"Primary" and "Secondary," Biblical Separation, and Application of Scripture: Johnson, MacArthur, Driscoll, and Murray pt. 1

I do not believe that evangelicals especially, conservative or otherwise, obey biblical commands of separation. The mighty problems in evangelicalism and even fundamentalism come in a major way because they do not separate as Scripture teaches, either ecclesiastically or personally. They fellowship with unscriptural doctrine and practice. The descending slide in this country has been helped along by lack of the practice of separation. Evangelicals and fundamentalists both explain away ecclesiastical separation with their primary-tertiary doctrine teaching. They say that we come together based on the essentials and that we don't separate over non-essentials. When it comes to personal separation, evangelicals categorize many matters into non-scriptural issues by means of a kind of hermeneutic. They relegate what were once worldly and sinful practices into now unclear applications that we can no longer judge, so that we must tolerate those practices. The intolerant are often referred to as legalists. Recently some of the conservative evangelicals seem to be changing their tune.

First I would like to refer to the sermon preached (or as evangelicals like to say, "talk given") by Phil Johnson, member of MacArthur's Grace Community Church and executive director of Grace To You, on March 6 this year (2009) at the Shepherd's Conference. Johnson and MacArthur have both been major contributors to the essential/non-essential teaching and to the tolerance of worldly practices. I have been mocked and ridiculed by Johnson and those on his team blog, Pyromaniacs, for pointing out issues of conduct in violation of scriptural teaching. They are not only unresponsive in these areas, but they ridicule those who choose to communicate violations of biblical holiness. Then they resort to their standard arguments, that these issues of conduct are matters of Christian liberty.

I believe that conservative evangelicals have reached their size and popularity because of their tolerance in matters of personal separation. They have not stood against worldliness in cultural issues. They relegate them to secondary matters or Christian liberty. MacArthur is one that has practiced this way. He has not stood against worldly and fleshly music and dress. He does not make those types of applications of Scripture, or at least in the past. That has helped him to get where he is, because people who join him or affiliate with him can still fit in with the world in these ways. It is not just the issue of music, but that of worship. But that is what brings me to my point.

Iain Murray in his recent biographical sketch (2009) within the volume commemorating MacArthur's fortieth anniversary, Truth Endures, (on pp. 7-69) makes a major point of MacArthur "widening his base." In this section, covering twelve pages (pp. 36-48) Murray commends MacArthur for spurning fundamentalism and their kind of separatism over these types of secondary, cultural issues. Murray (on p. 37) quotes MacArthur from his book, Reckless Faith:

Another wing of fundamentlism moved in the opposite direction. . . . This right wing of the fundamentalist movement was relentlessly fragmented by militant separation . . . . Petty concerns often replaced serious doctrine as the matter for discussion and debate.

It is true that men can go too far with an emphasis on cultural and practical issues when they unnecessarily exclude doctrinal ones, but a balance is easily maintained with expositional preaching through books. However, that should not preclude these important concerns of personal separation. Those issues do directly relate to doctrine, a point that Johnson makes plainly in the before-mentioned Shepherd's Conference sermon (that I will talk more about later).

Murray in the same biographical sketch commends MacArthur, as a part of this swing away from separatism, to reconnect to an "older Christianity of the Reformed tradition" (p. 37). He quotes MacArthur again from his book, The Master's Plan:

There was a day in the history of the church when the great students of Scripture and theology were pastors. Puritan ministers, rather than being just good communicators, were first and foremost students of God's Word. They worked at understanding, interpreting, and applying the Word of God with precision and wisdom.

My observation is that MacArthur has reconnected with the Puritans on many doctrines, but he has ignored what they say about worldliness and cultural issues. They had plenty to say about that too, but he has not been one to share their "precision and wisdom" from the Word of God on those subjects. Just because some fundamentalists parked on topical preaching and pet issues doesn't mean that MacArthur should have forsaken the cultural ones to which he now seems to be returning.

MacArthur has in the last few years been making scriptural applications that I have never heard him make before. I believe that he is reacting to a worldliness that goes beyond that with which he is comfortable. And now Phil Johnson is doing the same. Much of this is in response to what is going on in churches in the name of church growth and marketing and of contextualization. They now are preaching messages that true separatists have been preaching for decades against some of the same problems they are dealing with. And now suddenly, these cultural topics, issues of conduct, are seemingly no longer so secondary and neither are they Christian liberties.

I agree with MacArthur and Johnson, but they are truly Johnny (and Phil) come lately. It also rings of hypocrisy to me. It seems that since the emergent (or emerging) movement and the Purpose-Driven phenomena (among other church growth schemes) have gone beyond even Johnson and MacArthur's tolerance for worldliness, that now the Bible suddenly says something on these matters. We've gotten where we are because these well-known and popular evangelicals have been silent already. Many recent articles and publications from MacArthur are dealing with these topics. And yet MacArthur had already clearly pushed himself away from those of us who have long been preaching against the same problems. Not only that, but Johnson and MacArthur still do the same kind of things and worse as the men that they are pointing out. I'll plainly illustrate this later.

The Johnson Sermon from Titus and Mark Driscoll

Phil Johnson preached an expositional message from Titus for the purpose of dealing with something that is occuring in evangelicalism, that is, pastors and preachers using foul and risque language in the pulpit. Johnson gave several examples of what he was talking about, saying that this kind of practice has become widespread. His poster boy for the message is Mark Driscoll, a maverick Reformed pastor in the Seattle area, who has become known as the "cussing preacher," because of the off-colored humor and corrupt speech that he uses in his sermons. The primary defense of men like Driscoll is that this is a kind of biblically espoused contextualization. It is missional, attempting to connect with and relate to a kind of mainstream sinner to whom he is preaching.

Johnson uses an expositional sermon from Titus to deal with this practice. He mainly parks on Titus 2:1-6. I listened to the message twice and I'm going to use the quotes as they directly came out of Johnson's mouth, rather than the ones that are up as a part of the transcript on the Shepherd's website. I believe we get what Phil is thinking in the exact quotes.

To start, the sermon was very good. He communicated the essence of what Titus 1 and 2 were about as well as I have ever heard it. Phil was right on with almost everything he said. It is true, as Johnson contended, that Titus 2 repudiates the practice of contextualization. The opposite of contextualization may be the very point that Paul is making in those two chapters to Titus. The churches on Crete were not to have leaders that behaved like Cretans. They were to provide a different kind of example, a contrast, to those people that lived on the island. An emphasis is placed upon behavior that was dignified and reverent, not that which would attempt to fit into the world. I wouldn't use the text behind the ESV like Phil did, but I will not be judging based on that criteria for this post. Even if he preached from the textus receptus, the message is the same, the emphasis is identical. I applaud Phil for it.

Phil was tough in the message. I heard excited men, shouting "amen" in the background. On the audio that I had, at 34:15, Phil made this important statement:

Sanctified behavior is the essential companion to authentically sound doctrine. It's essential. It's one thing to acknowledge that the gospel is essential; we need to acknowledge that to a certain degree some of the aspects of sanctification are absolutely essential. To a very large degree, I would say. And Paul's point here is that you may verbally affirm the finest confession of faith ever written, but if your words and your deeds deny it, Paul wouldn't have affirmed you as an authentic Christian at all, much less would he have laid hands on you for ministry.

That, by the way, is not how it reads over at the transcript at Shepherd's, but it is the quote word for word without a few verbalized pauses and stumbles.

Essentials?

Phil is making what he is preaching to be one of the "essentials." If it wasn't before, well, it is now an essential. This is what makes this very different. First, notice how that statement fits in with something that Phil said previously in the message. I take this quote straight from his transcript:

Doctrine is vital, yes. Some doctrines are essential, right? That's the premise of "Together for the Gospel," The Gospel Coalition, the Shepherds' Fellowship, and other similarly-minded groups. We may not agree on everything down to the smallest minutia, and we won't let insignificant disagreements rupture our fellowship. But we must agree on the gospel. That's the only basis for authentic Christian fellowship.

Then Phil says, very similarly:

Doctrine per se is not extraneous or superfluous, despite what our postmodern friends try to tell us. Some truths are vital—especially the rich tapestry of truth at the heart of the gospel. Some truths are so vital that if you deny or try to alter them in any way, you're anathema—accursed.

We even get italics for emphasis. Phil brings in his essential and non-essential teaching here. This isn't a thing that is in the Bible, that is, "we won't let insignificant disagreements rupture our fellowship." We don't see that teaching at all in Scripture. It is made up out of thin air. And what are insignificant disagreements? I'm sure that Mark Driscoll right now, and maybe John Piper, would say that what Phil is preaching is an insignificant disagreement and Phil knows it. He is moving it into the realm of significant, even though it isn't the gospel.

In this sermon, Phil Johnson makes bad speech a test of fellowship and that after he already says, "But we must agree on the gospel. That's the only basis for authentic Christian fellowship." Later he explains his point. He says that bad speech is the gospel. That's right, he does. Suddenly cultural issues and certain conduct or behavior are woven into the gospel by Phil Johnson. Later Phil says these statements:

But get this: there are likewise certain principles of sanctification and personal conduct that are so vital we're required to break fellowship with those who ignore them. . . . Paul's point is that sanctified behavior is the essential companion to authentically sound doctrine. You may verbally affirm the finest confession of faith ever written, but if your words and deeds deny it, Paul would not have affirmed you as an authentic Christian at all. Much less would he lay hands on you for ministry. . . . Notice that Paul encourages Titus to cultivate sound behavior, sound doctrine, and sound words—and to be a model in all those ways (not just the doctrine). Your life, your doctrine, and your speech are all crucial aspects of your pastoral duty. In fact, Paul words these instructions so that those categories are interwoven. Each one is essential to the others. They aren't three totally separate things, but three aspects of the same duty.

In these words, Phil Johnson weaves the speech and conduct into the gospel. Because the gospel is essential and they are woven into the gospel, then they're essential too. That's fine, but where does it say what is essential and not essential? Notice how many times that Phil uses the word essential in the quote that he is making good speech to be an essential. Three. And he says that it is the means by which someone can tell that you are an authentic Christian. Phil has chosen this particular violation as one at the level of the gospel. As a result, this is a separation issue.

Speech toward People

Let's consider what it is that Phil is criticizing. This is speech that is directed toward people. He says that our bad speech toward people will misrepresent the gospel to the degree that it is a perversion of the gospel. Therefore, it is an essential, so it is something that is worth separating over. Isn't all sinful behavior not adorning the gospel to the degree that it can affect people's understanding of the gospel? We can't just pick and choose what our separating issues are going to be. This has crossed the line for Johnson and MacArthur. They don't want gutter pulpit speech and so it is elevated in its seriousness to an essential issue, despite the fact that the gospel is the issue of Christian fellowship, at least that's what Phil said before.

If you listen to the audio, you can hear that Phil becomes a little unsure of himself at that juncture, when he is raising the speech issue to the level of an essential. He says, "We need to acknowledge that to a certain degree some of the aspects of sanctification are absolutely essential. To a very large degree, I would say." By the way, not all those words are in the transcript. They took them out. He says "to a certain degree" and "to a very large degree." Well, how can something be "absolutely essential" "to a certain degree" and "to a very large degree," and then he adds, "I would say." You would say? I thought we were depending on Scripture. Phil becomes very unauthoritative at that point. He knows that this contradicts the things he has been saying about essentials. We have been together for the gospel, but now we're also together for holy pulpit speech, well, I would say, um, to a certain degree or a large degree.

Then Phil has to do something that is real important in the making of this point. Phil must define what filthy speech is. He must tell us something that isn't in the Bible. This has been a major sticking point for the evangelicals against separatists---those militants that MacArthur pulled away from because they majored on the minors too much. Titus 2 assumes that we will know what sound speech is and what filthy speech is. I agree with Phil that we can know, but how can we make that determination for others when it is something that is not stated in Scripture. Over at Pulpit Magazine, the MacArthur/Johnson people tell us:

[T]he Bible tells us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). We cannot add to the Scripture without subtracting from its effectiveness in our lives. If we elevate personal preference and man-made tradition to the level of God’s Word (Mark 7:6-15), we risk entangling people in the bondage of legalism and diverting them from the true issues of sanctification (Romans 14:17).

When we determine what the filthy words are, words that are not said to be filthy in Scripture, are we elevating man-made tradition to the level of God's Word? Not only does Phil tell us that we're wrong if we say these words not found in the Bible, but we're violating an essential and that is worthy of separation.

Definitions

Phil goes about defining what cuss words are at the end of his sermon. In essence, he says that these words are so obvious that anyone would know what they were. We are expected to know what foul language is. And saying these words is worth separating over, even according to Phil Johnson. It is speech made to men. Phil says that it is blasphemous when that kind of language is mixed into the preaching of God's holy Word. I don't disagree with him. I just wonder about the inconsistency in the matter of profanity.

What then is speech that has been profaned by worldly, undignified, irreverent music? In other words, what about worship? For Phil and even John MacArthur, whatever kind of music we send to God, whatever the taste we prefer, that's fine. It hasn't always been that way. At one time, it was wrong to use a certain type of music with godly words. But now that's not blasphemous. Is it possible that the same thing has happened to certain words, that we can't consider them to be foul anymore? Phil says that speech made to men, that is blasphemous. This is where they choose their essential behavior based on their own preference, even though it is not specifically mentioned in God's Word.

I agree with Phil Johnson and John MacArthur. I believe that this speech is intolerable. It is worth separating over. The men that use it should step down from the ministry. But what about the worship that has been mixed in with the rock and jazz music that is fleshly, sensual, worldly, and perverse? The same exact argument should be used about not using profane music in worship. Earlier in his sermon, Phil says:

There's nothing whatsoever here about adopting the badges of the youth culture in Crete. Not a word about the importance of fitting in or adapting your ministry to the lowbrow lifestyle of Crete. Titus was the one who was supposed to set the standard for them, not vice versa. . . . He doesn't tell Titus to get creative and learn to adapt his strategy to fit Crete's youth culture. . . Paul clearly recognized Crete's cultural tendency to favor the things of the flesh, but he was not in favor of making that tendency part of the ambience of the churches he was planting on Crete.

This is exactly what you see in the promotional material for their Master's College and for their Resolved Conference (you tell me what this does to worship and the name of God). They have the same kind of lighting and ambience at a secular rock concert. They have the trap set, all of the same types of music that we would hear in the world with its worldly, godless philosophy. You will find the same style of music used at the Shepherd's Conference, only a bigger production of it. Somehow this profanity misses MacArthur and Johnson, and yet this is speech that is sent toward God. They assume that God will enjoy this lack of dignity and reverence. What does that do to the adorning of the gospel? Why not make an application there? On this point, since they do these things, they would selectively say that this is legalism. The truth is that their worldly music that they call worship is exactly what has led to the further profanity that we see from Driscoll and others. Do you see this inconsistency?

I have more questions about evangelicals and not contextualizing. Phil said the word "cool" a couple of times in the presentation, speaking of what to try not to be.

And too many pastors are enthralled with the idea of being cool in the eyes of the world.

Paul wasn't the least bit concerned about adjusting the gospel message to eliminate the offence of the gospel; or adjusting the message to suit the tastes of some subculture; or making himself seem cool and stylish.

One might desire an interesting writing style, but if you read Pyromaniacs, Phil's blog, how many times do these forty-plus old men use the word "dude?" "Dude" may be the most-used word at Pyromaniacs. Should the term "dude" be used so many times if one is attempting to be dignified, a requirement from Titus that Phil emphasized? And why this picture that Phil chooses to represent himself? I understand the picture now and then, but to have this be the one that you want to be you. Is someone trying to be cool?

I've got more to say about MacArthur and Murray in part two.

The Indifference of Contemporary Fundamentalism

Kevin Bauder, dean of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, has revived the usage of the term "indifferentism," and then concocted a companion word, "everythingism."(1) He snatched the term from the writings of J. Gresham Machen, early fundamentalist. Bauder writes: "J. Gresham Machen labeled them “'indifferentists.'” In 1923 Machen uses the word "indifferentism" on pp. 50-51 of his book, Christianity and Liberalism, speaking of Martin Luther's attitude toward the doctrine of the Lord's Table:

[T]he calamity was due to the fact that Luther (as we believe) was wrong about the Lord's Supper; and it would have been a far greater calamity if being wrong about the Supper he had represented the whole question as a trifling affair. Luther was wrong about the Supper, but not nearly so wrong as he would have been if, being wrong, he had said to his opponents: "Brethren, this matter is a trifle; and it makes really very little difference what a man thinks about the table of the Lord." Such indifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisions between the branches of the Church. . . . Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith.

When Charles Eerdman allied himself with liberals in the 1920s, Machen wrote in the Presbyterian in 1925 (pp. 20-21):

There is division between Dr. Eerdman and myself, a very serious doctrinal difference indeed. It concerns the question not of this doctrine or that, but of the importance that is to be attributed to doctrine as such. Dr. Eerdman's answer to this basal question has been, so far as it can be determined by his public actions, the answer of doctrinal indifferentism---Dr. Eerdman does not indeed reject the doctrine of our church, but he is perfectly willing to make common cause with those who do reject it.

In those first two quotes, Machen uses the word slightly differently. The first usage regards those who don't take certain doctrines seriously. Machen was happy that Luther wasn't indifferent to the Lord's Supper. In the second usage, Machen uses the word to describe those who ignore doctrine in matters of separation. This is how Bauder coops the term. Machen didn't coin the "indifferentism." Benjamin Warfield had already used it when he wrote p. 16 of The Right of Systematic Theology in 1897:

The basis of this impatience is often a mere latitudinarian indifferentism, which finds its expression in neglect of formulated truth, and is never weary of girding at what it represents as the hairsplitting ingenuity of theologians and the unprofitableness of theological discussion. . . . Dead indifference is frequently more difficult to deal with than the most lively assault. This is doubtless true in the present case also. It is not hard to show the folly of theological indifferent- ism : but just because it is indifferent, indifferentism is apt to pay little attention to our exhibition of its folly.

Machen surely knew about Warfield's usage. But Warfield didn't coin it. "Indifferentism" was used the same way in The Scottish Christian Herald in 1841 (p. 344):

The indifferentism which succeeded it (piety) soon went much farther,—it rejected all doctrine as useless, it effaced all Christian articles of belief, and changed the whole of Christianity into a simple morality.

We go even further back to Richard Wright, who wrote in 1805 in his book (you'll love this title), The Anti-Satisfactionist or the Salvation of Sinners by the Free Grace of God being an Attempt to Explode the Protestant, as well as Popish, Notion of Salvation by Human Merit, And to Promote the Primitive Christian Doctrine of the Sufficiency of Divine Mercy for All Who Are Penitent (p. 191):

You say that you make no profession of indifferentism respecting the truth or error of the points on which we differ. Do you mean to charge your opponent with indifferentism ? If so, you are requested to substantiate the charge. He believes that truth is of great importance, being calculated to produce those happy effects which error never can produce; had he thought otherwise he would have avoided this controversy.

Fundamentalism has from its historic early twentieth-century beginnings not been indifferent to what the Bible teaches, no matter what it is. Machen was happy to report that even though he disagreed with Luther on a doctrine, Luther wasn't indifferent to it. He said that Eerdman, though believing the same as himself, however, was indifferent to a doctrine by being "willing to make common cause with those who do reject it."

The Indifference

I'm illustrating the indifference of contemporary fundamentalism according to the latest way that Machen used the term. According to Machen, indifferentists fellowshiped with those who held to false doctrine even though they themselves may have believed true doctrine. Contemporary fundamentalists fellowship with men who might believe true doctrine, but "still make common cause with those who do reject it." I'm going to give you four examples. I could give many more. Before I give the examples, I want to show how fundamentalists relate to the indifferentists, and by Machen's understanding, become indifferentists themselves.

All four of the examples relate to the so-called "conservative evangelicals"---John MacArthur, C. J. Mahaney, Mark Dever, John Piper, D. A. Carson, and Albert Mohler---to name a few. Fundamentalists support these men in many different ways, not the least of which is their support of Together for the Gospel (T4G) and The Shepherd's Conference. A poll was started over at the fundamentalist forum SharperIron to see who would attend T4G and more than twice as many would go as would not go (72% to 28%). Here is a taste of the comments about T4G:

I attended both of them and I plan to go again. . . . The fellowship was good - many fundies at both conferences and the giveaways were nice! I plan to never miss any of them! . . . . I saw some well-known Fundemental (sic) non Calvinist at both conferences.

I would go if I had the opportunity! Our youth pastor attended last year and had positive comments about it.

I plead with all of you to plan to go to TG4 in 2010.

I was there in 08. Would love to go again.

No one said he wouldn't go (except for one because he lives in California). Another thread opened about The Shepherd's Conference, and men wrote:

I'll be there. I know of a few more, but I'll let them speak for themselves. You are in for a treat, brother.

I'm going for the first time ever this year . . . My family surprised me with the money to go for Christmas! I'm so excited about it I can hardly wait!

I'll be there too.

I want to go . . . does that count!

It looks as if from our own leadership and ministry core we will have a dozen men at the conference.....plus three more from outside our ministry.

There were no negative comments, no disclaimers. You don't get even close to the same kind of excitement about anything that is fundamentalist on SharperIron, a self-professing fundamentalist site. There is virtually unconditional support given.

If these fundamentalists are not attending the indifferentist conferences and fellowships, then they are strongly endorsing the indifferentists all over the internet on their blogs. I could give many examples. You'll see the support on the blogroll at SharperIron, the fundamentalist leader on the internet, for indifferentists with rare examples of any defense for fundamentalists. Usually they're are attacking or picking apart fundamentalists for separating, a quality that distinguishes the fundamentalist. There is no disclaimer by SharperIron. One of them is the personal assistant of D. A. Carson and another works under Mark Dever. That makes them sort of celebrities at SharperIron. If you just went down the list, you'll see this with these titles and statements easy to see:

Q and A with D. A. Carson and Mark Dever

Yesterday my family visited CrossWay Community Church in Milwaukee for second time since our church planted it a little over a year ago. If you or people you know live near the high school building where they’re meeting, I’d commend this gospel-centered assembly to you.

I sang this song tonight in chorus with quite a few Amillennialists at my church.

Mark Dever interviews D. A. Carson

Here’s how D. A. Carson introduces Craig L. Blomberg’s Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions

The blogs of choice are those that regularly criticize the separation of fundamentalism or encourage the type of behavior of the indifferentists. You'll see the same kind of treatment of indifferentists all over the place. Scott Aniol is one of the best and conservative voices out there on Christian music. I pre-ordered and received his book Worship Song, which has wonderful teaching on the subject, some of the best you can read anywhere. However, Aniol refers to and mentions with great favor men like Bob Kauflin and Phil Johnson. He linked with the article by Johnson on contextualization, but how does that fit with the Resolved conference for youth put on by the same men. Spurgeon would turn over in his grave if he saw that picture and heard that music. He links to Christianity Today on culture with no instruction or rebuttal. So here is the fundamentalist representing the most conservative stand on worship and yet he behaves very nonchalantly about the dangers of evangelicals indifferent to his scriptural worship position. This is all something very different for fundamentalism with its characteristics of militance and separation.

Mohler and Billy Graham

Billy Graham has promoted universalism. His methodology has supported that belief. There is a huge divergence in the gospel understanding of Billy Graham and Albert Mohler, but that did not stop them from coming together in a “gospel” endeavor in 2001. Mohler was indifferent to Graham's universalism. It didn't make a big enough deal for him to separate from Graham. Mohler is keynoting the Shepherd's Conference this year.

Dever, Mohler, and the Southern Baptist Convention

If you are in the SBC, you are in fellowship with avowed liberals. Even though there is a conservative resurgence in the SBC, it is still the home of many liberals and men of other stripes of scriptural indifference. Dever pastors a church in the convention. He recently explained why in an interview with Mark Minnick, a fundamentalist pastor in Greenville, SC. He said that they must stay in the convention to keep the money and the property that they would lose if they separated. You can look for that reasoning in Scripture. You won't find it.

Piper and Daniel Fuller and Baptist General Conference

Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis, MN, where John Piper pastors, is in the Baptist General Conference. The Baptist General Conference in 2000 voted to allow open theism in their denomination. Open theism is the false doctrine about God that says that God doesn't know the future, because the future is unknowable. It also rejects several of the other scriptural attributes of God. That isn't enough for Piper's church to separate.

He also considers himself to be in close and unashamed fellowship with Daniel Fuller. Fuller wrote this: "[There are] many passages in Scripture in which good works are made the instrumental cause of justification." Fuller also does not believe by any historic, scriptural thinking, the inerrancy of Scripture.

John Piper was a speaker at the 2004 National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, joining hands in that forum with Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, and Pat Robertson a speaker at the 2004 National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. Three Roman Catholic organizations were active at the 2004 NRB conference. The Global Catholic Network ran an ad in the NRB newspaper each day and rented exhibit space.

C. J. Mahaney and Charismaticism

Piper and Bethlehem Baptist claim to be charismatic too, but C. J. Mahaney is a charismatic. Mahaney long-time pastored Covenant Life Church, which is now led by Joshua Harris. The doctrinal statement of Mahaney reads:

All the gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in the church of the first-century are available today, are vital for the mission of the church, and are to be earnestly desired and practiced.

So tongues, healings, and miracles are to be earnestly desired and practiced according to that statement, or in other words, we must seek after signs. Jesus said in Matthew 16:4, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign."

The same church put on Godspell. Here's part of the explanation of Godspell from Time Magazine, which wouldn't be opposed to it:

This Hassidic hippie show, by John-Michael Tebelak and composer Steven Schwartz, spawned the Top 20 charter "Day by Day" ("Oh Lord, three things I pray: To see Thee more clearly, To love Thee more dearly, To follow Thee more nearly, day by day"). Director David Greene set the 1973 movie on Manhattan's city streets and the climax in a city playground. The other night on "The Daily Show," Rob Corddry accurately described the "Godspell" Christ figure as "a '70s pop rainbow suspendery kind of Jesus." Brown-eyed, frizzy-haired Victor Garber, who 30 years later has a career on Broadway ("Art") and TV ("Alias"), stresses Jesus' gentility in sensitive-clown makeup: teardrop eyeliner and a sweet heart on his forehead. The rest of the young cast follows suit, miming up a storm, sipping imaginary sacramental wine from invisible chalices. Drinks for the Last Supper are served in paper cups. Was Jim Jones watching?

Mahaney is not only part of Together for the Gospel, but John MacArthur recently had him preach at Grace Community Church.

Excusing Indifference

The above-explained indifference is explained as acceptable by those critical of fundamentalism because of the indifference of fundamentalists in the past. Bob Jones University was indifferent to racism and racists. Because BJU has a building named after Bibb Graves, then Southern Baptist Theological Seminary should be able to keep associating with Billy Graham. That's the type of moral equivalence that is argued. Most of fundamentalism overlooked the false gospel of Jack Hyles, so they should also be able to overlook the universalism of Billy Graham. The logic of the argument is that if fundamentalists won't separate consistently, then they can't criticize others who don't separate at all, so we may as well go ahead and none of us separate. Some think the worst example of indifference is the belief in one Bible. This is what a panel of fundamentalist pastors answered first as an example of fundamentalist indifference in a recent meeting of the Minnesota Baptist Association. These all sound like the excuses to keep moving fundamentalism away from separation and toward more indifferentism.

Conclusion

I believe that anyone needs to look at these issues, either as fundamentalist or evangelical. We need to look at them in the light of scripture. We can apply the Bible and the doctrine of separation that it teaches to all of these situations. This really is the kind of work that fundamentalists once did. They should be the ones doing it now, but they are nearly silent. For the love of God, honor of His holiness, and the purity of the Lord's church, we should practice separation based on what the Bible says and not tradition or popular norms.

I understand the criticisms of inconsistency. It is why I can't be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists don't separate enough, and when they do, they rarely do it in biblical fashion. They're too indifferent. I believe there is more worth separating over than the fundamentals. All of the Lord's truth is important and should be preserved. We shouldn't be indifferent to any of it. Separation is the means that God has given us to do that. However, inonsistency is no legitimate reason not to disobey the Lord in other areas.

I don't see many fundamentalists standing up to stem this slide of indifferentism. They would rather keep in good standing with those who are willing to make common cause with those who do reject certain truths of Scripture. A fundamentalist church in New Hampshire is having a leadership conference in which one of the sessions is why not to go to T4G. That was worthy of a link from a moderator at SharperIron. Only one man defended the pastor who was teaching the session. Everyone else thought it was silly. It seems many fundamentalists don't understand separation anymore. And is ecclesiastical separation being preached by fundamentalists like it once was? It looks like fundamentalism is losing its young people too. They seem to have become. . . . indifferent.

(1) "Everythingism" was a word coined by C. S. Lewis in 1947 in his book, Miracles, to describe the belief of the person who sees everything around him as a miracle. Bauder says "an everythingist is someone who is committed to the 'literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible, and the militant exposure of all non-biblical affirmations and attitudes.'” He thinks it's bad to be one of those.

Whose Beliefs Aren't Taught In Scripture and Have No History Before the Nineteenth Century?

What would you think if what you believed had no biblical basis and no history before the nineteenth century? What would you call yourself? Could you even have such a belief? Who do you think of when I ask such a question? Is it the Mormons? Is it the Jehovah's Witnesses? Is it the Campbellites? Is it Seventh Day Adventists?

You might say that what you believed was a kind of restoration movement, that other people were duped up until that point, but you were able to bring them the true doctrine. You wouldn't be the first. Of course, to do so, you would have to argue for a kind of total apostasy of doctrine or of that particular belief, the one that isn't in the Bible and has no history before the nineteenth century. You would have to have some explanation.

Do you think it would bug you that you can't find your doctrine taught by orthodox believers since the invention of the printing press, 1440-1800, except for perhaps a few radical unbelievers? I know that for myself, I would have to take a belief very seriously if I didn't have a historic basis for the belief. I recognize that we get our doctrines from Scripture. But if my scriptural doctrine had no history behind it, then I would really want to be sure that it was in Scripture. If there was no history and neither was it in the Bible, I would reject it. What about you?

For a belief to originate that was not in the Bible and had no history, someone would need to become convinced of a total apostasy. So let's ask ourselves. Do you think there was a total apostasy of a particular doctrine especially in the 16th to 18th centuries? Was that a unique time of apostasy or was there something during that time period that took place that resulted in more people reading the Bible and more conversions of sinners than there had been before that period for centuries?

If believers during the 16th to 18th century had a doctrine that they believed, do you think that they could all be fooled? Would the Holy Spirit allow that? Is that something that we see in Scripture, that every believer would be fooled on a particular doctrine for three centuries, so that there was no history of the actual true doctrine? I don't think so. I would have a very hard time believing that.

I know that a lot of new beliefs originated in the nineteenth century. This period is called post-enlightenment. "The Enlightenment" speaks of a period in the eighteenth century Western civilization during which time, for many, reason became the primary source and legitimacy for authority. What do you think of post-enlightenment Christology? What do you think of any doctrine that originated after and out of post enlightenment? Did you know that a lot of cults originated just in that time of unbelief and attack on scriptural authority? I know that I would be very, very careful with anything that arose during that period of time.

The belief I happen to be talking about is post-enlightenment bibliology. The critical text belief, the eclectic text belief was not found among professing believers before the 19th century. Across the board, you read that men believed that God has preserved His word perfectly in the available original language texts. They believed that they had in those texts, the apographa of Scripture, every Word of the original manuscripts. During the nineteenth century, we find that belief subjected to the science of textual criticism. It wasn't some new exegesis of Scripture, some level of Christian growth that led to this new belief, but the criticism of doctrine and the text of Scripture that came along with age of enlightenment.

Now we have a new doctrine of preservation of Scripture, that doesn't come from the Bible and it doesn't come from history. It comes from the minds of textual critics during the post-enlightenment period. They weren't concerned about the promises of God. They weren't concerned what Christians believed before. They didn't want to let any of those things get in the way of their developing science and their new discoveries. They believed that their reasoning was superior to what God promised in His Word and that Christians had believed.

Of course, evangelicals and fundamentalists didn't believe that, did they? They wouldn't, would they?

Brainwashed Bibliology

For years evangelicals and fundamentalists (of the non revivalist variety) have given the cold shoulder to supporters of the King James Version (KJS = King James Supporters). I designate King James Only men that way because of the pejorative nature of the KJVO identification. Most evangelicals and fundamentalists are not likely to listen to anything that a KJS will say in any theological or scriptural matter. If you remain KJS, you are discredited on salvation, sanctification, and almost any scriptural view you hold. I know that from experience. So I would think that I might hear a lot of testimony from other KJS, who have had a similar experience as I have. Feel free to let me know. You're not complaining; you're just reporting.

What is the "cold shoulder?" Don't look it up in the Bible. You won't find the practice there. They give no due process. It isn't biblical separation. It isn't loving. It doesn't have any particular goal in mind. It's almost sheerly political. They give KJS the "mean girl" routine either by ignoring them, talking only about them and not to them, or offering short, clipped answers as if from the start they're already fed up with your mere presence. You're left to figure out what it means. For any of them who are reading this, you might be thinking, "Hey, he got what was happening! That is what we do!" I really do not think that they know how to separate.

I can't know exactly why they operate in this fashion. They might say that they long ago swept aside the easy arguments of King James Onlyism, so now they just want to get a distance from this kooky group. To them, all KJVO are English preservationists or inspirationists who probably believe you can only be converted with a King James Bible. It also can be peer pressure. If they are caught talking to a KJS, they could lose some luster in their own group. They must treat all KJS as unreasonable and stupid, one sure way to receive kudos from your evangelical and fundamentalist crowd, or at least not to suffer the censor of the people with whom they so wish to be in favor. You can be an amazing favorite with these guys if you leave the KJS position and regularly mention that you once believed "like them (KJS)."

Things Have Changed

I have noticed that recently that the rhetoric against KJS has become more about separation. Many times the threat of separation comes from fundamentalists in commentary about conservative evangelicals. Here's how it works. Many fundamentalists think that certain conservative evangelicals are moving their direction, so the fundamentalists are talking about the kind of relationships they might be able to have with these evangelicals. A lot of the fundamentalists are already attending their conferences, fellowships, and other meetings.

Let me digress for a moment. When especially young fundamentalists blog, they generally show more love toward these evangelicals than they do fundamentalists. It has also become fashionable to quote these evangelicals, indicating that you are reading them. Most of them do write books, something that not many fundamentalists have accomplished. I see these new evangelicals as the new heroes to replace the old big names who have passed off the scene. Fundamentalism doesn't have any heroes of similar caliber or respect that they once did, so the attention is shifting to these conservative evangelicals as the replacement. This seems to be the death knell for this brand of fundamentalism.

I continue. The fundamentalists still say that separation is the issue that mainly gets in the way with fellowshiping with these evangelicals. They're also uncomfortable with some of the methods that many of these evangelicals use in their churches. The evangelicals answer the separation criticism by saying that the fundamentalists aren't consistent. If they will separate from the men to the left of them, themselves, then they should also be willing to separate from those in fundamentalism erring at the right of them. In other words, if fundamentalists are going to blast the evangelicals for being indifferent about Billy Graham, then they should also stop being indifferent with some of their wacky right-winged cousins.

I digress once again. Some of the young fundamentalists are fed up with the inconsistency on separation, so they are moving over to the evangelical brand of separation, which kind of looks like no separation. The big thing really is not having someone come speak for you or for you to speak to them. This is the big dream for this new evangelical, fundamental continuum. Presently it only exists in their drooling imaginations. Others are sorting through how to be consistent. Consistency all comes to a smithering halt when you see Sexton and Paisley on the platform with Jones and Ollila.

Enter the KJS. A great target to stop being indifferent would be the KJS. The evangelicals already just roll their eyes, shake their heads, and scoff at these silly wabbits. Condescending chuckles all around. Hefty back-slapping for maximum snarkiness. The fundamentalists have to sort of like be with them, since they're, ya know, all fundamentalists. Yuck. Ugh. The poster boys for stupid fundamentalism in their opinion are the KJS. So what to do? Prove your separation credentials by separating from the easiest target, the ones everyone loves to hate, the KJS. (The next easy target is Frank Garlock. He thinks rock music hinders plant growth. Ban him.) Some momentum is gaining on building a separation consensus with fundamentalists that goes beyond the cold shoulder that already exists.

The Radical Bibliology

I had already been hearing the calls for separation from these men with the radical bibliology, the KJS. Their bibliology is bad. It's an attack on um, um, inspiration. Inspiration is even a major doctrine. It's somehow stayed in that category despite love for Bruce Metzger. So they've got the perfect test case for consistent separation. They earn their separation chops by dividing from the KJS.

How is KJS against inspiration? Well, they, of course, all of them, believe that the King James is inspired. There we go, double inspiration. They use only the King James because it is the only Bible around that is inspired. All KJS believe this. Even if they don't, they do. Even if they don't, I'll treat them all exactly the same. No one will call me on it if I do. You don't have to. They are KJS. KJS doesn't have to be treated as well as someone like a Bart Ehrman, a person that actually contributes to sound, scriptural bibliology. Did you hear he's been on the NY Times bestseller list? There's scholarship for you.

Sound Bibliology?

And what exactly is the sound bibliology of the non-KJS men? Besides not being KJS, which is the best part of their bibliology, they believe that God inspired the original manuscripts. So do most KJS. And then God preserved His Word. They believe that. It's not taught anywhere in an explicit manner in scripture, but it is inferred in a few verses, and if those verses don't actually teach it, it is sort of a logical conclusion that you could make since you are sitting there with an English translation in your hand. And for them, that's the sound view. That's the view that is orthodox. That's the one that stays in fellowship.

I find the bibliology of these multiple version guys to be very confusing. Very jello-like. Amoebic. It's like listening to a major league baseball player explain steroid use. The story keeps changing. In the end, it doesn't matter if you've got Scripture promising preservation anyway is the thing. You can depend on comparisons of copies and mounds of textual evidence, stuff that is of much greater reliability than the preservation of, for instance, Tacitus. And no doctrines have been lost. That is part of the doctrine too. They're all in their somewhere. And we've got to be careful teaching this doctrine of preservation anyway. You see what happened to Bart Ehrman when he believed in preservation, don't you? So we've got to be careful being too presuppositional---it might not end well with that kind of approach. We need more bibliological ambiguity on the doctrinal side and then let the evidence lead us to the truth.

That whole last paragraph (with a little underlying humor from me) is very close to what I read the other side say, the non-KJS men. That is the foundation on which they stand in order to separate from the KJS. They have the orthodox bibliology. I would add that all the words are in the multiplicity of the manuscripts, but they don't really believe that. They believe that at least a few words still haven't been found, but you can all know that they're still searching, still collating, and still waiting.

Who Is Brainwashed?

So have these non-KJS, multiple version, critical text men read works of bibliology that have dealt with the subject of preservation? Have they read an in depth historical bibliology with thorough analysis of what bibliology Christians have held? Do we read any of this kind of research and study in the works they have published? I haven't seen it. Their books are full of restatements of Metzger and Aland, non-theological works.

Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, had nine propositions that he developed in the course of the book. In his debate with Ehrman, James White could not challenge the assessment that he himself agreed with eight and a half of the propositions in Misquoting Jesus. The only thing they disagreed about was the interpretation of the evidence. And this is the kind of thing that is the source for non-KJS bibliology.

They love to reference the letter from the King James translators to the reader as a preface to the King James Translation. In that letter, the translators say that they expect that someone might be able to improve upon their translation in the future, giving men the permission to do so. They don't relate anything on the doctrine of preservation. They don't relate one point of bibliology in their introduction to their translation. They use that preface as an authority for correcting the King James Translation. And then the non-KJS say that they can't find anyone who believed in the preservation of an English translation. They can't find anyone before 1610 who believed in the preservation of the King James Translation. Sit back KJS. When they are done with such criticism of KJS, you have been slain. You are speechless. Only arrogance would now open his lips to attempt to answer such devastating bibliology.

These non-KJS men are ready to separate over bibliology, over inspiration of Scripture, from KJS men. They do so and they are either ignorant or ambivalent to the history of the doctrine of preservation. They have drunk the koolaid of textual criticism. They are content with believing that KJS started with a Seventh Day Adventist, David Otis Fuller, or maybe Donald Waite. They think that perhaps it began with Dean Burgon, who, they rush to add, wouldn't even be KJVO if he were alive today.

Let's go back a little bit further to the wealth of bibliology written in the 17th century, representing historic and pre-enlightenment sole scriptura. There you'll get historic bibliology. There you'll read what men of God have thought about this for centuries. There you'll get a pre-brainwashing bibliology that depends on the teaching of the Bible itself for the doctrine of its own preservation.

Why to Delete a Facebook Account

Facebook introduced me to world of internet social networking. I was in an orchestral board meeting and I mentioned "the rolodex." I got real laughter. "You use a rolodex?" I was bewildered. I had not heard that rolodex was out. "People use facebook now." Well, I didn't know that facebook had replaced the rolodex, but the one telling me was a high level manager in a large Bay Area company. I figured he must be right. "Rolodex" was truly funny to several people in that meeting.

I had joined facebook without really thinking about what I was doing. Sometimes I make picks for the games of the NCAA basketball tournament. I decided to make them on the CBS sportsline website. I liked the way that my choices looked in their proper place on the bracket on the computer screen. To use their bracket I had to join this "facebook" thing I had vaguely heard of. This was several years ago. After I signed up, I started getting requests in my email box, asking me to be a friend. I always said, "no," and deleted them. I hadn't even looked at my facebook site. About six months ago, I decided to become more active at facebook because it was something my son was going to be involved with and I wanted him to have accountability.

I learned a little about facebook. There were many aspects about it that I never liked. I was always uncomfortable there. Everyone in our family has now deleted his facebook account. I'm going to tell my problems with facebook. This will give someone reasons why to delete a facebook account. I'm not expecting that any one of these reasons will be enough to persuade someone to drop it like I did, but all of them combined should at least get you thinking. Once I deleted my account, I have not only not missed it, but it has been wonderful to lose it.

1. Facebook hinders scriptural values.

Facebook wasn't around when David Wells wrote No Place for Truth, but if it was, I think he would have written about it in that book.

Having turned inward in a search for meaning, we turn outward in a search for direction, scanning others for the social signals they emit regarding what is in and what is out, what is desirable and what is not. . . . This person is oriented not to inner values but to other people. It is in the peer group that acceptance is found and outcasts are named. . . . Where once people took pride in accomplishments and in their character, [they] think only of how they stand with others. . . . Once people worked to achieve tangible ends, to accomplish things. Now, such accomplishments are of far less significance than one's "image." Once people worked; now they manipulate. Once people sweated; now they seduce. Once people wished to be respected, to have their accomplishments recognized; now they wish to be envied, regardless of whether they are envied for anything they have actually accomplished.

This characteristic of modernity does not orient itself toward God, but toward people. It influences away from judging based on scriptural values and toward judging based upon a societal norm.

2. Facebook alters the biblical understanding of friendship.

To be a friend at facebook, just click. Normally I'm careful with whom I choose as friends. I might be able to be a friend to someone, but someone can't be a friend to me without fulfilling certain characteristics. James tells us (4:4) that friendship with the world is enmity with God. I can't have enmity with God, so I can restrain myself in my choice of friends. I'm to have no company with certain people and mark and avoid others. People in your "friends" list at facebook might be people that would never join my church. We don't believe or practice the same. I don't want to call them my friends. In so doing, I believe I'm just dumbing down what the Bible says about a friend. Here's something else that Dr. Carl Trueman said about it:

The way of connecting with people on Facebook is, apparently, to `friend' somebody. That the noun has become a verb is scarcely cause for concern; but the cheapening of the word surely is. Simply to be linked to someone on the internet is not true friendship; yet the use of the word creates the image that such is the case, or at least blurs the difference between casual internet acquaintance and somebody for whom one might have real affinity, affection, and concern. . . . Further, as the language of friendship is hijacked and cheapened by these internet social networks, this cheapening itself is part and parcel of a redefining of intimacy based upon the erosion of the boundaries between the public and private.

3. Facebook sets wicked things before your eyes.

I can't control the content of what I look at on my facebook page. I not only look at things I don't want to see, but I invite others to look at them when they look at my facebook page. Pictures, advertisements, and statements show up that I don't want to see or have others see either.

4. Facebook causes people to stumble.

I might be able to handle some of what my "friends" believe and practice, but not everyone can. I'd rather not introduce people to other people that I'd rather they didn't meet.

5. Facebook hinders real discernment.

If you were to judge each of your friends based upon a scriptural standard, you would probably lose a large number of them. But you don't. Why? You want to be sociable. It encourages you to make decisions based upon how you feel instead of what the Bible says.

6. Facebook wastes time.

I know you could argue with me on this one by pointing out other ways I waste time. You may think that I'm doing that by writing this blog. Fine. I think it's different but I'm not going to take the time to defend my blog writing right now. Here's how facebook uniquely wastes time. You open yourself up to social activity that you wouldn't choose as a good use of your minutes. You have a friend who isn't much of a friend. That friend writes on your wall. Now what do you have to do? You have to write something back to him. Don't you want to keep your choices about communication under control? You have created new things to take away time from something productive. If you have facebook, you've got to maintain it. Is it worth maintaining?

7. Facebook encourages busybodying.

I've had people ask to be my friend whom I know don't care about me. I know they don't really want to be my friend. What is it that people want? They want to find out what you're doing. I'm not ashamed of what I'm doing, but I believe that this kind of voyeurism fits the biblical criteria of the busybody. It influences others toward being one. "Why did so and so become his friend and not mine?" "I wonder why he has so many friends or who those people are."

8. Facebook hinders real relationships.

Do you think that a real relationship is sitting in front of a computer screen at 11:00 at night? When you could be talking to a real person either in person or by phone, you are constructing your facebook persona.

9. Facebook doesn't like bold, biblical Christianity.

Watch your "friends" list shrink when you confront people about something sinful on their wall, in a photo, or in a comment. Facebook isn't designed for confrontational Christianity, the kind we see Jesus do in the Bible. Typical facebook brings up something essentially secular, earthly, or temporal. You then interact on the same level, training yourself to do more of it. It is a bastion of compromise.

10. Facebook redefines biblical community.

In a real community people do things for each other. Facebook isn't about doing anything to help anyone. I'm not saying that nothing can be done, but it doesn't encourage that. It encourages a fake community. You can join a cause, but what does the cause really do? When you're asked to join a cause, for instance, against internet pornography. That is good. That's a wonderful thing to be against. I'm even for being in a group that is against it. It might even make me think more about being against it. But how are you helping get rid of pornography? What you could do is talk to someone that has an immodest picture up and ask him to take it down. And I really am part of a group that is already against it---my church.

11. Facebook offers way too much acceptance.

Much of what is on facebook should be rejected. However, facebook is all about affirming. You affirm people that really need confrontation. Since very often you can't really know the person you're talking to, you could easily be reaffirming someone with a lukewarm, worldly brand of Christianity that isn't honoring to Christ.

12. Facebook is too public.

Yes, too public. What do I mean? It offers people an opportunity to snoop around and get information. I recognize that you have means on facebook to control that, but it still is a place for trolling perverts. I don't want to be on the same playing field with them or encourage others to be there with me....and him.

13. Facebook preys on fleshly tendencies of man's nature.

Facebook makes you think too much about yourself. Your status shouldn't matter. Someone shouldn't have to return a comment just because you've made one. Facebook fits the narcissism of our day in which men have become lovers of their own selves. What difference does it make how many friends you have as long as you have the friend of sinners Himself, the Lord Jesus.

14. Facebook breaks down decent language.

You can talk right on facebook, but it doesn't encourage it. What it encourages is drivel. We should want to elevate one another, to bring up the level of discourse. That doesn't occur when these abbreviations and slang are used. Young people even feel pressured to bow to talking like this. It attacks spelling, grammar, syntax, and cogent thought. It's lazy speech and many times gutter language.

15. Facebook spawns fraudulence and hypocrisy.

You don't have to be who you are on facebook. You can create a whole different persona of yourself that is a lie. It spawns this kind of activity. Here's what Trueman wrote on this:

On Facebook, I can be anybody I want to be: an eighteen year old Californian with a six-pack, good teeth, a sun tan and a pilot's license; or even a 25 year old blonde beauty queen from North Carolina with a degree in astrophysics. I can become the ultimate in self-created beings - a factor which, I am sure, also partially explains the massive, if little noted, popularity of role-playing video games in the modern world. In virtual world, be it Facebook or the undersea city portrayed in Bioshock, I can be anyone I choose to be. I am the Creator; or at least, I have the potential to think I am.

Even if you sort of know who you're talking to, the person can take advantage of the anonymity of it.

16. Facebook tempts toward infidelity.

I've seen married women talking to younger men on facebook, legitimizing this kind of relationship and giving a false boost to the boy's ego. Her picture might be the most inviting, even a little risque, putting thoughts in his mind that he shouldn't have. Men like to hear someone boast on them, and perhaps they're not getting enough of that at home. These places and others stimulate that kind of activity. Men and women mix in unhealthy ways that would be discouraged in a different setting. Her husband may not be talking to her like she is talked to. She doesn't have to work at it. She can just go to her facebook to get what she needs.

17. Facebook makes you a consumer in a day when we need more producers.

Facebook is a company. They sell ads. They make money off of you. You may not buy anything, but you are another statistic for them to use to sell ads. In other words, facebook is using you. You may think that you are using facebook, but I would say that the owners think otherwise, especially as they laugh all the way to the bank.

18. Facebook is an easy temptation when you need to be getting something done---really done.

You need to write. Go to facebook instead. Homework not done. Gotta do facebook. Need to memorize some Scripture. Facebook is there. Haven't exercised. Oh well, let's facebook. Trueman again writes:

Well, the virtual world is new but it is here to stay; and it will no doubt continue to shape human behavior and self-understanding. We cannot ignore it but neither should we simply allow it to dictate to us who we are and how we think. Thus, we must teach people by precept and example that real life is lived primarily in real time in real places by real bodies. Pale and pimply bloggers who spend most of their spare time onanistically opining about themselves and their issues and in befriending pals made up of pixels are not living life to the full; nor are those whose lives revolve around videogames; rather they are human amoebas, subsisting in a bizarre non-world which involves no risk to themselves, no giving of themselves to others, no true vulnerability, no commitment, no self-sacrifice, no real meaning or value. To borrow a phrase from Thoreau, the tragedy of such is that, when they come to die, they may well discover that they have never actually lived.

For myself, I rejoice that I grew up before the web and the videogame supplanted the real world of real friendships, real discussions, real lives. I did not spend my youth growing obese and developing Vitamin D deficiency in front of an illuminated screen, living my life through the medium of pixels.

19. Facebook causes more facebook.

Very few people could handle facebook in a scriptural manner. It offers so many temptations. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Nineteen might seem like a lot. I could have named more.

The Paradigm for Preservation of Scripture

We open the cover of our Bible and the first page is a test of faith. Why? No one was there. We have no way of knowing Genesis 1:1 was true, except for the Word of God. Should we interpret what we see in the world based upon what Scripture says or should we interpret the Bible based on what we see in the world? Do we go ahead and accept the Genesis account of origins, even if it reads against our own reasoning?

Kevin Bauder, dean of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, recently wrote in his In the Nick of Time an interesting thought experiment that I believe illustrates this paradigm:

Imagine that God comes to you with the announcement that He has just created an entirely new world, and He wants to show it to you. You agree, and in an instant you are transported into that world. At first you marvel at its beauty, but then you begin to notice phenomena that strike you as odd.

First, you notice that many of the trees in this world are already fully grown. Then you notice that they are surrounded by saplings and young trees in various stages of growth. You even notice seeds hanging on branches and, in some cases, lying on the ground. Plant life exists at every stage of development.

Then you notice that the world is populated by animals and birds. Many of these appear to be mature creatures, but you also notice their young. You find yourself surrounded by calves and foals and chicks and cubs of every sort. With a bit of investigation, you discover that there are already birds’ nests, and that some of them have eggs in them. Animal life exists at every stage of development.

As you wander, you discover a canyon with a river at the bottom. In the sides of the canyon you can plainly see the various layers of rock. You know that these geological strata are supposed to take many years to form. Geological formations exist at every stage of development.

As night falls, you cast your gaze toward the heavens. You behold a spangled expanse that is brighter and more piercing than any you’ve ever seen. But then you recall that this world is supposed to be less than a day old. Since stars are supposed to be light-years away, you wonder how you could be seeing them already. Yet you behold astral phenomena at every stage of development.

If you had no other source of information, you would assume that this world had been in existence for ages, not for mere hours. Interpreted within your normal frame of reference, the facts indicate an old world. At this point you must make a choice. You may choose to interpret the facts within your normal frame of reference and believe in an ancient world, or you may accept what the Creator said, and then search for some other interpretation of the facts.

This choice can never be made on the basis of the evidence itself. The evidence is what requires explanation. It does not explain itself. If you know that the Creator is capable of making Himself understood, and if you know that the Creator means to be understood and does not deceive, then you will believe in a young creation. If, on the other hand, you choose to interpret the evidence according to your normal assumptions, then you must conclude that perhaps the Creator is mistaken, or that He means to mislead, or perhaps that He is incapable of expressing Himself; at any rate, His words must be construed differently than He plainly intended.

Bauder ends his essay with this:

Christians must begin with an absolute commitment to the infinite-personal, faithful, apseudes God. This God can and does say exactly what He means. What He affirms is always true. Since the Bible is always His Word, it may always be trusted in anything that it asserts. The Bible is never to be interpreted by the facts of general revelation. On the contrary, the Bible itself communicates the grand context, the Truth (with a definite article and a capital T), the framework within which all facts must be interpreted.

Once we have presupposed the truth of Scripture, the facts remain interesting to us. We will certainly attempt to explain them. But our explanation never begins from some detached or neutral starting point. It certainly never begins with an assumption that facts are transparent or self-explanatory. We take God at His word.

Christians must never interpret facts from a position of autonomy. To do so is the essence of arrogance. Rather, humble submission to the Word of the Creator is the starting place for a right understanding of the world. When the Lord God speaks, His Word alters the entire frame of reference within which the facts are to be understood. A newly created world may look ancient but still be young. A divinely inspired text may look as if it had been produced like other literature, yet remain unique in its truthfulness. We can only know what a thing is if we are willing to begin by accepting what God says about it.

The approach Bauder describes for origins should be ours in any matter where we are not present to observe physical evidence. Much of what God expects for us depends on us believing what He said without any tangible proof. Jesus made this point in Luke 5 when he forgave the sins of a paralytic who was lowered before Him through the roof. He asked this question of the doubtful Pharisees and scribes (v. 23):

Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

It was easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee. It was easier to say because anyone could say those words and no one would know if they had actually occurred or not. There would be no proof that his sins were forgiven, because you couldn't see anything. It was much more difficult to say, "Rise up and walk," because everyone would know whether those words were credible. Of course, Jesus then heals the man, so that they would know that his sins were forgiven him. However, we're supposed to believe Jesus did something that we couldn't see, just because He said so. Believers don't need the sign that followed. They can believe something Jesus said, whether they had any other proof of it or not.

The story in Luke 5 illustrates again the paradigm for accepting the preservation of Scripture. God didn't promise that He would provide all the evidence that we need to believe. He didn't promise that for inspiration either. We weren't there when God inspired Scripture. We weren't there when the men wrote the Words. Most likely none of us have seen the original manuscripts. We don't know of anyone alive who has seen them.

What we believe must fit what we read the Bible saying about its own preservation. If our view of the evidence and our own reasoning doesn't fit what Scripture says, then we go ahead and believe God's Word and reject our view of evidence and our own reasoning. Not believing doesn't please God.

I guess that brings me to the typical strawman. The Bible doesn't say that God would preserve the King James Version. I want everyone that uses that argument right now to understand that it insults everybody's intelligence. We all know that Scripture doesn't say that.

The Bible does say things, however, that would have us reject the critical text. It says things that would have us expect general accessibility of God's Words. It says things that would have us expect perfection. It says things that would have us believe that God was at work in preservation. It says things that would have us believe that God preserved every Word and all of them---not physical pages without variants, but the Words. It says things that would have us believe that the Holy Spirit would be at work to ensure that we know what those Words are. It says things that would ensure us that we would not have to restore the text of Scripture but to receive it. That is the paradigm that we should follow for our belief in the preservation of Scripture.

What do you think it is like for God to tell us exactly how He created the world and yet we don't believe Him? Why not? Because we don't have any physical evidence or eyewitnesses for the origin of all things. What do you think it is like for God to tell us that He would preserve every Word so that all people for every generation could obey every One of those Words, but we won't believe Him? Why not? Because we don't have enough physical evidence to believe that, so we "believe" in textual criticism instead.

Liar, Liar....James White and AOM

Until the latest fiasco of James White with Bart Ehrman, and then his actions right afterwards, I didn't know him. I had seen him in some video and heard some audio, but very little besides that. I don't see from where the loyalty to him comes. He's got a lot of followers, it seems. Or at least a few that make a lot of noise. Their connection with him doesn't speak well of them. He needs help. Real help. That's what they should be offering.

Shortly after he lost his debate to Bart Ehrman, he went to full court defense mode. His photo could be next to "defensive" in the dictionary, because he defines it by what he says and how he says it. He sounds like the kid you grow up with in school that tries to get done with his test first, and when he does, he slaps down his pencil and then looks around and exhales out loud so that everyone will know he's done and so he can see who is looking at him. He got started on this in the debate itself during his closing comments by blaming Ehrman's position on postmodernism. These are not the words of someone who has been able to defeat a man's arguments. It might be true that Ehrman was motivated by postmodernism, but in a debate that is supposed to be about textual evidence, it comes up lame. "He, he, he, he's a, a, a postmodernist. So there!" And then he blames everyone except himself. It's not his fault. It was Ehrman. Little did everyone know, but Ehrman changed the proposition two weeks before the debate. Ehrman didn't understand me. The moon was in my eyes. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Now I see this is what White does. He goes into all out spin as soon as a debate ends, at least one like this that he lost. He declares victory---in the words of McDurmon, "he steamrolled" Ehrman. "And I, ahem, read and listened to everything that Ehrman wrote or uttered since he came from the womb. Just letting you know, not to brag on myself." Then he judges motives. And finally attacks the person. Besides that, he spends an incredible amount of time praising himself, attempting to reconstruct what he said in the debate, to make it sound bigger and better than what it was. And he solicits pity for himself as if he is persecuted---with all the melodramatic sighs and voice inflections. I've heard people call him inimitable. I've seen people similar to him, so I don't think it's the case. He is a caricature of an apologist, so he's only inimitable in that way.

I wrote a review of the debate. I thought it might be nice for my readers. White had enough on his hands just in debating Ehrman. But isn't it nice that he also had time to spend two blogs and one internet webcast (his Dividing Line program) going after me, judging my motives and attacking my character? He called me a "bigot" and a "liar." Not once does he deal with my criticisms of him in the debate. That was the best he could do, go after me. And he actually does understand that this strategy will be good enough with the people who listen to him. It works. What does that say about them? They like that about him, that he goes immediately for motives ("bigot") and character ("liar"). Just the fact that he has so much spin control in play to spend this kind of time on my blog review tells you a little about his state of mind. I do not know what his followers see in him to exhibit so much allegiance.

He comes across like a snake oil salesman, a wandering minstrel. He's got his truck and products, just a little more hi-tech. He possesses the necessary hubris to shamelessly self-promote, it seems, without any compunction. Except he deals with Scripture and against deniers of the faith. It's an activity that we can applaud, but by a person who behaves with a smugness strangely contradictory to the task.

I'm going to do a couple of things with this post. First, I'm going to clear up the "bigot" and "liar" thing. Second, I'm going to list a few James White-isms to show you what I'm talking about above. I don't think I need to illustrate to anyone who has limited abilities of observation, but I'm not going to take it for granted.

Name-Calling

The term "bigot" or "bigotry" is a slander as applied to me. Even based on the dictionary definition it doesn't apply, but especially with the modern connotation of "bigotry." Do you think that White went into the Ehrman debate with any prejudice based upon reading his books and listening to his audio? Of course, he did. I might know what White's position is on the text, but I believe I had far less prejudice toward White than I did toward Ehrman. I've read two of Ehrman's books. I've never read White's. I wrote a short tease for my analysis of the debate, that Alan Kurschner went wild over. They would do well to look at the criticism and take it seriously. It's hard to defend against prejudice because it is a judgment of one's motives for giving a negative opinion. I can assure White that if I had any prejudice, it was toward Ehrman and I stated such in my announcement of the debate. Bigotry should not be a word that someone just throws around.

Lies

White calls me a liar twice, but he doesn't evidence one lie by me. I'm going to document and enumerate all the lies that Kurschner and White said about me. One, On his Dividing Line program he said that I evidenced my detestation of Calvinism. I wrote: "I think it is White's Calvinism---God wanted errors in the text because of the greater good there would be (something like that)." I said "White's Calvinism." I never said anywhere that I detested Calvinism. So that's a lie. After that, he says that I lied. That is lie number two by him. His example of lying was this paragraph:

As sad as it could get in the debate, White couldn't muster up a defense of the historic position on preservation as seen in the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. He couldn't explain a scriptural position on preservation, perhaps because he doesn't even know what one is. He hasn't given it enough thought. He has been so busy reading Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace and Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbra Aland that he hasn't sorted through the passages in scripture on preservation and their historical understanding, reading Turretin and Owen and others.

What about that quote is a lie? He doesn't say. He just says I lied. I said "perhaps he doesn't know," etc. That isn't a lie. He didn't give any presentation at all on preservation. He doesn't mention it, even though he did bring up theology. Then he says that since he has written a book, the King James Version Controversy, that I should know that, especially since "I had printed lies about it." I've not read White's book. I've read several books on this issue, but not his. I've never printed one thing about his book. So that is lie number three.

I go to his blog on February 4, 2009 for lie number four. He says that KJV only people like me believe this: "We need a variantless text, no matter what the realities of history are." I believe there are variants. I don't believe that preservation means no variants. That also shows his ignorance of the historic position. He manifests it right there. The divines, Turretin and Owen, both believed there were variants as did all the other men who take the same position as I do.

Now let's go to Alan Kurschner's blog, titled "Kent Brandenburg's Myopic King James Onlyism," February 3, 2009. Before I get into his lies, I have a question? Why write a blog about me? How does that fit into this whole issue with Ehrman? No one really knows what my presuppositions are based upon his statement that I'm a "King James Version Only advocate." My presuppositions are what scripture teaches about its own preservation. I believe we have always had all of God's Words. Of course, these guys use the KJVO label as a pejorative---they know it as should everyone else. And then you know that based upon everything else he writes, so this false presupposition is lie number five.

He quotes me as saying "the skeptic [Ehrman]," then keeps talking as if I was talking about the debate. I wasn't referring to Ehrman or the debate there or I would have used a pronoun, not the generic singular noun. That is lie number six. When I write that "White reads Metzger to get his position," I am speaking of his presuppositions. They come from textual criticism, from evidentiary apologetics, not from scripture. Kurschner misses that. The reason I didn't cite any examples of White's scriptural presuppositions (which is what presuppositionalism is all about) was because I haven't heard any from him. I'd be glad to hear that he writes a presentation of the Bible teaching on preservation in his book. Does he? If he does, then it will be a first, because I've never read one by a critical text advocate.

Kurschner says that I believe in preservation in a "1611 Anglican translation." That is lie number seven. I believe it is in the Hebrew and Greek text. As a side note, many Puritans worked on the KJV as well. This is lie number eight: "what is ironic is that Kent Brandenburg would agree wholeheartedly with the agnostic, skeptic Bart Ehrman who both agree together that there cannot be any inspired, preserved text if there exists variants in a text." Lie number nine was his labeling me a fundamentalist. If he got out more, he would know that I'm not. He said several other nasty things, but they were all conclusions from these lies. The tenth lie is that I'm a bigot.

Those are the at least ten lies told about me by James White and AOM. I will be awaiting the repentance and retraction from White and Kurschner.

James White-Isms

In his latest video on his blog for February 5, 2009, he films himself explaining something about his debate with Ehrman (on conjectural emendations). So I'm not even cherry-picking. I'm looking at his last video. Let me break it down for you, so you have examples of White-isms. First, at about :24 he complains. That's the first thing he does in the video. "I had hoped for a more focused topic." Second, then sighs (at about :32), "Which is fine; it turned out very well." If it's fine, then why complain? Of course it wasn't fine to him. He has complained and whined about it, including in his monologue to McDurmon (it wasn't much of an interview). And it definitely didn't turn out very well. Third, at :42 he says, "One of the questions that I asked in cross-examination, that hasn't gotten any attention yet." Attention? White thinks he won that point, so he wants it to get attention, or at least he's sending out a notice to his followers that this is a point that they should be giving more attention. He's begging for kudos, White sycophants; give them to him. Now! Fourth, notice around :50 the tone in his voice when he talks about Ehrman not providing any contradictory argumentation to this point he made. This is classic White. Fifth, at about 1:00, consider the look, that dismissive glance that he makes, eyes pointing upward, in response to his own comment about something that Ehrman had said in the debate. He does this all the time. Then sixth, watch his expression of incredulity at 1:40 and, seventh, his mocking impersonation at 1:52. He does these seven things in a matter of less than two minutes.

Listen to the start of his Dividing Line where he calls me a liar and bigot---the tongue snapping, the long sighing, the condescension, the ridicule, mocking tones, the throat-clearing, and the laughter. "You've got to be kidding me," "like," "uhhhh, yes," "give me a break," "pleeaaase," and "I'm sorry, but...." He goes after Ehrman's marketing of his latest book, but what about the kind of schlock that White starts his own program with? He sighs and complains about all the money it cost to have Ehrman come over to debate him. Do people really enjoy this?

With a sinister voice, he says, "Alan Kurschner mentioned this Kent Brandenburg fellow." He laughs ridiculing. He says that the writing is rarely overly coherent (?), a "wild-eyed way of speaking" (??). I say it again, I would debate James White any time I'm free to do so on this topic.

Read this line that he ends his blog on 2/4/09 with: "one can only imagine what an encounter between one of these folks and Ehrman would look like, but that's another issue." How egotistical? He thinks so highly of himself. You could buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, and you'd be a billionaire.

What topped this off was his conversation with Robert on Dividing Line. I don't know Robert. Robert phoned in. His credentials: he wrote a comment on the puritanboard forum. That is the perfect KJVO person for James White to talk with. Then when Robert proceeded to flub up in his defense, should anyone wonder? I have to remember this strategy if I ever do my own webcast. Hand-pick your opponents and then say that they represent the typical advocates for a position. There are plenty of others on the puritanboard that would be able to do a great job against White, like Jerusalem Blade or Thomas Weddle (Thomas2007) or Matthew Winzer (armourbearer). Ooooh, feel that disdain for Calvinism pouring out? I'd like to hear you talk to one of these guys on Dividing Line, James White, and you probably won't even have to pay for a speaking fee.

I don't mind debating White. However, why would anyone want to? As soon as the debate is over, he puts all his combined resources to creating a story of the debate to affect the perceptions of readers of what really happened. You would just have to learn to put up with it. I guess this is the "gentleness" of James White coming out that is part of the introduction to his Dividing Line program. After he laughs and hisses and feigns incredulity, then he poses as a victim. This is the exact kind of thing that Bart Ehrman rolled his eyes at during the debate, not expecting to encounter these kinds of melodramatics. What I would rather hear about my criticism of the debate is real analysis of the criticism. That would come across as credible.