TILL HE COMES Blog

I am a fundamentalist. No, I’m not. It depends on what you mean.

The term “fundamentalist” was coined back in 1910 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterion Church decided to take a stand against encroaching liberal modernism and listed the “five fundamentals” of the faith:

1. The verbal inspiration (and inerrancy) of Scripture
2. The divinity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
4. Substitutionary atonement by Jesus
5. The bodily resurrection and future return of Jesus

They published booklets defining and defending these five point from Scripture. If you were in agreement with them on these things, you could call yourself a “fundamentalist.” So, based on this definition, I am a fundamentalist. I firmly believe and teach all five of these fundamental truths. So I am a fundamentalist.

But in the last thirty years or so, fundamentalism has come to include lots of other “non-negotiables.” A “fundamentalist” today must hold to certain views of women in ministry, the end times, abortion, creation vs. evolution, the method of baptism, dress code, drinking alcohol, gettting tattoos, style of music, playing cards, smoking, evangelistic method, political involvement, etc.

So if this is how ”fundamentalists” today are defined, I am not a fundamentalist. Sure, I am quite conservative in many of these areas, but in others, I would be considered “liberal” by some modern fundamentalists. So I am not a fundamentalist.

Recently, I have had some personal and online interaction with some of these modern fundamentalists, and have realized that their name is quite descriptive. First of all, many of them are not much FUN. Sour and dour describes them best. Always frowning. Always criticizing. Always telling you that unless you believe and act the same way they do, you are going to hell. They are not the kind of people who would feel comfortable around Jesus when He goes to parties, drinks, tells potty-humor jokes (yes, Jesus did this! - cf. Mark 7:15), and hangs out with prostitutes and sinners.

A second thing that characterizes modern fundamentalists is their method of argumentation, which is summed up in the word DUH. Modern fundamentalists have already made up their minds about the entire Bible, and when you try to explain to them that some of their Bible thumping passages have been ripped out of the cultural and Scriptural context they are written in, the fundamentalist acts as if you are the stupidest person on the earth for trying to understand a text this way. When you ask why your interpretation is wrong, they innundate you with a list of other passages pulled out of context and numerous quotes from authors and pastors who agree with their position. They do not argue from exegesis and proper hermeneutics, but from tradition and citations from other authors.

All of this leads to the conclusion that many of them are MENTAL. They are like people in mental institutions who hold strange beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary. Their spittle-spewing rants and tirades are called “holy” because they are “defending God and His Word.” But in reality, they are mindlessly defending their own views and opinions and will not even consider the arguments of any who disagree. No matter how rediculous their view is, they will not listen to even the most articulate, logical, gracious, and Scriptural evidence to the contrary.

Are there practices and beliefs in our culture and among Christendom that need to be corrected? Of course, but not with hate, slander, and name-calling, but instead with grace, speaking the truth in love.

So hold to the fundamentals, but don’t be a fundamentalist.

Thanks goes to faithmaps for this cartoon.

7 Comments »

I have been having some interesting discussions on a few other blogs about Luke 15. In it, there are three famous parables: the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son.

The most common view on these passages it that the lost items in these parables refers to unbelievers, and Jesus goes out and finds them, and brings them back to Himself. However, it is becoming increasingly understood that these parables are not about unbelievers becoming Christians, but about straying Christians repenting and being restored back into fellowship with God. In light of the context and the terms uses in the passage, this second interpretation is much more true to the text.

However, one blogger said that all people “belong to God” whether they are saved or not. While I suppose this technically true in one sense, we must admit that only believers have a special relationship with God by which we can be called His sheep (John 10:14-16), and His sons (Romans 8; 2 Cor 6:18; etc).

But watch this. If these three parables are talking about how Jesus goes out and finds lost unsaved people, and the sheep, coins, and sons therefore represent all the people of the world, what is keeping us from a universalist interpretation of this passage, since Jesus doesn’t stop searching until he has gathered all back into his fold?

And in fact, I had one blogger interpret this passage this very way. He wrote:

I’m living for the Shepherd who will leave ninety-nine sheep to find the one that is lost. If the entire world was lost, I expect He found every last one.

Certainly, not everyone who holds the view that the lost in these parables refers to unbelievers is a universalist, but that is where this man has ended up as a result of his interpretation of the passage.

So, what evidences do you see one way or the other in this passage which helps you understand who the “lost” are and how does this interpreation affect your evangelism and discipleship?

2 Comments »

I have been finding some interesting videos recently on YouTube and Google Video, and wanted to post them here for your reaction. Is this video a good idea or bad idea?

In this first video, a couple of pastors are explaining the why and how of baptism to a church that is (apparently) filled with new believers who know next to nothing about baptism, why they should get baptized, or what will happen at the baptism. So they created this video and showed it in their worship service.

This is the “Orchard Baptism Instructional Video.”

Enjoy the video.

6 Comments »

     I like fast food, but not always from the same place. I like the hamburgers from Wendy’s, the french fries from Burger King, and a soda from the convenience store ($0.59 for 32 oz!). Occasionally, when I have the time, I will actually eat my lunch this way, driving around to each location to get what I want from there. It gets even worse when I’m with my wife and daughters. Wendy won’t eat fast food at all, unless it’s a Deli fresh sandwich and Jamocha shake from Arby’s. Taylor will only eat cheeseburgers from McDonalds. Selah won’t eat fast food at all, and so we have to bring apples and a PBJ for her. We can’t figure out what Kahlea eats.

Needless to say, we don’t do fast food very often.

But this is how many people “attend church.” They go to one church for the awesome music and great children’s programs. But the pastor’s preaching there is usually too shallow, so they get their sermons online from  John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, or Chuck Swindoll. The church they attend has small groups, but most are too far away, so they get fellowship on Friday night by going out to dinner with a few friends, most of whom go to different churches. Some of these friends don’t go to church at all, in which case, it’s not “fellowship” but “relationship evangelism.”

Though many churches today try provide “one stop shopping” most Christians engage Christianity with a “mix and match” mentality. I have been guilty of this myself quite frequently the past few years, but recently, I have begun to question the legitimacy of it. I have justified such church shopping as trying to get the “best of everything” from wherever I can find it. “Besides,” I would tell myself, “I’m part of the universal church, and it doesn’t matter where I get the things I need to be healthy, as long as I get them from somewhere.”

But is this true?

In a previous post, I have proposed a definition for what the church is and does. After reflection, I think this definition needs some refinement. Not only must Christians exalt God through a life of worship, edify one another through the use of spiritual gifts, and evangelize the world, but I now believe that all of these things must be done together with the same group of believers.

I get this from Paul’s frequent usage of “body” imagery when talking about the church (cf. Eph 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12). The emphasis in these passages is not only that the various parts have various functions, but that each part must perform it’s particular function with and for the other parts that it receives benefits from.

The body of Christ is a symbiotic relationship. If you have the gift of helps, the person(s) you get your primary Bible teaching from should also be the person(s) you are trying to help (in big churches, you may not actually be helping the teaching pastor, but you can help him indirectly through doing things in the church and for the people of the church). The group you meet with for encouragement and prayer should be the group that goes out with you to develop relationships for evangelism and discipleship. Only in this way can they encourage and pray for you more effectively.

Following the imagery of the body, the people whose spiritual gifts you are spiritually benefiting from, should be the same people who benefit from your spiritual gifts. Otherwise, we’ve got a foot taking nourishment from a mouth and cleaning from a hand, but not helping either one walk where they need to go. It’s a selfish and disjointed way to function.

Does this mean you can’t get good Bible teaching from Alistair Begg or Matt Chandler unless you go their church? Of course not. Just don’t consider that your church teaching. Does this mean you can’t reach out to the community with people from other congregations? I hope you do join with other churches! But don’t consider this your evangelism unless you are also joining with people from your own body of believers.

I am not trying to be legalistic about all this. I just want you and your church body to be healthy. Besides, you’ll find this approach much more enjoyable and natural than driving all over to get a full meal.

2 Comments »

Sometimes, you just need to laugh.  

When I was in Montana recently, my sister Marianne, and her husband Andy (who recently sold a movie to Lions Gate Entertainment - “Dead Noon” - look for it at Blockbuster soon), introduced me to the “The Onion” - a newspaper which makes up fictional stories that are so close to reality, they are funny.

Today, I ran across a Christian version called “Lark News.” I spent a few minutes over my lunch break reading it and laughing. My favorite articles were about the man who grew over-familiar with the Holy Spirit  and the church that tried the Nursery Catacombs. At first, I thought some of these stories were actually true (I know some people like the Holy Spirit guy), and so I visited the FAQ section of the website. They are right…these are frequently asked questions. Also, if you don’t like to read, at the top of each story, you can have your computer read the story to you, in a normal computer voice, or as a eunuch.

So, need a good laugh? Check out LarkNews.com. We all need to laugh more.

No Comments »

There is a new post over at the GES Blog about “Where do we find the saving message?” If you were sharing with someone how they can have eternal life, where would you go in Scripture to show them what God’s Word says? Do you have passages picked out? If so, what are they, and why would you go there? Let’s hear what you have to say!

Click here to go to the site.

2 Comments »

For several years now, I have been mulling over a nagging question: “What constitutes church?”  How do you know the difference between a Bible study and church? Is there a difference? I am at seminary right now, and we have daily chapel. The seminary tells us that this does not qualify as church. But we have singing, teaching, prayer, fellowship groups, and occasionally take communion. Why is this not church?

Or, take the recent introduction of the online church. Can you really be involved with and “attend” a church from your computer at work or at home in your pajamas? If not, why not?

How many people need to be present? Can one believer in prison cell in China have their own church service, or does there need to be a minimum of 2 or 3? And what are these 2 or 3 supposed to do, how often, and where? In a recent book by George Barna (Revolution), he implies that a group of four men can be a church out on the golf course if they encourage and edify one another spiritually. If this is true, why can’t we go to church while shopping at the mall, or camping at the lake? Maybe we can.

I am about to embark on a series of posts that attempt to begin to answer some of these questions, and maybe some others as they crop up. I would value and appreciate your input through the comments.

Here is my preliminary hypothesis which I want to investigate through Scripture:

The church is the universal and spiritual body of believers in Jesus Christ: 
     -which began on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2
     -and gathers together in various physical locations for:
           -exaltation of God by glorifyinig Him through a life lived in worship
           -edifcation of one another through teaching, fellowship, and prayer
           -evangelism of the world through social and spiritual acts of service

So, what do you think? Even before we begin to break this down and look at Biblical passages related to it, are there things you feel I should add or take out? What are the ramifications of such a definition for the way churches are today?

4 Comments »