Question?

So what is a "fundamental baptist"? What does that really mean?

SEPARATION, SEPARATION, SEPARATION! Part 1

The Des Moines Register ran an article on Jerry Falwell on May 16, 2007. In that article (pg. 4A), Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary states of Falwell, "[Falwell] deserves credit almost single-handedly bringing fundamentalism out of separation into political activity."

Has fundamentalism come out of separation? Not in my tiny world of fundamentalism. But in my tiny world of fundamentalism, I see separation and political activity as two important issues within this movement. I say movement because fundamentalism is a movement. Even Ernest Pickering in his message at the 1969 GARBC Annual Conference in Fort Wayne, IN says this.

The remainder of this post is going to be attributed to this message. It has also been adapted and published in the February edition of the Baptist Bulletin. Click here to read this article.

I want to address an issue that I have seen and have heard comments preached from the pulpit at my bible college. A lot of times I hear terms that refer the fundamentalist churches to those who are comparable to Israel. As if the fundamentalist churches are just as important on a large scale as Israel. We are to "reach our own Jerusalem," we compare our battles to that of Israel and it frustrates me to think that we can align ourselves with Israel as if we are apart of the same family. I don't see this laid out in scripture. In fact there is a separation of us from Israel. We are not apart of the same family. We are not apart of the same promises. We are only apart of the same future; with Jesus forever.

So the message that Ernest Pickering preaches frustrates me. According to the printed version of this message, Pickering begins with comparing separatist fundamentalist generational struggle to that of Joshua's concerns with "God's chosen nation." In fact the Old Testament book of Joshua is used through out this entire message to show that separation is in fact what God wants from the church (a New Testament term). Now I understand that we can gain principles from the Old Testament, however I struggle with gaining a methodological outlook on a New Testament principle from an Old Testament context.

He states...

The key note of Joshua's address is found in the words, "Come not among these nations" (23:4, KJV). Israel was to have no spiritual fellowship with those who were walking in darkness and worshiping false deities. The command was specific and clear. God wanted His people to be separated.

However, God also wanted Israel to be physically and socially separated from the nations that lived around them. Now if the same principle is to be applied to the church, as I am sure Pickering is implying, then we in the church should be religiously, physically, and socially separated from the world around us. I struggle with this because I just don't see this in New Testament Scriptures. "Being in the world" is halted if we can't be "in" the world.
God gave Israel land. There wasn't another world for them to even live in according to God. The land that they had possessed was theirs. Anybody that was not of them was to be driven out. That was to be their world that they could control. But Pickering tries to get "the church" to be "the true people of God" through this message. He uses this phrase twice saying that the "true people of God" are to "maintain the principle of complete separation from [interfaith worship] confusion" and that Joshua warned that idol worship will weaken the "true people of God." It is white noise to my ears to consider myself the "true people of God" because I am in the family of God. I am an heir and I am not just a "person." A "people" then is a nation or group of people that have first place. Israel are these people and they have first place in the eyes of God. Before I was saved, there was Israel and after I die, there will be Israel.

Now, Pickering goes on saying,

It is interesting to see that Joshua placed some emphasis upon the importance of the home in maintaining a strong stand for Jehovah God. He warned that Israelites were not to "make marriages with them," that is, with the heathen peoples who lived around them. The strength of the nation was measured by the strength of its homes.

Now he says something that really irks me. He says, "If parents and children did not maintain a separation from the heathen, then the separated stand of the entire nation would be threatened. The same is true today." But what nation is Pickering talking about? Israel? Yes! The church? NO! Joshua wasn't talking about the church. He was talking about the survival of a people group amongst heathens that God has said to destroy. I don't then understand the principle in which Pickering is trying to imply here. And how is this principle true today, as Pickering states? He says:

The stand of our churches will be only as strong as the stand of its homes. We cannot expect to have churches that are strong in their separated position if the homes that compromise those churches are weak and worldly. To this end we must guard against any deterioration of our position on personal separation from the world. A church whose homes are in fellowship with the world cannot maintain itself as a separated testimony from the world.

But how can this be done? What is he really talking about? Does he understand the implications for what he is saying? If I am understanding him correctly, the heathen are those who are not saved, "the true people of God" are Christians, and Christians are not have fellowship with any unsaved individuals. We are to live in our "Christian" worlds and have no contact with that which would cause "confusion" (whatever that is). Am I right?

Whatever Is Not from Faith Is Sin

Whatever Is Not from Faith Is Sin (sermon by John Piper)

"The most penetrating and devastating definition of sin that I am aware of in Scripture is the last part of Romans 14:23: 'Whatever is not from faith is sin.' The reason it is penetrating is that it goes to the root of all sinful actions and attitudes, namely, the failure to trust God. And the reason it is devastating is that it sweeps away all our lists of dos and don'ts and makes anything, from preaching to house-painting, a candidate for sin. In the original language, this is stressed even more than in our versions: it says, 'Everything which is not from faith is sin.' Anything, absolutely any act or attitude which is owing to a lack of trust in God is sin, no matter how moral it may appear to men. God looks on the heart."

Becoming Missional: Missional - Can Be any Size

Becoming Missional: Missional - Can Be any Size

Good points! What is being missional? Is this something that is a legit form of obedience that we as fundamentalists should be looking into? Or do we already do this? As a whole, does fundamentalism strive for a missional mentality in all that it does? Or are we too worried about making sure we use the right hymnal (just like using the right Bible Translation)? Or listening to the right music? Or calling ourselves by the right names? Have you ever wondered if Jesus even cares about our hymnals, music, or our names? Do you wonder if we cared half as much about evangelization as we do some of the other stupid things we like to debate about, if the world would be all Christians?

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Question???

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Question???

What is the purpose of a "label" within today's church? Within our conservative circles, there seems to be a debate raging regarding the need to label ourselves. If you do not have the right label, you are "snubbed".

I'm Back!!

After a hiatus with school work, I will be getting back to this discussion.

The future posts will be

• Youth Ministry in a Postmodern world
• Fundamentalism
• Fundamentalist Separatists and it's relevance today
• A definition and beginnings of culture and how the church fits into it

Those are a few. Check back!!!