This posting is merely a personal observation about a term and a movement that seems to have so many definitions that it fails to have any definition. Every lecture on Fundamentalism, as well as every passing reference, personal claim, or institutional identification regarding it seems to mean something unique to its claimant. In the early 20th Century German theologians gave American theologians a clear cause for holy indignation and thus a movement was launched. The anger, it seems, was righteous and focused like a laser on an impersonal target. The cause was worthy–defending the integrity, inspiration, and authority of the Scriptures. Literature was produced, the church was warned, and informed pastors and teachers did their jobs well. As a result, a holy objective was accomplished as much as any movement can accomplish an objective.
Righteous indignation is a useful emotion for solving legitimate problems (Eph. 4:26) but it is also a dangerous emotion requiring some definite limitations (Eph. 4:26-27). It seems to me that the holy anger of the original Fundamentalists was usefully applied to the initial cause but was not properly put away when the dust of battle settled. The battle was fought but the anger lived on looking for targets on the left, right, or middle. Thus a legitimate movement achieved a laudable objective, but ultimately forfeited the right to be taken seriously for the long term. I cherish the memory and applaud the courage of those who waded into the fray and fought valiantly in defense of our doctrine of biblical sufficiency. But I wonder if the next battle was really the next battle or if most of the ammo spent over the subsequent decades would not have been better saved for the next real war.
It seems that the stuff of real battles becomes clear to many all at once as it did in the early 19oo’s. But when individuals live with their theological noses to the ground relentlessly sniffing about for something on the order of compromise so they can justify another nuclear engagement, the land becomes littered with needless casualties and the real battles are lost for lack of unified engagement. Are we still calling ourselves Fundamentalists because we affirm the fundamentals or because we continue to fan the flames of fundamentalist anger? Should we still be lining up in battle formation or happily cheering each other on in our partnership of the gospel (Phil. 1:3-5; 2:1-2).
Will someone who knows better please lead me in the way more perfectly?
He was not known widely. His biography will not be published. His funeral will not be attended by celebrities. Flags across our nation will not be flown at half mast. His family will have to pay the media to print a small notice regarding his death. But he was a great man to those who were close enough to notice.
Great men are seldom known as “great men” while they are alive or even when they’re gone. His wife and children will probably read this label as a polite overstatement. But why should we lavish these weighty words on fools and demand modest understatement in the case of worthy people? Granted, words like “great” and “wonderful” ought to be reserved for the only one who truly fills them—God. But speaking as an earthling, what is a great man? Webster defines greatness as “unusual or considerable in degree.” His twenty-three meanings use words like, notable, outstanding, or distinguished—all of these fit this man. He was a great man in a small society where this adjective is frequently paired with cakes, roast beef gravy, and furniture repair projects rather than people. Now is the time to break this tradition and seize this worthy superlative from contexts that only diminish it’s worth. Today I hang it on the memory of a man who would have worn it well in life had we the courage to use it in his presence.
Of course we wouldn’t have used it in his presence. His protest would have been quiet but firm, a firmness we all learned to recognize as the tip of an iceberg-sized conviction. Great men don’t need to shout and pile on verbiage to communicate important ideas. Their family and friends know how they think because their convictions are not whimsical but deeply embedded in their character. O yes, the man we affectionately call “Grandpa Fahlgren” could use endless words to describe conversations with his friend Bernie who built houses with him back in the 40’s. But on the more volatile political or theological themes all he needed to say was, “Yah, I just don’t see it that way.” We all knew that “Yah” was an old Swedish word for “I know what you’re saying and I’m not buying it but I don’t want to argue.”
Dad Fahlgren was a man of faith who loved God and walked with him in ways that form legacies in children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. But that faith was seeded with a few knotty conundrums that none of us could unravel to his satisfaction—questions that may have sounded like skepticism to fragile minds. Our youthful “answers” were probably more conducive to agnosticism than faith but he parried them with that same polite Scandinavian, “Yah.”
Some great men are known for great ideas others for great ideals. As his family and close friends continue to speak of him, we will talk in terms of certain moral ideals that leached out in his words, choices, and actions. Words like fairness and honesty will be used generously. Our conversations will be laced with references to his consistent devotion to God and family. He held to a standard of justice that could not countenance some of the policies of presidents he reluctantly voted for. He was an army medic in World War II–a patriot who did not hesitate to hold his country to the same ideals of compassion and equality that defined him. As a husband and father he was irreproachably faithful and loyal.
I have been blessed to be married to a woman raised by this father. I have been enriched by 34 years of conversation and observation with one of the most consistent human beings I know. My children have been richly endowed growing up in the shadow of this kind, gracious, unflappable, even-handed grandpa. His passing may be unnoticed by the media-fed masses but his great ideals have been gradually etched into at least 40 minds and souls of those who call him dad, grandpa, uncle and “O Russ!” If this isn’t greatness, what is?
In my last post I took a stab at debunking the myth of perfectionism, in this one I’d like to offer some hope for those of us who live with sore necks because we’re forever looking up to others who deservedly stand in the floods at center stage. In fact, they’re not just standing in the floods, they are the floods! In every generation God seems pleased to endow a few men and women with stellar gifts for the benefit of the many lesser lights. But we lower wattage bulbs need to cherish the fact that it is God who assigns lumin potential and that he has chosen to light up the world with many lights not just a few brilliant ones. What he expects of us is that we burn as brightly as possible with the wattage assigned, not to draw stares to the bulb but glory for the generator!
As I’ve been reading A.B. Bruce’s Training of the Twelve again, I’m impressed with Christ’s selection. Fishermen, tradesmen, zealots, and a tax collector! None were tagged from the priestly class, no Pharisees (there were some good ones), and no trained scholars from among the scribes (again, there were certainly some outstanding ones). What Jesus chose were 12 ordinary men of the pedestrian class, completely capable of achieving ministry at a prosaic level. John MacArthur, in his book on the 12, makes the observation: “The propagation of the gospel and the founding of the church hinged entirely on twelve men whose most outstanding characteristic was their ordinariness.”
To be unexceptional is no curse in the body of Christ because God has not chosen to start with the wise, the powerful, or the noble by this world’s standards (1Cor. 1:26-31). He takes what we are, infuses us with his infinitely wise and powerful Spirit, gives us his supernatural, life-transforming Word of Grace, and says, “Just tell them what it says.” So ALL boasting, both the lesser lights and the brilliant ones, is the same–soli Deo gloria (for the glory of God alone!). Thank God for the bright lights and thank God for 40 watts burning at full strength since both can light a path to the one who is the Light of the world!
Who says leaders have to be perfect? Apart from Jesus Christ, there aren’t any perfect leaders. There are only two kinds of leaders in our world–flawed leaders who acknowledge their weaknesses and flawed leaders who shamelessly hide their weaknesses. I suppose if everything were known about everyone, no one would qualify to lead in any context. But there is a myth about leadership that presumes followers cannot detect flaws unless leaders reveal them and that leadership is forfeit by anything short of perfection. There is also an internal mechanism called ego, that tempts leaders to convince the “gullible masses” they are perfect in spite of unremitting evidence to the contrary.
When President Obama cast judgment without evidence on the actions of a Cambridge police officer this week, he was so clearly wrong that only the willfully blind failed to notice. Presidents can be presidents and make mistakes–all 44 have so far! What we all hoped for was sufficient integrity to admit the failure we all saw and humility to seek forgiveness. Alas, he believed the myth, thought we’d all over-reacted, and patronizingly assured us that the whole thing was simply an unfortunate word choice. Thus, according to myth, his perfection was preserved and his leadership survived unscathed. Such myths make fools of all of us.
This is not a political comment–folly enjoys bi-partisan ownership and support. I followed this story with interest because of its value to the leadership discussion. We are all leaders in some sense and we are all required to dismiss the myths of our culture in our addiction to truth. One biblical proverb says, ”Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment” (Proverbs 12:19) and the Apostle John taught that to deny sin (moral failure) is tantamount to self-deception and that admitting it results in mercy (1John 1:8-10). Our leaders must not be required to be right in every opinion and flawless in every initiative, and their artless confessions must be met with gracious forgiveness. When a leader’s reputation for flawlessness trumps truth, integrity and humility are lost and the game is all but over. Pray for your leaders. Pray for humility and integrity even more than competence.
“Behold, you [God] delight in truth in the inward being” — David, Psalm 51:6
“Truth crushed to earth shall rise again, the eternal years of God are hers; but error, conquered, writhes in pain, and dies amidst her worshippers” – William Cullen Bryant
“ Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer” — David, Psalm 19:14
“To err is human, to forgive is divine” — Alexander Pope
President Barak Obama called Michael Jackson a pop music “icon” as have nearly all of the major news networks. News of his death has dominated the internet and print media. What is an icon and why does our press fawn over a man of this sort? An icon is a representation of a sacred personage who is venerated by worshipers. I guess there is some sense in which Michael Jackson fits this definition—he was venerated by a host of worshipers. But there is another sense in which it seems utterly bogus—nothing about his art, lifestyle, or persona suggests the sacred.
I confess that I have not opened a single article related to his untimely passing. I grieve for the death of any man and particularly for those who give little or no evidence of regeneration. The massive news coverage, plethora of celebrity eulogies, and the general Jacko buzz in the air makes it obvious that a famous person has died and it’s all a bit scandalous to me. Not the man so much as the phenomenon we are becoming used to.
In our culture death is more tragic when the person is beautiful, rich, talented, smart, or athletic. Why should it be this way? Does the passing of a beautiful woman lower the global beauty quotient? Does the death of a very intelligent man diminish the cosmic IQ? My father was an excellent electrician, a faithful husband, a consistent Christian, a reliable church member, and a model father to two sons. When he passed in August of 2003 the media did’t blink, the internet failed to notice, and just a few family and friends gathered to remember his life and celebrate his promotion.
I cannot calculate how many came to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ because of my dad’s godly example, Sunday School teaching, Bible camp construction, and faithful support to many influential pastors. I know that there will be people in heaven because of his direct or indirect ministry. I know of nothing about Michael Jackson that might have been used of the Holy Spirit to influence a man or woman to trust Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Many, in fact, may have been drawn the other direction. If our culture’s heroes are those who model its values, our collective values have little to commend real heroes.
Michael Jackson was not one of my heros. In fact most of my heroes are relatively unknown but I have reason to believe the Sovereign God of our universe is keenly aware of each of them and has a special reward for each that will make a week of media saturation as meaningful as a blind man’s wink.
The prolific writer and beloved Scottish preacher, Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), delivered a sermon on 1 John 2:15 entitled, The Expulsive Power of a New Affection. He sought to convince his hearers that it is a generally futile to dislodge from the heart an inordinate love for the world by attempting to prove it an unworthy object of affection. It is far more effective, he argued, to replace this inordinate affection with a superior ordinate affection–love for God.
As Peter wrote to suffering saints in Asia Minor, one of his goals was to help them make the important transition from fearing man to fearing God. There is subtle autobiography all over this counsel since his own cowardice was well documented (Luke 22:54-62), and so was his courageous confrontation of his former intimidators (Acts 4:5-12). Peter had first-hand knowledge of both fears and issued an unapologetic summons to forfeit the former and embrace the latter.
Speaking of every real and potential persecutor of these sincere believers, Peter’s command is, Have no fear of them, nor be troubled (1 Peter 3:14). At first read this strikes us as easier said than done. How can any believer simply banish such an unbidden, natural emotion, particularly when confronted by real people who possess the real ability to inflict real harm. Peter’s answer: In your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy (1 Peter 3:15). To regard Christ as holy translates the verb “to sanctify” which has a range of implications including proper awe and fear of the Holy One. Peter is drawing on the words of Isaiah where God calls the prophet to a simliar fear exchange. God says, “Do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the LORD of hosts, him you shall regard as holy, Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread” (Isaiah 8:12-13).
Regarding Christ as holy includes letting him be your number one fear. So the summons is to let go of the crippling fear of man and embrace the liberating fear of Christ the LORD. Couldn’t we call this the expulsive power of a new fear? This is precisely what witnesses saw in the Scottish reformer, John Knox. When his body was being lowered into his grave, it was said, “Here lies one who feared God so much he never feared the face of man.”
If the church of Jesus Christ is going to be effective in its core disciplines of worship and witness, all of us need to transition from fearing man to fearing God. This will best be accomplished by cultivating a healthy fear of the Almighty, a reverence for the Creator God who is also our Redeemer. Let us saturate our souls with the Word, begging God to awaken Christ-exalting fear and may that fear expel all the lesser fears for which our souls were not created.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
These immortal words from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (1594), capture the central struggle and tragedy of the play. But, alas, I find there is much more to a name than either Romeo or Julet could have dreamed. Today I innocently called someone whose birth name is Priscilla, Melissa. For the rest of the day I bore the relatively good-natured reproach of all who witnessed my gaffe. But really, if Juliet is right and names are artificial and meaningless conventions, then was this not much ado about nothing? OK, it was her wedding ceremony and I was addressing her and Steven, the startled groom, in front of 500 of their friends and relatives. Granted, it wasn’t the most appropriate time to get the name wrong. But why wouldn’t I call her Melissa? My nephew and his wife are Steven and Melissa, so the two names certainly go together. And frankly, Steven and Melissa are two very nice people who are happily married so one could certainly be called something worse. On the other hand, a pastor appealing to Shakespeare to ameliorate a humiliating faux pas is pretty lame.
Paul’s message to the Ephesian elders rings with an urgency born of love for Christ and his church. Paul sent for these dear men because he loved them, having trained them for the ministry. He sent for them furthermore, because he loved the church, which is why he trained them–-to equip the saints for ministry and for the spiritual health of the church (Eph. 4:11-16). In lieu of meeting the entire church, he asked these elders/overseers/shepherds (Acts 20:17,28) to make the 60 mile round trip for this last mentoring opportunity.
This discourse reads like an abstract for a seminary course in pastoral theology and has timeless value for men called of God to lead his church (Acts 20:28). But having fulfilled their calling to feed and lead, the question remains: “If the shepherds feed the flock, who feeds the shepherds?” Paul’s short answer is, “I commend you to God and to the word of his grace” (Acts 20:32). But what does the word of God’s grace do to supply for these dedicated shepherds? It supplies three needs that will make them adequate ministers of the new covenant.
1. Sanctify them for glory – Being sanctified means we are transformed so that we cherish the Holy God and his Holy will as revealed in his Holy Word. In other words, we are made to be holy! That holification is the process whereby the word of God’s grace fits us for heaven and thus gives us the inheritance among those who are sanctified because “without [it] no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).
By simple logic If only the sanctified get the inheritance and the Word of his Grace gives us the inheritance then sanctification is the effect of the Word whereby it is able to give us the inheritance. This is not difficult to grasp since we know that sanctification is a function of the word (John 17:17). So the word of God’s grace is a dynamic, transforming, sanctifying word that is able to give the inheritance (i.e. eternal life, kingdom of God, promises of God as used in NT) to those shaped by it.
2. Liberate them from greed – As that inheritance looms larger in one’s thinking it becomes more precious and enjoyable not only to anticipate it with joy but to live out it’s values now. This part of sanctification led Paul to the kind of radical values shift expressed in, “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel” (v 33). As Paul spoke these words he was carrying silver and gold collected from multiple gentile congregations across Asia, not for himself, but for the suffering saints in Jerusalem. Love for Christ and relishing his kingdom will sever the root of greed and nurture Paul’s kind of open-handed generosity for others. Without this spirit no elder/overseer/shepherd will push beyond hireling status.
3. Motivate them for service – “Look at my hands,” Paul said (v 34). These hands have labored hard to meet my needs and those who served with me. The elder/overseer/shepherd, along with every other believer is not only to put away lying, but to “do honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Eph. 5:28). This ethical transformation is the effect of the word of God’s grace consistent with the word of Jesus, who said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:34).
All Christians are shaped this way by the same word of God’s grace. Sheep have the value-added benefit of having shepherds bring nutritionally rich biblical meals to them, while shepherds have the additional responsibility of working hard at preparing such meals not only for their flock, but for themselves. The shepherd who labors only at preparing the public meals is a shepherd who feeds others with diminishing excellence and effectiveness. Preparation for public feeding has the benefit of self-feeding but self-feeding is a matter of focus and discipline beyond targeted exegesis and hermeneutics. This is why Paul warned the elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock” (Acts 20:28).
“A minister may be able to fill his pews, his communion rolls, and the mouths of the public, but what that minister is on his knees in secret before God Almighty, that he is and no more”— John Owen.
I had the privilege of spending the month of March in Brazil both observing and participating in the work of evangelism and biblical training. Brazil has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and one of the fastest growing evangelical populations. One of the ways that God is building his church there is through Christian training centers like the Seminaro Batista do Cariri. This school is located in the city of Crato in the state of Ceara in Northeast Brazil. I was introduced to this school through Bill Kettlewell who has been working in Ceara with his wife, Dorothy, for 36 years. A couple years ago Bill asked if I would help get one of their seminary professors to the states so he could earn his PhD at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. At that time Roque Albuquerque was just the name of a Brazilian man who desired to further his education. When I picked him up at the airport on his first trip to the states, he was still just a Brazilian man pursuing an advanced degree. But very quickly, Roque became a dear friend, a respected colleague, and a reflection of the caliber of men God is using in Brazil.
When Roque told me of his plans to go back to Crato and teach a block course in March of 2009, I suggested that I might go along and see the school as part of a wider mission trip. Before I knew it he had me lined up to teach a block course on Jonathan Edwards’ “Religious Affections” and preach an evening Bible conference at the same time. It was an enormous stretch for me to do either of those but what I came to discover is that stretching is what they do down there. This is not a school where average is normal but where excellence is the standard. The professors are well trained, sharp in their discicplines, more than willing to go beyond what is typical. Each of the national professors is teaching a daunting class load and pastoring a local church with all of the attendant responsibilities. These churches are not just growing, but planting other churches and then partnering with their church plants to plant still more. When all was said and done, I didn’t really end up teaching as much as learning again what NT ministry looks like–preaching, teaching, building disciples, doing the work of an evangelist, and always looking for the next venue for indiginous church planting.
NOTE: You may not be able to take a weekend trip to Crato, but you might want to follow this link, CRATO and enjoy a bit of amatuer video shot during the time Roque and I were there. The chapel scenes are both the morning seminar on Religious Affections and the evening Bible Conferences. The church scenes were taken at Zion Baptist Church where Pastor Albuquerque is the shepherd. In his absence, American missionary and seminary professor, Mark Willson, is acting as interim pastor. Mark also translated my teaching sylabus into Portuguese and did almost of the the translating for my sessions. Jeff Scott, chairman of our diaconate at PLBC, traveled with us and is seen preaching at Zion Baptist and presenting the Lamplighter ministry during the Bible Conference hour. If you are not familiar with Lamplighters International as ministry dedicated to helping local churches make disciples through training modules, seminars, and published inductive Bible studies, click here.
So worship wars are not new. The woman at Sychar told Jesus, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship” (Jn 4:20). Ever since that day people have been using the words ought and worship in some kind of contentious debate and most of it has little or nothing to do with real worship. Jesus ended the debate for anyone who might actually have been listening when he retorted, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (v. 24).
OK, I’ll concede that his response does not answer every legitimate question people have about worship, but it certainly does create categories. On one hand there are the issues related to location, time, order, ritual, liturgy, music, offerings, and such. On the other hand there are the much weightier matters of spirit and truth. If the average evangelical church would focus on spirit and truth the worship wars might morph into amicable bantering about preference and the emerging crowd might loose their cause for anti-fundamentalist rage.
It needs to concern us that God is seeking such worshipers as if they are a commodity with heavenly value. Both the Father and the Son are soul-seekers and worship-seekers, which actually means they are both glory-seekers. Being the center of the universe, the source, support, and end of all things and the personification of love, for them to be consumed with glory-seeking is both terribly appropriate and wonderfully loving.
Just what did Jesus mean by this a moral imperative of truth-anchored and spirit-localized worship? The typical response to John 4:24 is to pull it out of its context and use it as a plank in some systematic theology related to worship and then fiddle with it and paste it onto several others texts to arrive at a meaning that might be an awkward fit it the words ever found their way back to John 4. Actually the context answers the question for us.
Jesus was doing evangelism but he was also forming a worshiper–which is precisely what evangelism does! In the process he spoke truth into several sin-darkened sectors of her unregenerate mind–truth about the gospel, the nature of Christ, her sin, and acceptable worship. Interestingly, while she was digesting these bits of truth, her view of Jesus evolved from “a Jew” to “Sir (kurios) to “prophet”, to “Christ”. By the end of the day, she was light-years ahead of the average Jerusalem priest or Galilean Pharisee when it came to worship credentials!
Jesus addressed the spirit component when he turned her attention from the worship war/turf war issues of location and form to internal issues. If spirit is held against physical locations then spirit has to do with the invisible, internal, essential issues of the heart, mind, affections, and will. Are these crucial issues the very ones we neglect to our hurt and the devastation of the body of Christ while while we heroically fight to keep guitars and drums out of our worship centers and give our blood planting the fundamentalist flag on the hills of secondary and tertiary separation?
Is it possible that for all our Fundamentalist sophistication and pride, we have not yet mastered Samaritan Worship 101? If Jesus said worship matters, and he did! If Jesus said worship must be rooted in revelation, and he did! If Jesus said the essential heart of worship is delight in God, and he did! Then let’s get on with it soli Deo gloria!