John Piper on Fundamentalists

20 Reasons I Don’t Take Potshots at Fundamentalists

1. They are humble and respectful and courteous, and even funny (at least the ones I’ve met).
2. They believe in truth.
3. They believe that truth really matters.
4. They believe that the Bible is true — all of it.
5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.
6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.
7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).
8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.
9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.
10. Their “social action” is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn’t usually get written up in the newspaper.
11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don’t have any better track record than non-Christians.
12. They resist trendiness.
13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.
14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.
15. They still sing hymns.
16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.
17. They give some contemporary plausibility to the New Testament claim that the church is “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.
19. My dad was one.
20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.

Comment: Yet they take potshots at him

Frank Garlock's weird views

• David Cloud: A Salute to Frank Garlock

• Greg Howlett
1. A great battle about music from history (Part 1)
2. A great battle about music from history (Part 2)
3. A great battle about music from history (Part 3) (Image below)

• Gregg Strawbridge: A Biblical Theology of Music Applied to the Contemporary Music Styles Debate

Comments:

• Other Strawbridge links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Garlock's views have permeated fundamentalism

The Smear that Lingers - John MacArthur and the Blood of Christ?

This was a VERY BIG DEAL 30 years ago - and our brother was slandered! Bob Jones III started it!

 

• What's All the Controversy About John MacArthur and the Blood of Christ? A reply to some lies being perpetrated by fundamentalist zealots.
• Hi, this is John MacArthur and recently we’ve had a lot of questions from listeners about what I believe on the blood of Christ ...
• If you Google "macarthur blood of christ" you will see that it persists.

What Sears and Fundamentalist Churches have in common

Edward Lampert: Sears' Troubles Are Everyone's Fault But Mine

Excerpt:

In a somewhat hard-to-believe interview with the Chicago Tribune, Lampert gave many reasons for the company’s continued downward spiral. His claim: he is going to “...[turn] Sears into a 21st-century merchant focused on catering to its best customers.” It remains a mystery how that will be supported after selling off iconic brands, running the company without a seasoned merchant at the helm, and spinning off parts of the business that actually added value (Lands End).

Yet Lampert seems to think he’s made great progress. In his own words, “We’re ahead of J.C. Penney, we’re ahead Macy’s, we’re ahead of Target in some aspects of where the world is going.” That would be true if where they’re all going is closing stores and selling off assets, but otherwise, it’s really hard to accept. Where’s the great product? Where’s the customer experience? Fellow analyst Cathy Hotka has repeatedly called the Sears Holdings situation “the world’s longest liquidation sale.” It’s very hard to disagree. 

It’s incomprehensible that one of the world’s largest retailers (No. 18 on Stores Magazine 2015 Top 100 Retailers list) is being run by someone with no retail experience whatsoever.

Retail is an industry that plays an enormous part in the U.S. economy. Having been involved in it for my whole life, I can tell you that “Retail’s different.” If you focus solely on selling to your best customers, you might never get any new ones. The best retailers find ways to increase the transaction size (called “market basket” in the trade) and shopping frequency of their average customers. Looked at slightly differently, as a former boss of mine once said, it’s harder to turn an “A” store into an “A+” store. It’s a much better bet to move C’s to B’s and B’s to A’s. That’s a retailer’s challenge. Not catering to true believers.

Recent times have taught us that some chief executives can make an effective transition from other industries into retail. Best Buy’s Hubert Joly comes to mind, as does Home Depot’s now retired Frank Blake. But they have to become students of the customer experience. And they must find ways to empower employees and excite customers. After six years of declining results, you might want to see if you can encourage shoppers to come back to your company, not milk the ones you think will never leave you.

The Decline in Fundamentalism

Excerpt:

We owe a massive debt of gratitude to the pioneers of the fundamentalist movement. Sadly, few Christians understand the necessity of the war they fought in the last century. If not for their bold stand, the vast majority of American churches probably would have capitulated to the influence of theological liberalism—a juggernaut that spiritually devastated Europe, the heartland of the Reformation.

The original fundamentalists were American theologians and pastors who understood that some biblical doctrines are too precious to take lightly. They resolutely defended foundational Christian truths like biblical inerrancy, the exclusivity of Christ, His resurrection, the realities of eternal life and eternal damnation, and human depravity. Those first fundamentalists prevailed through their unwavering commitment to God’s Word and refusal to negotiate on its truth. They are the reason why liberalism never overran the American church landscape, and why we can still find churches today where Scripture is supreme and the gospel is faithfully preached.

Sadly, however, the fundamentalist movement began to unravel almost as soon as it had experienced its initial successes. One wing of fundamentalism, desperate for academic respectability, could not resist the pluralism of the modern age. Schools that had been founded to counter theological liberalism were overexposed to liberal theology and began to compromise on the issue of biblical inerrancy, capitulating at the very point where early fundamentalism had taken its strongest stand. Incredibly, some fundamentalist schools and churches abandoned their commitment to biblical inerrancy within one generation of their founding! Most of these institutions and the people associated with them quickly repudiated the designation fundamentalist.

Another wing of fundamentalism moved the opposite direction. They were keenly aware that an obsession with academic respectability had led their brethren to abandon the fundamentals. For that reason they distrusted scholarship or spurned it altogether. This right wing of the fundamentalist movement was relentlessly fragmented by militant separatism. Legalism led to an extreme emphasis on external issues. Petty concerns often replaced serious doctrine as the matter for discussion and debate. This branch of the movement quickly reached the point where some of its adherents spent more time arguing about men’s hair length and women’s clothing than they spent defending the real fundamentals of the faith.

All the squabbling and extreme legalism eventually sullied the term fundamentalism. Intellectually and temperamentally, these fundamentalists utterly abandoned the high ground that the fathers of the movement had held so tenaciously. As a consequence the movement succumbed to a subtle depreciation of doctrine. The published material from this side of fundamentalism is notable for its total lack of any significant works with real doctrinal or biblical depth. The term fundamentalist became exclusively linked with this militant group.

In recent years, the term fundamentalist has been hijacked by the secular media, who apply it to every conceivable kind of religious fanatic.

Comments: Top image (Church) source. 2nd image (Sears) source.

First the obvious: Sears is a retail store chain and fundamentalist churches are churches. In this they are not the same. Some might conclude that what they have in common is "shoppers" and shoppers have fickle tastes. This may be true but it's not the point I wish to make.

Here's what they have in common:

• They both were giants in America in their own rights. Sears was the place for appliances, clothing, tools and lawn equipment, auto repair and more. Fundamentalist churches were the bastion of Bible truth, evangelism and conservative worship.
• They both are a sullied brand. Proof: ask a millennial about his view of Sears. As for fundamentalism ... see this.
• Excursus: I used to equate the terms "Baptist" and "Fundamentalism" and perhaps at one point the terms were very closely associated. But in time the term "baptist" became diminished and churches became Fundamentalist churches associated with a fundamental lifestyle (perhaps learned at a Bible college and enforced by a student handbook and demerit system). Baptist principles such as the priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty evaporated.
• The big "in common" is that just like Sears is looking to "sell [solely] to [its] best customers [instead of] get[ting] any new ones", fundamental churches are looking to gain disciples like them instead of winning new converts through aggressively taking the truth of the gospel to the neighbors next door. Example: Are you the Christian who has a beer now and then? You're not the disciple we want! Fundamentalism with its associated "legalism led to an extreme emphasis on external issues"
• Reality check for a fundamentalist church: If there are new members, what is their source: For many it's the children of existing members and some changing churches for some external issue that became debatable in their former church: musical style, et cetera.

Where rules abound ...

p 34https://t.co/pvgleXgieJ pic.twitter.com/ZNwl8TcJpa

— James Peet (@jrpeet) May 7, 2019

Will Fundy leaders ever apologize to John MacArthur?

Comment: Interesting Discussion on Sharper Iron re John MacArthur

Background: here and here

The discussion:

Kevin Bauder:

Excerpt:

If you wonder what kind of things I’m talking about, just Google “John MacArthur Blood.” That’s an episode that combines both of the above features: picking away (in this case, dishonestly) at conservative evangelicals while ignoring the public transgressions of Fundamentalists.

Don Johnson

Excerpt:

How many years ago was that???

The example you give, however... when did it happen? The offending statement was in a MacArthur newsletter in 1976, the issue erupted in 1989, it was clarified by MacArthur in a later restatement, published by Phil Johnson on the internet in 2000. (See the Soteriology section of the Wikipedia article on MacArthur - I know, I know, it's Wikipedia, take it for what it's worth.)

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article mentions BBN, not fundamentalists as a major player in this conflict. I don't know if that is an accurate picture or not. But I do know that many fundamentalists "piled on" once the controversy came to light. I don't excuse the pack mentality with which we went after MacA at that point. But you will note that we are talking about something that is almost twenty-five years ago. I remember all the discussion about it during the early days of Sharper Iron. Phil Johnson was involved in some of it, if I recall correctly. During some of that discussion, it was mentioned that Dr. Bob III made some contact with MacArthur to make amends in some way for his part in the issue. I don't recall if it was a phone call or a letter, or what it was. The issue was an issue between the two of them, apparently it has been settled between them for some time. MacArthur isn't calling for further action on it, is he? He probably hardly ever thinks about it.

But whenever a list of the egregious fundamentalist lapses is trotted out, this one is often one of the first ones cited.

Kevin Bauder

Excerpt:

Don, Evidently I touched a nerve by referencing the “blood” controversy.

You make it sound as if this controversy is something that occurred in a corner in the distant past, that was dealt with adequately at the time, and that could be resolved by a merely private exchange (though I don’t believe that anything approaching an apology was ever offered to MacArthur). Perhaps the reason that the blood controversy still comes up is because none of these things is true. It has never been dealt with, and it has not gone away.

If you take the trouble to Google® “John MacArthur Blood,” you’ll find that the accusations are still being repeated. You may search all you wish for any public retraction of the accusations: you’ll never find it because it was never done. In fact, the original accuser kept repeating his charges, at least in private. The last word that he said on the subject was, “I believe that the position [MacArthur] has taken in this matter is an heretical position, and all of the correspondence in the world is not going to affect my convictions on that point.” Furthermore, if you look at your old copies of the FBF News Bulletin, you’ll find that the FBF participated in advancing the accusations. Let me quote from the FBF News Bulletin of March, 1989.

The watershed of Fundamentalism is the doctrine of the Blood of Christ. The current imbroglio hinges on whether Christ’s blood was human or divine. A popular radio preacher initiated this recent controversy by stating expressions such as “Nothing in His human blood saves” [footnote to MacArthur]. This concept reflects the coeval thinking of New Evangelicalism. Liberalism has influenced New Evangelicalism in many doctrinal areas, even in the doctrine of the Blood of Christ. . . . If Christ’s blood was mere human blood it could not save sinners; however, it is unique and it does save sinners and cleanse Christians because it is Divine Blood. [page 4]

Here are more quotations from the FBF News Bulletin of May, 1990.

MacArthur creates an issue that doesn’t exist by seeking to separate the death of Christ from the blood of Christ. On page 237 of his commentary on Hebrews, MacArthur states that is [sic] is “not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf.” In a letter to Mr. Tim Weidlich, dated April 4, 1986, MacArthur writes, “Obviously, it was not the blood of Jesus that saves or He could have bled for us without dying . . . . Yes, the blood of Christ is precious—but as precious as it is—it could not save.” [page 7]

MacArthur reduces the blood of Christ to a mere symbol of death. In this same letter of Mr. Weidlich he writes, “I admit that because of some traditional hymns there is an emotional attachment to the blood—but that should not pose a problem when one is dealing with theological or textual specificity. I can sing hymns about the blood and rejoice in them—but I understand that reference to be a metonym for His death.” [page 7]

The Scriptures speak again and again about our salvation being accomplished through the shed blood of Christ. Verses such as Romans 5:9 could scarcely be more clear, “. . . being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” MacArthur is equally clear if we can take his words at face value: “Nothing in His human blood saves. His shed blood represents His sacrificial, physical and spiritual death for us.” (“Grace to You,” 1976) . . . The Scriptures and MacArthur cannot both be right. [page 7]

Do Fundamentalists need another reminder that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The cost of compromise is the loss of God’s blessing on our ministries and the eventual removal of our candlesticks from their places of service in God’s work. Why toy with disaster by becoming enamored with a compromiser regardless of how charming he might be? We must fight with tenacity our tendencies to follow gifted and charismatic personalities. [page 8]

Let’s not play games with the precious doctrines of God’s Word. There are no good reasons to tamper with truth. I was saved by the blood of the Crucified One. We need no other message. [page 8]

This edition of the FBF News Bulletin was issued in the summer of 1990. That is fourteen years after MacArthur’s church bulletin printed his original comments about the blood. It is also four years after Bob Jones III told MacArthur, “John, let me assure you that neither I nor anyone else has any desire to misrepresent you or anyone else. We would shudder to think of participating in an effort to malign, gossip, or slander. That is just not the way we do things. I am sure Dad will be happy to print excerpts of your letter in order to let your statements speak for themselves. . . . We never want to shoot someone who is fighting in faithfulness on the same side we are.” (June 20, 1986)

About a year after the publication of the article in the FBF New Bulletin, Jones III wrote again to MacArthur, “We felt that yours was an extremely dangerous and liberal position; but once you published in your own paper an article stating that the blood was “efficacious and meritorious,” we have never said another word about it. The issue was resolved at that point; and it has been our joy to tell people who continue to be concerned that they can be at ease, and refer them to your own published statements as evidence.” (July3, 1991)

Evidently the FBF didn’t get the memo. It jumped on the bandwagon of those who were assaulting MacArthur over the blood of Christ. At the time, more than a few people were accusing MacArthur of being heretical and liberal. Not only did the FBF fail to defend MacArthur from those false accusations, it actually piled on and repeated them.

So let me ask you several questions.

Did the leadership of the FBF sin when it joined in the attack instead of defending MacArthur against false accusations?

When a member of your church transgresses in a very public way, how do you counsel that person? Does public transgression require public acknowledgement, or is private confession sufficient?

Has the FBF ever issued any public statement acknowledging that its attack upon MacArthur was sinful? Has it ever even publicly expressed regret that the attack took place?

Are any of the people who were board members or other leaders of the FBF in 1990 still in positions of respect and leadership within the FBFI?

Do you think that a statement from the FBFI would help to put to rest the continuing rumors and accusations that MacArthur takes a heretical view of the blood?

You’re right that John is not asking for an apology or even a retraction or clarification. He quit asking after 1987, because it had become embarrassingly clear that he was not going to get one. The last word on the subject was, “I believe that the position [MacArthur] has taken in this matter is an heretical position, and all of the correspondence in the world is not going to affect my convictions on that point.”

You’re right—you didn’t do these things. But you are now in a position of responsibility in at least one of the organizations that did. I agree that you can’t apologize for a sin you didn’t commit, but you can (1) distance yourself from the accusations by publicly acknowledging them to be false, (2) publicly acknowledge that it was a sin for the FBF to level these accusations in the first place, and (3) express regret to John MacArthur that the accusations were ever made.

If this has ever been done by the FBFI, I would love to hear about it. My respect would skyrocket.

If the FBFI leadership, acting in concert, would do these things, what would happen?

First, the episode would be taken off the table. While it would still be a matter of historical record, the FBFI could no longer be accused of covering up the sin.

Second, while MacArthur is not asking for an apology, I think that he would receive such an expression of acknowledgement and regret as a sweet breeze out of paradise. It would finally lay to rest an unnecessary and sinful cause of division.

Third, the FBFI would be more believable when it discussed the differences that still remain between it and MacArthur. People would have greater assurance that we weren’t just making it up, eh?

Fourth, this kind of humility would go far toward removing one of the perceived impediments that dampen the enthusiasm of young men for organizations like the FBFI.

Fifth, if my reading of the New Testament is anywhere near correct, then the Lord would be pleased.

So how about it?

Comments: Hurrah Kevin Bauder!

On Labels: The problem with prefixes and adjectives

The problem with prefixes and adjectives & "fundamentalism"
Off the top of my head there are these labels:

• Hyper-Fundamentalism (comment: but there is no "Sub-Fundamentalism" of which I am aware!)
• Young Fundamentalism (or 'ist') (I can't recollect seeing this one, but if there is a "young-fundamentalism" I suppose there must be an "old-F". Complicating this is that you have young men fresh out of HAC who are "Old Time" Religioners and old gray-headed bald guys who are "young at heart" (or so they claim!))
• Old-Time Fundamentalism (guess there is an "old")
• Authentic Fundamentalism 
• Historic Fundamentalism
• Balanced Fundamentalism - see image below
• Moderate Fundamentalism (generally means they compromise!)
• Militant Fundamentalism - key verse is Jude 3
• Pseudo-Fundamentalism (The opposite of the "Authentic")
• Baptist-Fundamentalism
• Nondenominational Fundamentalism
• FINO = Fundamentalism in Name Only
• KJV-Fundamentalism
• Hard-shelled Fundamentlism (probably aways used in a disparaging / derisive way - who wants to call oneself "hard-shelled"?!
• imperial Fundamentalism (the guy who has the mega-church with the CDS, the college and the seminary)

In my view, the term "Fundamentalism" (which is a really great idea and has served its purposes!), which has in the last decade become associated with suicide bombers and other crazies, has ceased to mean anything at all. At least anything valuable in the market place of ideas.

It seems that every Fundamentalist looks at the other kinds and says in essence "You are not a true Fundamentalist"

----- My coming out (I've done this before ... and this is not an Anderson Cooper coming out!) ----------

It's not that I:

• Reject the term Fundamentalist
• Reject the idea (already said that it's a good idea!)
• It's just that where I live (and I don't mean Plymouth), I would never use the term of myself. Others can say of me: "Peet is not a Fundamentalist".
• I'm OK with that
• Want to know what I believe ... see my doctrinal statement ... know where I worship and serve ... and know how I live (which is far from perfect!)
• Rejecting the label and the label makers

By the way ... still happy with these labels: Calvinist, Baptist, Republican

Comment: Reaction to something I read posted on Sharper Iron

If I were to tell my co-workers that I was a Fundamentalist this would be the image in their minds:

Proof that Calvinistic Baptist is not an oxymoron as some would say:

Above: Balanced Fundamentalism

Fundamentalists fight over who is the real "historic Fundamentalist"

Updated on 8/10/2017: See my point

A fundamentalist radical Christian is just as misguided and frightening as a fundamentalist radical Muslim. No difference.

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) August 10, 2017

Agreedhttps://t.co/JSlRRQ4MFi pic.twitter.com/sE743saLHD

— James Peet (@jrpeet) March 13, 2019

I would call myself a "Calvinist" over “Fundamentalist” too!

Quote from J. Gresham Machenhttps://t.co/KMvh012b3D pic.twitter.com/OwBgmQbavb

— 𝓙𝓲𝓶 𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓽 (@jrpeet) August 31, 2019

Where Fundamentalism has failed

Comments: A couple of interesting blog posts by Kent Brandenburg on Fundamentalism are linked below. Frankly Kent and I probably do not see eye to eye on some points. He is strongly KJV and I am not. He has views on women's dress that I cannot concur with. And I am a strong Calvinist and he is not. I also add that my experiences in fundamentalism (largely the GARBC and now 4th Baptist Church) have generally been very positive and I love my own church!.

One think Kent and would agree on is how John MacArthur was savagely maligned on "the blood issue"

Kent writes in Part 2

When Bob Jones attacked MacArthur in their magazine, Faith for the Family, I already knew what MacArthur's position was on the blood of Christ. Fundamentalist leaders said that MacArthur denied the blood. I knew that wasn't true, because I had read through his Hebrews commentary. The type of argumentation used against MacArthur was so superficial and silly that I was mystified. To start, MacArthur did not deny the blood, but even if he did, his error should have been pointed out from scripture. Bob Jones and its surrogates really did argue a strawman at the time. Once they saw that they had misrepresented MacArthur, they should have recanted right away, but they dug in for over a decade in typical fundamentalist fashion. As the winds toward MacArthur began to change among young fundamentalists, Bob Jones came out with a weak apology many years later.

As Kevin Bauder has famously said, there is a fundamentalism worth saving.

In my view Fundamentalism has failed in these areas:

• Where there is showmanship it has failed
  
• Where there is an authoritative governing structure it has failed (Dictator Pastors)
  
• Where there is weak preaching (non-exegetical) it has failed
  
• Where there is a rules-based view sanctification it has failed
  
• Where guilt is used to manipulate people it has failed
  
• Where people are ignorant of the Scriptures it has failed
  
• Where fringe views percolate to the top and become cardinal doctrines of the faith, it has failed.
  
• Where Calvinism (or more properly the doctrines of grace) are vilified it has failed.
  

When I Left Fundamentalism part one

When I Left Fundamentalism part two

As always I appreciate your comments

A Christian Fundamentalist Travel Guide

A Christian Fundamentalist Travel Guide

Excerpt:

The burden resting on historic Fundamentalists is how to build a bridge to right-wing evangelicals without burning the bridge to traditional Fundamentalists. At this time, however, because of some of the conclusions that historic Fundamentalists are drawing, many traditional Fundamentalists question whether the former are Fundamentalists at all.

Comment: Good reads from 9Marks.