Category: Recommended

yep, I recommend this link, article or whatever it is

John Piper, Rick Warren & the Watchbloggers: The Persistent Problem of Secondary Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

I wish I had more time to comment on this. As it is, I’m away from home and don’t have much online time this week….

I fired up my twitter feed when I got to our destination, only to see a lot of ire being directed toward John Piper for his invitation of Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God National Conference this fall. The watchbloggers, most notably CrossTalk blog (formerly Slice of Laodicea), are all upset over this and seem to have totally written John Piper off. I won’t repeat many of the charges, I’d feel dirty doing so. Just search the term #apj in Twitter to see some of this for yourself, or scour the comments at some of Justin Taylor’s recent blog posts.

Piper had explained his rationale for inviting Warren in audio/video posted here or in the comments. This comment under that post provides a transcript of Piper’s words on the subject and is helpful.

Last night, DG had hosted another ask Pastor John live online Q & A event, and so of course Piper had to deal with the controversy. The DG Blog has a 12 minute video-clip up from last night’s event, that should satisfy anyone’s curiosity. In that clip, which I recommend you watch, I found a few segments very insightful and pertinent to the issue of secondary and excessive separation. Let me provide some excerpts here and then offer some thoughts. I apologize in advance, if I don’t get the transcript exactly right.

…I’m real eager that this glorious thing God is doing in the “young, restless, reformed” — whatever this thing is called that God’s doing, awakening people’s love for the supremacy of God in all things. I’m real eager that that not become a brittle, narrow, ugly, excessively separatist movement, and so I’m not devoting my life to finding a lot of enemies to attack. I’ve got some, but I like to do it simply by hammering on truth….

Separatism or, who you do things with, is an important Biblical question. And so, I don’t put Rick Warren in the group that I’m going to hold at an arm’s distance. …I’m not going to draw the circle there.

And suppose you disagree with me on that. Now you’re faced with the question, ok, I’m with John Piper theologically. I’m not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things. John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper? That’s called secondary separation issues. And there you are, I hope we can disagree about who we hang out with. Okay. Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said, no, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I’m going to separate from you. And I want to say, look let’s, can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference and you still be willing to eat with me, talk with me?

So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation. The way I have chosen to live my life for the sake of reformed theology and the supremacy of God and the inerrancy of the Bible and the importance of solid Reformation gospel truths, the 5 solas, and so on, is to give all my energy to putting them in a positive, aggressively spreadable form, not to spend my time shooting at the people who don’t like them….

I think Piper does a good job explaining secondary separation. It is always a problem, because people always will disagree with others on their particular approach to ministry. So, should we just separate from anyone not exactly like us? No.

I find it interesting that many who aren’t fundamentalists exactly (they aren’t card-carrying Independent fundamental Baptists), still think secondary separation should apply here. I think it’s the natural human reaction when we face disagreements. It is certainly easier to just write people off, then allow for important differences.

Yet, Rom. 14-15 should apply here. We can accept others even thought they differ from us. Personally, I’m encouraged that Piper is reaching out to Warren. He may perhaps influence Warren, and Warren does have some positive things to share with us, too.

I have serious reservations about Warren and his methodology. But his book revolutionized my grandfather’s life. I can’t argue with that. When we take small differences and make them so important we will die over them, we are making mountains out of molehills. And in the process, the important, fundamental truths–that list Piper shared that Warren upholds– are rendered meaningless. As I have pointed out before, we “minimize the gospel through [such] excessive separation.” I think the unity we have in the big things should enable us to get along enough to respect others who differ with us in relatively minor matters.

What’s your thoughts on Piper and Warren. Do you agree with my thoughts here? If not, why should we think of Piper as “selling out” for this invitation of Warren to speak? Please join the conversation in the comments below.

Home Depot Theology: “You Can Do It. We Can Help.”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

I was struck by one line of a very good article in The Christian Science Monitor this weekend. The story highlights the “new Calvinism” which is on the rise today, and focuses on Mark Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C. The contrast between a biblical, Calvinistic ministry and the prevailing “Home Depot theology” of evangelicalism today could not be painted more starkly. I encourage you to read the article as it will be a blessing and encouragement to you.

Here are a few snippets:

Today, [Calvin’s] theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me-centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made-to-order religion, Calvinism’s unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians — especially the young…

…

Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help. Epitomized by popular titles like Joel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential,” this message of self-fulfillment through Christian commitment attracts followers in huge numbers, turning big churches into megachurches…

…

More broadly, the Calvinist revival reflects an effort to recast the foundation of faith itself. From conservative evangelical churches to liberal new-age groups, the message of much modern teaching is man’s need for betterment. Not New Calvinism; its star is God’s need for glory. And the gravity of His will is great: It can be denied, but not defied.

Many conservative Christians who dislike some of the doctrinal emphases of Calvinism have to at least be happy that a more biblically-based ministry model is catching on today. Give the article a read and let me know what you think. Feel free to comment on the “Home Depot theology” descriptor too. Doesn’t that just describe exactly what is wrong with the seeker-sensitive, market-driven Christianity that evangelicalism is promoting?

Phil Johnson on Standing Firm

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

…And let me add this: if you do abandon Arminianism and become a Calvinist; if you leave one eschatalogical position and take up another one; if you undergo any major doctrinal shift””don’t suddenly act like that one point of doctrine is more important than all others. Don’t blog or talk about it constantly to the exclusion of everything else. Spend some time settling into your new convictions before you pretend to have expertise you frankly haven’t had time to develop.

I think the tendency of fresh Calvinists to become cocky and obsessive about the fine points of predestination is one of the things that makes Calvinism most odious to non-Calvinists. Don’t do that. It’s not a sign of maturity, and you’re not truly steadfast in the faith unless you are truly mature…. (from Phil Johnson’s recent post: “Stand Firm“)

This fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in theology, is always open to the pendulum swing and a general unstable perspective on all things. This tendency is something to be aware of and to guard against.

Does this mean we should all have a stable eschatology or all points figured out on every doctrinal position? Does it mean we should pontificate and criticize others not exactly like us? No. We shouldn’t be tossed by the wind, but neither should we root ourselves in something that isn’t connected to solid ground.

For those who are still developing in their pursuit of a stable and correct theology. Don’t rush things. Take your time. Be slow to talk and aim for wisdom. Take Phil’s advice. Study your Bible first, books second, and blogs last.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of not heeding this advice in the past. But by God’s grace, I’ve become settled on many things. And I’m not afraid to say when I’m not! May God continue to shape and mold us all.

Seriously, check out Phil’s article, it will be worth the read, and let me know what you think.

Four Millennial Views Explained: A Helpful & Free E-Book on Eschatology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I’m never one to turn down a chance to open the proverbial “can of worms”.  I’ve gotten myself in heaps of trouble on my blog and elsewhere over the years.  (In fact I started a group blog on KJV Onlyism, so you know I have no sense left in me!)  So, on the heels of my recent post, “Doctrinal Disagreement (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue“, I thought it might be good to test the waters with a post on eschatology.

I recently came across an excellent e-book explaining the four primary millennial views (yes there are four) that was a joy to read.  Even if I didn’t lean amillennial, I think I would have appreciated the clarity with which Dr. David Murray, professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI) explained the four positions: amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism.  The freely available e-book (download it as a .pdf or view it at Scribd), is laid out in a question and answer format complete with pictures — helpful pictures (there’s not many diagrams or end-times charts, unfortunately 😉 ).

This little book (57 pages but much shorter if you took out the pictures and repetition) is well worth your time, if only to help you see where the areas of disagreement are.  Knowing where we disagree will highlight how much we really do agree about.  Knowing why others hold to their views also allows us to see that our opponents may just revere the Bible and love Christ as much as we do.

I wish end-times theology wasn’t so divisive.  In reading through this, I was reminded afresh of the focus believers need to maintain on both this present earth, and Christ’s grand accomplishment which transforms our entire experience as well as on the future hope we have laid up for us in heaven, which will be realized with the re-creation of everything into a new heaven and new earth. Surely we can all agree on that.

I encourage you to give this little primer a read through.  Then feel free to speak up for your view of choice in the comments.  I want to close with a passage that was referenced all throughout the paper and which seems appropriate here:

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.  (2 Pet. 3:11-13 ESV)

Dr. Murray has additional resources at his blog, such as animated time-lines of the various viewpoints (and wow does this fellow have an accent!).  Don’t forget to feel free to dig in to the can of worms in the comments section below!

[HT: Nathan Bingham]

A Resurrection-less Gospel?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Adrian Warnock (an influential blogger whom I’ve had in my blogroll for quite some time here at Fundamentally Reformed) has a new book out this year (from Crossway) on the Resurrection. I plan on jumping into this book between now and Easter. It is entitled Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything.

In an online interview at ChristianityToday.com, Adrian had this to say about the resurrection.

It is interesting that most Christians talk about the Cross often, and yet we seem to only speak about the Resurrection at Easter. I have also noticed that there is a big contrast between our preaching today, which tends to assume the Resurrection while emphasizing the Cross, and the preaching of the book of Acts, which does the exact opposite, speaking far more about the Resurrection and how it has saved us. Charles Spurgeon noticed this neglect in his day as well, and argued that if our preaching better matched the book of Acts, we would see more people become Christians.

But it is not just preaching. When speaking about the gospel to unbelievers, before I got into studying the Resurrection, often I would bring them to the Cross and leave them there without even mentioning that Jesus had risen again. I am now convinced that if we do that we have only done half of the job. Without explicitly proclaiming the Resurrection, we have not declared the biblical gospel at all. We must also explain the implications of this event. If our understanding of how Jesus saved us makes the Resurrection almost an optional extra, it is clearly deficient.

I found that quite insightful and correct. His words here make me more eager to jump into the book. In my years in extreme fundamentalism, I heard quite a few truncated gospel presentations. I fear this tendency to make the Resurrection a footnote to the gospel is shared by many other segments of evangelicalism today, as well.

Check out sample pages at this link, or go ahead and get the book. I gave a fuller excerpt of the interview over at CrossFocusedReviews.com. Read the whole interview at ChristianityToday.com.