fundamentalism by blunt instrument
In an earlier post, ‘stages in the history of visible church unity‘, I left off on the point noting the emergence of the World Council of Churches on the one hand and the International Council of Christian Churches on the other. What follows is a bit of an expansion on that, again from my 28 year old Church History class notes.
Edinburgh 1910 – World Missionary Conference
[From this also flowed two conferences…]
What is it?
Shall we try a few definitions?
in·flu·ence
Audio Help (?n’fl??-?ns) Pronunciation Key
n.
- A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort: relaxed under the influence of the music; the influence of television on modern life.
- Power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position: used her parent’s influence to get the job.
- A person who exerts influence: My parents considered my friend to be a bad influence on me.
- An effect or change produced by influence.
- … [astrological defs. deleted] …
I’d like to resume my notes from Church History class. I am taking a break from my break from blogging – largely related to working out my taxes… I hate doing taxes. Reality is so depressing! Far better to live in the imprecise haze of not knowing exactly where one stands! In Canada, our tax day is Apr 30, so we have a bit longer to dither than our USA friends. (Of course, if you don’t have to pay, they are in no hurry for you to get your refund!)
So a little R & R… blogging!
The lecture I am entering today comes under a header entitled:
Next comes a quote – may not be exact words, but something was said that struck me:
Be aware of the difference between my will, Satan’s wiles, and the Spirit’s wooing.
Now for the main lecture:
One of our members was promoted to heaven this week. Our musicians played her favourite hymn for the offertory this week: Great is Thy Faithfulness. She really knows the truth of that now!
Here are the summaries of our messages from our church website. Audio and pdfs are available there.
Some passages are known for what they mean … and some for what they mean and also for what they meant at significant points in history. Perhaps no passage is more significant in this regard than our text for today. Martin Luther was converted to Christ when he finally grasped the meaning of ‘as it is written, the just shall live by faith’. The meaning of this passage is an overarching theme of the Bible. It is interesting that Luther’s conversion experience happened after the Reformation ‘began’, that is, it wasn’t until two years after the posting of the 95 Theses that Luther found relief for his soul when he discovered that ‘the righteousness of God’ was righteousness from God, righteousness for living, the moment in which he himself was ‘born again’.
In which we begin a survey of biblical evidence concerning the reality, power, place and presence of angels throughout the Scriptures.
Our subject in this message is private prayer, an area where we all feel we fall down, I think. In this message, three principles are suggested to improve our private prayers: take much time for prayer, make specific time for prayer, and plan for your time of prayer. Thoughtfulness will increase fruitfulness in prayer.
I draw on a number of E. M. Bounds ideas in Power through Prayer for this message.
~~~
Our weather that is.
Here is a shot from the web-cam on the Malahat, our mini-mountain just north of town over which the highway up-Island travels:
I have a Google news alert that brings me news about a certain health topic. I thought I would share with you a good news alert from it:
Gleevec Pushes Advanced Melanoma Into Remission
Gleevec is a cancer drug, one that I follow in the news because it gives life to my wife. My wife has CML, chronic mylogenous leukemia. Gleevec has turned her condition into a daily routine, a pill she takes after breakfast … nothing more.
We know other cancer patients in the ministry. Their path is much more difficult, dealing with the ravages of strong chemical therapy or radiation treatments. My dad likes to say, “All doctors know how to do is cut, burn, and poison.” My dad is a cynic.
But for us, thankfully, cancer is just a chronic condition, one that is marvellously relieved by a modern wonder drug.
This news story isn’t about our situation, though. Someone else has experienced the blessing of Gleevec treatment, this time someone with an entirely different kind of cancer, melanoma. The lady who was taking Gleevec as an experimental treatment had four melanoma tumors.
Four weeks after the woman started therapy, there was dramatic reduction in tumor size and metabolism. Two of the tumor masses had vanished, and several others were much smaller. After four months, the tumors were still in check and, nine months later, the woman was still taking the drug and her condition remained stable.
Isn’t that interesting? It is to me, anyway. Some cancers are becoming more understandable to the medical community. We thank the Lord for giving wisdom and insight to the doctors involved.
It seems a long time since I have posted – and the fundamentalist blogosphere is quiet also, at least the part of it that I frequent. Maybe we are losing our energy for blogging? Perish the thought! I still have lots on my mind, just no time to say it all.
In our ministry, we are taking extra time with one of our senior saints just now. The Lord appears to be taking her home very quietly. Most of her family is unsaved (though some profess salvation). We are finding this time to be a precious occasion of ministry for us and our people as we gather around the hospital bed and visit with her family. May the Lord be glorified in this!
I would like to share with you our sermons from last Sunday. You can find the audio and notes on our church site.
In my Church History notes folder I have the reprint of an article written by Dr. Panosian in 1963 for the Nov/Dec issue of Voice of the Alumni, the news-magazine for BJU alumni. The article has a picture of a very young Dr. P. It was written a bare six or seven years from the Billy Graham 1957 New York crusade, the moment when lines were starkly drawn and personal decisions for or against the new evangelicalism had to be made.
Dr. P summarizes the definitions of other men for the (then) new movement. Among those cited are William E. Ashbrook, Harold J. Ockenga, Charles Woodbridge, Bob Jones, Jr., and Robert C. Brien. From these, Dr. P distills this definition:
So Neo-Evangelicalism is a movement, an approach, a group, a theological position, a practice, an attitude, a method and a mood. It prefers positivism without negativism, liberalism to fundamentalism, infiltration to separation, results to principles, scholarship to Revelation, ‘Preaching the Gospel’ without contending for the faith, ‘love’ to Truth, and ‘unity’ to loyalty to the Word of God. Ignoring the injunctions of the Epistles, concerning the believers’ reaction to error, infidelity, and apostasy — mark them, avoid them, rebuke them, have no fellowship with them, reprove, exhort, receive not, try them, from such turn away — the Neo-Evangelical has already been judged by God’s Word. He needs no other judgement.
A few thoughts flow from this…
I’ve been blogging my old Church History class notes [minus the doodles] for a little while now. The next two sections concern new evangelicalism:
As I think about this section, I must not have fully understood the lecture, or else ‘sellout’ is my term. Fuller was created for the purpose of advancing the neo-evangelical cause. It has always been committed to a course of compromise, whereas Wheaton turned away from a more militant beginning to the position it holds today.
I am reading a bit from an interesting book called Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible by R. Laird Harris.
The book is out of print, but if the rest of the book is like the first chapter, I’d say it is well worth having if you can find it. Harris wrote in 1957, although my edition was published in 1969.
Harris writes a lucid style, and his scholarship is excellent. The first chapter is an introduction to his topic. In it he lays out the argument he is confronting, that of attacking the inerrancy of the Scriptures. For the most part he is very strong in his rebuttals (although he concedes too much by being willing to allow for a more than 24 hour day during the creation week). Here is a comment where he emphasizes the need for strong rebuttal of error.
But how about the Church itself? Surely the leaders of our great Protestant denominations have resisted the “acids of modernity,” Unfortunately, it is not so. Painful it is to have to relate how our church leaders have for the most part felt that they could neutralize these acids simply by diluting them slightly. The effort has been not to meet the attack head on but to appease the gathering unbelief at every point and meanwhile to try to salvage some shreds of faith from the general ruin. The result has been a preaching without conviction, a religion without authority, a Christ of human proportions. And in a world sick unto death the Church has turned to the panacea of ecumenicalism to present to the world a united front – united in unbelief. [p. 37]
He sounds almost like a fundamentalist, but, alas, he isn’t one. He is thoroughly a new evangelical as you will see by his brief bio on wikipedia, linked above.
The reason this quote is so striking to me is that it is strong language from a man who took the new evangelical side of the debate in the 1950s. Many of the men who made the wrong choice at that time were fearless preachers of truth in their day.
There is a group of men today who make bold statements, who seem to hold the truth unflinchingly, but who also have serious issues in their choices of association and affiliation as have been documented time and time again (lately with great surprise among some ‘young fundie’ admirers). We are told that this new crowd of conservatives are different, that there aren’t any neo-evangelicals anymore, etc. To which I can only say:
Really?
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments