Tag: Separation

Unity and the End Times

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

Should one’s end times’ views limit their unity with other Christian believers? Should churches and denominations spell out their particular end times’ theology, as a matter of their statement of faith? Should adherence to premillennialism, for instance, be considered a hallmark of the faith, a non-negotiable test of one’s submission to Christ?

Mark Dever doesn’t think so. In a recent sermon on Revelation, he commented:

I am suggesting that what you believe about the Millennium””how you interpret these thousand years””is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order for us to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course, all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.

Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians, whether nearly (in a congregation) or more at length (in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up in the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ, for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ””to divide the body that he prayed would be united.

Therefore, for us to conclude that we must agree on a certain view of alcohol or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the Millennium, in order to have fellowship with one another is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore unwarranted and, therefore, condemned by Scripture.

So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

I tend to agree with Dever’s assessment. I think a church could explain their preference, but to demand an end-times’ belief of any who would join with the church, seems too much. Of course there are Christian end times’ beliefs that are universally agreed upon. But I’m talking about your particular thoughts on when the rapture, or if a “rapture” will occur, and what kind of millennialism you hold to.

This is akin to baptism, but on that point Dever does draw the line of church fellowship tight. So would it would be reasonable for a church to draw their own lines on both baptism and eschatology, and yet admit they will fellowship in the gospel with all who carefully differ with them on these matters? Should baptism be more consequential than millennialist views? Which is more clear in Scripture?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here. Any thoughts? Others are hashing out these questions in the comments on the links below.

(HT: Justin Taylor, Ben Wright & Caleb Kolstad)

Fundamentalist Profundity

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

Pastor Steve Anderson is the embodiment of almost everything extreme about independent fundamental Baptists. It seems he enjoys posting his often abrasive and extreme preaching as a series of video clips on Youtube.

I’ve posted a jaw-dropping clip of his before, and this one almost tops that. In it he defends the notion that Jesus actually wore pants, not the middle eastern style robe that the rest of us thought he wore.

I thought it might be fitting to post this on April Fools’ Day. It reveals ignorance more than the Biblical notion of the word “fool”. I do pray God will reveal to this pastor the error of his ways and help him.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.804431&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

more about “Jesus wore pants, not a dress!!! IFBx…“, posted with vodpod

Long Pants, Basketball, and Modesty in the News

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, ESPN.com highlighted a small Christian school that required their boys to wear pants, when playing basketball [HT: Seth McBee]. For a couple years when I was in high school, I encountered the same thing. Check out Seth’s post, or the original ESPN article for the entire interview, as I’m sure many of my readers will have had some firsthand experience with this kind of standard. Let me give an excerpt from the interview, and then my own reflection that I shared at Seth’s blog.

reporter: Please forgive my ignorance on this point, but is there a specific verse of the Bible that addresses this?

school principal: There is, but I’d have to look it up — I don’t have it handy, but it’s definitely in Scripture. And I don’t know if you know this, but our girls’ basketball team dresses in skirts. [And the school’s cheerleading squad wears long skirts.]

reporter: From a layman’s standpoint, it seems like maybe you’d want the girls to wear pants as well, so they wouldn’t show any skin. But I’m guessing you don’t want the girls wearing pants or dressing the same as the boys, right?

school principal: Yeah, because the Bible says there should be a separate distinction between a man and a woman in terms of their apparel, so that’s what it’s all about.

Okay, some are laughing right now. Some can’t imagine this. But the sense of loyalty to the standards of a strict fundamentalist school is quite strong. Consider my own reflections (shared at Seth’s blog).

That brings back memories for me! I was one of those long-pants-ers.

Our school ran about 50-70 or so and we had a very low budget, so we bought uniforms but didn’t order the shorts. The plan was to order them a few years later, or so we were told. So we played in warm-up pants.

But because of this we were able to play one or two other schools that would not play against any team that did not wear pants. We did have a cheer-leading squad and their skirts went down to the knee or below.

We were independent fundamental Baptists, not charismatics.

Looking back on it, we sure looked stupid. And they were uncomfortable.

The college I went to did not allow men to wear shorts except for in the gym, pretty much. Women had to wear skirts/dresses all the time (even in the dorms). And no, there is no verse in scripture about the shorts thing.

There was even a time I wouldn’t wear shorts in the dorm because I just wasn’t sure whether it was sinful or not to wear them.

Boy, God has brought me a long way! And opened my eyes to His grace along the way.

[Just] thought I’d just share my perspective on this interesting story!

Anyone else have any memories about anything similar to this?

“Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World” edited by C.J. Mahaney

~ Bob Hayton

Authors: C.J. Mahaney (editor), and others
Format: Hardcover
Page Count: 191
Publisher: Crossway
Publication Date: 2008
ISBN: 1433502801
Rating: 5 of 5 stars

Any book entitled Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World promises not to be your average book on the shelf of today’s Christian bookstore. The subject of worldliness, or love for the values of this fallen world, is not a popular theme.

The contributors of this book, start off by asking if 1 John 2:15 [“Do not love the world or anything in the world”], is really in most Christian’s Bibles. All of us are guilty of worldliness. But how do we go about avoiding this sin? C.J. Mahaney explains:

Some people try to define worldliness as living outside a specific set of rules or conservative standards. If you listen to music with a certain beat, dress in fashionable clothes, watch movies with a certain rating…surely you must be worldly.

Others, irritated and repulsed by rules that seem arbitrary, react to definitions of worldliness, assuming it’s impossible to define. Or they think legalism will inevitably be the result, so we shouldn’t even try.

…Both views are wrong. For by focusing exclusively on externals or dismissing the importance of externals, we’ve missed the point…. the real location of worldliness is internal. It resides in our hearts. (29)

The book goes on to try to navigate between these two extremes and call today’s church to a healthy carefulness about how we interact with the world at large. With chapters on movies, music, money and modesty, the book aims to guide believers as they think critically about the myriad of choices facing us in today’s culture.

As one who came out of a very strict fundamentalist background, this book especially interested me. I was encouraged to see contemporary evangelical Christians warning about the social dangers that abound. And I noted that the book did not offer a list of rules which I should follow more closely than Scripture. Instead the authors were careful to encourage discernment and teach general guiding principles.

To some the book will seem quite strict. Think “radical”, instead. The authors aim to glorify God in everything they do. That will come across as totally radical, and will require a unique focus on the temptations and opportunities that surround us.

While the discussion on media (movies) and music was quite good, the chapter on money and modesty wasn’t quite as captivating for me. I’d heard a lot of Mahaney’s stuff on modesty before, so maybe that’s why. But any lull in those chapters was more than made up by Mahaney’s opening chapter and the closing one by Jeff Purswell.

That final chapter focused on how to love the world. We are to love God’s creation and the people He has made. We are placed within His world and called to serve for its good. Perhaps since externals were over emphasized in my fundamentalist roots, this chapter on healthy interaction with the world resonated with me so well. In any case, Purswell paints a glorious picture of God’s covenant dealings with all the earth.

Moving from God’s overarching redemption plan, he elevates our mundane day-to-day duties as part of that plan. He closes his section on work with this appeal:

So don’t just “go to work” and “do your job”–see your job as a way to imitate God, serve God, and love others. This doesn’t mean work will never be difficult or frustrating or tedious; the curse ensures that it will be at times. But God’s creational purposes and Christ’s redeeming work infuse our work with meaning, and promise God-glorifying fruit as a result. (158)

Purswell calls us to enjoy, engage and evangelize the world. “We receive God’s earthly gifts, pursue God’s purposes in earthly life, and work for the salvation of people made in God’s image. All of life lived for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31)”.

The final chapter exposes the tension once again. While we are to be in the world and working for its good, we are also not to love what it loves and prize what it prizes. Once again, the book stresses two bents which typify Christians:

Some have strictly spiritual preoccupations. For them the present is of little consequence, pleasures are perilous, spirituality means self-denial…

Others relish life in this world. Their delight in God’s temporal gifts is unrestrained, their enjoyment of their physical existence untempered, their hope in earthly endeavors absolute…. (168-169)

The answer finally is the cross of Christ. The cross tells us who we are, interprets the world we live in, transforms our view of people and gives our lives purpose. Finding our place in God’s story of redemption is the ultimate cure for a love of this world’s desires.

This book has the potential to transform your view of the Christian life. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

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

Can Fundamentalists fellowship with Mark Dever?

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I’ve been distracted from my current series by some blog discussions regarding Mark Dever and fundamentalism. (I plan to bring my next post in the Land series tomorrow, Lord willing).

Mark Dever recently interviewed Mark Minnick, who teaches at BJU and pastors in Greenville. I haven’t listened to the interview yet, but I did read some various fundamentalist reactions to it. What piqued my interest was Dever’s recent post entitled: “Mark Dever Doesn’t Practice Separation?”

Mark’s post displays some consternation over charges by fundamentalists that he does not practice separation. He details many ways in which he and his church do separate. Dever’s explanation of separation describes my basic position: that separation does not have to look like the standard fundamentalist fare, in order to still be biblical separation.

You may want to read Dever’s post and then go on to read the comments. There are some thoughtful posts and discussions happening there which are helpful to anyone thinking through the issue of ecclesiastical separation and/or secondary separation.