Jeremy Sweatt discusses results of new survey of young fundamentalists

FYI… Jeremy says he’ll send me a copy of the survey results and grants permission to post.

Alex Guggenheim: would you mind rendering your comment in clearer terms? I can’t make sense of what you wrote, but it sounds fairly provocative, and whatever you are trying to say seems to be fairly begging for a reply of some kind. I do not want to disappoint.

[Phil Johnson] A few corrections to the data given in Jeremy Sweatt’s message and in the summary above:

1. The material Mr. Sweatt quoted from me was not (as he claimed) from my blog, but from a private e-mail I sent to someone who asked me a private question. Had I written it for public consumption, or had I known someone would quote it in a message to a fundamentalist group and put the message on line, I would have been less elliptical and more careful to avoid all possible ambiguities.

Jeremy showed me the e-mail he received before he began his session. I was amazed at its contents (and pleased). However, as I recall, Jeremy was under the impression that it was from your blog, not from a private e-mail. I believe that is the way it was represented to him, but he can speak to that point himself. I think it may have been something passed on through several hands before he received it.

[Phil Johnson] 2. To wit: the actual “gist” of my remark was NOT that John MacArthur “doesn’t like the direction T4G is headed,” but that he is concerned about the tendency toward doctrinal minimalism among EVANGELICALS IN GENERAL.

But would he or you say that there is a kind of doctrinal minimalism with T4G? And if so, is it a kind of minimizing that would be “going too far” or “about right”?

[Phil Johnson] 3. The few reasons I gave for John MacArthur’s non-participation in T4G 2012 were by no means an exhaustive list. There are some additional factors that have contributed to his decision to “quietly back away from some of the large coalition meetings” [note: this isn’t about T4G in particular, or even mainly]. For one thing, he isn’t comfortable with the rock-star status the Young and Restless seem determined to confer on their heros. I think he is eager to yield THAT place in the spotlight to someone else.

You know, I really would be interested in an exhaustive list. Are there more reasons for Dr. MacArthur’s non-participation that could be shared?

[Jay C.]

Steve Davis - I think we’d need a valid definition first, but I’ll be happy to check the YF box if you need at least one :)

Thanks Jay C. That’s one. Twenty-nine more to go :-) Seriously, it would be interesting to know where the sample came from.

Steve

Listen to the lecture. He sent out requests to friends of his who fit the age group he had in mind. He asked them to forward it to as many of their friends as they could. He then compiled the responses as they came in. The respondents came from a wide spectrum of fundamentalism (fundamentalisms?).

Jeremy made it very clear that his survey was NOT scientific. His personal opinion is that the views were representative of the age group among fundamentalists in general.

So… take it for what it’s worth. The survey itself is probably as good as the opinions expressed in any one thread on fundamentalism on SI.

[Don Johnson] Jeremy was under the impression that it was from your blog, not from a private e-mail. I believe that is the way it was represented to him

That’s what he indicated in his lecture. I don’t fault him (except that he obviously did not verify the source); the person who first unleashed the email into the fundamentalist grapevine is obviously the one who committed the actual protocol breach. But I’m not trying to make a big deal out of it. Things like that do happen, and it’s ok. I would have answered the question for anyone who asked anyway. Nothing against Jeremy. I found his lecture eye-opening. But I also wanted to clarify what I was saying, what I wasn’t saying, and in what context I said it.

[Don Johnson] But would he or you say that there is a kind of doctrinal minimalism with T4G?

It’s certainly not a deliberate aim of T4G as an organization to advocate superficiality or minimalism. But clearly the danger does exist that young people and marginal evangelicals will misunderstand the organization’s true aim or use the fellowship of a large group like that to push a more ecumenical agenda. The fact that one of the key speakers (Piper) has in effect already done so shows how imminent the threat is.

But MacArthur’s withdrawal from the evangelical conference circuit (more precisely, his diminished participation in it) is not a statement about T4G per se.

[Don Johnson] Are there more reasons for Dr. MacArthur’s non-participation that could be shared?

We’d have to ask him that specific question. The overriding issue, of course, is that he is at a turning point in his ministry, having completed preaching verse by verse through the entire NT. He is taking the whole summer off to plan the next decade of his ministry. I know that he is tired of traveling and conference-speaking and wants to concentrate on pastoral ministry down the home stretch. He also thinks the big-conference, evangelical-celebrity trend isn’t altogether healthy. So it’s mainly a question of the stewardship of his time and his influence.

I appreciate your answers.

And I do appreciate a lot of Dr. MacArthur’s contributions over the years. There are issues where we disagree, but I have appreciated his willingness to speak up on various issues, especially Driscoll and now, it appears, Piper’s questionable associations.

Thanks!

[Steve Davis]
Thanks Jay C. That’s one. Twenty-nine more to go :-) Seriously, it would be interesting to know where the sample came from.

Steve, there were hundreds of young fundies at the Preserving the Truth conference in Troy last Jan. Not all the young guys there would have claimed the term, but I’m pretty sure most would have.
We’ll do a new survey here soon and see how many we can “scare up” :D

[Don Johnson] Listen to the lecture. He sent out requests to friends of his who fit the age group he had in mind. He asked them to forward it to as many of their friends as they could. He then compiled the responses as they came in. The respondents came from a wide spectrum of fundamentalism (fundamentalisms?).

Jeremy made it very clear that his survey was NOT scientific. His personal opinion is that the views were representative of the age group among fundamentalists in general.

So… take it for what it’s worth. The survey itself is probably as good as the opinions expressed in any one thread on fundamentalism on SI.

Thanks Don. I’m not sure what it’s worth when you send out a survey to your friends and friends of friends. If it’s not scientific then it’s hard to imagine that it can be representative of the age group except as opinion which isn’t worth much. I have not listened to the lecture but will take your advice and do so.

[Susan R] The survey is valid as an experiment, but not as a tool. The results can only be interpreted to represent the opinions of those who took the survey. Add to that the probability that the respondents were not chosen at random but were a convenience sample, and you’ve blown any really useful conclusions.

Well said, Susan. I cringed every time he followed the claim of “it’s not scientific” with “but I think it’s valid.” The question is: valid as what? Maybe the best thing that would come from this is that it could be a rough draft of a larger survey. I liked many of the questions. That said, there is always going to be a problem of never knowing we had an accurate sample when the group doesn’t strongly self identify as a YF. I don’t think I know a YF who, if asked if he were one, wouldn’t wisely ask “what do you mean by that?”

If you give the survey at a conference, you’re still only measuring that conference.

A quick chime in on T4G thingy. The Gospel Coalition blogosphere has been discussing the dangers of “conference Christians.” I think T4G and TGC both recognize the potential dangers, and I would argue that the same dangers exist for just about every group. There are those who I might call “MacArthurites” who (probably to John MacArthur’s own horror) hang on his every word in an unhealthy emphasis as if he’s the last word on any subject. We’ve had several well-suited men come into our church to visit and their first questions relate to how much we like John, and it’s sometimes creepy and off-putting. We all tend to fall into a party spirit once in a larger group, and we should remember to beware of what happens to people in large groups - they often go nuts.

While Phil Johnson is still here (and we may not have him back in a while), is there anything that Grace Community does to continually de-emphasize John’s larger than life personality and gifting? I know he’s personally very humble, but he is so gifted that he becomes enamoring. Have you seen this kind of party spirit (or whatever the word is for it) from where you sit?

[Shaynus] While Phil Johnson is still here (and we may not have him back in a while), is there anything that Grace Community does to continually de-emphasize John’s larger than life personality and gifting? I know he’s personally very humble, but he is so gifted that he becomes enamoring. Have you seen this kind of party spirit (or whatever the word is for it) from where you sit?

i asked this question in another thread, but it was kind of a flop there, but I am just wondering if it can be true.

my basic question is: can churches magnify the gift of teaching in an inappropriate way, like the gift of tongues was in the corinthian church?

I ask b/c we have a church here in kiev that has recently shifted into this macarthur-style teaching-the-word focus, and some of our church members visit there, it’s so puffed up as the o.n.l.y. best/right way to preach and lead a service, that my husband’s gotten pressure to start this whole type of focus and style of preaching at our church. I have also attended a church similar to this in the past. So, as I was reading Corinthians, i wondered if it’s possible that, in imitating MacArthur’s true gifting, churches are not a little running after a certain gift. To the degredation of other gifts.

disclaimer—I am in no wise trying to de-emphasize the need for sound teaching.

do you think that this is possible?

Jeremy’s survey results are posted now in a new thread here: http://sharperiron.org/filings/6-25-11/19371
Looks like he only got 20 of his 30 tabulated for that report. I’m thinking that a bunch came in at the last minute.

Anne, about JMac’s preaching…
It’s pretty much just exposition. J.M. is not the only one to use “this style,” by a long shot, though there is no doubt he has done a great deal to make people aware of it again.
I’m not sure what gift it would be other than the gift of teaching + gift of pastor/teacher (Eph.4). I guess in the broader sense of “gift,” he certainly has a talent for what he does in addition to the gifts.
Can churches over-emphasize one gift? I think any good thing can be overemphasized. In this day and age, it’s hard to imagine that overemphasizing expositional preaching is possible, but I do believe it’s possible. Just very rare in our times.

[Shaynus] is there anything that Grace Community does to continually de-emphasize John’s larger than life personality and gifting

I think this is a much larger problem for people who view John MacArthur from afar than for those who actually intersect with his life and ministry. He isn’t that sort of larger-than-life persona who encourages hero-worship. In short, John MacArthur himself continually discourages the sort of sycophancy that would elevate him above all others. We have a plurality of elders at Grace Church, and attendance and involvement at the church remains steady even when John is away for an extended time, as he is this summer.

Of course, that’s not to say there is no danger that some might think more highly than they ought to think of John MacArthur (or any other elder). The Corinthian tendency is a perennial temptation, and a particular pitfall for any church led by a man or men with extraordinary gifts. Peter, Paul, and Apollos each had their loyalists in Corinth, and Spurgeon had flattering followers worldwide (and still does). The best way to counter that, I think, is the way Paul did it: teach that it’s wrong and divisive. (The failure of certain fundamentalist leaders to do this—or rather, their blatant encouragement of hero-worship—is one of the chief reasons fundamentalist movement is dying.)

[Anne Sokol] we have a church here in kiev that has recently shifted into this macarthur-style teaching-the-word focus, and some of our church members visit there, it’s so puffed up as the o.n.l.y. best/right way to preach and lead a service

I’m not sure what you have in mind when you speak of “macarthur-style teaching-the-word focus,” and I’m not sure what alternatives are in play here. The Bible itself mandates a Word-centered ministry, and where the alternative is drama, dialogue, a sing-fest, coffee time, or something equally banal, I’d want to encourage churches to understand that the preaching and teaching of the Word is indeed a better way.

If (on the other hand) the clash is between verse-by-verse teaching through whole books of the Bible versus jumping around from topic to topic or moving from one text to an unrelated text (as Spurgeon did), I’d try to teach those people who are “puffed up” that pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

I don’t know if I can …

I’m not criticizing John MacArthur; I’m not criticizing expository preaching. John MacArthur personally excels at expository preaching, and it is good. I don’t think he inflates himself at all. (Repeat that 20 times.)

I guess I’m looking at the idea that expository preaching is always the best way. I used to think it was, I went to Mt. Calvary in Greenville where one of the best expository preachers teaches :)

I have wrestled a little bit with this idea with my husband b/c I have assumed that expos preaching is “God’s best” for all preachers. He doesn’t accept that idea, so I’ve had to think about it. Vitaliy says that expository preaching is not right or best for all audiences. He’s all for teaching, but I guess teaching (biblically) doesn’t really equal expository preaching (expos is just one style or method of teaching). Jesus didn’t preach that way. Paul, I dont’ think you’d call it expository. Augustine (talk about teaching by allegory, Vitaliy says), Martin Luther …

So I guess I think that people look at one man (like MacArthur) who is so very gifted at this style of teaching, and then they make it the gold standard, and it becomes kind of elevated in an off-kilter way in a church. I don’t mean to minimize the importance of God’s Word either. But is it correct to think (as I used to judge other churches) that because we have a good expository preacher we are elevating the Word of God to it’s proper place, unlike churches who don’t don’t have that emphasis. All the gifts in the body have to be working normally and equally to make a church healthy and able to reach the world, kwim? Teaching is one of those, but only one. Should it be the main one? the coveted one? Gifts of discernment and wisdom, giving, etc. How do they also come into play in all this?

Im just thinking here, wrestling with these things. Been thinking about Paul’s prayer in Eph 3, how we are filled to all God’s fullness in the context of the church.