on the church’s favored family ideal, we inadvertently make it hard for those among us struggling with identity questions of their own. On the other hand, when churches change their message, dismissing Biblical statements condemning homosexual practices outright, or employing some cunning and inventive “exegesis”, the core of Gospel truth is betrayed. And any message left over is spiritually bankrupt. What is needed is a careful balance between a Scriptural approach to homosexual practice as sin, and a gracious acceptance of sinners who are struggling to follow Jesus.

That balance is hard to achieve and frankly, quite rare today. Consider the words of an anonymous Christian who struggles with homosexuality:

What if the church were full of people who were loving and safe, willing to walk alongside people who struggle? What if there were people in the church who kept confidences, who took the time to be Jesus to those who struggle with homosexuality? What if the church were what God intended it to be? (pg. 113)

This perspective may be new to many of us. When is the last time that you or I have known someone struggling with homosexuality? Not one given over to it, but one who professes to be a Christian yet openly admits to struggles in this area? What would it be like to be a Christian struggling with this? Can you even be a Christian if you experience homosexual desires? Isn’t Jesus supposed to miraculously heal you of such a warped perspective?

In a new book from Zondervan, Wesley Hill bravely steps forward to share his own journey with us. In Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality Hill tells the story of his life-long struggle with homosexuality. He shares the hopes and struggles, the loneliness and longing, the despair and perplexity that is life for homosexual Christians. What Hill has to say needs to be heard throughout the church today. His honesty and candor, and his gospel-centered, graceful, hopeful perspective make the book a joy to read. He offers hope for all who struggle against sin this side of the resurrection.

The book is well-written and captivating. Hill finds the right balance in conveying what it is like to think like he does, and feel like he feels, without dragging the book down into a cesspool. He keeps the story moving and intersperses reflections on the testimony of other self-professed Christians who struggled with homosexual desires.

Hill grew up in a Christian home, went to a Christian school and went to a Christian college (Wheaton). He even pursued Christian ministry. He would appear a typical conservative-minded Christian from a loving home. But he learned as a young teenager that something was different with him. He had no sexual attraction for women, at all. Instead, his feelings were directed toward the other sex for apparently no reason that he has yet been able to discover. One story he tells captures his reality well. He was attending a dance at a friend’s wedding. A friend, set him up to dance with a gorgeous girl. And yet even in close quarter with this stunning beauty, he felt no attraction. Instead his eyes were wandering against his will to a man across the room who he couldn’t help but notice.

Hill’s story goes on throughout the book. He is still young (in his late twenties) and realizes he doesn’t have all the answers. But he hopes his story helps others like him come to grips with who they are, and the calling Christ has for them. Hill realizes that some homosexual Christians do experience a healing of their broken desires. But many do not. He writes for “homosexual persons who have tried — and are trying — to ‘become heterosexual’ and are not succeeding and wonder, for the umpteenth time, what exactly it is that God wants them to do.” (pg. 19)

Hill’s testimony of the struggle and perplexity that surrounds homosexuality, helps explain the attraction of homosexual accommodation by the Church. It’s surely easier to remain connected with one “soul-mate” than to struggle against one’s natural impulses. Hill observes:

Occasionally it strikes me again how strange it is to talk about the gospel — Christianity’s “good news” — demanding anything that would squelch my happiness, much less demanding abstinence from homosexual partnerships and homoerotic passions and activities. If the gospel really is full of hope and promise, surely it must endorse — or at least not oppose — people entering into loving, erotically expressive same-sex relationships. How could the gospel be opposed to love? (pg. 56)

Hill goes on to challenge this “easy way out.” He explains how and why abstinence from forbidden pleasures is essential to upholding the true Gospel. “One of the hardest-to-swallow, most countercultural, counterintuitive implications of the gospel is that bearing up under a difficult burden with patient perseverance is a good thing.” (pg. 71).

Hill’s struggles bring alive the hidden suffering of Christians struggling with this sin. There is an intense loneliness. First, it is hard to share with other Christians that you struggle with this issue. Second, if you agree that abstinence is God’s will, you will pull back from non-sexual relationships with others of the same sex for fear of temptation or rejection (if they knew the real you). Finally, for those who cannot just “switch” their inbred sense of attraction, for those who cannot just “become heterosexual”, or those who through long years of effort find they cannot, these are faced with a lonely future with no possibility of waking up next to the one you love and sharing life together. Hill shared some of his personal diary notes on this point: “And don’t you think we’re wired (Genesis 2!) to want the kind of companionship that can only come through marriage?” (pg. 106).

An even more devastating point comes in Hill’s discussion of lust. He quotes Dallas Willard to the extent that to merely look (or see) and desire someone sexually is not wrong. Rather, looking to desire someone is wrong. The second glance is the one with evil intent. Hill shares what it feels like to “look and desire” in a homosexual way, and how this is even more hopeless than those who struggle against inordinate heterosexual desires:

For me and other gay people, even when we’re not willfully cultivating desire, we know that when attraction does come — most of the time, it could be as unlooked for and unwanted as it was for me that day on the dance floor at my friends’ wedding reception — it will be attraction to someone of the same sex. And in those moments, it feels as though there is no desire that isn’t lust, no attraction that isn’t illicit. I never have the moment Dallas Willard describes as “looking and desiring” when I can thank God that he made me to be attracted to women… Every attraction I experience, before I ever get to intentional, willful, indulgent desire, seems bent, broken, misshapen. I think this grieves [God], but I can’t seem to help it. (pg. 136-137)

This experience of brokenness and uncontrollable desires is not uncommon. Hill speaks for many when he writes these words. Hill quotes Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust, “There are probably nearly as many Christians with homosexual feelings who do not believe that homosexual sex is right for Christians as there are those who are advocating its acceptance.” (pg. 16)

The beauty of this book is that Hill not only describes the struggle, he also explains how he has found peace with the burden. His “life as a homosexual Christian… has simply been learning how to wait, to be patient, to endure, to bear up under an unwelcome burden for the long haul.” (pg. 50). Rather than seeing his struggles and shortcomings as “confirmations of [his] rank corruption and hypocrisy”, Hill has gradually learned to view his journey “of struggle, failure, repentance, restoration, renewal in joy, and persevering, agonized obedience — as what it looks like for the Holy Spirit to be transforming me on the basis of Christ’s cross and his Easter morning triumph over death.” (pg. 144). His insights on sanctification deserve to be quoted in full:

The Bible calls the Christian struggle against sin faith (Hebrews 12:3-4; 10:37-39). It calls the Christian fight against impure cravings holiness (Romans 6:12-13, 22). So I am trying to appropriate these biblical descriptions for myself. I am learning to look at my daily wrestling with disordered desires and call it trust. I am learning to look at my battle to keep from giving in to my temptations and call it sanctification. I am learning to see that my flawed, imperfect, yet never-giving-up faithfulness is precisely the spiritual fruit that God will praise me for on the last day, to the ultimate honor of Jesus Christ. (pg. 146)

What Christian cannot say amen to that? I found Hill’s honesty and frank discussion of his wrestlings against the sinful pull of his soul, inspiring and hope-giving even for broken heterosexuals like me. We could learn a lot from listening to homosexual Christians who are fighting to follow Jesus with a pure heart.

Hill encourages others struggling with this sin to be open about their struggles with others, to seek help, and find a church community to be a part of. Hill’s message also challenges churches today to be a community of Christ-loving people who minister with His gracious hands and loving heart to all those in need around them.

This book packs quite the punch for 160 short pages. It has opened up the struggle of what it means to be homosexual to me in a new way. It gives me hope and confidence that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does work, even for those with such a burden to bear. I pray and trust this book will make a wide impact among churches of all kinds, but especially the more conservative churches.

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.

One brief personal note, too, if I may. As I read the acknowledgments, I was delighted to find many names I recognized from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis where I was a member for four years. It’s a joy to think that my former pastor John Piper and the apprentice program he and others have poured their lives into was blessed to make a positive impact in Wesley Hill’s life. It shows that conservative evangelical churches can and do minister to struggling homosexual Christians.

I pray more churches would avail themselves of resources like this book and aim to think through what a full-fledged, Biblical perspective on homosexuality really means. I cannot recommend this book any more highly.

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

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Zondervan direct.

Quotes to Note 27: Dallas Willard on Lust

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

I’m working on my review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill (Zondervan). You can follow other reviews of the book at Zondervan’s Engaging Church blog, but mine should be up tomorrow. I found this book immensely helpful on many levels, but more later.

In this book, on pages 135-136, the author quotes Dallas Willard on an important distinction when considering the nature of sexual lust. I thought Willard’s insights were quite helpful and so I’m sharing them here with you all:

Dallas Willard helpfully defines lust as “looking to desire” — looking at someone other than a spouse in order to indulge in sexual fantasies. “That is, we desire to desire. We indulge and cultivate desiring because we enjoy fantasizing about sex with the one seen. Desiring sex is the purpose for which we are looking.” ¹

This purposeful looking — the “second glance” — is different, Willard says, from “looking and desiring.” Looking to desire is intentional, willful. Looking and desiring is natural, reflexive, part of the experience of a God-designed and God-given desire for intimacy with someone of the opposite sex; it could happen at any time, in any place — as you drive down the road and see a billboard, as you place your order at a restaurant, as you browse shelves at a bookstore.

When we only think of sex with someone we see, or simply find him or her attractive, that is not wrong, and certainly is not what Jesus calls “adultery in the heart.” Merely to be tempted sexually requires that we think of sex with someone we are not married to, and that we desire the other person — usually, of course, someone we see. But temptation also is not wrong, though it should not be willfully entered. ²

Looking and desiring, according to Willard, isn’t sinful; it’s what you choose to do with the desire that determines whether the first look will turn into cultivated lust.

 ¹ Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 165.

 ² ibid, 164

True Fundamentalists and the Pretenders

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Dr. Dave Doran comments on the two errors to avoid when it comes to separatism. The neglect of a biblical separatism on the one hand, and an excessive “free-for-all” approach, “where any perceived disobedience [becomes] the basis for excluding someone from true fundamentalism”.

I have seen both errors. And both are errors. The fundamentalist extreme though, can get downright dirty. Each fundamentalist group claims to be “true fundamentalists”, and they dig up all the dirt they can on the “pretenders”, those they allege are merely pretending to be true fundamentalists.

Doran Continues:

…It is necessary to separate from professing believers who persistently disobey God’s command to mark and turn away from false teachers/teaching. It is not necessary, though, to separate from those who are committed to this truth, but apply it differently. The application of biblical truth is always situational. One brother is prepared to act now, while another is waiting a little longer. One brother weighs actions differently than another, resulting in a different conclusion. The GARBC men came out in1932, while the CBA men stayed in until 1947. Some separatists worked within the National Association of Evangelicals until the early 50s, while other separatists opposed it from its start in the early 40s. The idea that men of separatist principles and convictions all agreed with each other straight down the line on matters of application is a myth””a myth that usually is wielded by the true fundamentalist crowd in order to marginalize those they want to paint as pretenders. I think I have even been guilty of doing it from time to time over the years.

Frankly, I have no illusions of restoring fundamentalist unity. That ship sailed a long time ago. What I am burdened about is restoring a proper biblical emphasis on the matter of separation from false doctrine and those who teach it. That is such a serious issue that it impacts our relationship even with professing brothers who persistently refuse to obey God on this matter. John R. Rice and those who followed his lead were wrong on this. They abandoned a biblical truth that must not be abandoned. That same truth, though, has also suffered at the hands of those who abused it and produced one schism after another, often for purely partisan reasons. It is crucial, I think, for us to avoid both of these errors so that we guard ourselves from the non-separatist and hyper-separatist ditches on the left and right sides of the road.

[emphasis added]

I’d encourage you to read Doran’s entire blog post, “The Fragmenting of Fundamentalism”. And if you haven’t had a chance yet, read the interesting exchange between Doran, Minnick and Bauder that I shared earlier.

I couldn’t agree more with Doran on his point. This is where I think much of fundamentalism fails badly. It’s not that separatism isn’t important. It’s that separatism takes many shapes and requires discernment. Just because some haven’t joined the fundamentalist camp yet (and many are largely unaware it exists), doesn’t mean they aren’t attempting to apply the biblical teaching on prizing the Gospel so much that one is ready to fight for it’s truths and separate from apostasy.

Often, I’ve found, so-called “true fundamentalists” stand ready to insert an evil motivation of their imagination behind every choice made by the pretenders or the conservative evangelicals (that the “true fundamentalists” disapprove of). Just because these other men didn’t ask you first, doesn’t mean thy didn’t think through the issue carefully.

Follow Up to the James White–Jack Moorman KJV Debate

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Last week’s televised debate between James White and Jack Moorman is now available to watch on demand. I was able to watch it this weekend and was really impressed with White, I thought he won the debate hands down.

White could have also pointed out that other languages beside Greek provide support for many Alexandrian readings, and only limited support for Byzantine readings. Also, the dearth of Greek study in general prior to the Renaissance helped ensure the Byzantine Text (being secreted into Europe with the onslaught of the Muslims against Byzantium) would be the primary text available for Erasmus and his like in the early period of recovering the Greek New Testament text.

I also thought Moorman should have had a better answer handy on the Revelation 16:5 point, which was repeatedly stressed. White did dodge some bullets, but the format makes it hard to address everything carefully.

Care to share your thoughts on the debate? Or did you (like me), miss it the first time round? Give it a watch and then chime in here (or if you’re brave, join the fray at KJVOnlyDebate.com).

For those who don’t know, while I’m evaluating the Majority Text position, currently I still am persuaded by the general tenor of the arguments for the modern Greek text behind modern versions, as shared by White and others. I believe our modern text can be refined and should be, but for the most part it is better than the Textus Receptus which preceded it. That’s my personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of most of my fellow bloggers over at KJVOnlyDebate.com.

~cross posted from my KJVOnlyDebate.com site.

Doran, Minnick & Bauder Discuss Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 33 Comments

The following is an enlightening discussion among some of the leaders of today’s fundamentalism. The participants in this discussion are: Dave Doran, pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI; Mark Minnick, pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church and long-time professor at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC; Chris Anderson, pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH; and Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. The panel included some other members too, but only these and the moderator (who I assume was host pastor Mike Harding) were participants in the following exchange.

The panel discussion is from the Preserving the Truth Conference, and available as a free MP3 download there. This question and the ensuing discussion can be found at 8:33 – 26:38 on the MP3. I did the transcription below myself, so any errors or inconsistencies in punctuation are my fault. Anything within brackets was added for explanation. I thought having this transcribed would be of interest to many, as otherwise it is buried in an audio download that not everyone would take time to listen to.

This is a bit lengthy, but regular readers of my blog should find it interesting. For those wondering what fundamentalists think of evangelicals, this would be good reading too. I’ll reserve my comments until after the exchange.

———————————

Moderator: Much has been written about the differences between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. What do you consider to be the most significant differences and why? I’m going to address that to Dr. Doran.

[laughter]

Dave Doran (D): Well, let me begin by saying… that I… implied in what I said in my session is, that I think those are defective categories. Uh… So, I don’t think they are helpful for the discussion. They operate with a sense of us and them. When if I could just… My thought on it is… We’re not sure who “us” is, we’re not sure who “them” is. We’re not sure what makes us, “us”; and what makes them, “them”. So to… to have the conversation seems inevitably to run into significant ditches, and… and that’s the tension. Now if… if I could… uh… if I could go back to what was just being said. If we wanted to take a distinctive that I think must control our relationships and say what is a church’s and, for lack of a better term, minister’s belief and practice with regard to the defense of the faith. Do they believe that we cannot extend Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied the faith? And that in fact to do that is a disobedience of such a high order that we must withdraw fellowship or withhold it from them? If that becomes the… the… the ah, umbrella within which we can have fellowship, then I think you’re going to have a people who have a lot of different distinctives and you’re going to have people who are closer, more closely aligned with each other at various spots inside there. But it won’t be ah… we can’t have any connection to all of these, or else the rip cord side of it would be… I personally believe, that there are people who are accepted by fundamentalists with whom we should not, ah… we should not accept. And if people are part of associations or fellowships that accept them, do I have to now pull out of my fellowship with those people? And we’ve not done it to that direction. We’ve only done it to the other side. And my point would be to say, uh… that’s why I think it ceases to function well for us to have those 2 categories at this point. Because the “us” category, the “fundamentalist” category is such a mixed breed right now, personally. And, and… every time, like even, and I thought Matt did a great job in the creation thing but, when he was trying to ask the question… conservative evangelicals and young earth creation… he starts naming names. And they believe it, they don’t believe it; they believe it, they don’t believe it. So… so, is there actually a conservative evangelical position on it? Because we don’t even know who those are, like Tremper Longman. I wouldn’t necessarily even put [him] in a conservative evangelical [position], but some people might… But so that’s the tension. Who is “them”? And… so, I just think… I am personally of the view, that… um, that… that as long as we’re thinking of those categories and we’re trying to think of what distinguishes us from them… uh… we’re running into a wall, because we’re coming up with things that we wouldn’t separate from fundamentalists who think those things. That’s my thoughts.

Moderator: And it’s open up for discussion.

Mark Minnick (M): Yea… I… here’s… and I really understand what Dave is saying. Part of my way of trying to get at an answer is to ask what… what, do those people say about themselves in distinction from us. And when I’ve had opportunity of interchange with them, that’s what I try to get at. Because… because the distance here, is… is two way. It isn’t just that we have distanced ourselves, but they are self-identified as well. So when they look at us, what do they say is not true of them, that is true of us and important to us? What are those things?

D: I’ve not heard any. Because… because the people… the people they say that about, I say you’re right.

M: Oh, you mean… when… when they say, that’s not me.

D: Well, when they say… If I say to them, “What about fundamentalism…”

M: …and you say it’s not you either…

D: Right.

M: Yea. Right. [signifying agreement]

D: “…What do you do you reject about fundamentalism?” When I hear them describe it, I go, “I don’t believe that”.

Chris Anderson (?): Well, you add… you add to that… The conservative evangelicals are more likely to speak in ways to disassociate themselves from broad evangelicalism. You know… they’re they’re actually looking at evangelicalism saying, “We’re not that; we’re opposed to that; let’s you know…” Our church when we go through an orientation class… we kind of teach “Here’s where we stand historically”. We’ll go through “Fundamentalism and modernism have had their controversy, and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. “Fundamentalism and new evangelicalism had their controversy and so the pie gets cut again and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. And when we started that with a church plant, I would just stop there, “so… we’re on the… you know, that’s… that’s us”. And now I actually… you know go further… and say, “Now within this group of fundamentalists that separated, at least you know historically, they’re following those who separated from new evangelicalism… now there are so many other issues within this piece of the pie that we don’t agree with…” “And there’s actually some of the evangelical piece of the pie that is more like us than they are like the evangelicals, and that I agree with them more than I agree with…” It’s just become very complicated… And… uh, I agree… I agree that the “us” and “them” and… and those kind of categories… It’s probably simpler to say let’s take just one issue like music, and how do we relate to… you know… how do we differ on that issue. Well, within evangelicalism you’re going to have Sovereign Grace [Music] and you’re going to have Paula S. Jones. It… everything is just complicated and it needs attention on one issue, one person at a time, I think.

D: If if I could just… add one thing. My point would be to say, I don’t think we obliterate the categories so that we can cooperate with each other. Mine is to say, those categories are not functioning well. So let’s go to what was the category that preceded these categories, and that is about the defense of the gospel, the purity of the church. Where… where does a person come down on those issues? And this is where I would affirm, what I’ve always said, Do they agree with and demonstrate through application that agreement… So if somebody tells me “Yea, I’m a separatist”, and if they’ve never actually done it, then I’m not sure that… you know… So if they agree and apply with what seems… what seems to be a good… good conscience effort to apply it, then… then I know there’s at least something something there, to use a Bauderism, that we have in common, about which we can fellowship. But if we don’t, at that point… There’s share, share, there’s something we share…

[laughter]

Kevin Bauder (B): Um, Dave, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Dave.

D: Sure you do.

B: No, I’m…

[laughter]

B: No, I get it.

D: Come on, just cut right to the chase.

B: I don’t disagree with the point. But, here we are, we’re us and none of them are here.

[laughter]

Moderator (?): There’s a few of them out there.

D: Yea I was saying… I think based on what I said… Some of them are thinking they are.

B: And when it comes to T4G and the Gospel Coalition there they are. And I don’t know, Mark, have you… have you been invited to preach at T4G, Gospel Coalition?

M: No.

B: Dave, have you?

D: No.

[laughter]

D: But… but I don’t think that’s because of my fundamentalism. They, ah…

Moderator (?): It’s your goatee.

B: We’d like the list!

D: No, I’m just… I mean… who’s?.. They’re not going to ask me to speak it, they’re going to look at the list, and go “Dave Doran, who is that?” You know…

M: No but… but listen… that’s part of my viewpoint on this. I really share this with Kevin. Almost… almost all of the overtures in the last 10 years have been made from our side. In other words, we… we have been the ones…

D: I think you… you were invited to preach at Capitol Hill Baptist Church [Mark Dever’s church], weren’t you?

M: Yes.

D: So was I. So there’s at least one overture that…

M: Yea, but that was after we made the overture to him. In other words..

D: Not, not in my case.

M: And I would only use that…

D: He sought me out. We were in the same place, and he sought me out because he was trying to figure out fundamentalists.

B: Now, I’d be interested to know in both your cases, did you do it, and why or why not.

M: Yea… well, yea… but… but, the background on this…

[laughter]

D: You know that light… that buzzer that goes out when you’re backing into something? You just heard it. “Me-me-me-me-me.”

[laughter]

M: No… I mean, the broader background to this is… I know that for 10 or 15 years here… that men within our movement have made an effort to try to get some of these men together occasionally in private settings, and say “Let’s talk, we don’t really understand”, or “We don’t think you understand us, and we know we don’t… maybe understand your heart”. Um… And I think… I think we have been the initiators in general for that kind of thing. And in those talks there are differences that come out on the principial level. Um… and so… when those things are there, even though we in some cases have found we’re pretty close, when it comes to the consistency of application, it breaks down. And puts me, I know, in a position, where I would end up giving a very uncertain sound to the people that God has entrusted some responsibility of example to. Um… if I then join together with their glaring inconsistency of practice of the principle they agreed with, in private, with me. Because publicly, they’re not enunciating that principle, and they’re not known for articulating it publicly and they’re not known for consistently practicing it. Where, I am. I’m not saying this approving of myself. I’m just saying as part of the movement I am… I’m in. I’m known for being willing publicly to go to the mat on that principle, articulate it, and try to consistently practice it. So that’s… just what I run into.

D: And I would say in large measure I agree with you. The places where I would potentially disagree would be: I’m not certain that we have actually gone to the mat on our principles to the degree that we claim we have. Because we have tolerated aberrant doctrine and immoral behavior in the larger movement, in a way that, in times parallels what they have tolerated for greater good causes.

M: But have we? When you say we have…

D: Jack Hyles preached…

M: but he

D: …in the pulpit in Greenville [SC, near BJU]…

M: Ok.

D: …well after he had preached the eternal humanity of Jesus Christ. Well after people had suspicions about his moral behavior. So I would say yes. We have. Now I don’t think we’re all culpable for that.

M: Right.

D: But my point is to say… but we hold them all culpable for the glitches on the other side.

M: But are our glitches aberrations to what we try to consistently practice. Or, are they frankly what we are known for? At… at… actually…

D: But known to who? To ourselves?

M: No. I would say known to the world.

D: But see, and this would go back to the question of the invitations…

M: You guys on the right need to jump in here!

[laughter]

D: But I mean, but… and… and I’m not… I’m just simply…

B: You can forget about it, Bubba! This is really interesting.

[laughter]

D: You see, I’m… And honestly, I’m just saying if… If you… If we had, for instance… Let’s… let’s, look at this way. There has been for 12 to 14 years a consistent orbit of people who have criticized me on the translation issue.

M: I haven’t.

D: No, I know that.

M: I’m with you.

D: And I was glad you came along because then they jumped on you! So… but, but… so here’s the deal. Um… Let’s say one of those guys decides that they want to come over and say. “Hey, I really want to understand what you believe here”. And then he goes back to his friends and said, “Do you realize we’re the only ones that go talk to Doran and Minnick? Doran and Minnick never invite us over to talk to them.”

M: Who, who’s the…

D: These King James people.

M: Oh, okay.

D: We don’t invite them over. “Hey come on over and learn what we’re thinking here”.

M: I’ve never had one of them do that.

D: Right, but what I’m saying though… The reason would be… is, because we assume they are so hostile to us that they’re not going to… that we’re not going to seek them out. And… and, here are these guys that for twenty or thirty years we’ve been ripping the shreds out of them… And we wonder why they don’t invite us to ask what we think about them! I mean that’s the problem. So… so… so, the reality of it is…

M: I don’t know. I’ve had the shreds ripped out of me!

D: Right.

M: …from people that don’t even know me. So…

D: Right, ok.

M: …on the other side I’m talking about.

D: Yes, I agree. I agree but… what I’m saying though… is that I think logistically, that there’s conversations happening and us going and saying “I think you’re not representing what we believe properly”… is not that they have no interest in it. I don’t think that can be used against them, because we have had… uh… I mean I’ve had… you’ve had conversations, I’ve had conversations with these guys. And… and, all they know about… and I”ll say us… is the the stuff where they’re having their salvation questioned. They’re being accused of… of, apostasy, of aiding apostasy… of all that stuff. And we’re not talking about Billy Graham, and I mean… I’ve never had a conversation with Billy Graham. I’m assuming you haven’t. Maybe you have, I don’t know.

M: [laughs] No.

D: We’re not talking about those guys. We’re talking about the guys that generationally are our age… our age…

[laughter]

D: …and… and all they’ve done is… they’ve grown up… They’ve grown up hearing certain things, and have misconceptions. It doesn’t mean… My answer, to go back to Kevin’s . My answer was to Mark [Dever], “No”. “No I won’t come and preach, and the reason I won’t come and preach is because I don’t agree with stances that you’ve taken. And your church might be an anomaly in the fellowship that it’s in. But it’s not the the rest and… and I… I’m not comfortable with that.” Now obviously…

M: You took a harder line than I did.

D: Yes, I think I did actually. I mean, and… and that’s I… ah, and I’ll say it the bad way: everyone knows you’re a better Christian than I am.

[laughter]

M: So you are to the right of me!

D: I am. Honestly, I think that’s sort of the weirdness of this thing… it’s that, uh… I actually have, very conservative positions. But those are not, ah… I… What I believe, and what everyone must believe are not exactly the same. And… and, therefore… therefore, I feel like I have to give some latitude for others that disagree with me on some points… ah… that I wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable with, ah… for a variety of reasons that… that we would wrestle through principially and leadership-wise and everything connected to that.

———————————

This marks the end of the answer to that particular question, and the discussion goes on to other questions. I highly recommend you download the audio from the panel discussion.

I thought this section of the discussion was eye-opening and refreshing at the same time. It is a sneak peek at what’s going on as the leaders of today’s fundamentalism think through how to interact and relate with those who don’t claim the label fundamentalism. I think Doran’s explanations were helpful, but I can also see where Minnick is coming from. The best line of it all, I thought, was about how the fundamentalists hold non-fundamentalists culpable for all the bad decisions in their movement, but don’t want to be taken to task for the black sheep among them.

Take a listen to the entire discussion for a fuller sense of what went on, and drop a line to let me know what you think! You can also see a clarification from Doran on what he was getting at in this discussion.