Master’s Tournament Winner Bubba Watson and His Faith

I had the opportunity to watch some of the Master’s Tournament this year. I love watching golf (and try to play my hand at it, albeit rather poorly). So I caught some of the Master’s on Saturday, and was able to watch the conclusion of it on Sunday.

I was impressed with Bubba Watson’s win, and was thoroughly amazed by his unbelievable shot out of the woods and hooking onto the green to capture the victory. But I was unaware of the fact that Watson is a Christian.

He seems to be a solid Christian who is vocal about his faith, and I just wanted to point my readers in the direction of a few articles that make this point clear. I love the name Bubba, and his personality sure is winsome. But knowing we share a common faith makes me respect him even more.

Here are some links for additional reading:

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

Quotes to Note 33: On Proverbs and Wise Science

A few months ago I thoroughly enjoyed reading through Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction by Craig G. Bartholomew and Ryan P. O’Dowd (IVP, 2011). I found several memorable quotes and have highlighted a few already. The selection I’d like to share today focuses on abstract science over and against the everyday wisdom so memorably captured in proverbs.

Proverbs also encapsulate universal truths; “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” is a great example. The difference between such universal truths and scientific abstractions is that they are in a memorable form, available to the ordinary person. Post-Enlightenment science replaces Plato’s philosopher kings with science kings, whereas in the Old Testament, wisdom is democratized and available to all who will attend to her voice. The pithy, poetic form of proverbs makes them memorable, and in cultures like Israel they enabled ordinary folk to store up a reservoir of wisdom to be called on in challenging situations.

This is not to deny for a moment the value of science but to insist that lived, everyday experience is primary and that wise science will deepen our experience of everyday life rather than distrusting it and providing in its place an abstract alternative, which is then declared to be the true truth about the world. As Wolterstorff rightly says of the “ontologist”:

Yet the task of the onotologist is not to postulate new and astonishing entities, not to take us aback with his surmises, not to reveal secrets never suspected. His task is to describe the rich reality in the midst of which we live and act, believe and disbelieve, hope and despair. If he is successful, and if we are at all perceptive, we will not find him describing a terrain which, by his description, is astonishingly different from that in which we thought we lived. We will find him describing that terrain which has all the features of the familiar. [Wolterstorff, On Universals: An Essay in Ontology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xiii. Italics added]

~from Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction, pg. 282-283 [emphasis added]

You can read my review of this book here. Consider picking up a copy at any of these fine retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon.com or direct from IVP Academic.

Group Read through G.K. Beale’s “A New Testament Biblical Theology”

This year, I will be reading through G.K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology with some friends. I want to extend an invitation to all of you to join us as we read through this important book this year.

The book is more than 1,000 pages long so it will take us some time to get through it. We are going to try to read 2 chapters a week starting February 5th.

The reading group is set up at Goodreads.com. You can join the group there (a free account with Goodreads.com is required). You should also be able to follow the conversation at our Facebook page for the group too. And I’m sure I’ll be blogging periodically about the book as well here at FundamentallyReformed.com.

If you still need to pick up a copy of this book, you can do so at your local Christian bookstore or at the following online retailers.

G.K. Beale on “A New Testament Biblical Theology”

I’m gearing up to start working my way through G.K. Beale’s new book, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, his magnum opus (Baker, 2011). Together with Craig Hurst and G.A. Dietrich, I’ll be reading through this book two chapters a week. I’ll be posting more details on where the discussion forum will be, but I’m sure any of my readers are welcome to join us.

G.K. Beale is known for his work on tracing out all the New Testament quotes and allusions to the Old Testament. He is co-editor of the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker 2007) and also the author of a massive commentary on Revelation (Eerdmans, 1998) and a helpful biblical theology work entitled The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (IVP, 2004).

The Gospel Coalition blog collects all the glowing recommendations for A New Testament Biblical Theology, and Westminster Bookstore has the book at a great price (even better than Amazon’s).

See the 10 minute video clip below where Dr. Beale discusses his work.