"DUM, dum! Dum-dum-dum-DUM, dum! Dum-dum-dum-DUM, dum! Dum-dum-dum-dummm ..."
EPISODE V: THE EMPIRE'S HYPE IS BACK
In the year 2006 a small series was born on Old NarniaWeb.
That thread was originally called "Teens on Christianity."
But as the subject broadened, it became "On Christianity."
Later the thread covered all kinds of doctrinal discussion.
It eventually became known as "Christianity, Religion and Philosophy."
This kingdom flourished well, through battles and growth.
On Old NarniaWeb, the last of the series was here.
Called "Episode IV: A New Hope," its influence and fun spread wider.
That world is closed, but remains for reference; now begins a new era.
To old warriors and newcomers alike: Let the Deep Doctrinal Magic begin!
Anyone can take on any of the new topics below, or go back and retrieve and repost about something I forgot from the last pages — or start a new one entirely.
Yet here are some topics that proved popular during the previous discussion’s fading days:
- ● How and why does God allow trials, temptations and difficult situations or suffering for His people?
- ● What are the differences between what the Bible proscribes for Christian behavior, and what is merely described behavior by Christians — such as what the early church did in the book of Acts?
- ● Somewhat relating to that: what are different Christians’ views on what counts as sin, and how is it that standards for things such as preferred music genres can vary between believers?
- ● How do Christians distinguish between their own responsibility — i.e. "self help" — and what God has already done for them?
- ● Did Christ die in direct place of believers, suffering the Father’s wrath in order to save His people; or did He die not as a "penal [legal] substitute" but to enable repentance and faith anyway; or did He die for both?
Perhaps I will take some initiative and start a suggested topic for discussion myself? And guess what, folks — it’s not specifically about "Reformed" doctrine vs. more "free-willie"-leaning doctrine — though it does touch on that.
The other day I "Tweeted" this bit (yes, I finally gave in to the Twitter Collective and have been assimilated):
I wrote:Argh, how I wish I could meet with this dear (but poorly informed) Fundamentalist pastor and show him what he’s missing: http://bit.ly/RxN2R.
Clicking that link takes you to a SermonAudio page with a sermon called "Young and Restless, by a pastor named Dan Sweatt. I’ve never heard of this man before, but he pastors a church in Georgia and was invited to speak at a Baptist Fundamentalist conference. That sermon made waves throughout Christendom and the blogosphere after it was preached in April 2009, and after listening to the sermon, yeah, I’m more than a little irked at the misunderstandings.
But I find myself more sad than irked. That surprised me, and comforted me a little too. I wish I were related to this man, so that I might try to comfort him too. It probably wouldn’t work — both would end up frustrated — but here’s why:
On Facebook, I wrote:Others have already lambasted this gentleman, rightfully so in substance, but too often unkindly in style. My heart goes out to him. Perhaps I will try writing an open letter, not only to post on a blog somewhere, but to send to him for real.
He pleads for young men to follow a new batch of more-fundamentalist leadership (exact origin not specified), completely misunderstands Reformed doctrine and projects his own human-leader-centeredness onto its adherents, and overall completely misses what God is doing to glorify Himself in a new generation of men and women who desperately want to delight in Him above all else.
Instead of focusing on God, he only talks about focusing on focusing on God, then focuses on men, and heritage, and men in his own heritage anyway. Yes, it would be regrettable to forget of all great things done by fundamentalist leaders, but when faced with human-leader-centered preaching ( in 1 Corinthians 3), Paul did not urge them to follow their particular leaders. He did not even urge them to follow him alone. He emphasized Christ and His cross. He emphasized truth and pointed to that — not a heritage, not a movement.
I hope and pray that somehow God will convey that truth and reassure the previous generation of "fundamentalists" who will otherwise learn only in Heaven of the truth that God *was* bringing about revival in young Christians all along.
Interestingly, right while I was typing this — a few days in advance of the big forum switch — The Black Glove responded to my Facebook brief with this:
The Black Glove wrote:How far the fundamentalist movement has fallen from the vision of J. Gresham Machen (who was reformed)
In response, I further wrote:The pastor keeps talking as if those who leave the "movement" are somehow forsaking the Apostles themselves. It unfortunately results from far too much self-centeredness (though with acknowledgments that they want to glorify God) and human-leader focus. I’m sadly led to conclude that this pastor would rather have a "monopoly" on Biblical teaching (though his own message was far from this anyway) and hold "territory" rather than let God work with new Christ-centered leaders, whether "Calvinistic" or not.
Here is more from the sermon — I’ve been taking notes as I listen, and done my best to summarize fairly his thoughts. However, I am including some contradictions in what he said that might leap out to anyone, and are never fully resolved.
● Sweatt says too many young Christians are just sitting around discussing theology and not sending out missionaries and making enough of a priority to save the lost.
● Young Christians’ complaints about their fundamentalist upbringings, he says, are too often based on caricatures or “cartoons” of what those backgrounds supposedly were. Yes, there were excesses, he says (I inferred he meant excesses of legalism), but he doesn’t detail what those were or how they could have been avoided. The main point, he insisted, is that many people got saved during that time and we must not forget that.
● Claiming God’s glory is the most important, he nevertheless keeps saying things like: We need to be the kind of men the younger men will follow. He chides men for using shame to motivate others not to leave the fundamentalist movement, yet also critiques others for disrespecting, and not seeing the Godly attitudes and actions of, fundamentalist leaders.
● He says humility and approachability are the main draws for "new Calvinist" leaders, and admits fundamentalists have messed up a lot in these areas. But he dismisses the young Christians as mostly being human-seeking groupies. Still, he wants fundamentalist leaders to be like these other leaders in attitude, but not while believing the same view of "Calvinism." He describes the qualities he says attract this kind of audience, but only on the basis of seeming pragmatism, encouraging fundamentalists to work at attracting their own followers. In effect he dismisses one side as too man-centered, then wants to offer, instead of Christ, a different set of dynamic leading men (which he himself admits isn’t much around).
● While lamenting that no one took up the mantle after the old-guard fundamentalists, he later says that only true Christian leaders will last beyond their generation!
● He referenced a sermon by Bob Jones Sr., years ago, about Luke 9:62, about how no one who puts his hand to the plow, then looks back, is fit for work. But according to the pastor’s secondhand account, Jones took that verse horribly out of context — Jesus was responding to a man who wanted to stay with his family, comfort and familiarity, instead of following Him. Jones misapplied its meaning to people who joined Bob Jones University, then decided to leave and not come back. According to Sweatt, Jones encouraged such people as they were riding the train somewhere else to hear, along with the spinning train wheels, "You ain’t fit. You ain’t fit. You ain’t fit."
● He focuses a lot on the dwindling numbers in fundamentalist churches and colleges, but then says that people are commanded to preach the Bible and it’s not about numbers.
● He puts John Piper and Rick Warren in the same category. Whoa.
● Perhaps most interestingly, he credits God’s sovereignty for the calling of pastors over their churches, but encourages men to remember how amazing it is to have a following, to be listened to, writing down their own words and quoting them back. Direct quote: “There are men in my church who would give anything in the world to do what I get to do.”
So anyway, lest I commit the same error I’m claiming this pastor has made, and this post be all about me and my thoughts and reactions — what do you think?
If you are a "new Calvinist," do you find any agreement at all with this pastor about the "movement"? Might he be true at least in his contentions that in their haste to get out, they’re forsaking a huge part of church history? And because "Calvinists" will inevitably see the same problems I have, what best can be done? Is there some way to reach such men with grace and truth, lovingly showing and telling them that yes, God is working to spread His Kingdom, though perhaps not in the exact same ways and with the exact same human leaders as other Christians?
And if you are a "free willie," do you agree with this pastor that too many Christians are mostly interested in sitting around and talking about God or theology instead of planning how to save the lost? Or do you think that too many new Christians are human-leader-driven "groupies"? What about his idea that most people who complain about their fundamentalist backgrounds are exaggerating and making it seem worse than it was?
I’m trying to word the questions fairly — but if I’m not, please, make up your own, or your own subtopic entirely, and go at it. Above all, have fun, and optimally for the glory of God and the spread of His truth! Soli Deo gloria!