Tag: Separation

Exploring the Divide: What Makes Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals Different?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

A while back, Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, penned an important article critiquing how fundamentalists typically view conservative evangelicals. Readers of my blog will readily agree that fundamentalists tend to view conservative evangelicals as combatants or even opponents. Fundamentalists justify their existence, it seems, on showing just how different conservative evangelicals like John MacArthur, Al Mohler or John Piper are from the fundamentalist ideal.

I praised Dr. Bauder’s effort at offering a fundamentalist self-critique on that negative perception. But now, Dr. Bauder flips the coin and approaches the issue from a different vantage point. Now he is spelling out exactly what the “substantial differences” which he had said “continue to distinguish conservative evangelicals from fundamentalists” really are.

Again, Bauder’s efforts at making things very clear, are to be commended. In the first three parts of a series entitled: “Now, About Those Differences”, he has laid the groundwork for what promises to be a fruitful survey of the major sticking points that separate conservative evangelicals form the fundamentalist movement. In part 1, he introduces the series and parts two and three discuss the Gospel as a boundary marker for Christian fellowship, and a multi-layered approach to fellowship/unity and separation which most conservative evangelicals would readily agree with. The rubber will meet the road in his next installment and I’ll be sure to update you.

For now, I would encourage you to read the first three parts of the series as I feel this has promise to provide an extended case study which will help people on both sides of the aisle really appreciate what the issues are that divide us. I hope this will lead to clarity and a rapprochement of both parties as much as is humanly possible.

The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22

~ Bob Hayton ~ 26 Comments

Anyone with roots in conservative evangelicalism, and particularly fundamentalism, will have heard 1 Thess. 5:22 used as justification for all sorts of personal standards. Going to see a movie, drinking from a dark bottle, using playing cards, wearing facial hair (for men) or wearing pants (for women) — all of these activities and more are condemned with the words: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, KJV).

These words are used as a bully club to keep people in line with the group’s expectations, or more usually, that of the leader. What appears as evil to one is not necessarily going to appear as evil to another; and so, taken to an extreme, the careful Christian could hardly do anything for fear of it somehow being misconstrued as evil.

This basic interpretation of the verse has surprisingly wide attestation. A wide variety of commentators uphold this understanding: Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Harry Ironside, J. Vernon McGee and Albert Barnes. It certainly is not good to rush into things which appear to be evil. But the nuance I see as unwarranted is more adequately found in these thoughts by Ironside: “All of us should remember that others are watching us and taking note of how we behave. We ought to abstain from all that looks like evil…” Or as McGee puts it: “This… is the answer for questionable pastimes and amusements. If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Scripture does teach that we should watch out for weaker brethren and not put stumbling blocks in their way. But this particular verse is taken to teach a testimony should be maintained and things avoided which might at a far glance from a passing stranger appear to be sinful, even if upon closer examination they are not. Consider some of these modern applications of this verse in a fundamentalist context.

Fundamentalist Applications of 1 Thess. 5:22

The verse is used in a list of “67 tests that can be used by a believer to decide upon a course of action“. It is the “Appearance Test”. “Would what I do assume any appearance of evil? Would my actions be misinterpreted or seen in a negative light?”

It is used in a church statement of faith in relation to the dress styles church members should have. “We believe that Christian people should look and act like Christian people and not like those who love the things of this world…. Appearance shall be neat and clean, with short hair for men and longer for women. If any statement is to be made by means of dress, it should be a positive statement for Jesus Christ.”

It is used in a church constitution as follows: “The life of the pastor and his family should be an example of godliness and spirituality. They should not indulge in worldly or sinful practices which would tend to weaken the testimony of the church (1 Thess. 5:22 ).”

In a statement copywrighted by BJU Press, a group called the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible, lists 1 Thess. 5:22 as one of 5 reasons why “Christians… separate from the world and from worldliness…” The reason is “To make clear to Christians and non-Christians alike by their actions that they belong to God, not to the world (I Thessalonians 5:22).”

Cooper Abrams of bible-truth.org applies this to ecclesiastical separation: “This verse too is dealing with biblical separation from evil and sin in any form. It is the broadest of all the verses and plainly states to “abstain” from all appearance of evil. To “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from” or to “refrain from.” Is not false doctrine evil? God clearly throughout His word over and over again condemns sin and false and idolatrous teachers. Is standing beside them, and working with those in doctrinal error “refraining” evil? The answer is obviously no. It is in fact standing with them.”

A popular King James Bible Only site, lists the NKJV’s rendering of the verse as “every form of evil” instead of “every appearance of evil” as one of 337 changes removed from the AV 1611.

David Cloud, an influential fundamentalist leader, applies the verse to everything from alcohol and TV to a new evangelical approach to ministry.

A Closer Look at 1 Thess. 5:22

Key to understanding 1 Thess. 5:22 is appreciating it in its context. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ειδους‚ (eidos) translated “appearance” by the KJV but “form” or “kind” in most modern Bible versions is also important.

Leon Morris in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians covers both of these points quite well. I’ll let him explain:

The positive injunction is followed by the negative. The form employed is a strong one with the preposition apo (as in iv. 3) used to emphasize the complete separation of the believer from evil. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word eidous rendered appearance… as in AV [another abbreviation for KJV]…. The word eidos means the outward appearance of form (Lk. iii. 22, ‘shape’), without any notion of unreality. It is also used in the sense ‘sort, species, kind’. AV takes it in a third sense, ‘semblance’ as opposed to reality, but this does not seem to be attested elsewhere, and it is unlikely that the apostle would be concerned only with outward appearance (there is no word ‘even’ here to give the meaning, ‘even from the appearance of evil’). Our choice seems to be between ‘every visible form of evil’ (with no notion of unreality), and ‘every kind of evil’. The use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament favours the former; but there are enough examples of the term meaning ‘kind’ in the papyri to make the second quite possible. And in view of the context I am inclined to accept it. Paul is urging his friends to eschew evil of every kind.

The change from that which is good (lit. ‘the good’) in the previous verse to ‘every kind of evil’ in this is significant. The good is one, but evil is manifold, and is to be avoided in all its forms. — pg. 106, Eerdmans 1958 (1982 reprinted edition) [italics original, bolded emphasis mine]

I would add that The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1975) also explains that the modern concept of “semblance” is foreign to the Greek mind.

The distinction is commonly drawn between outward form and essential substance. Whilst this distinction is also found in Gk., the Gk. idea of form does not imply that every kind of form is a mere outward appearance…. [Speaking now specifically of the classical usage of ειδος]: the modern distinction between the external and the internal, the visible and the invisible, the husk and the kernel, and between the outward form and essential content is inappropriate and foreign to this aspect of Gk. thought…. The LXX uses eidos to translate mar’eh (sight, appearance, vision) and to’ar (form). Here too the outward appearance of the whole being is meant (cf. Gen. 29:17; Isa. 53:2 f.), and not merely the outer shell behind which something quite different might be supposed. — pg. 703-704 (vol. 1)

The closest that the Greek comes to the idea of “semblance” is with the word σχημα.

Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, present many papyrii examples contemporary to the NT of the meaning “kind” or “species” for the word ειδος. They also explain that the Greek word (ε)δικος‚ meaning “one’s own” comes from the word ειδος.

The meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22

Given the above closer look, I want to draw out what I believe is an appropriate interpretation and application from this text. I’ll be drawing from the immediate context of the verse beginning with vs. 19 – 23.

Don’t quench the Spirit by despising the role of prophecies in the local assembly. Instead of despising prophecies, you are to test everything (including prophecies). That test should result in your holding fast to “the good” and abstaining from every manifestation of evil. Some prophecies are evil, but the attitude of despising prophecies are also evil. As we test everything, we must approve the good and reject the various forms of evil. In fact we need God Himself to “sanctify (us) completely” so that we are “kept blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Abstaining from “every form of evil” certainly fits in with that.

Now don’t be put off by the mention of prophecies. It is right there in the Bible. Whether or not prophecy applies to times beyond the NT is beside the point in our argument here. One thing is for sure, this teaching can be applied to the preaching and teaching of the Word. We shouldn’t despise teaching which we don’t like, but we should test it.

If it is legitimate to find a distinction between the appearance and the true nature of something in this passage, it would most appropriately apply to the prophecies which appear good but actually are forms of evil. I’m not convinced the Greek would allow this. The passage clearly addresses prophecies we don’t like but that are true. I don’t believe the opposite variety of prophecies (seem true but are bad) is referred to in this passage.

Other Articles

I refer you to the following articles for more on the real meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22.

“Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church” by John H. Armstrong

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Many today agree that the evangelical church in America has problems. It has a consumeristic mentality catering to the pervasive individualism of our society. Church programs are offered, and sermon series advertised in such a way as to get people hooked on the “brand”. Surveys and market research are conducted to find people’s felt needs and deliver. And with such a cheapening of church, it’s no wonder that counter movements abound in Christianity these days. Emergent, post-modern, missional — you name it, people realize the current super-sized church is high on calories and low on nutrition. Many are just abandoning the ship altogether.

One such counter movement is described by John H. Armstrong in his new book Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church (Zondervan, 2010). He contends that a twin focus on mission and unity will heal the Church’s woes.   He calls this missional-ecumenism.

Many of the problems Armstrong sees in today’s church are problems indeed. There is a high dose of sectarianism, and a low dose of biblical community. He reacts against the prevailing consumerism in churchianity. A return to the church’s “ancient/future faith” with a focus on the value of church history and an appreciation of the Apostle’s creed and other universally accepted creeds, he argues, will cure these ills.

Reacting to sectarianism in today’s church, Armstrong encourages a relational unity flowing from our brotherhood and shared faith in Jesus Christ. He wants us to see past our differences, but does hold that these differences matter. Denominations are not a bad thing in his view, but we should reach beyond them and see our shared unity as the “one church” following “one Lord” and sharing “one baptism” and “one faith” (Eph. 4).

I can agree to an extent with all of this. I too see John 17 and Jesus’ prayer for unity as being too easily dismissed in evangelicalism today. I think we need more charity, more grace, and a greater realization of how big our agreement is if we share in the core truths of the gospel. I agree that working together with other Christians and not viewing them as the enemy positively impacts our evangelism. I even share some of Armstrong’s specific criticisms of the modern church:

[There is] a small view of the church and a big view of our own importance. We have exalted our interpretations of the Scripture by boldly proclaiming: “My authority comes only from the Bible.” (pg. 131)

Some popular evangelical writers dehistoricize the church and make a case for revolution not reformation. They throw out the past. (pg. 107)

…Scripture is clearly not so much a treatise on systematic theology as the unfolding story of a people– the people of God…. A humble and faithful Christian life is marked by “fear and trembling” (Philipppians 2:12) and a willingness to allow for mystery. (pg. 96)

The culture with its decadence, relativism, consumerism, and wanton rebellion against the revealed will have God is actually the symptom of our problem. The root cause is a deeply divided, morally compromised, theologically indifferent, biblically ignorant, and culturally conformed church. The gospel has been reduced to a minimal set of consumer-related facts. The “sinner’s prayer” has replaced the kind of radical conversion that results in life-changing grace. In the process, the larger narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation has been lost. With this loss there is no coherent understanding of the kingdom of God. The church has now become a religious society of the comfortable. Serious Christians should cry out to God for his mercy and grace to be poured out on the church. (pg. 194)

Where Armstrong goes wrong, in my opinion, is jumping from the “one church” ideal in the NT, to affirming that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are part of that “one church” because they affirm the Apostle’s Creed. In vain did I look for any discussion of the Reformation and why Rome really isn’t advocating a false gospel when they do not preach justification by faith. Instead I found statements like this:

My understanding of biblical oneness combines two commitments that are often considered separately. the first is a commitment to work in every conceivable way to demonstrate the God-given spiritual oneness I share with other believers through our union with Christ….

But my second commitment goes even further. Many Protestant evangelicals are satisfied with informal person-to-person expressions of oneness. Because they tend to view the church as a voluntary association, they see no need to seek unity with other churches….

This two-commitment approach… has practical consequences for those who consider themselves evangelicals. It means I can no longer be… anti-Catholic…. With deep conviction, I am compelled to regard both Catholics and the Catholic church with love and esteem. (pg. 60-61)

…the Western church was torn apart by the Protestant Reformation. This movement challenged the Catholic Church to renew itself but resulted in in a massive schism leading to errors on every side. Eventually, these schisms resulted in the birth of several major divisions within historic Protestantism, leading to an endless variety of new churches built around human personalities and doctrinal differences. (pg. 89)

I appreciate the exhortation to unity and the admission that people who don’t think like us may well be honestly following Christ. But I think Armstrong is advocating a dangerous course when he encourages us to just view all Catholics or Orthodox adherents as genuine Christians. At this point, I need to let Armstrong explain in his own words at some length.

…We have heard a lot about culture wars in the United States for thirty years. I am far more concerned about the truth wars waged by polemicists inside the church. This is the bitter fruit of sectarianism. It lacks charity and leads to mean-spiritedness.

Privately, I hear people ask, “Who is a real Christian?” with regard to their own family members or members of their congregations (including pastors). If a Catholic becomes an evangelical, then those who remain Catholic are viewed by the “convert” as non-Christians….

I am wearied by this attempt to say who is and is not a real Christian… I find it destructive of everything true to Christ’s teaching. During my journey to catholicity, I made a conscious choice to give up this approach. After all, if a Christian is someone who has “the Spirit of Christ,” then I do not know who truly has “the Spirit of Christ.” Scripture further declares, “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Timothy 2:19)…. Real conversion and true faith are God’s work. And since all three of the great traditions of Christianity teach that those who share in proclamation and participation must also have explicit living faith, I began to openly encourage explicit faith rather than wage attacks on others.

Once I took this step, I became more concerned about my own faith and attitudes. I no longer had to answer many of the questions people asked me about other people–questions that only fed my pride. I ask, “Why should you care about what I think since I don’t know the real answer?” I then ask, “Have you confessed faith in Christ? Are you his baptized follower?” If the answer is affirmative, then I proclaim the gospel and let the Spirit work as he wills. God will judge the heart… (pg. 150-151)

I can’t accept Armstrong’s explanation here. Certainly a glib, non-chalant condemnation of others is wrong. I also believe there are many true believers that aren’t Protestant. But I believe Scripture requires us to be more discerning and careful in this matter. I don’t want to publicly affirm Catholicism’s dangerous teachings about the gospel and the relative emphasis on Mary, works, confession, saints and things like that. Paul’s concern for unity didn’t prevent him from making strong condemnations of false doctrine, just see Galatians 1.

This book will stretch you and cause you to think. And much in the book is actually helpful and good. But I would encourage only a discerning use of the book by mature Christians.

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

This book was provided by Zondervan Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Why T4G Should Not Fall Apart Over John Piper’s Connection with Rick Warren

~ Bob Hayton ~ 25 Comments

Background

As I’ve noted previously, John Piper is going to have Rick Warren speak at the Desiring God National Conference this year. And many conservative Bible-believing Christians are very concerned about this. They feel that Rick Warren preaches a watered-down Gospel and that Piper has sold-out on the Gospel by endorsing Warren in this way.

I’ve had blogging friends of mine express deep concern over this decision of my former pastor. I’m aware of at least one pastor who has publicly “separated” from Piper and removed all of his books from their church bookstore in response to this matter. Some fundamentalist bloggers are noting this as yet another example of a lack of discernment on Piper’s part and are encouraging pastors and fundamentalist leaders to not recommend Piper’s works to their congregations.

Now, some are even openly speculating about next week’s Together For the Gospel Conference, and wondering what kind of an impact this will have on the conference. Lou Martuneac a fundamentalist blogger can be quoted on this point:

The revelation of John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to his Desiring God (DG) conference could not have been welcome news for Together for the Gospel (T4G)1 organizers and its key note speakers on the eve of their event. The Piper/Warren issue is sure to be the buzz of the conference. I do not expect anything on the Rick Warren invitation from the platform speakers unless it comes from Piper, which he may feel compelled to address in an attempt to quell the buzz.

The true irony of this year’s T4G is the theme, which is, “The (Unadjusted) Gospel.” Rick Warren is among the high priests of a watered down, non-saving message….

I half-suspect Piper may take the platform at the outset to address the Warren invite. Why? For the purpose of getting it on the table, hashed out and hopefully quelled so that it is not a major lingering distraction during the conference. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be a huge buzz on the floor of T4G and in small groups settings throughout the conference….

What will be the reaction of the T4G men: MacArthur, Dever, Sproul, et. al.? I suspect some private attempts to admonish Piper have already taken place. All indications are he (Piper) will reject any admonishment from his brothers. Will there be some public negative reaction from the other T4G men? Will, for the sake of T4G/TGC fellowships, all be forgotten. At T4G will all embrace one another as if nothing is amiss?

Meanwhile, influential bloggers Tim Challies and Justin Taylor have tried to model reserve and charity in this whole debate. Taylor had to shut down comments on his blog due to how bitter and caustic many were. Challies has disagreed with Piper’s decision but also made the following points.

But before I continue, let me offer one more word. John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak at the conference is not that big of a deal. It matters, to be sure, but not enough to get too riled up. It’s important that we put it in its proper context. Piper did not invite Robert Schuller or the Dalai Lama, someone who outright denies the Gospel. Warren professes faith in Christ and professes an evangelical understanding of that faith. Furthermore, this conference is Piper’s gig and he is free to invite whomever he wants (or whomever he is permitted within whatever structure there is inside of Desiring God). His house, his rules….

…let’s heed Piper’s warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let’s do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

Doug Wilson has also explained how he thinks about all of this. He has a “wait and see” approach and thinks, we don’t need to “blow into a paper bag” over this. Phil Johnson, while strongly disagreeing with the decision is also concerned over how negative the reactions are to this. He thinks we should not approach this as a cause to separate from Piper in an all-or-nothing sort of way. Johnson was interviewed Tues. and Wed. on Iron Sharpens Iron radio, and the mp3s are available for free download from sharpens.org. [UPDATE: Phil just posted his official response to this on his blog. He has some good things to say which I largely agree with.]

Isn’t this a Big Deal?

Why is it that these leaders and many other less influential theology bloggers (like me) think such an action by Piper is not a big deal? Isn’t supporting someone like Warren a contradiction of the Gospel?

Here are some of the reasons given for thinking this is a big deal:

  • Warren pleases people and adapts his message to suit the audience he’s at. He doesn’t strongly teach or write about repentance – this constitutes a watered-down Gospel.
  • Warren has had Obama come to his church, and has accepted the likes of Robert Schuler. He has given wishy-washy answers on public interviews to questions related to the Gospel.
  • Scripture calls for us to mark and avoid, and separate from those who do not uphold the Gospel. See the following summary of this idea of separation by David Cloud, fundamentalist leader:

We believe that the Bible requires separation from all forms of heresy and ecclesiastical apostasy (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 10-11; Rev. 18:4). We are commanded to try them, mark them, rebuke them, have no fellowship with them, withdraw ourselves, receive them not, have no company with them, reject them, and separate ourselves from them. The Bible teaches that the course of the church age is characterized by increasing apostasy (2 Timothy 3:1 – 4:6).

When put this way, such a reaction by Piper makes him a disobedient brother who should be separated from. This is the way most who practice secondary separation would think. It’s not that we separate because he chooses not to separate from people we would (as Piper phrased “secondary separation” in his video defense of this decision). Rather, they think Piper’s refusal to separate is disobedience, and 2 Thess. 3:6, 13-15 would urge us to separate from disobedient brothers.

But what about the Gospel?

I contend that the Gospel is a big enough matter to unify around. In fact the separation texts mentioned above particularly apply to a wholesale rejection of the Gospel. It is true “enemies of the cross of Christ” who preach “another gospel” who are to be so rejected. The withdrawal from brothers in Christ, happens primarily in a context of a local church with church discipline. Even then the erring ones are to be “admonished as brothers” not treated like outsiders.

Warren’s pragmatic approach to ministry may be foolhardy. His answers to Gospel-questions given on the spur of the moment in the context of media interviews, may not be as good as we would like. His books are aimed to less well-read readers, those that abound in today’s world. He connects with them, and appeals to a wide range of people. He aims to win them to Christ after he’s disarmed their defensive reaction to Christianity, but from our perspective he may be going too far in a 1 Cor. 9 be “all things to all” policy. His message may not be as theologically precise as we prefer. But he does not deny the Gospel. He affirms it. He preaches it, and he aims to live it out.

Meanwhile, John Piper is very clear about the Gospel and his books promote a Gospel-centered philosophy and world-view. The fellow speakers at T4G (Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, J. Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Thabiti Anyabwile) have many traits which could divide them. Varying positions on the charismatic gifts, the nature of baptism, eschatology, church government, music, and even who they “hang out with” (to use Piper’s expression). Some are very suspicious and careful with Mark Driscoll’s ministry style, others have befriended him. Some have chosen not to sign the Manhattan Declaration for important reasons, others see it as a means to encourage the defense of family values in today’s world and have signed it.

All of these differences matter, and these men don’t see eye-to-eye on a host of other concerns. But the speakers at T4G see the Gospel as being so important, that since they all joyfully affirm a rich, robust, Biblical Gospel message, they can allow this union to define them. Rather than being defined by what they are against, or more minor theological differences, they define themselves as being Gospel-driven.

When we separate over every little thing. When we allow personality differences, or just plain differences of opinion spur us on to cast judgment on fellow believers, we have crossed a Biblical line ourselves. More than that, we allow ourselves to be defined by these lesser things, and in so doing minimize the importance of the Gospel.

In closing, let me ask you to ponder the ramifications of the following texts to the current debate:

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Rom. 14:4, 10)

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom. 15:5-7)

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit””just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call”” one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (Eph. 4:1-7)

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph. 4:11-16)

Notice the stress on love, humility and gentleness, and the assumption that those differing with us are not enemies but brothers. They shouldn’t be judged, but may need teaching. We should strive for a sincere and edifying unity. This is the measure of the fullness of Christ. May this be our aim and may we all learn some important lessons as we think Biblically about this controversy and aim to react in a Christ-like and gracious way.

Tim Challies on Piper & Warren: Responding with Grace

~ Bob Hayton

Last week, I posted my response to John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to speak at this year’s DG Conference. I have since gotten mixed reactions to it. Both on my blog and elsewhere, I’ve seen a wide range of reactions. Some are denouncing Piper as a heretic. At least one has withdrawn any endorsement or use of Piper’s books and materials in his church’s ministry. Some are waiting to see how this turns out, but displeased with Piper’s action. Others see no problem at all and are incensed with all the negative reactions.

Today, Tim Challies posted his response, and I think his post is a model of how to respond gracefully to such controversies in the church. He posts clear and thoughtful reasons why Piper shouldn’t have invited Warren. But he does this charitably and stresses it isn’t that big of a deal. We shouldn’t disregard Piper’s proven record of faithful ministry over this one decision.

I encourage you to check out Challies’ post, and may we all learn to express ourselves with such reserve and grace in such matters.