July 24, 2007Please read these
It is not often that I post here for the purpose of simply linking to someone else's writing.
Frankly, it is not often that I post here for
any reason, but I suppose that's a different subject.
Back to what I was saying: I don't normally use my blog just to link to something I liked. Dr. Bauder's last two articles in his series "Thinking About the Gospel," however, more than merit such highlighting.
If you have not read them, and you have any interest whatsoever in the ongoing discussion about biblical unity and separatism, please go read them. Now.
The
first article (actually, the fifth in the series) focuses on the gospel itself as the most basic element of Christian unity.
The
next article demonstrates that the core of separatism, rightly understood, is a right estimation of the importance of the gospel, and that the heinousness of indifference about the gospel necessitates breaking ecclesiastical unity.
I am tremendously burdened about this whole issue right now, because I have good friends who are questioning the validity of separatism, especially as it is understood by fundamentalists. My heart breaks, because, for the most part, I find that this rejection is almost always caused by an unbiblical understanding of the heart of separatism (the cause of which misunderstanding, I suppose, is a topic for another time). I pray that Dr. Bauder's articles here would enjoy wide readership, and I intend to point many to them myself.
UPDATE:
Part seven of this same series has now been released, and is also a necessary read. In part six Dr. Bauder had criticized those who, by their lack of separatism, evidenced an indifference about the importance of the gospel. In part seven, he deals with the opposite extreme: those who insist on almost total agreement in order to have any level of Christian fellowship (a problem he tags "everythingism").
Michael Riley | | Link
July 17, 2007I'm profoundly shaken
One of my colleagues here at
International Baptist College, Jeff Caupp, sent me something today that I have found tremendously disturbing, and, despite my best efforts, I have yet to regain the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart (where?). My lack of peace (which we all know, good brothers, is the surest measure of rightness with God) has departed. Selah.
I include here the text of an email he sent me, and the corresponding evidence that has set my heart a-despairing.
Michael - I cannot tell you how this controversy has weighed heavily on my soul over the past few weeks. I know that you have expressed passionate feelings about your convictions on the matter. I acknowledge that to open the discussion again may bring wrath upon my own head. I realize, however, that I must share with you the fact that I have resolved the matter within my own heart. I recognize that the means by which I have accomplished this are not entirely without flaw. However, the significance of the evidence which validated my RSJO position was so profound, so moving, and so irrevocable that I felt compelled to share it. I submit this evidence to you. May it convince you as it has me. Your bother, jc
What he sent me was
this.
I don't think I have an answer for this. I'm currently hunting through my closet for my sackcloth robe.
Will you weep with those who weep, my brothers? Or will you heap coals of fire on my head?
Michael Riley | | Link
July 11, 2007A question about the history of fundamentalism
Hopefully this will be a
bit more serious than my
last post; somehow, that doesn't seem to be a challenging task.
Anyway, I've been pondering something lately, and decided to seek input from anyone with better knowledge than mine. The standard histories of fundamentalism typically point to the Bible conference movement of the late 1800s (and the Niagara Bible Conference in particular) as the earliest organized expression of the movement. It is also widely acknowledged that these meetings were remarkably interdenominational, giving leadership roles to Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and others.
By way of contrast, it seems indisputable that the vast majority of self-conscious fundamentalists who would gladly trace some of their ecclesiastical ancestry to conferences like Niagara are independent Baptists. Another significant percentage of fundamentalists is made up of Bible churches, which, in the main, are strongly Baptistic (often only differing on the method of church government, and, even then, often remaining ecclesiastically independent).
Is there some reason that this shift (from interdenominationalism to Baptist-domination) has occurred? Perhaps I'm just overlooking reality. Are there sizable groups of people from others of these denominations that would favorably link themselves to the Bible conference movement, and view themselves as legitimate heirs of its values? Are there significant numbers of Methodist fundamentalists, for instance, who drifted away from the Baptists (as the Baptists drifted away from them), who founded their own schools and mission boards, and who still would view themselves in line with Niagara?
It seems that some might argue, for a variety of reasons, that the particular theological and ecclesiastical concerns of the Bible conference movement find their most significant theological support in a Baptist (or Baptistic) framework, and thus it was a natural progression for fundamentalism as a whole to take on a largely Baptist face. For instance, one might argue that the hermeneutic employed by most of the early Bible conferences (typically, although not exclusively, dispensational), when applied consistently, tends to give rise to Baptist faith and practice. It would follow, then, that people would either become Baptists or abandon the fundamentalist hermeneutic. This, to me, is a reasonable theory, but I suggest it without any historical verification.
Has anyone else written on this? Can someone point me to some discussions about the demise of meaningful interdenominationalism in fundamentalism?
Michael Riley | | Link
