Last week, I watched a little of the live stream of the Shepherd’s Conference in Southern California.  It was the technically best live streaming I had ever seen, very convenient.  I saw very little because of work and schedule, but I did see a little music, some of a panel discussion, and some of an Albert Mohler sermon.  I downloaded and listened to Phil Johnson’s session, while doing electrical work at our house.

My evaluation of the Grace Community Church (GCC) music, which I’ve always heard is very conservative and hasn’t moved from that and is like a fundamentalist church, is not good.  I say that as someone who really wanted to like it.  I wasn’t trying to research it.  It was what came on when I had any time to watch the live stream.  What I got to see of it was the rock group that played one morning for several numbers.  I’m not kidding that it was a rock group.  The rock group led the congregational music.  In pictures and on audio, I’ve seen that group play at a Resolved Conference, where that music was supposed to be exclusively Resolved music, not something that segued to other compartments of GCC.  It was peculiar, when they panned the audience of pastors, to see the pastors “rocking” to that music.  They were “rocking” like at a rock concert, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, since it was rock music.  I understand that with certain types of rock music that people “rock” more, but they were definitely “rocking” as part of their “worship.”

Without doubt, when “rock” and “worship” come together like they did at the Shepherd’s Conference there at GCC, it’s akin to, if not synonymous with, the ecstasy of Corinth.  They are confusing the Holy Spirit with the affects of the rock music, like the Corinthians were with their ecstasy.  Believe me.  That swaying is not caused by the Holy Spirit.  All that eye-clenching and wagging of the head is not the Holy Spirit.  It is not religious affection.  It is what Jonathan Edwards called passion.  So GCC is a part of this kind of destruction of discernment, while claiming to be almost headquarters for discernment.

Besides when the rock group played the one morning I watched, the regular evening congregational worship under the leadership of the regular song leader at GCC was conservative:  organ, piano, and orchestra with no rock beat.  The hymns were all old hymns that I saw (and I saw a small percentage).  When they added a soloist, and I saw a woman and a man both sing, they also added the rock rhythm and instrumentation, and the sensuality and entertainment/performance aspects.  This doesn’t have to happen with a solo, but the two they chose, they purposefully included these features.

I want to pause for a moment to anticipate those who will use mockery as their argument here.  You can go ahead, but you’re wrong.  You should think about what I’m saying, because it’s right.

I’m going to get to the irony.  Just bear with me.  Everything so far matters to the discussion.

Most of this is in order, but for a moment, I’m going out of order.  Very recently, someone popular with conservative evangelicals, Carl Trueman, produced with Todd Pruitt an online audio called Birth of the Cool, in which he talked about the importance of being “cool” in evangelicalism today.  In the initial conversation between the two, they took an excursion into their love of rock and roll music, especially the Rolling Stones.  This started their negative assertions about churchmen needing to be cool.  In their banter, they talked about the Rolling Stone mega-hit, Satisfaction, which lyrics refer to sexual frustration, and was controversial when it was first sung because of its sexual content.  I learned of the Trueman audio from a tweet by Scott Aniol of Religious Affections.

As I watched only the beginning of Albert Mohler’s sermon, I wiki’ed Mohler and read his bio.  At the beginning of his Shepherd’s Conference session, he proclaimed the value of hymn books and the importance of the old hymns.  About that time, I got to the bottom of his wiki bio as I listened and there saw a sermon he had preached, entitled, The Nature of True Beauty, so I clicked on it, and stopped watching the Shepherd’s Conference, but listened to that instead.  He had preached it at the Capital Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever is the pastor.  I was amazed by what I heard.  I believe it.  And now I’m ready to talk about irony with you, and what I meant by irretrievable.

Mohler in his sermon in Washington DC inextricably tied together truth, goodness, and beauty.  If you deny or violate beauty, you do it to the other two.  He was placing beauty, in essence orthopathy, on the same level as truth and goodness.  I agree.  Relativistic beauty yields relativistic truth and goodness.  God is One.  You can’t give up one without giving up the others.  They are indivisible.  Attack or corruption of beauty is the same upon truth and goodness.  Again, you just can’t separate one from the other two.

The irony is found in the GCC emphasis on truth, so much found in John MacArthur’s books, especially recently as we’ve seen truth become an even greater casualty of our culture.  The irony is found in a conference that so professes to protect sheep from error that violates or denies objective beauty.  Carl Trueman introduces a talk about “cool” with an endorsement of the Rolling Stones and Satisfaction.  Scott Aniol tweets it.  Dever advocates rap.  Talking about the Rolling Stones smacks of “cool.”  The rock group in the morning of the Shepherd’s Conference with its ecstatic disposition and hip appearance:  the eye clenching, the Elton John piano style, the sensuality, the soul patches, the swaying.  Everything means something, but this screamed out a rejection of objective beauty.  By forfeiting beauty, GCC, Trueman, Dever, and unfortunately Mohler, all also forsake truth and goodness.  You’ve got all these people “fighting for truth,” that are undermining truth because of their capitulation on beauty.

I believe Mohler preaches about beauty, because it really is what he thinks.   I suspect that he doesn’t see people as with him on it, being supportive of what he’s saying, but maybe he’ll be able to get something started, work on this incrementally, perhaps like he’s tried to change Southern Seminary from liberal to conservative.  Truth and goodness will not come without beauty.  The beauty is actually where the biggest violations are, because it relates to the affections.   Love must in fact be love in love for God, and God must be God.   You can’t love God like someone “loves” his girlfriend or even a sirloin steak.  The God of the Bible must be worshiped in His beauty and the denial or ignorance or perversion of His beauty is false and bad, as in not true and not good.

You should be able to see the irony here.  There is so much of it.  The irony is in the protection of sheep by shepherds, the praise of beauty, the decrying of “coolness,” and the appeal for truth from people who won’t separate the beautiful from the ugly.   God is worshiped in the beauty of His holiness.  Worship of God separates from the mundane, the kitsch, the crass, the worldly, the common, and the profane.  It certainly doesn’t make provision for the flesh.  It won’t “rock.” It is sacred.   It rings of God.   Rock music doesn’t do that.  Any Christian hoping to disabuse a people from “cool” will not endorse or like the Rolling Stones.  It’s ludicrous.  It says that these are people who are either rebellious or they don’t know what they’re talking about.

The other option that I can hear from an imagined defender is that no style of music communicates anything inherently moral.  That is not a biblical position or a historic Christian position.  That’s what Mohler was preaching against in his beauty sermon.  There is objective beauty and objective ugliness or other non-beautiful qualities in music.  It isn’t amoral.  This attack on beauty is an attack on the truth and goodness.  If you don’t stand for the one, for beauty, then you don’t stand for truth and goodness either.  Don’t say that you do.

If you are Albert Mohler, then be clear about this.  Don’t say that truth is on par with goodness and beauty, unless you believe it.  And if you believe it, it can’t be just lipservice.  Do something about it.

How is it an irretrievable irony?  You can’t retrieve truth and goodness without repenting over beauty.  Repentance, complete conversion, is what is needed here.  We don’t need half measures.  We don’t need hinting sermons, hopeful to plant some sort of seed.  We certainly don’t need sarcasm and mockery and marginalizing of the one who is pointing it out, which, it’s too bad, is the expectation here.  We need total repudiation that doesn’t nibble around the edges.  Truth and goodness are not retrievable without it.

I am going to continue my series on “The Just Shall Live by Faith,” Lord willing.  I thought, however, that it would be appropriate to take a one-week break and post the following analysis of Calvinism.

In 1983, Moody Press published John MacArthur’s Hebrews commentary.  That summer I read it completely, all the way through.  I had never heard anyone explain “the blood issue,” so MacArthur filled a bit of a void for me.  I had really no view and now I had read one.  By default, I took the MacArthur position without being introduced to any other position.  That’s often how I rolled in those days, and maybe you can relate.  I was open to change my position, but I then had a position, the one MacArthur wrote in his Hebrews commentary.

When Baptists say that the Bible is their sole or only rule or authority for faith and practice, what do they mean?  Millard Erickson in his Theology (vol. I, p. 258) speaks of a Baptist seminary president, who said, tongue in cheek, “We Baptists do not follow tradition.  But we are bound by our historic Baptist position!”  Does having the Bible as sole authority mean having no authority but the Bible, including tradition?

Baptists have distinguished themselves from other denominations with this distinction, the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice.  However, the London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF, 1689) reads:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

That’s how the London Baptist Confession of Faith starts.  It doesn’t say that the Bible is the only authority for faith and practice, because it goes on.

although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.

Later we read in the section on Scripture:

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

And even later,

our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

It ends with the following:

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.

The LBCF also says that “light of nature” and “works of creation and providence” are authorities.  Then  it says that the “illumination of the Spirit of God” is a necessary authority.  After which, it says that “light of nature and Christian prudence” orders “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies.”  And finally it says that the Holy Spirit again is an authority in the persuasion and assurance of the truth of the Word.  The latter is how the church identified and agreed upon the sixty-six books of Scripture.

I write all this to say that Scripture is not the sole authority for faith and practice, but the sole infallible authority for faith and practice, and, therefore, the supreme judge.  That contrasts with Roman Catholicism which places the Bible parallel with tradition.  So does tradition and history have no authority?  I contend, “no,” and I take you in part back to the original statement of the Baptist seminary president in Erickson’s theology.  “We are bound by the historic Baptist position!”

Baptists have no authority but the Bible.  So how did they get their distinctives?  They’re in the Bible, yes, but they’re the distinctives of Baptists through history.  These are the distinctives that have distinguished Baptists through history.  Do you hear another authority there?  There are other authorities, just no other infallible authority besides the Bible.

Roman Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 as a basis of tradition as an authority.  Are those two verses legitimate as a basis for tradition as an authority?  They sound like it to me.  However, they are not a basis for tradition as parallel with the authority of Scripture.

The Bible as an authority doesn’t mean that whatever we think it means is an authority.   It’s what it is actually saying that is an authority.  And what does it actually say?  What the Bible says is not new.  It’s old.  And what’s old, that gets passed down, is tradition.  It isn’t superior to Scripture, but it shouldn’t be ignored either.  There are some with the Bible as their only authority, who actually have what they want the Bible to mean or say as their authority.  The Bible itself gives authority to the church and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

We live in an age that more than ever men invent new things for the Bible to say and mean.  They justify what they do with the Bible with interpretations and beliefs and practices that are new.  They claim the Bible as authority.  This is where tradition should not be ignored.   Other authorities exist.  They are necessary.  It’s just that the Bible itself is the only infallible one.

If you visit an art museum, maybe you remember the surreal or avant garde in the modern section.  They look at an object and then allow their own personal chaos to go to work.   Painting inside the lines doesn’t really matter, just put the paint wherever you want, and especially use a broad brush.  That would describe a recent young evangelical’s essay explaining Lance Ketchum.  You won’t be able to blink out the distortion—that’s really what he wrote—lies and all.

The doctrine of bibliology didn’t start in the early 20th century with fundamentalism or even in the late 19th century with Warfield.   The history of Christian doctrine does in fact move into several previous centuries.  You really are not heteredox if you agree with what the saved, whether Baptist or other, believed about the Bible.  Premoderns thought there was one Bible.  Funny, huh?   There is one God with one truth, with one goodness, and one beauty.  To them, you knew what you knew by faith.  Theology was the queen of all sciences, so if the Bible said God would preserve every Word and that they would all be available to every generation, well, you just believed it.  That made it the truth.  You worked out how that all happened later.  Now if people can’t get a satisfying human explanation for how it happened, they question the belief, question what the Bible teaches about it.  That’s called staggering in unbelief.

Modern evangelicals and fundamentalists are not sure now.  If they say there is one Bible, they mean one inspired Bible.  They’re not talking about one you could hold in your hands.  Come on silly, you don’t really believe that, do you?  And why not?  It really is hard to explain since that’s what the Bible teaches and how Christians believed up until evangelicals and fundamentalists got in touch with modernists.   Mike Harding wrote more on issue number one:

Almost twelve years ago I said publicly at the national FBFI meeting that fundamentalism wasn’t certain as to what the gospel was nor was it certain as to what the Bible was; other than that we were in great shape.  I quoted Dr. McCune and said that fundamentalism is bleeding on these issues; let it bleed.  King James Onlyism and rampant easy believism characterize a large segment of fundamentalism.  You see elements of it in Ketchum’s blog.  Those elements are heterodox.

I agree with Harding about the fundamentalist uncertainty on the gospel, and I would attach to that sanctification.  I don’t think Ketchum is easy-believism.  I’ve never read him present that idea.  However, I was bemused by this part of Harding’s statement:  “nor was it certain as to what the Bible was.”  That is also true, but not like Harding says.  I would be encouraged to hear that Harding really is certain as to what the Bible was.  I’ve read his writings and presently he doesn’t know what the original text of Scripture is, and doesn’t think that anyone else knows either.  That is neither a biblical or historic bibliology.  Please show me that in a Baptist confession.  Harding’s and other fundamentalists’ and evangelicals’ view of the Bible is very, very damaging.  It is heterodox, but it is a root cause of much that is wrong both in professing Christianity, in America, and in the world.  If we can’t know what the Words of Scripture are, which Harding believes, then the authority of Scripture itself is lost.  This is why now the doctrines are so up-for-grabs as well.

I told you I would deal with two issues from that thread that were of interest to me, and the second is music. What I’m considering here is very serious, but there is a lot that is funny too in fundamentalism, in an ironic way.  Bauder writes:

 I believe that the music you present to God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

I do not think that music is a matter that decides whether you’re a Fundamentalist. I’m not sure that Fundamentalism has ever had a unified or consistent view on music. So, if you have the wrong music, you might be a good Fundamentalist but still a bad Christian. I don’t see a contradiction here. Christianity is, after all, more than Fundamentalism.

Based on Bauder’s own judgment, his position on music makes him a hyper-fundamentalist.   It really makes that label irrelevant, or at least it was already irrelevant, but even more irrelevant, if that is possible.  And if Bauder is out of the mainstream of fundamentalism with music, shouldn’t we also throw “heterodox” at him too.  Oh, that’s right, Mike Harding actually would agree with Bauder, so Bauder can’t be heterodox.  It really makes these classifications seem silly.  Later, Bauder piles on about music:

I think that it can be Scripturally demonstrated, to about the same extent that any other practical application can be Scripturally demonstrated (including the practical application of the gospel). Furthermore, you are correctly drawing out the implications of my statement. Certain kinds of music are so incompatible with the Christian message that their use is blasphemous. They represent an apostasy, not from orthodoxy, but from orthopathy.

Bauder calls people with the wrong worship music “apostates.”  Why be a fundamentalist?  Why try to hang on to fundamentalism?  You can’t practice biblical separation if you must keep fellowshiping with apostates in order to be a fundamentalist.  This is why Bauder says he will try to continue to do.  Why even try to do that?  Later, Harding writes:

However, I know the difference between a departing “brother” (apostasy), a disobedient brother (willful disobedience to the clear dictates of the Word of God), and a disagreeing brother (someone with whom I disagree with enough not to partner with, but nevertheless see a great deal of good in their ministry).

Would Harding agree with Bauder that someone with the wrong worship music is apostatizing?  That is, is he a “departing brother”?

Later, Joel Tetreau steps in to show he is clueless on what Bauder means about music:

1. If you can’t prove it from Scripture (and Kevin, you can’t) it is not legitimate to equate one’s approach to music to the importance of a Fundamental of the Faith.

2. If the statement is consistent then a failure in music (as a failure in the Virgin Birth) cannot make you a bad Christian. If you miss the Virgin Birth, you miss salvation, which means you aren’t a bad Christian, you are a non-Christian. One can hardly say if you miss “music” you miss salvation. (I’m sure this was not the aim – but in my view this is a reverse implication if Kevin’s view goes full circle). 

3. The only way this might be true is when one’s music is so “anti-God” and/or so “anti-Gospel” that it would make impossible the understanding of God or the reception of the gospel. (The overwhelming amount of CCM music that is being used by serious-minded evangelicals and theologically responsible fundamentalist are using gospel-centered music that clearly get’s the gospel across. To equate what they do in music with missing the virgin birth is a “stretch” to say the very least – come on guys! You have to do better than this.)

It’s true, though, that Bauder is extreme for evangelicals and fundamentalists here.  He’s way off the deep end to them.  Tetreau represents the typical evangelical thinking.   The “you can’t prove it from Scripture” is a cop-out.  A lot of Bible application goes outside of Scripture to make its point.  There is truth in the real world and applying God’s Word requires understanding those truths.  Everyone knows this, but they deny it in order to live like they want in some fashion.

Bauder doesn’t back down.  He later affirms:

Whatever music you use to speak about God is just as important as believing in the virgin birth of Christ.

Later, Bauder explains how he gets out of his own hyper-fundamentalist definition:

But I don’t think so, for the simple reason that I do not hold up my views on music as a standard by which to judge anyone’s standing as a Fundamentalist, nor do I seek to enforce my views upon anyone else. 

If he either (1) held up his musical standard by which to judge whether someone was a fundamentalist or (2) tried to force his musical standard on others, he would be a hyper-fundamentalist, so, whew, he’s not one.  And why is that the definition?  Because he says so.  This is really difficult.  Those who don’t take his views are apostate, but he tries not to enforce that on others.   Is there anything we should try to get someone to believe, like the virgin birth?   I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees his position as a complete contradiction.  Kevin should come and join me on the other side of fundamentalism from evangelicalism.  I agree with him on music.  Completely.  The truth and true worship is more important than being either a fundamentalist or fitting in with you “friends.”  Aren’t we first responsible first to be a friend to God?  Come out from among them and be ye separate.  Come out and join us, Kevin Bauder!

I believe two fears are the issue.  On the textual issue, it is an intellectual fear.  Fundamentalists don’t want to look stupid.   That fear is the same one driving the movement toward evolution today.  On the music issue, it’s a fear of losing young people.  Young people are being influenced by the world system, and churches are struggling to keep them, because of the alternative.

The commentary under Kevin Bauder’s recent open letter to Lance Ketchum exposed a trove of fundamentalist absurdity.  I can’t stay away from two of the points, both of which strayed from the thread of Bauder’s letter.  Mike Harding, a fundamentalist leader, wrote:

Lance Ketchum in his published post by necessary implication condemns the London Baptist Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith which is the most accepted confession of faith among historical, biblical, orthodox, separatist churches in North America. Our own fundamental association of Baptist churches in Michigan openly confesses the NH Confession and requires pastors to sign a statement that they and their churches are in agreement with said document.

So, Independent, fundamental, Baptists separate from historic Protestantism but cite historic Protestantism in defense of being KJV only.   hmmm

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.

The whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining. . . . In them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word.

We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself.

Dear Kevin,

I like reading you, your (sic) a good writer, and by your own admission, you are well read in so many different philosophers, Hegal (sic) being one.  Don’t think that anyone is attempting to embarras (sic) anyone with so many sic erat scriptem (sic).  I’m just trying to be sure to be careful with the original writing of this post, as much as I would with a Joel Tetreu (sic) letter.  It’s not a good laugh from anyone’s buddies at the expense of Lance Ketcham (sic), I know.  No one could say that.  No one thinks that.

No really, I have enjoyed reading you.  You have been helpful to me in your writing about aesthetics, orthopathy, and minor premise application.  I even have enjoyed your attempts at defending fundamentalism.  I like those defenses far better than evangelicalism, conservative evangelicalism, reformed Charismaticism, militant evangelicalism (in case there is such a thing), and new evangelicalism (wishing not to get the wrong title to label whoever I might be talking about).  Even your own attack on those who believe in perfect preservation of Scripture is the fairest that I have read.  I also recognize, truly, that you and I are together in a group of less than 5% of Americans based on how we see the world.  In other words, we are more alike than we are different.

Do you have available a similar kind of criticism of any evangelicals like you have criticized Lance Ketchum? I could appreciate your wordsmith applied to John Piper, instead of what seems like only glowing praise (here and here).  Piper doesn’t believe and practice like you.   Ketchum doesn’t believe and practice like you.  It seems that perhaps the deciding difference between Piper and Ketchum is that Piper doesn’t criticize you at all.  He’s only praised you, that I have read (here).  And your guys would be upset about criticism of Piper, diminishing your legendary status with them.  Piper doesn’t feel criticized like I know Ketchum does.  Perhaps Piper has invited you to speak at one of his Desiring God conferences.  Or maybe he hasn’t.  If he hasn’t, does that bother you?  You couldn’t set up a display at an FBFI conference and that bothered you.  That’s how fundamentalists behave.  It’s a kind of theological triage.   Even when you attempt to criticize conservative evangelicals, it comes across like an endorsement (here).  You are really happy that Piper wants to glorify God, when other Charismatics don’t, so you commend him on that.  Don’t you think that those Charismatics want to glorify God?  They would say so.  And so Piper goes to Passion 2013 and brings in his rap “artists” for ecstatic experiences, but that gets to be glorifying God?  What kind of discernment are you showing there?  Isn’t this just mere sentimentalism on your part?  Come on!  It makes me think you’re not really serious about what you say you believe.

You say that no one is ridiculing Ketchum in the MBA, but your open letter then defends anyone who might ridicule him.  You would have a hard time stopping the ridicule because you plainly intimate that Ketchum deserves the ridicule.  You haven’t ridiculed him—you just think he deserves the ridicule he does get.  With that no ridicule, who needs ridicule?  And then you read ridicule in the comment section.  No one confronts the ridicule there.  Why would they?  You’ve said that he deserves it, so open season on ridicule.  Some of the ridicule in the comment section comes from those who have little but ridicule at their disposal, because they can’t exegete out of a paper bag.  I’ve always thought ridicule was easy.  I’m even doing a little here (just that I’m admitting it, unlike you).  Lots of your defenders at SharperIron would be very easy to ridicule, including you, but how valuable is ridicule as a weapon for change?

You are up in amazing detail on Ketchum, but you really do not know about MacArthur’s Resolved Conference, the music there?  Just play the samples here, Kevin.   It took me 14 seconds to find.  Is it blasphemous?   Maybe that doesn’t bother you.  Wow.  You don’t know about the music there.  You don’t see the jazz music at the Master’s College?  Meet Paul Plew, director of the jazz band there.  Enjoy The Master’s College big band.   Kevin, there is worshiping God and then there is “worshiping” God and worshiping “God.”  Things do mean things.  God doesn’t get to be whatever we make Him to be, like He’s some kind of gumby God that is flexible to our taste.  It’s up to you to how you will react to such things.  It wasn’t hard to find.  Here’s what I did. I punched in “jazz” and then I punched in “Master’s College.”  You can do it, if it matters to you. Maybe these resolved worshipers are just more authentic, which is why they sound so real, i.e., just like night club entertainers.  Is the right God required for a true gospel?  Or can He be a God that enjoys our lust?

You talk sometimes like you are serious about God’s holiness, but when you try so hard to be so inclusive of people who would not give holiness the time of day, it makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.  I’m trying though.  By the way, some of your biggest supporters will be very angry with what I’m writing here, because they don’t have the discernment to know better.  Will you say anything about that?  Or are these your biggest fanboys, and you can’t disappoint them?

Alright, I’m done for now, but there is much more that I could say.  I love you in a non-sentimental way.

Kent Brandenburg

Attending a fundamentalist college, I heard some teaching about separation.  In hindsight, it wasn’t anything clear or systematic.  I was never required to read one book on it.  Now I know that there was little written on it anyway, maybe one book that dealt with it in any serious way, written by Ernest Pickering (since then, perhaps two or three others were written). Nobody understood separation when leaving the institution from which I graduated.  It was assumed, however, that you would be a separatist, whatever that might be.  Now I get why it was so ambiguous.  We weren’t being taught biblical separation.

Over a year ago, I did a two part series in which I said that evangelicalism and fundamentalism were teeming with ecstatic and demonic influence (part one, part two).  This was a major issue at Corinth, so it’s been around for a long time.  After all, we do wrestle against spiritual wickedness.  Confusing spirituality is a big tool of Satan.  He wants people to think they’re doing fine when they’re not.  They’re the ones who will say “Lord, Lord” on judgment day (Matthew 7:21-23).

John Piper was recently down speaking at Passion 2013 (you can watch the “worship” time here, definite disclaimer for the night club, but it is the worship of Passion 2013).  Piper is a big favorite of evangelicals and  many fundamentalists.  Mark Dever, a real fav of fundamentalists as well, has pushed for men like Lecrae, the rapper here who is leading the “worship”).  Does this really seem legitimate to seriously professing believers?  Thousands went and said it was a real spiritual time for them.  The people at Corinth also saw their ecstasy as spiritual.  And it is spiritual in one way.  Demonic.  It isn’t the Holy Spirit, that is clear.  You can judge that.  Don’t be afraid to judge that.

If there is any doubt about whether Piper is a Charismatic, watch the following.  It will clear it up.  He doesn’t understand 1 Corinthians, for sure.

Dear Brethren,

As I am getting to the end of my Ph. D. studies, I am looking for the Lord’s direction about a place where I can teach the Word of God at a college and/or seminary level, as well as preach, in a more full-time way than I am currently doing as an adjunct professor.  My main concern, by far, is that I am in a church where I can feel comfortable teaching and preaching all the truth without compromise–that is more important than, say, secondary issues such as whether I can get financially compensated.

I have posted my resume below;  I have removed my home address and listed my church address instead, as I do not really wish to have my personal information everywhere on the Internet.  You can get in touch with me through my church if you wish to discuss anything concerning this matter.

Even if, as a reader of this blog, you have nothing to offer concerning a church or a position, the resume below may give you a somewhat better idea of who it is that is posting on What is Truth every Friday.

I have also posted below the resume a doctrinal and practical position statement.