Tag: conservative

Al Mohler, The Fundamentalist

~ Bob Hayton ~ 22 Comments

Christianity Today is out with a cover story on Al Mohler and how he lead the push to purge the SBC from liberal theology by reforming the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary. The article is entitled “The Reformer”, and certainly Mohler is that. It truly is an amazing story, even if the author of the CT story makes it very clear she doesn’t approve.

What struck me when reading this article was how similar Mohler’s battle for truth at Southern is to the battle that was waged at Princeton in the 1920s by the likes of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til. The only difference is that Mohler won and turned back the tide of liberalism at Southern. He didn’t have to leave and found his own seminary, like Machen and Van Til did (when they founded Westminster).

“Fundamentalist” isn’t a popular label these days. And it’s meanings are many and varied. But by the truest, historic sense of the term, Al Mohler would have to be considered a fundamentalist. The question is, would today’s fundamentalists (of the independent Baptist variety) accept him?

Sadly, no. At least the vast majority would find some reason to distrust him or avoid allowing him entrance into the “seriously-devoted-to-God” club. Some would point to Mohler’s chairing of a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville as an act that belies Mohler’s true character (or at least points to something worthy of separation), while others would point to his more recent signing of the Manhattan Declaration. As an aside, that crusade carefully excluded the participation of Catholics, and Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the MD should be acceptable to any but the most die-hard of critics.

This is precisely the problem I have with most fundamentalists today. They refuse to get out of their box and see the world through non-sectarian lenses. Mohler is a convention man””not independent, like the fundamentalists. But the original fundamentalists were forced out of their conventions and denominations. Separation from doctrinal error, and militancy for truth have more than one manifestation. And from the fundamentalist side of the aisle, at a point several decades from the original conflicts with modernism which gave Fundamentalism its name, the thought that someone may be employing some form of separation from within a denomination doesn’t seem to register.

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis recently explained how separation is a hallmark of what it means to be a fundamentalist:

…fundamentalism was always about more than belief in the fundamentals. It was about doing battle for the fundamentals, an attitude that came to be called militancy….

At first, the fundamentalists hoped that the liberals would leave the Christian denominations peacefully and quietly (a hope that, in retrospect, seems astonishingly naïve). Later, the fundamentalists attempted to purge liberal influences from their denominations by expelling the liberals. Failing in that, the fundamentalists themselves severed contact with the liberals by leaving the denominations. In all three forms, however, fundamentalism was about separation, i.e., ecclesiastical non-cooperation with apostasy.

If the original fundamentalists could have had their choice, they would likely have stayed in the denominations. They would have loved to see Al Mohler’s outcome in their own context. It didn’t work out that way for them. Unfortunately, many of the heirs of the fundamentalists can’t give Christian support and brotherly affirmation to their conservative brethren like Al Mohler who have so profoundly changed the SBC for the better. Instead, they find ways to maintain a skeptical distance.

I hope this attitude of distrust will diminish. I hope a greater striving for unity and a mutual welcoming of others as true brothers in the faith, will flourish. And I am happy to see signs of change in fundamentalism. A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-kown SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.

Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today. Sadly, this is due in large part to their own distrusting attitude toward even the best of evangelicalism””pastors and leaders who are often fundamentalists at heart, going by different names.

Book Trailer and Great Deal on Republocrat by Carl Trueman

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I just finished reading a provocative little book, Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative by Carl Trueman (P & R Publishing). I was captivated by Trueman’s writing style and enthralled by his message. I really think this book deserves a widespread hearing.

A fuller review will be forthcoming, but for now, I’d like to offer you the book’s trailer, and encourage you to take advantage of a fantastic sale at Westminster Bookstore. Pick up a copy for only $4.99 (50% off) now through Thursday Oct. 7. This book is worth grappling with and thinking through no matter what side of the political divide you currently find yourself at.

P&R has some additional audio/visual content about this book here. At that link, be sure to check out a brief video clip of Carl Trueman discussing his new book, and also take note of the 50 minute video conversation from Reformed Forums with Dr. Trueman about the book.

–Originally posted at my book themed site, Cross Focused Reviews.

The Gospel or Glenn Beck?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

There may be a lot of good that conservative politics can offer America. Unfortunately for the Church, it can muddy the waters and make the Gospel message less clear.

I came across a fantastic small post written by author Nancy Guthrie over at The Gospel Coalition Blog. I wanted to share some of it here for your benefit. She writes it in the form of an open letter to her pastors.

…what prompts me to write to you. What prompts me to write is a statement Beck made on August 30 in an appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show, when he cheerfully celebrated that “240 pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams on stage all locked arms saying the principles of America need to be taught from the pulpit.”

As I’ve continued to think about this statement, I’m moved to write today and say “thank you” for not being one of them. Thank you for your faithfulness in preaching Christ from the pulpit, not “the principles of America.” Thank you for leaving that to others and reserving the sacred desk at our church for preaching, in the last few weeks, about the once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Christ, about the privilege we have to approach God in prayer as Father, about Christ as the Wisdom of God, about Christ as the most valuable Treasure in the universe, worth trading everything to have.

I love my country and certainly I have concerns about where it is headed. But I also know that “this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31). I know””as you quote it week-by-week””that “all men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever” (1 Pet. 1:24-25; cf. Is. 40:6-8).

So thank you for continuing to preach the word of the Lord and present the beauty of Christ, and for not being so short-sighted to preach the “principles of America.” You keep calling me to love Christ more than my country, more than anything, and this is the word I need most to hear.

I encourage you to read the whole thing over at TGC and to check out Nancy’s bio. What do you think of her main premise?

How Should Fundamentalists View Conservative Evangelicals? Kevin Bauder Weighs In

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In the eyes of many fundamentalists (and by that term I’m referring to the card-carrying, independent Fundamental Baptist variety), if you aren’t either a fundamentalist or an out-and-out liberal, then you must be a new evangelical.   “Neo” is a derogatory term, mind you, not the name of “the one” who will save mankind, ala The Matrix….

Fundamentalists for the most part like solid lines of demarcation between their group and the others.   Those others, whether they be conservative evangelicals in general, or Southern Baptists, or Calvinists, their main problem is that they aren’t “one of us”. And this means they can’t be trusted. Furthermore, their problems run deeper than what Bible version they carry.   They must be linked in some way, with Rome or liberalism or any other bad thing we can think of.

Problem is, they are independent thinkers, they don’t toe the fundamentalist party line when it comes to “worldly” amusements or cultural taboos. They actually respect Billy Graham to some level, and they don’t think any measure of Calvinism is satanic.

Perhaps the biggest problem, at least it appears so to us who are on the outside looking in, is that these “others” are influential. Leaders like John MacArthur and John Piper, use the Bible carefully and are “building a following” (at least that’s what Fundamentalists might think). Young unsuspecting Christians are led away into all kinds of error and wickedness when they follow these “others”.

I’m not far from the truth. And now that I’ve painted that not too rosy picture, let me encourage you to go read Kevin Bauder’s thoughts on conservative evangelicals. He is incensed at the party-spirit of fundamentalists which view these “others” as enemies or opponents. Rather, they are to be esteemed for their “defense of the gospel”. And this esteem and even a level of partnership is possible without an all out embracing of their every peculiar position on questions of worldliness and matters of secondary doctrine.

I do pray Bauder represents a changing of the guard and that the fundamentalists of today will share their deep-seated faith in and practice of the Bible with their evangelical brethren, come out from their holy huddles and not be afraid of being impacted by some of the clear thinking, Bible-prizing conservative evangelical leaders God had graced the church with today.

Let me offer a few excerpts and then encourage you to go read Bauder’s essay which says all of this in a more scholarly way.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy….

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

…

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today….

“Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Isn’t Enough” by Michael E. Wittmer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

DontStopBelievingAuthors: Michael E. Wittmer
Format: Soft cover
Page Count: 230
Publisher: Zondervan
Publication Date: 2008
ISBN: 9780310281160
Rating: 5 of 5 stars

I’m guessing that many who will read this review will be younger evangelicals who are aware of the Emerging Church movement. Many are intrigued with the idea of doing church differently. We’ve awakened to inadequacies in the church our parents raised us in. For people like us, the generational appeal of the Emergent movement is strong. Polarizing doctrines along with the conservative-liberal divide turn us off. A welcoming community of large-hearted lovers of Jesus sounds both authentic and attractive.

This desire for authentic Christian fellowship is not wrong by itself. Doing church in new and tantalizingly different ways isn’t either. Luther, Wesley and Moody attest to that. Yet the newness of the Emergent movement is often all that is needed for it to earn sharp and stinging conservative rebukes. Such smug dismissals only prove the point of these “postmodern innovators” , as Michael Wittmer dubs them. Conservative Christians today are infected with a rampant modernism that assumes it has arrived. With everything figured out, conservative Christianity has no room for postmodern Emergent craziness.

Put me down as one conservative who doesn’t think we’re above criticism. I tend to see the Emergent movement as reacting against some very real deficiencies in some versions of conservative Christianity. Before reading Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough, I wouldn’t have been able to articulate all of this exactly. I couldn’t put my finger on exactly what it was that seemed right about the Emergent phenomenon. With Michael Wittmer’s book, however, I’m much more equipped to think through the all the ramifications of the postmodern innovations so popular today.

Wittmer isn’t afraid to listen to the postmodern innovators. Listen and learn. From what I can gather from reading the book, Wittmer hails from a staunchly conservative background. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is intimately familiar with independent Baptist fundamentalism like I am. From such a background it is easy to see how many of the Emergent criticisms would hit home.

Post-moderns claim we conservatives often love the sinner’s soul more than his body. We aim for conversions more than lasting social change. We care more about deathbed conversions than good works and justice. Our churches are not welcoming and inviting to the unchurched, and our world-view comes off too cocky and self-confident. We have everything figured out and don’t struggle with doubt or pain. We care more about scientific and logical proofs for inerrancy than we do for the Bible’s overarching themes and meta narrative. We’re too quick to distance ourselves from the world than be friends to publicans and sinners.

There’s more. Must you believe something to be saved? Are people good or bad? Is Homosexuality acceptable biblically? Doesn’t penal substitution turn the cross into divine child abuse? Does Hell really last forever, and would a loving God really send anyone there? Is it really possible to know anything for certain? These questions and more are raised, and carefully dealt with in Wittmer’s book.

As one can see, with the Emergent movement, valid criticisms and sincere questions often get muddled together with a more radical revision of the fundamentals of the faith. In light of how many postmodern innovators are quick to embrace full fledged inclusivism (the idea that people will likely be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ), and their lack of owning up to virtually any non-negotiable beliefs, it is easy to see why many dismiss the movement as a whole, out of hand.

The strength of Wittmer’s approach lies in his patient hearing out of both sides. He sketches the conservative view and the postmodern reaction. Then he paves a middle ground that holds to a high (conservative) view of Scripture while appreciating insights from the postmodern position. He argues for a both/and approach which often does more justice to the Bible than either extreme. While he ends up defending conservative doctrines, he is not afraid to challenge conservative methods and motifs.

Such a discussion could easily become tedious and overly philosophical or theological. Wittmer’s writing style is so clear and lucid that with the help of illustrations and personal anecdotes, he makes the discussion fun to read. His many charts help convey his point even more clearly. The diagrams capture the discussions well, summarizing the perspectives of each side along with his middle ground approach.

Postmodern innovators and Emergent church leaders are not likely to change course as a result of this book. What I hope happens, is many a young evangelical is equipped and encouraged to opt for a conservative Christian approach that aims to both believe and live life here on earth well. As Wittmer puts it: “Genuine Christians never stop serving because they never stop loving, and they never stop loving because they never stop believing.”

If you are looking for a helpful introduction to the postmodern/Emergent church discussion, look no further than Don’t Stop Believing. And if you are concerned for a friend, or even for yourself, about the doctrine-is-optional appeal of postmodernism, pick up this book. You will be challenged, and encouraged in the faith.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.