Preserving the Truth: An Interview with Mike Harding about the January Conference

[Mike Harding]…the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.

The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic.

[Steve Davis] As God sent His Son into the world, as Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world, so Father, Son, and Holy Spirit send the Church into the world. The church is on mission daily and not only when gathered on Sunday. God’s people are in the world, in their communities, in the lives of unbelievers – for the gospel’s sake, to make Christ known, to be a visible expression of God’s power and proclamation.

[Steve Davis] We have to ask ourselves why, in your word, younger guys are “enamored” with men like Piper and Dever.

[Steve Davis] You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like “missional.”

[Paul J. Scharf]

IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:

[Charlie] Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?

[Paul J. Scharf] Steve,

I do not believe that the church has an incarnational ministry in the world which mimics the incarnation of Christ as God in human flesh. Phil. 3:20, 21 and many other passages would seem to offer a different slant to the entire issue. To me, the “missional” (incarnational) approach ties directly to Covenant Theology, Theonomy and postmillennialism. I am sure the subject is bigger than we can solve here in short order. “Mission,” like prophecy, is also a view with a variety of interpretations.

[Charlie]

[Paul J. Scharf]

IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:

At least at the early stages of a movement’s growth, it isn’t possible to accept because it is popular. ‘Popular’ is a word we use to denote something that is currently being accepted by many people. Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?

[Caleb S] A while back I was utterly blown away by a thread or front page article that basically called “Dispensationalism” the ultimate theology. Now, I’ve studied it, read the books; but NEVER would I ever call dispensationalism the chief theology. When I saw that thread it struck me at utterly wrong headed (sorry to whoever wrote it).

I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.

[Aaron Blumer]

[dmicah]

I think you’ve misread these guys. Do you know them? I’d just say go and see. You may be very surprised. This is not the obsess-on-the-past corner of fundamentalism.

As for promoting things Jesus did not promote and leading with things Paul taught as a last resort, I think this partly misjudges Jesus and Paul but mostly misjudges these fundamentalists. What they lead with is what they’re doing the other 363 days of the year. This conference is aimed at particular problems and approaches them differently than they’ve been approached a good of the time in the past. It’s aimed at the future.

“To highlight our doctrinal purity”… do you think that might be a slightly cynical way to characterize their motives?

Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your Church

I’m not sure what you mean by this one. The theology is erroneous? The delivery is boring? Barring that, how can theology limit the influence of a church? Size.. alas, yes. It can limit that! But influence and size don’t correlate because “influence” occurs when ideas are dismissed and rejected as well as when they are welcomed and embraced. The task is to expose folks to “all things that I have commanded you,” and the results are not really our department.

First…Paul Scharf may have been correct when he said that i had too much coffee before i wrote that response. Re-reading, i must apologize for sounding snarky. i don’t know how to roll out smiley faces and such :-). i am serious in my disagreement for a conference of this nature, but the titles were certainly tongue in cheek.

I know none of these men personally, only through their writings, and they are very conservative men. My issue w/a conference of this nature is that leading with the topic of separation, interpreting current issues through the matrix of separation, focusing on separation, having a passion for separation is an incorrect starting point on the map. Therefore, I don’t need to know them personally, I know their frame of reference. The interview and their website indicates a major disconnect with reality. People are searching for the matters that unite, not that divide. The heartbeat of traditional separatism is pride. I am not saying these are proud men or that they are traditional militant separatists. I am not saying separation from heresy and sin are unimportant. But rallying a group of people around ecclesiological separation is not what Jesus did.

My overarching point has to do with the reasons younger fundamentalists recoil from these things. We understand that Jesus’ great commission actually does imply separation. By making disciples, men/women become set apart to God, away from evil and worldliness and those who would preach a self-serving false gospel. Yet, the mission of this conference as stated on their website is “presenting accurate theological positions on important, current doctrinal issues from a biblical, separatist viewpoint.” The What Is PTC page goes on to deliver an academic oriented description of its purpose. My passion on this is for those who care to step back for a moment and see how magnificently devoid of spiritual power this appears to be. From their website “Our conference will endeavor to bring together some of the brightest and best biblical separatists, young and old, in order to address these issues.”

This sounds nothing like

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Cor 2:1-2 ESV

I am not trying to be cynical. I can only go on my lifelong experiences with those who trumpet the subjects of doctrinal purity. Their Christianity is usually characterized by looking with disdain on those who approach topics like creation or eschatalogy with varying viewpoints, sneering at others’ statements of faith, or dripping condescension with statements like “he does a lot of great stuff, but i’d never have him in my pulpit because of XYZ.” This is why I speak of separatists claiming a corner on truth. This is why I speak of separatists highlighting a powerless theology that relegates the Holy Spirit to its rightful place…a study in Pneumatology, thereby limiting the size and influence of their church. The Spirit will not work where he is not allowed. Like Apollo Creed said in Rocky III, “Don’t tell me what you think, go out there and do it.”

Remember, i am a separatist. Ecclesiologically, I have no problem slamming an evangelical preacher like Furtick who recently put on a 24 hour preaching marathon that invoked God’s power while selling Furtick’s book QVC style. Yet I have learned many things from watching his ministry. Though I’ll hang out with non-Christians who enjoy intoxication, smoke like chimneys, curse like military personnel, and engage in other nefarious behavior, personally, I will not maintain friendships with Christians who revel in sinful behavior. My lines of demarcation are different than many traditional conservative fundamentalists, but I still separate from that which is unholy.

What I cannot accept, and why so many of my generation have blurred the distinction between a fundamentalist and an evangelical, are those who have commandeered militant and aggressive separation with strictly regulated theology and immaculate doctrinal statements as the clarion call of the body of Christ. I recognize the two-edged sword. But there is a nuance to it. I am a separatist because I cling to the power, purity and presence of Jesus, and take action based upon this. I am not a separatist because I define all of the other folk as wrong, or not as fundamental/mature as me. And that is what I see when I see Preserving the Truth conferences. I foresee a lot of talking, back-slapping, glad-handing, education honoring and self-congratulatory teaching that unintentionally converts the gospel of reconciliation into a gospel of separation.

I’ll finish my diatribe by saying that I appreciate that these men hold God’s Word in high regard and preach Jesus as the way, truth and the life. However, I think it is going back in time, and a mistake to lead with the doctrine of separation and focus on elements of theology rather than the God of the theology.

[Becky Petersen] I know I’m showing my ignorance, but what is the “missional church model”? How is it different from any other kind of church planting?

[CAWatson] Dr. Davis,

My concern with those who have denied a literal six day creationism is along two lines:

1. Against the Hugh Ross types (day-age) - I have strong disagreement with the concept that science is the 67th book of the Bible, along with the problem of animal death before the fall. Ross has to create a different redemptive history that explains moving from a good universe to a perfect universe, as opposed to a perfect universe falling and being redeemed.

2. Against the modern evangelical movement within OT studies (denial of Adam’s existence) - If you deny the historicity of Adam (and thus that sin brings physical/spiritual death), then you have no basis for the death of Christ being an actual propitiatory, atoning death.

These are serious theological problems that are easily solved by a literal reading of the Old Testament accounts on creation.

Credo Ut Intelligam

[Steve Davis] I don’t care if someone holds to YEC but it doesn’t come from the text. An emphasis on the age of the earth misses the point of Genesis, distracts from the message of Genesis. In my opinion it’s the wrong battle to fight. There’s nothing to gain by arguing for a young earth in the face of science when (and this is important) the Bible doesn’t present that kind of evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text. I don’t know how old the earth is, whether 10,000 or 10 million years old.

Christopher Wright is another fairly well known proponent of the idea. He says (and he may be quoting someone else, I can’t remember, or I may have my citations mixed up), It is not that the church has a mission; it is that the mission has a church. In this scenario, mission is broader than the church, and for some (towards the high missional end) mission can take place apart from or outside the church; in other words the church is unnecessary for mission. In some ways, this latter group come close to the social gospel emphasis, that reconciliation is more horizontal than vertical.

[Larry] In some sense, missional is the new buzzword that incarnates 1 cor 9:22 … It is all things to all men. When someone says they are missional, you have to find out what they mean by that.

To add to Steve’s post, another and more accessible resource (meaning you don’t have to buy it) is Ed Stetzer’s blog (edstetzer.com) where he has a number of articles on what it means to be missional,

I’ve read all of Christopher Wright’s work and don’t remember him saying that mission can take place apart or outside of the church. Do you have a source for this? In all of his works that I have read, he is very God-centered and church centered. He does allow political, social, and economic dimensions as part of mission, but with evangelism as ultimate and always connected to the church.

Also, I feel we fundies throw around the social gospel term a little too loosely these days. The social gospel of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s is much, much different than what Christopher Wright is advocating in his book Mission of God and his role in chairing and influencing the upcoming Lausanne conference on evangelism.

[Dr. Davis] YEC … adds … to authorial intent.

[ibid.]. . the Bible doesn’t present [YEC] evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text.

[DavidO]

[Dr. Davis] YEC … adds … to authorial intent.

Where’s the authorial intent clause in/about Genesis?

[ibid.]. . the Bible doesn’t present [YEC] evidence. Supposed evidence has to be imported into the text.

Assuming this is true (meaning assuming that the author of Genesis intended to tell us absolutely nothing about time frames or the specific mechanism by which we received the earth we now have), then the what you assert above is also true of Theistic Evolution.

I have no reason to think that you aren’t as vociferous with people who would import TE evidence into Genesis. Fair enough.

It does seem to me, however, that some TE proponents and even “origins agnostics” are more comfortable with the TE framework simply because it isn’t as offputting to the pagans who are increasingly idolizing science.

[Paul J. Scharf]

[Steve Davis] You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like “missional.”

Yes. My thing is — if you want to be Reformed, be Reformed! We will still be friends :D. But don’t tell me about a 22-year-old young fundamentalist, who may or may not have had adequate teaching in Bible college even to the point he is at, who has tried dispensationalism and found it wanting — and is now heading off to the land of Piper and Dever. He may be rejecting the froth of the past (see above), but he is either untaught or ill-prepared to make the decision to reject other things (like creationism or dispensationalism) that he thinks are intrinsic to said froth, and that makes me sad :cry:.

IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:

[Paul J. Scharf]

[Charlie] Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?

Charlie,

I am not sure I have the answer to your profound question. Is it possible that initially the fundamentalists were trying to beat something with nothing and the Reformed resurgence was there to fill the void? This thing has been building for quite a while.

I look at the guys I went to Bible college with who were ministerial/Bible-type students, and it would not take me long to go down the list of names of those who are still within the orbit they started in. The rest have moved on to either Reformed, Seeker, Emergent, Purpose-Driven or some other realm.

In some cases, they either never attended seminary, or made their jump before going to a seminary of a different stripe. Thus, they may not have truly understood what they were leaving behind.

What turned them off was not six-day creationism or the church being separate from Israel, but in most cases it was growing up in a church/school where they had to wear a tie six days a week, use the KJV, spend 300 hours per year in church and avoid theaters.

[Paul J. Scharf] Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc….

[Bob Hayton] I recently did a http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/10/05/go-or-send-how-best-to-… post on the topic myself. In a simpler sense it boils down to “going” or “sending”. Do we tell people to “go” to the church where they will be evangelized at various evangelistic events or drawn in by various church programs? Or do we equip and “send” our people out into the wider community with the message of Christ? Many times the fundamentalist model of “doing church”, really doesn’t jive with the model we find in Scripture. Being missional sounds like a Biblical pattern. The rub is how much do we focus on the community is answered differently by various missional models.

A poignant application point for all of us would be this: how much contact with the lost people in the world around you, do you really have? Is our involvement in the church and its programs, and our business about “doing church” and learning the Bible in group studies, and our desire to fellowship with believers and find our identity in the church, is all of this detracting from our ability to meaningfully interact and take the Gospel to the lost? Are we so busy talking about the world, and keeping away from its influences, that we aren’t actually taking the Gospel to the world around us?

[Steve Davis] Since Bob is shamelessly promoting his recent blog posting, which is worth reading, I want to imitate him in http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/07/missional-church-planting-mode…] my recent posting . This is a discussion worth having.

Steve

[Bob Hayton] Ah, but I wrote my post not knowing the topic was being discussed over here! ;) Still, your post is worth reading too. And I liked http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/03/5k-on-sunday/ this one , you had linked to earlier in this thread.

[Bob Hayton] Even if a dispensational literalistic hermeneutic is the ultimate hermeneutical approach, it doesn’t follow that such a hermeneutic results in certainty, or absolute certainty which seems to be what is intended. We can understand the text with a high degree of certainty, and yet still allow for difficult passages and limitations in our abilities to perceive all the text is saying.

[Caleb S] Hours and hours, page after page is put into demonstrating that Israel is not the church, or that a literal hermeneutic (whatever that is) is the way to go.

[Aaron Blumer] YEC debate probably belongs in another thread. It’s related to this one in some ways, but it tends to get pretty involved and passionate so it might work better in a separate thread. Maybe post a link to it here so it’ll be easier to find.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theolgical. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner, 2009 edition, pg. 80)

The real point of divergince is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

[Bob Hayton]

[Paul J. Scharf] Of course, I disagree with you on the importance of a literal hermeneutic. If you do not understand the text with certainty, then logically you could not approach the text to learn more about God, etc….

I don’t agree with you here. One can actually have absolute certainty in their understanding of a text because of the methodology they employ in their hermeneutic? Even if a dispensational literalistic hermeneutic is the ultimate hermeneutical approach, it doesn’t follow that such a hermeneutic results in certainty, or absolute certainty which seems to be what is intended.

[Bob Hayton] We can understand the text with a high degree of certainty, and yet still allow for difficult passages and limitations in our abilities to perceive all the text is saying. We can do this and still learn about God.

[Bob Hayton] It is one of God’s graces to us, that even though we struggle with interpretations and sometimes scratch our head over competing textual variants, yet the message of the Gospel shines through loud and clear, and our personal relationship with Jesus Christ remains untouched.

[Bob Hayton] Such a statement as that I quoted can belie an approach that enshrines the Bible as a spiritual talisman and could lead to bibliolatry. We can know God through prayer, and there is much in interpretation that the Christian church is almost unanimous on, and that is the Gospel, and the doctrine of God. That remains most important, irrespective of exegetical squabbling.

“Well, I am having trouble learning the Bible and I don’t have an understanding of how to interpret it (most people to have a basic hermeneutic btw or else they could not communicate with others and survive so people do understand and use rules of interpretation everyday) therefore I will circumvent this necessity and just go to God in prayer and he will reveal to me what is revealed in Scripture but this time I won’t have to interpret it, he will do it for me”. Eh?

[Bob Hayton]

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee or the postmodern theology).