Musings of a Former Fundamentalist (IFB) Renewed by Reformed Theology
This week marks the start of Sing! Conference 2019, the Getty Music Worship Conference. I am privileged to be attending with some dear folks from my church.
Learn more about the conference here.
If you are attending be sure to look me up. My Twitter handle is @rjhayton.
I hope to post some reflections on the conference after it concludes.
Ours is an age of conferences. Dozens of conferences vie for our attention, from a variety of ministries. For those who cannot attend, livestreaming is a way to experience the thrill from afar. Another common way to expand the reach of a conference is to turn the series of messages into a book. The success of such books is usually limited, but in this book we have an exception.
Here is Our God: God’s Revelation of Himself in Scripture (Crossway, 2014), is the latest book from The Gospel Coalition. This book is actually a compilation of the messages from the women’s 2012 TGC conference. Reading the book, however, I am not transported to the scene of thousands of women meeting together in a conference. Instead the message of each plenary session is powerfully communicated in this book, and the entire theme of the conference—suitable for men and women—comes together in this one short volume.
Three men (Tim Keller, D.A. Carson, and John Piper) join five women (Paige Brown, Carrie Sandom, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Jenny Salt, and Kathleen Nielson) in expositing the Word of God. Each author tackles a text which offers us a revelation of God. Exodus 19, 1 Kings 8, Isaiah 6, Matthew 17, Revelation 21 and other passages are mined for what they tell us of our God. The chapters flow together well, and reinforce the argument of the work as a whole. Each author in their unique way contributes to a dazzling picture of our God and His glory.
D.A. Carson (one of the editors of this book) is known for his advocacy of biblical theology, and this is on full display in the contributions from each author in this title. The grand themes of the Bible are followed as we truly encounter God through the book. The application is poignant, and the messages are powerful. I’m glad that by means of this book I was able to be blessed by this women’s conference!
I listened to the Christianaudio.com version (link is external) of the book. A male voice read the chapters written by men, and a female voice the other chapters. The editing in the book being as excellent as it was, allowed the audio version to flow well. Connections between chapters were made, and the reading speed aided in reflection.
The book itself is extremely well written. You would be hard pressed to find a more God-centered example of biblical theology. I appreciated that the Old Testament received due attention. In fact both testaments are treated, and so many foundational texts are treated that this could be considered a miniature whole-Bible biblical theology in its own right.
The conference aimed to make much of God and this book does that. If you are hungry for an encounter with the God of the Bible, this book will reveal Him in fresh and helpful ways. The call to holy living and a deeper faith permeates the book, and the Gospel of God’s grace underlies it as well. The book would serve well as a small group resource, with questions at the end of each chapter that could be used for discussion. I encourage both men and women to avail themselves of this helpful resource. May God bless you with a greater revelation of Himself in the reading of this short book.
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: ChristianAudio.com, Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Crossway.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Christianaudio.com. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
I don’t really want to say much more on the Strange Fire Conference. I have already said my piece. But I’m compelled to just add a bit more to my original post.
1) The Strange Fire Conference did include some nuance.
I’m happy to concede that there was some nuance and admission that not all charismatics are of the devil. This insider’s summary of the conference puts the best spin possible on it, and I am happy that there is some nuance evident.
2) But Strange Fire also overstated the problem.
The build up to the conference bills it as dealing with the charismatic movement as a whole, and numerous quotes from the conference itself seem to make that same case. It was claimed that 90% of the charismatic movement held to a health/wealth prosperity gospel. And in MacArthur’s last session he said the charismatic movement is made up mostly of unbelievers. Earlier he claimed the movement had contributed nothing good in terms of worship or theology – nothing that came from the movement itself.
This can be nothing but broad brushing. And while many have decried cessationists in similarly broad strokes on the rebound, it is clear that a mischaracterization of the movement was perpetuated through the conference. Proof enough of that is the fact that I have yet to see a charismatic who did not perceive the conference as a slap in the face and who did not see this conference as attacking the movement as a whole.
3) Generalizations are tricky things.
I understand how difficult it is to criticize a movement, as I often have had to backtrack and clarify my own critiques of fundamentalism. The shoe doesn’t fit everybody, and the movement is bigger than you think – once you learn more of it. The same goes for critiquing charismaticism. The charismatic movement is bigger than Benny Hinn. There are rank and file charismatic believers who eschew the prosperity gospel, who avoid the anti-trinitarianism of some sectors of the movement, and who are faithful to the gospel. I contend that this group of churches and believers are largely not Reformed – so they are not just a small wing represented by the C.J. Mahaneys, Wayne Grudems, and Sam Storms of the world. They are a big group who make up the majority of charismaticism, at least in America. Now it can sure seem that most charismatics are heretical. Equally so, it can seem that most cessationists are jerks. But neither of these perceptions are the truth.
4) Controversy is not necessarily bad.
It is right to stand up for truth. Controversy cannot be entirely wrong. But a consistent controversialist should be ignored, and rightly so. Can it be that MacArthur has more fundamentalist in him than we thought? Is controversy being peddled for its own sake? I don’t really think so. I give him the benefit of the doubt. The problems the conference addressed are real and clear. And he has consistently spoken out against them over the years. Just because he is bringing the ugly wing of charismaticism to light, shouldn’t make him the enemy.
5) Are “Bashing” conferences helpful?
Do we need more “bashing” conferences? Baptist blogger Dave Miller explores that question in a helpful post. (As an aside, his reaction to the conference was perhaps the most helpful I’ve read.) How helpful is a conference really going to be when it claims most of what it addresses are the antics of unbelievers? Would it have been better to include Reformed Charismatics, who could add weight to the critique of pentecostalism run wild? Would John Piper or Sam Storms add more to the expose of the Word of Faith problem? Solidarity across party lines for the sake of truth would sure seem more convincing and may lead to less wagon-circling and more soul-searching.
6) What’s a charismatic to do?
With this conference, was there any pathway given for the one who has seen miraculous gifts manifest in their church experience? Are they supposed to assume such an experience was necessarily strange fire and doubt their salvation? Should they have a crisis of faith? God can be God — that seems to have been stressed in the conference: but what do we call it when God acts in such a bold way? It seems an emphasis on discernment and a more measured approach could prove more helpful than a wholesale dismissal of anything remotely charismatic in flavor.
7) I long for unity and dream for a convergence.
This whole debacle leads me longing for more tangible unity in the body of Christ. Yes I realize it is lofty to type such words. I don’t want to claim too much for me and my position. I just think there are many who would agree with me, that unity is something we can desire. Even admitting one side is right and one is wrong, still I wish for more unity – isn’t that biblical?
I will go beyond just wishing for this, and recommend a book – it’s what I do best around here. I would recommend that my cessationist friends (and most of my friends are cessationist) pick up a copy of Sam Storms’ Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist. In that book he tries to show how both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The church needs the doctrinal clarity and Scriptural knowledge of the cessationist and the emotional realism and simple love of the charismatic. Each side can learn from the other and a biblical convergence is possible.
May God bring about such a day and encourage each party to appreciate the other in a sincere attempt to understand and appreciate what they bring to the body of Christ as a whole!
From afar, I have loosely followed the Strange Fire conference. This conference was hosted by John MacArthur and dealt with the charismatic movement. MacArthur is increasingly concerned about the impact of charismaticism worldwide.
Tim Challies has posted summaries of each of the main sessions from this conference. And I have scanned through several of them and followed the reaction to this event online.
Why would I be concerned about this conference? I am not charismatic so wouldn’t I be praising the work of MacArthur in exposing the errors of the prosperity gospel and charismatic excesses? I would if that was what this conference was about. But MacArthur and the other speakers go beyond combating charismatic excess to dismissing all charismatics as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Adrian Warnock, a reformed charismatic pastor and blogger who I have followed for years, was understandably concerned that MacArthur was saying that even reformed charismatics are not genuine believers. In MacArthur’s final address, he dealt with seven criticisms of the conference and does not back down. He claims most of the charismatic movement is outside the body of Christ. Quoting from Challies’ summary: “this is a movement made up largely of non-Christians that lacks accountability.”
Warnock’s reaction to this is understandable:
So, there you have it, I am a part of a movement which according to MacArthur is worse than liberalism, and… has nothing good to offer the church, oh and “most” of us are not even Christians.
To be very clear, I have no problem with other Christians holding to a different posisition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit than I do. I do also recognise… there are many different possible positions. MacArthur seems to have missed all these nuances and simply wants to reject all charismatic thinking as heretical.
My primary concern is the divisive spirit and tone that permeates this conference. If you read Warnock’s post you can understand my concern. Let me be clear, however. I do not endorse the prosperity gospel, nor the over-the-top actions of self-appointed Pentecostal TV preachers and evangelists. Most of them are frauds and do serious damage to the cause of Christ, in America and especially in third world countries where they prey on the hopes of the poor. But it is one thing to join with careful charismatic brothers and denounce error, and quite another to write off an entire branch of the body of Christ and exclude them from grace because they differ with your interpretation of Scripture.
This charismatic issue, and the question of whether the miraculous gifts continue today, is important. It does have an effect on how one will do church, and I can understand how it makes it hard for cessationists to yoke up with continuationists in ministry. But just like we shouldn’t assume that all non-Baptists are not saved, neither should we assume that everyone taking a different position on this issue is necessarily possessed by a demon.
Since I have waded out into this realm of controversy, let me offer two posts for your perusal that get at the heart of the controversy. Tom Pennington provided a biblical defense of cessationism at the Strange Fire conference – see Challie’s summary of that session. Andrew Wilson provided a biblical response and defense of continuationism (that the gifts continue). For my part, I think the case by Wilson is stronger than that given by Pennington.
I am all for protecting the church from spiritual abuse in the name of “the Spirit told me you should…”. Prophecy and words of knowledge have great potential for harm. But I cannot read 1 Cor. 14 and other places in the NT and not give the charismatics some benefit of the doubt. There is something being talked about and advocated there that differs from the church practice of many cessationists today. Furthermore, I look down the corridors of history and see numerous examples of revivals accompanied by unexplained spiritual experiences. I see missionaries talking of miraculous manifestations of God’s power in dark lands. And I see the history of the saints, with exaggerated tales, but tales, nonetheless of miracles being pivotal in the advance of the Church. And then I read Acts 2’s quotation of Joel 2 as being fulfilled in the church age and I cannot but be open to the Spirit moving in miraculous ways among the church today. For more on this, I would recommend John Piper’s sermon series on this topic.
So I remain open and cautious in my stance toward the miraculous gifts. I lift Scripture up as sufficient. I don’t need experiences to bolster my faith – but experiences have bolstered my faith. We need to be careful to try the spirits and test the prophets, yes. But we cannot and should not quench the Spirit. I can do no better than to conclude with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. 5:19-21.
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.
Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.
Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:
The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.
The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.
The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]
Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:
I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.
The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.
Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.
A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]
I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:
What do we separate over?
- The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
- The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
- The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).
[from part 3]
While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.
These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”
Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.