October 31, 2007Piper and the FBF resolution
John Piper recently posted on his blog a reply to the FBF resolution about his ministry from several years back. His comments were very gracious; even though the resolution expressed concerns about Piper's ministry, Piper took the occasion to applaud fundamentalism's commitment to defend truth as an expression of love.As I wrote the article upon which the resolution was based, I thought it would be appropriate for me to respond to his comments. Here is what I wrote (after fixing one typo [arg!] and making the links active):
Dr. Piper,
Your post here commending fundamentalism for its adamant resistance to compromise was of interest to me for at least two reasons. First, I am a self-identified fundamentalist, and so I appreciated the kind words. It isn't terribly often that those who aren't fundamentalists write kind things about fundamentalism. Second, and more personally relevant, I am the person who wrote the longer article upon which the FBF resolution was based. Perhaps you have already read this, but the article is posted here.
When the FBF decided to make some statement about its position regarding your ministry, I was asked to write the article for two reasons: I'm still relatively young (28) and thus among the generation that has most been influenced by your books, and the head of the resolutions committee knew that I was an enthusiastic supporter of your writings. While a student at Bob Jones University, I had interned at his church, and I kept pressing people to read "Future Grace" :)
I was introduced to your books during my college years by my high school Bible teacher. The first book I read of yours was "Future Grace"; I've since read most of your other major books. In all honesty, no writer has had a greater impact on my thinking than you have. In what is perhaps the most sincere modern-day method of honoring a writer, I have a number of your books listed among my favorites on my Facebook page :)
You had mentioned in your post that you agreed with two-thirds of the "charges" against you; if you believe that I misrepresented your position on Dr. Fuller, I do want to apologize to you. My highest priority in my article was to represent you accurately; if I failed to do so, I would want to attempt to clarify my comments in the forums in which I have a voice. Just as a point of clarification, I had no hand in writing the resolution; I only wrote the article I linked above. Actually, and perhaps ironically, I'm not even a member of the FBF, not out of conviction, but out of a general apathy toward para-church organizations.
In many ways, I fit the fundamentalist stereotypes. I graduated from a conservative Christian high school, received a Bible degree from BJU, got my M.Div. from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. I haven't been to a movie theater in decades. My only experience with alcohol is in NyQuil. I don't see a legitimate place for rap in the church. However, there are important ways in which I, as well as many other fundamentalists, break the fundamentalist mold. I am working on my Ph.D. in apologetics from Westminster in Philadelphia. I'm not KJV-only. I recognize that separation, the sine qua non of fundamentalism, is not an all-or-nothing proposition, but admits of degrees.
In fact, after my article was published in "FrontLine" magazine (the bimonthly of the FBF), I had to deal with a number of critical comments about my failure to chastise you for your Calvinistic theology. Their replies to me, and my reply to them, can be found on my blog.
Another who would locate himself in the fundamentalist orbit, Bob Bixby, recently wrote an article in which he considers the likelihood that conservative evangelicals (he uses Dever and MacArthur as examples) and sane fundamentalists (he uses Dave Doran of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary [Minneapolis]) will begin to find more fellowship with one another than with the errant fringes of their respective movements. That article is here.
Perhaps Bixby is right. If he is, it would in some ways be an encouragement to me; such a move would show that the gospel is the main thing. In others ways, perhaps because of my innate tendency toward conservatism, I am nervous. It is a discussion worth having, though.
I don't know that I have a single defining reason for writing to you; this letter has been more autobiographical than anything else. I suppose I just wanted to give a personal dimension to this discussion, and to take the opportunity to thank you for the impact you've made on my theology and on my Christian walk and so demonstrate that the criticism implied by the FBF resolution is not based on ill-will, but on actual differences of theology and practice.
I do not expect that we will ever see eye-to-eye on every issue, but I do thank God for gifting the Church with you, and I will continue to recommend your books to my students.
Michael Riley
mpatrickriley@gmail.com
Acting Academic Dean
International Baptist College
Tempe, AZ
