Reformed Hermeneutics: Christ-centered not Naturalistic

My friend Nathan Pitchford was recently made a contributor to Monergism.Com‘s Reformation Theology Blog! In his first post, he dealt with an issue concerning which he has written a book (he is currently seeking to get it published). It is an issue which is very important to our understanding of Scripture–the topic of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Everyone has a hermeneutic, whether or not they can spell the word, or know what it means.

Evangelicalism today largely favors the use of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. This approach takes each word in its normal sense unless the context or grammar demands otherwise. It also takes into account the historical setting of the author, book, and audience, in making interpretative decisions.

Nathan argues that this was the approach of the Reformer’s, yet with one important extra feature. The Reformer’s interpretive approach focused on finding how every passage of Scripture centered on Jesus Christ. They viewed the Bible as a unified whole, presenting one story–God’s redemption of fallen man.

Nathan points out that the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been used due to the influence of the Enlightenment and subsequent liberal theology, to stress a naturalistic approach to the text. Nathan contrasts the two approaches to Scripture prominent today as follows:

“What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate ‘a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament’? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, ‘How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage,’ in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther’s grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses’ striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.”

The approach Nathan advocates, is called a “redemptive historical approach” by Reformation Theology Blog, and others. Nathan gives six reasons why an approach which “does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.” They are:

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God’s ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul’s assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible — that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, Paul’s interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James’ citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading “on its own terms” .

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ’s own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

Be sure to read his entire article!

"Being Filled with the Holy Spirit"–a Message by Dr. Wayne Grudem

Dr. Wayne Grudem was the guest preacher for our Sunday services this past Sunday at Bethlehem Baptist Church. He preached a powerful message on Eph. 5:18 that I want to share here. So the following are my notes on his message. May God spur you on to be more consistently filled by His gracious and glorious Spirit. [You can listen to that message by finding it on this list, and clicking on the mp3 link.]


 

Introduction

 

Eph. 5:18 in the context of the book of Ephesians is a key and central point.

1) God chose us to be holy and blameless before Him (1:4).

2) Specifically, we are to be like God (5:1).

3) In order to be like Him, God wants us to understand His will and be wise (5:15-17).

4) An important way we fulfill God’s eternal purpose for our lives and bring Him glory is by being filled with the Spirit, continually (5:18).

  • The present tense of “be filled” implies a continuous action: “keep on being filled”.
  • The comparison with wine indicates this as well. If you were drunk yesterday, today you would need to be full of wine to get drunk again.
  • So, we need to be filled with the Spirit again and again, day by day.

 

Suggested Definition

 

Be filled with the Spirit means to be filled with the immediate presence of God to the extent that you are feeling what God Himself feels, desiring what God desires, doing what God wants, speaking by God’s power, praying and ministering in God’s strength, and knowing with the knowledge that God Himself gives.

  • We all remember times like this, when we really felt the presence of God.
  • What happened? Why did we lose this closeness to God?
    • Rom. 8:5–we have forgotten God’s work and had our minds involved in that of this world.
  • So How do you become filled with the Spirit? How do you recover this closeness to God?
    • Since this is a command, we can do something about it.
    • It is parallel to wine. You don’t just become drunk, you must put yourself in the way of wine–you must seek to become drunk by using wine, etc.
    • I do not believe that this is automatic–there is no magical prayer whereby we become filled, and we do not become filled by the laying on of hands automatically–because the Holy Spirit is a person.

 

How to Be Filled with the Holy Spirit

 

  1. Ask. Luke 11:3
  2. Spend time in the presence of the Spirit. Rom. 8:5b
    • prayer and worship–publicly in Church
    • private Bible reading and prayer
    • prayer and Bible study in small groups
    • if you do not have time, this will not happen
    • the context contrasts believers’ lives with unbelievers’–they will be different and have a different focus (4:17, 5:8, 5:15)
    • Jesus had the Spirit without measure, and His example is long hours in prayer
  3. Read the Bible and obey it.
    • If we live in disobedience we cannot expect to be filled. Eph. 4:30; James 1:12
    • The context says we must be wise and understand the will of God–this certainly includes knowing and obeying the Bible.
  4. Yield your life to the influence and direction of the Spirit.
    • Parallel to the influence of wine–we yield ourselves to it, and it produces in us drunkenness and a lifestyle that leads to debauchery/reckless living.
    • We are commanded to be filled–this is passive. This implies we must yield to the Spirit and allow Him to fill us.
    • When we yield–we are led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14), and He convicts us and we must follow His direction.
    • God brings us to points in our lives, where we are asked to yield everything to Him again and to totally commit to His control (Ps. 73:25, Mt. 10:37).
  5. Wait.
    • Acts 1:4-5–the disciples were to wait, and yet they were already believers. This pattern applies to us today.
    • Many verses in the OT stress this point–Ps. 37:7, 62:1, 130:5
    • This is good for us spiritually, as it humbles our hearts and quiets us.
    • This means to be still and not necessarily do anything, but just wait on God.
  6. Keep on Being Filled with the Spirit. Eph. 5:18
    • This is the hardest thing to do. It is a great challenge to be filled with the Spirit at work and with our family during leisure times, etc.
    • When we leave our time with God in the morning, and go on to face the activity of the day–we must not forget about God–this would grieve the Holy Spirit.
    • A big part of the solution to this difficulty is fellowship with other believers. (This is why small groups are so important.)
    • Not many today, unfortunately, are marked by being continually filled with the Spirit (Acts 6:3, 11:24).

 

What would Happen If We were Continually Filled with the Spirit?

 

  • Spiritual counsel and edifying praise–5:19.
  • Frequent worship of God–5:19.
  • Constant attitude of thanksgiving–5:20.
  • Humility and submission to those in authority–5:21-6:9.
  • Greater victory over concentrated spiritual attack–6:10=19.
  • More spiritual gifts in the church–since the Spirit is the one who gives gifts.
  • More specific understanding of God’s will in the decisions which face us in life–Eph. 1:17, Gal. 5:18.
  • Greater holiness in life–Rom. 8:13.
  • More answers to prayer–Eph. 6:18.
  • Amazingly fruitful ministry–Zech. 4:6.
  • Much greater peace in our hearts–Rom. 8:6.
  • And many more effects.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

The Gospel according to Solomon

In this post, I made the following observation:

“When encountering Scriptural teachings on types or comparisons, I typically just assumed that God was borrowing from the natural realm, so to speak, to highlight truth about His spiritual works. But the work of redemption was planned “before the foundation of the world”! So, when God created the world, the very way in which He did it was not arbitrary but planned….The family unit, with father-child and husband-wife relationships, were designed and established to reveal aspects of our relationship with God as His beloved children, and our relationship with Christ as His church-bride.”

We often draw on familial pictures of God as our Father, but how often do we contemplate God as our lover?

4
I recently ran across an article online that simply blew me away. It contends that the intimacy conveyed in the poetry of Solomon’s Song is a true picture of the joyous, intoxicating love God wants us to share with Him, for all eternity!

I will provide some excerpts from the article here for you all. May you too be filled with awe and praise for our God who has so intimately called us to such a love relationship with Him. The article is from Credenda Agenda and is written by Douglas Jones.

“The passion of the Song of Solomon is a majestic revealer of our sterility. It is one of the greatest expressions of the gospel in all of Scripture, and it shows us how little we understand. It gives us the very heart of Christian theology, the center of all doctrine and practice. And, yet, like an old friend, it has pity on us. It mercifully mocks our pervasive intellectualizing of the gospel and our clinical views of holiness.

“Can we hear the gospel in the following, without flinching?

“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for your love is better than wine…. A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, that lies all night between my breasts. My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blooms, In the vineyards of En Gedi…. Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down in his shade with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. Sustain me with cakes of raisins, refresh me with apples, for I am lovesick. His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me” (Song 1:2,13,14; 2:3-6).

“Most American Christians can’t get past the opening compliment to wine, let alone understand how lovemaking is supposed to transcend it. Our indifference to wine is connected to the unsensual utilitarianism of our marriage beds. They go hand in hand. And if our marriage beds are supposed to reflect the glories of the gospel, then it’s no wonder the Church is so ugly. The Song assumes these are all tied together. We will never live the gospel fully until we can embrace the blinding holiness of the marriage bed, the exhilarating bodily union of husband and wife, lovemaking.

….

“The Tabernacle and Temple reveal the holiness of sexual union too. They were not only called the “house of God” (Ex. 23:10; Jdgs. 20:18; Jn. 2:16), they were designed with the components of an actual house. In them we find the outer courts typical of our porches and yards and, inside, places for food preparation and cooking and cleansing. As you move further in, the rooms increase in privacy, until you reach the Holy of Holies, the most sacred place of judgment and communion. That is where God could finally meet with the bride. That is where the holiest communion took place. In our homes, too, we have walls and kitchens and washing places, and we have a most-private area of intimate communion as well: the bedroom, the marriage bed. The marriage bed in this analogy is parallel then, not to an outer room or any other outer furniture, but to the Holy of Holies. What goes on there is the most intimate communion of all between husband and wife. With the marriage bed as our Holy of Holies, it is not a place for abomination or degradation or pietistic indifference. Lovemaking is a glorious, positive holiness and ought to be celebrated as such; it is at the center of honoring God. (And thankfully, communion in the Holy of Holies is not a once-a-year affair anymore!)

….

“Real knowledge is bodily love and communion. It is imagination that is touching and indwelling. It isn’t dominated by the intellect and rationality. Yet our theologies (even articles like this one!) tend to be very intellectualistic. Imagine if we were to approach the marriage bed as intellectualistically as we approach our theology. We would kill the joy. You cannot analyze lovemaking without dispersing the delight. That is a wonderful aspect of the marriage bed. Lovemaking goes to the soul, far deeper than any reason can. Yet we can constrain the gospel in the same way. We often intellectualize the gospel to such an extent that people can’t know the joy – our children can’t know the joy. The lure and draw of sexual joy is supposed to parallel the lure of the goodness of God. The two go hand in hand. We strangle both while stuffing our children’s intellects, and then wonder what went wrong. We are a nonsensual, unpoetic people; we are foreigners to the Song of Solomon. [emphasis added]

“God has filled the universe with many earthy, imaginative symbols; of these lovemaking is very central….It is no evolutionary accident, for example, that lovemaking builds and climaxes in ecstatic joy. God didn’t have to design sex that way. But He did for some meaning. It certainly images the “joy inexpressible” (1 Pet. 1:8] that the bride has for Christ: “In Your presence is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Ps. 16:11). Like the marriage bed, this joy can’t always be held in; sometimes it just has to be shouted – “shout for joy, all you upright in heart!” (Ps. 32:11; cf. 33:11; 35:27; 65:13; 67:4; 132:9,16). Lovemaking, too, should never be too quiet.

“And it can turn our souls toward the deeper aspects of life. Note the Song of Solomon’s imaginative and sensual interplay between the created order and the marriage bed. Few, if any, syllogisms show up in the poem. But the Lord does tell us to smell and see and touch and taste in the Song: ‘How fair is your love, my sister, how much better is the scent of your perfumes than all spices…. You have doves’ eyes, your lips are like a strand of scarlet and your mouth is lovely…. The curves of your thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skillful workman. Your naval is a rounded goblet…. Your waist is a heap of wheat set about with lilies…. His body is carved ivory inlaid with sapphires. His legs are pillars of marble set on the bases of fine gold. His mouth is most sweet; yes, he is altogether lovely…. Let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and the roof of your mouth like the best wine.’

So much is built into this poetry. And so many battles lie at this crossroads within our own homes, quite apart from combatting the ugly immodesties and boring exhibitionisms of a surrounding pagan culture that is plain deer-eyed about real sexuality (James 3:14-15; Jude 1:16). Lovemaking can not only sanctify us, but it also shows us more about the nature of God and knowledge and education and all of life. By being a more sexual, a more sensual people, we can educate our children and congregations to delight in creation and redemption, paying attention to the symbols and delights that God has sculpted all around us. What a wonderful calling. Whatever is scented, whatever love is better than wine, whatever breasts are like towers, if there is anything perfumed or tasty, meditate on it and ravish your beloved in your Holy of Holies.

[Read the whole article. Ephasis added.]

Wayne Grudem on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Christian Manhood & Womanhood

This past weekend my church (Bethlehem Baptist Church) sponsored a seminar on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was taught by Dr. Wayne Grudem of Phoenix Seminary. He was influential together with John Piper in the founding of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I recently added their journal to my sidebar, by the way.

The seminar was excellent. It consisted of a Friday night session and two Sat. morning sessions. I plan on posting my notes from all 3 sessions. So here are the notes from the first session.

Manhood and Womanhood in Creation and Marriage:
5 Key Issues

  1. Men and women are equal in value and dignity. Gen. 1:27; Gal. 3:28
    • This corrects the error of male dominance/superiority.
  2. Men and women have different roles in marriage as part of the created order.
    • Note to singles: No where does the Bible say all women are to be subject to all men.
    • The primary relationship picture of the relation between men and women in a church is brother and sister–which implies no subjection.
    • Marriage is good, but God teaches us that some are called to be celibate for His sake (and this is also good).
    • 10 proofs that male headship in marriage was ordained before the Fall.
    1. Order — Adam created first then Eve. Gen. 2:7, 18-26 (cf. 1 Tim. 2:13)
    2. Representation — Adam represented all mankind (even though Eve sinned first). 1 Cor. 15:22
    3. Naming of Woman — Adam named her “woman”. Gen. 2:23
      • The Hebrew idea of the word “call” involves authority–see its use in Gen. 1 where God named the earth and seas, etc.
    4. Naming of the Human Race — God named it “man” not “woman” or even a generic Hebrew word for “people” or “humankind”. Gen. 5:1-2 (this recounts what happened before the Fall)
      • The Hebrew word for “man” is “Adam”.
    5. Primary Accountability — Adam responsible chiefly for the sin. Gen. 3:9 (also Rom. 5:12ff.)
    6. Purpose — Eve was a helper for Adam. Gen. 2:18-22
      • “Helper” is not a demeaning term for God is called “helper” often in Scripture.
      • Eve was to help Adam in hisresponsibility.
    7. Conflict — The curse brought distortion of previous roles not an introduction of new roles. Gen. 3:16
      • “Desire for” can mean “desire against”. The phrase is only used 3 times in the OT, and only 2 times in Moses’ writings: here (Gen. 3:16) and Gen. 4:7. Just like sin desires to control and use you, the woman will be naturally tempted to control and oppose her husband.
      • The word for “rule” in 3:16 has the connotation of oppress or dominate by strength. This is surely not what the Scriptural idea of godly male headship should look like. This too is a tendency after the fall in men, to dominate and oppress their wives.
      • The curse brought pain in Adam’s responsibility–getting food from the ground; pain in Eve’s responsibility–child bearing; and pain in their relationship.
    8. Restoration — Salvation in Christ restores the created order. Col. 3:18-19
      • Submission not opposition on the part of the wife.
      • Love not harshness on the part of the husband.
    9. Mystery — Marriage from the beginning of creation was a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church. Eph. 5:31
      • A mystery is something hinted at in the OT and explained fully only in the NT.
      • So marriage is meant to be a pattern of Christ and the church–and that relationship obviously includes submission to Christ’s authority.
      • This means that submission is NOT culturally variable, since the relationship between Christ and his church is not culturally variable.
    10. Parallel with the Trinity — The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflect the equality, differences, and unity in the Trinity. 1 Cor. 11:3
    • How does this look in practice?? How does it work?
      • The following chart demonstrates the Biblical ideal contrasted with various errors we as fallen humans tend toward.

      Click to expand table

    • In addition to leadership roles, the Bible teaches primary responsibilities.
      • The husband is to provide for and protect his wife and family.
      • The wife is to nurture the children and care for the home.
  3. The equality and differences of men and women reflect the equality and differences in the Trinity. 1 Cor. 11:3
    • 1 Cor. 11:3 compares the Son’s submission to the Father with a wife’s submission to her husband.
    • Jesus did not complain that His Father’s having the role of leader within the Trinity was unfair. Rather he said, “I desire to do thy will” (Ps. 40:8)
    • When did the idea of headship and submission begin?
      • 1987?? (when the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was founded) NO
      • With the OT patriarchs?? NO
      • At the Fall in Gen. 3?? NO
      • With the created order in Eden?? NO!!
      • Answer: It never began. It has always existed within the eternal fellowship of the Trinity.
    • This shows us that authority is not based on gifts or value but rather role.
    • Submission to authority is noble–this virtue has been demonstrated eternally in the glad fellowship and unity of the Triune Eternal God.
    • Submission to authority does not exclude the mutual giving of honor.
    • Due to this verse–1 Cor. 11:3, some egalitarians/evangelical feminists (even evangelicals!!) have begun to tamper with the doctrine of the Trinity–saying the Father actually submits to the Son and that “mutual submission” exists in the Trinity.
  4. The equality and differences between men and women are very good.
    • The created order is fair.
    • The created order is best for us.
    • The created order is beautiful and “very good”.
    • Because of the controversy surrounding our culture and this Biblical teaching, we do not rejoice in this as we ought.
    • Equality, differences, and unity beautifully coexist in the glory of human sexuality within marriage and it brings joy.
  5. Our view of manhood and womanhood is a watershed issue that tests our obedience to the Bible.
    • Evangelical feminism/egalitarianism does not advance on the strength of exegetical arguments.
    • Egalitarianism advances through:
      • incorrect interpretations
      • reading into Scripture things that are not there
      • incorrect assumptions about the meanings of words
      • incorrect assumptions about world history
      • methods of interpretation that reject the authority of Scripture and tend toward liberalism [for instance denying the authority of Gen. 1-3–this is even being done by “evangelicals” to defend egalitarian principles.]
      • rejecting Scripture as our authority and deciding on the basis of personal experience or private revelations
      • suppression of information [particularly in the local battles within particular churches, as egalitarian pastors try to push their ideas through]
    • Evangelical feminism has 2 significant allies:
      • much of secular culture
      • Christian leaders who are complementarian [this word describes the position taken by CBMW] yet they lack courage to teach their views or to take a stand in the controversy. (note Acts 20:26-27)

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

The List

Take a ride on the Big Orange Truck!

A blogging friend of mine has posted his LIST of problems with the IFBx wing of fundamentalism. It is really good so I want to reproduce it here. But be sure to check out his blog–it is devoted to many of the same topics as mine. It is called the Big Orange Truck. Why? Check out this post and it will all make sense!

After some introductory comments and disclaimers, he presents the list which I reproduce here verbatim:

1. Weak theology – I should probably stop here because this problem has caused all of the following. Many of my IFB college courses were a joke. There were no systematic theology classes offered. The one Bible doctrines class that was offered was shallow, weak, and incomprehensive. Classes on specific Books of the Bible were basically Sunday school lessons for which I paid tuition.

A fellow alumnus once told me that our college concentrated more on methodology than theology, and that graduates were expected to learn theology later on their own. This is true, and this is what I did (and am still doing). I learned that my methodology was challenged by biblical theology. One or the other has to change, and I am finding myself leaving much of the methodology that was inculcated at my alma mater.

2. Shallow Preaching – Or I could say “unbiblical” preaching. Much of the preaching I’ve heard was shallow and unbiblical. The text was used as a launch pad into the preacher’s “private interpretation”. Most sermons were a hodge-podge of motivational speaking, psycho-babble, Bible quotations, and lots of volume. I call these kind of preachers “fire-breathing ear ticklers”. Expository preaching was not only avoided, it was criticized. Bible texts became contortionists in order to fit into a sermon. A sermon was considered good based on the delivery and not its substance. This is how preaching was practiced, and this is how I was taught.

3. Lack of unity – A better way to say it may be “reversed separation.” Many IFB preachers separate, fight, and feud for stupid and silly reasons. Unity is done under the banner of surface issues, but separation is rarely practiced over real doctrinal issues.

Separation is good, and often biblically required. The problem I see is that separation is reversed…IFB preachers often separate when they should unite, and they unite when they should be separating. As a result, IFB circles are full of contention, division, back stabbing, gossip, and one-upmanship.

4. Numbers Obsession – Bigness is everything. Size really does matter. Numbers are all important. Everything is done for more numbers…more “salvations”, more baptisms, more in attendance, more anything and everything.

This numbers obsession is so bad, many preachers, churches, and colleges “manufacture” results, or just flat out lie, in order to be top dog. More on this later.

5. Sloppy soul winning & Easy prayerism – This is a result of bad theology and the numbers obsession. Like a domino effect, it all begins with bad theology.

The soul winning method I was taught concentrated on manipulation, and the purpose of the process was to get somebody to say a prayer. I’ve seen many soul winners “lead someone to the Lord” in less than 5 minutes. Soul winning was often done with bravado and complete carelessness in regard to a “convert’s” genuine conversion.

6. Celebrityism – This is an especially egregious problem in IFBx circles. Pastors of really large churches achieve the coveted celebrity status. They are the ones that preach at all the conferences. They are the ones that steer the doctrine and methodology of their followers. They are the ones that define the different camps within Baptist fundamentalism.

It is natural for good pastors who have successful ministries to have influence in his circle of brethren. Being a megachurch pastor is not wrong. Great pastors will always influence present and future generations. It becomes “celebrityism” when only the opinions of the celebs are respected, and anything done in contradiction to the opinion of an IFB celeb is considered as heresy. Any critic of a celeb is considered an apostate. This naturally leads to cultism. I am a great admirer of Spurgeon, but even Spurgeon was human and prone to mistakes, and I do not consider him the final authority on anything. I just greatly value his knowledge and skill.

Celebrityism is not just an attitude in a megachurch pastor, it is the atmosphere in IFBx culture. Unless you are a big shot, you basically don’t matter. Your voice is silent. Your ministry is trivial, and if you happen to differ from a celeb on anything, then you are wrong simply because your church isn’t big enough to make you right. Whenever there are contradicting opinions, the guy with the biggest church is always right.

For what it’s worth, this is my list.

It’s helping me keep it ‘tween the ditches, and the greasy side down.

I think that list sums up some of the important problems rampant in some secters of fundamentalism today. Be sure to read his whole post here, too. You will see that Joe is not out to destroy fundamentalism or anything. He is seriously speaking out for change.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7