Tag: IFBx

Book Endorsement: “The Doctrine of Scripture” by Jason Harris

~ Bob Hayton

The Doctrine of Scripture by Jason HarrisToday’s book review post is special for two reasons. First, this marks the 150th book review I’ve posted here at Fundamentally Reformed. Second, this review includes the foreword I was privileged to write for this book.

The Doctrine of Scripture: As It Relates to the Transmission and Preservation of the Text by Jason Harris is published by InFocus Ministries in Australia. I’m excited to recommend this new book to my readers here in the United States as I believe this book can go a long way toward helping those confused or entangled by King James Onlyism.

My Foreword

Another book on the King James Only debate? Much ink has been spilled and many passions expended in what may be the ugliest intramural debate plaguing conservative, Bible-believing churches today. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, Baptists and Presbyterians, Reformed and charismatic — all have been affected to a greater or lesser extent by those arguing for or against the King James or New King James Versions of the Bible. With each new book it seems the debate becomes more and more caustic, each group castigating the other in ever more forceful terminology.

Jason Harris enters the fray with the right blend of humility and tenacity, and turns the attention of all to the true center of the debate: the doctrine of Scripture. What makes this debate so passionate is that it centers on the very nature of Scripture. Rather than focus on technical facts and ancient manuscript copying practices, Harris takes us back to what Scripture says about itself: its inspiration, preservation and accessibility. In doing so, he demonstrates how those upholding the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus behind it, base their position not on sound exegesis of the Scripture, but on tenuous assumptions read into the text.

Harris’s pen is lucid and his grasp of the King James Only debate as a whole is masterful. He focuses his work on TR-only position which represents the very best of King James Only reasoning. He interacts with the exegesis of key TR-only proponents and marshals compelling evidence demonstrating their failure to measure up to Scripture’s own teaching about itself. And after explicating the doctrine of Scripture, Harris draws important conclusions which should protect the reader from making simplistic assumptions in a quest for textual certainty that goes beyond what Scripture teaches we should expect.

Harris wants us to be confident that we do have the inspired Scripture translated accurately in our English Bibles. He wants such confidence to be rooted to a Scriptural understanding of the Doctrine of Scripture rather than in the “supernatural-guidance” of a group of sixteenth-Century translators. Assuming that such a group of men made no mistakes is to expect something Scripture doesn’t teach, and ignore what it does. Harris is to be commended for such a clear, lucid defense of the historic doctrine of Scripture. I hope his book is received well and helps laymen and pastors everywhere to begin to rethink the basis for why they think as they do when it comes to the King James Only debate.

Bob Hayton
FundamentallyReformed.com
KJVODebate.Wordpress.com

[pp. 9-10]

Additional Thoughts

After re-reading this book and seeing the published version, I am more optimistic than ever about its promise to provide clarity to the King James Only debate. Jason Harris’s book has a few characteristics which together make it a unique contribution to this debate.

First, his book focuses on the alleged doctrine of the verbal, plenary accessibility of Scripture. This is where the root of the KJV and TR preference lies for many people. The argument is not so much based on texts and manuscripts as it is on what allegedly the Bible teaches – that the very words of Scripture (all of them down to the letters) would be generally accessible to believers down through the ages. Harris spends most of his time marshaling a Scriptural rebuttal to these claims and also demonstrates the difficulties such a position has when it comes to the history of the text as we know it.

Second, this volume carefully builds a theology of the transmission and preservation of Scripture. Such a careful, exegetically-based explication of the doctrine of Scripture has been lacking in this debate. And such a gap has often been used by KJV-only proponents to their advantage. It is KJV-only books which start with a Scriptural position and then look at the evidence, with the “anti-KJV” books starting with history and evidence and then moving to the Scriptural arguments. This book is different and starts where the debate starts for most of the sincere believers who get swept up into it — it starts on Scripture’s teaching about the very nature and preservation of Scripture.

Finally, Harris keeps a very irenic tone throughout. He is careful not to overstate his case and exaggerate the claims of his opponents. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to this heated debate, but Jason pulls this off well. Additionally, he backs up his book with the inclusion of a vast array of footnotes documenting the claims he is arguing against. I appreciate how he does not direct his argument toward the Riplingers and Ruckmans of this debate. He focuses on the TR-only position and the more careful wing of KJV-onlyism, men like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Charles Surret, and the like. Harris has read widely in the KJV only literature, and his treatment avoids broadbrushing and generalizations that tend to give KJV-only proponents an easy out. It’s easy to dismiss a book as not being directed to their particular position, or to claim the author makes egregious errors and lumps their position in with that of heretical views. Harris’s book is not open to such charges. He directs his case against the very best arguments of KJV-onlyism.

Had I been exposed to such a book I would have been inoculated to the pull of the KJV-only persuasion. As it happened, I was swept up in a TR-only view that made it seem like we had the corner on truth and everyone else was compromising. By God’s grace I came to understand that Scripture does not support such a view of the transmission of the text.

Jason Harris is to be thanked for giving us a tool to recommend to those thinking through this issue from within, and to help the ones who are being pressured to join the KJV-only position. I highly recommend The Doctrine of Scripture and hope it makes its way into the hands of anyone struggling with this issue who will yet be open-minded enough to study out the issue from both sides.

You can pick up a copy of The Doctrine of Scripture at Amazon.com.

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

Clarifying My Thoughts on Music

~ Bob Hayton

My most recent post on music has a provocative title: “Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship.” And someone over at Sharper Iron sought clarification (in the comment thread here) as to whether I was really implying that a traditional stance on music is inherently legalistic.

I wanted to share my clarification here for my readers’ benefit.

Clarification

I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.

That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.

Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.

Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.

To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:

If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship – a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.

Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general – on lots of things, would be a good thing.

Then some follow up questions were asked and I thought I’d share my response to those here as well. I don’t want to be misunderstood and this is an important conversation – even if it is difficult not to talk past one another and be misunderstood in our zeal for our particular musical position.

Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.

I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.

However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.

Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.

How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?

Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.

Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music – that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.

All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to – his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.

What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?

Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?

Feel free to jump into the conversation in the comments below, or over at Sharper Iron.

Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

There are a variety of reasons for the “worship wars,” as they are called. And for fundamentalist Christians, most of the arguments center on the worldliness or immorality of the very musical instrumentation itself — the contemporary, beat-driven sound that makes up CCM. Growing up, I was trained to recognize a strong beat in musical accompaniment and to envision that anyone singing to such music was worldly. As I started thinking through the subject in more detail, I wanted to find a Biblical argument for my stance against pop musical styles. And Frank Garlock and David Cloud had to suffice. Even then, I could see the arguments were quite weak, so most of the rationale had to depend on an analysis of the psychological affect of rock music on people and of all things, potted plants. Yes, plants!

Well, after I walked away from strict fundamentalism and re-evaluated my position on cultural matters in light of an open-minded examination of the Bible, I came to embrace contemporary worship and I was then able to really enjoy worshiping God in music to a whole new degree. I encountered deep, Christ-exalting lyrics (more meaningful to me than some of the shallow and almost trite hymns we sang growing up). And the music resonated with me – it moved me. It was like speaking in the language of my own culture — which I had been trained to deny and put down, but that really was a part of who I was. I was able to express myself in worship, to lift up my soul and exult in new, powerful ways. And I have since come to really appreciate the contemporary worship song for all its worth.

Don’t get me wrong. I still value the old hymns, and I value traditional music as well. I sing in choirs and enjoy harmony and special numbers. I also don’t enjoy any new song, indiscriminately. There is a lot of shallow music without much doctrinal depth out there, for sure. But there are some great songs which bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary. I have written, years ago now, on the Modern Hymn movement. UPDATE: USA Today just did a piece on the Gettys who I also feature in the article linked above. And I still enjoy a balanced worship approach that seeks to unite styles and generations, as well as ethnic affinities, together into a blended, unified, corporate celebration of worship. And I appreciate John Piper’s emphasis on gravity alongside our gladness in worship too.

Now, to the point of my post, after having come to where I am now on worship, I became aware of a newer position on music in fundamentalism. This position eschewed some of the more Gospel-ish hymns, and didn’t take to the sentimental songs that were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They took to more doctrinal-centered, high sounding hymns. And they also stressed “religious affections” — an approach which majored on appropriate feeling in worship, and stressed that God desired the best aesthetics in music. I didn’t get sucked into that movement, although it did seem appealing and intellectual. But it didn’t sit well, especially when it was not Scripture that was judging between various music forms but research and supposed universal aesthetic principles.

I say this to encourage anyone who is following me here, to go read Bob Bixby’s recent post pointing out some grave errors in this “religious affections” approach to music. This approach stresses that there is a right way of feeling, and that how you sing and what you sing in church, reveals if you are having right feelings toward God. It sounds right, but it isn’t. Of this movement, Bixby notes:

They’re separatists by condescension. They don’t practice separation; they practice superiority. And that separates them….

Theirs is a Christ-less conception of worship. It’s Gospel-free. It’s enraptured by form. It’s old-school fundamentalism. And it has little to do with the religious affections that Jonathan Edwards wrote about.

Bixby’s piece is worth reading if you have ever tended toward frowning on contemporary worship styles. If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

I have to quote one more bit from Bixby’s post before encouraging you to read the whole thing.

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.

Now if you really want more after reading Bixby, you could try to wade through this old post in my archives, with its 50 plus pages of debate on the subject of the morality of music! But you probably have better things to do!

R.W. Glenn on Reducing the Christian Faith to a Lifestyle

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes by R.W. GlennR.W. Glenn packs his small book on the Beatitudes full of grace-filled, gospel-centered wisdom. I posted my brief review of Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes (Shepherd Press, 2013) earlier this week. Today I want to provide an excerpt where Glenn confronts a problem that is prevalent among conservative evangelical Christians.

“Reducing the Christian faith to a lifestyle” — Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are perhaps most famous for this trait, but a number of other evangelical groups have this tendency as well. In our zeal for protecting children from the evils of this world, and in our desire to live holy lives we sometimes turn faith into a religion, and the gospel into a sub-culture replete with its own rules and customs. Nostalgia for the good old days when sinful lifestyles weren’t on full display in public, and a fondness for large families and wholesome fun — these can be good things, but they can also define us. The problem comes when our familiar way of life, holy as it may be, becomes what we live for and what is most important to us. It takes the place of the gospel and the role of Christian doctrine, and this lifestyle-orientation can keep our kids from true Christianity. But don’t hear just my word for it. Listen to R.W. Glenn as he bemoans this same tendency, which we all should be on guard against.

In a post-Christian culture like ours where many regard moderate religiosity as a good thing, the danger for the church is to reduce the Christian faith to a lifestyle — a subculture complete with its own music and literature and fashions and jargon. This is especially dangerous for those who grow up in the church. Christian parents sometimes worry about their kids being influenced by worldly evils in our oversexed, violent, materialistic culture. They worry that their kids will be negatively influenced by the literature they read, the movies and television shows they watch, the video games they play, and the music they listen to.

Although these things are certainly not benign and do have the capacity to negatively influence children, they are not half as dangerous as reducing Christianity to moralistic religion. These kinds of Christian parents focus on relatively small matters and ignore the possibility of a much more terrible reality. Because it seems so likely that our churched children and teens would remain loyal to the church all their days and live very moral lives, we tend not to worry about them, but their very religiosity makes them even more susceptible to get crushed by the hurricanes of their own sin and the schemes of Satan than a bare house in the path of a Category 5 hurricane….

…if churched children remain unaffected by and inoculated to the gospel — wholesale consumers of just enough gospel lingo and institutional Christianity to look the part — they will completely miss the heart of Christianity. They will miss out on purity of heart. (Kindle Loc. 1359-1372)

I’m interested to hear what you think. Is this tendency a problem? Can you see how it subtly leads us from a gospel-centered Christianity?

Learn more about R.W. Glenn’s new book by reading my review or perusing the product page at Amazon.com or Shepherd Press.

Fundamentalism: Separation-Centered rather than Gospel-Centered

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

President Matt Olson at Northland International University is stirring up his fair share of criticism as he enacts reforms and quietly changes the ethos of what was Northland Baptist Bible College. From afar, I applaud his efforts and his bravery. He is taking shots from all sides of the ring!

My blogging friend Will Dudding at The Reforming Baptist, recently explained the pickle that Olson is in a post intriguingly titled “Northland, CCM, Fundamentalism & the Separation Nazis.”

One particular comment from his post really resonated with me. I believe it is spot on and covers almost the entire gamut of fundamentalism. I have bolded the phrase in the except below.

The gospel as the central unifying factor and the matter of first importance is often scoffed at on their blogs. They regularly deride movements like T4G and TGC that are propelling the gospel forward more than Fundamentalism has been doing. Being Separation-centered is more important to them than being Gospel-centered. Fundamentalism as a movement has done nothing in my generation and is going nowhere except to the trash heap of history. Christianity will survive well enough without it. Matt Olsen would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school.

I believe this is the problem, fundamentalists as a whole eschew a gospel-centered unity in favor of a separation-centric modus operandi. I have shared similar thoughts on this idea before in my post “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

What’s your thought on this? Is it unfair to say fundamentalism is separation-centered?