I am also troubled by many of the same things this resolution warns against. Is this, in a nutshell, the “Convergence” which Bro. Johnson and the FBFI are warning against?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
if/what the overlap is between ACCC membership is and FBFI membership is. If I remember correctly, there was a fair bit in the past, but I don’t know either list as the organizations are currently constituted.
EDIT:
New Calvinism is restless in that it is dissatisfied with the godly standards and confessional theology held by previous generations of Calvinists.
Wow, broadbrush much?
The ACCC seems to be throwing everything together into one pot and mis-labelling it as ‘New Calvinism’. There are issues there, for sure, but when I read that post, it’s basically a repudiation of ‘stuff we don’t like’ with ‘stuff we don’t believe’ and a dollop of ‘bad theology’. Some of their points are pretty laughable and make the whole thing hard to swallow.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I hear you. I’m trying to take a step back and see if (a) I’m just interpreting the resolution in a negative way because I want to, or (b) if the thing really is badly written, even if there are some valid points in there.
It sounds similar to a lot of what I hear from the FBFI; a strong emphasis on a “remnant theology” which has a tendency to result in perpetual wagon-circling. It reminds me of the movie “The Village.” (NOTE: this comparison will only make sense if you’re aware of the plot twist towards the end of the movie).
I’ll have to read the resolution again a few times. It makes some good points.I do wonder why this is about 10 years too late.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Furthermore, John Piper, the designated “father” of the YRR, has distorted Scripture, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the works of Jonathan Edwards to promote a brand of hedonism that makes God’s glory contingent on man’s pursuit of pleasure. [xi]
I’m sorry, but if the ACCC thinks that Piper’s argument is that God is glorified when man is living for [what they imply as selfish] pleasure, then they haven’t read Piper. Piper specifically attacks that argument all over the place in his writings. Here’s literally the first result I got when I searched for “Desiring God Christian Hedonism”. I didn’t even have to open my copy of Desiring God [!]:
If you must, forgive me for the label. But don’t miss the truth because you don’t like my tag. My shortest summary of it is: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Or: The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. Does Christian Hedonism make a god out of pleasure? No. It says that we all make a god out of what we take most pleasure in. My life is devoted to helping people make God their God by wakening in them the greatest pleasures IN HIM (emphasis added by Jay).
This is either sloppy misunderstanding or malicious attack. I’ll report - you decide. I know which way I am leaning.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’d better not say this too loudly during deer season, but as a “four pointer” (I have trouble with limited atonement, but I’m still working through things), I got a kick out of how they made a point of referring to Calvin, Spurgeon, and the like as “deceased”. Really? So Genesis 6:3 has not indeed been removed from the Bible! Whew! I also got a kick of how they twisted Piper’s theory of Christian hedonism as saying “God’s glory is contingent on man’s pursuit of pleasure.” Agree or disagree with Piper, no, that’s not how he presents it.
Fun aside, I’ve got to commend them for being fairly specific in their allegations, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions. To wrestle with this:
1. Regarding popular culture, why is the popular culture of the 1600s through the 1800s acceptable—things like new instrumentation, four part harmony (except in camp meeting songs of course), the men’s suit, etc..—but popular culture of the 20th and 21st centuries is not? How can we possibly make a Biblical argument for this? Why is the dividing line roughly between revival songs and the blues and jazz?
2. Regarding the list of those from whom “new Calvinists” do not separate, I am at least partially in agreement. I can learn from Catholic and other theologians without having fellowship with them, as things like the Council of Trent get in the way. Billy Graham? Big phenomenon, but where is the long term fruit? The only thing I’d note is that we ought to be as hard on ourselves when our own outreaches bear little or not fruit. If God’s word does not return void, we ought to expect something.
3. Regarding charismatic theology among young Calvinists, I agree at least in part. While I am not personally a “hard” cessationist (as I suspect AACC and FBFI are), I simultaneously would agree that the hypothesis of cessationism is compatible with the general lack of evidence for genuine tongues, prophecy, and the like. We need to take reports of signs and wonders with at least a grain of salt.
4. Alcohol wasn’t mentioned? Really? When it’s a joke among “New Calvinists” that “Calvinist” means “Christian that drinks beer”? Something of a surprise, but seriously, space is limited, and I’ve got to commend AACC for NOT dragging this (and Tyler’s movies, and mine) into the matter at this point. They kept on topic.
The neo-fundamentalist call to the convergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals rang loud and clear from the Zondervan publication Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website. The neo-fundamentalist tolerance for men who neglect or repudiate separatist convictions has spread to the campuses of former citadels of fundamentalism, like Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA (scheduled to cease academic operations at the end of the 2013-14 academic year) and Northland International University in Dunbar, WI. We are deeply grieved by these developments.
What we are clearly in need of is a resolution (maybe even a joint one by the FBFI and the ACCC) admonishing everyone of the evils of SharperIron and the need for all God’s people to stop reading and posting here. As a matter of fact, maybe we should ban the phrase ‘sharpening iron’ (and all possible cognates) from Christian vernacular as well, while we’re at it…
Hey Jim - looks like I bailed out of the admin team just in time, huh? That was what, three years ago? :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Back in the day when I was a “fellowshipper” (GARBC, NRBFC, FBF, IFCA, ACCC, World Congress of Fundamentalists) the ACCC was attractive to me because of its embracing of fundamentalists from varied denominations. (A quality not appreciated by some of the other fellowships.) I haven’t had any contact with them for years and this announcement surprised me, not for its content, but for the venue of the meeting. A relatively small (but sound) Baptist church in Maine. Maine? As I’ve said before, some of these groups have circled the wagons to the point where one wonders if there will be enough wagons to circle.
And Jay, welcome to “The Village” fan club. A number of years ago my son, who’s one of the YRR’s, invited me to watch “The Village” with him. I really got into the intrigue of the story. When the movie ended, I looked over to see him sitting with arms folded, staring at me. “We lived there didn’t we Dad?”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I don’t remember anything about the movie. All I remember is the woman climbing over the wall and being confronted by a puzzled private security guard. I remember drawing an immediate parallel to certain segments of fundamentalism, and I recall the impact of that thought hitting me like a sledgehammer. That is all I remember about the movie.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m not trying to stir up debate about fundamentalism. I really don’t even like discussing it. But, to use a lame journalist excuse, that’s what’s newsworthy right now. Not my fault, is it!? All the same, I wonder why the FBFI and now the ACCC are issuing these salvos now. What is the impetus? What is the problem? What has happened recently to cause these two fundamentalist organizations to issue similar statements to their constituencies about essentially the same thing at the same time?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion
NewConvergence?
I am also troubled by many of the same things this resolution warns against. Is this, in a nutshell, the “Convergence” which Bro. Johnson and the FBFI are warning against?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewI'd be interested to see
if/what the overlap is between ACCC membership is and FBFI membership is. If I remember correctly, there was a fair bit in the past, but I don’t know either list as the organizations are currently constituted.
EDIT:
Wow, broadbrush much?
The ACCC seems to be throwing everything together into one pot and mis-labelling it as ‘New Calvinism’. There are issues there, for sure, but when I read that post, it’s basically a repudiation of ‘stuff we don’t like’ with ‘stuff we don’t believe’ and a dollop of ‘bad theology’. Some of their points are pretty laughable and make the whole thing hard to swallow.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewJay
I hear you. I’m trying to take a step back and see if (a) I’m just interpreting the resolution in a negative way because I want to, or (b) if the thing really is badly written, even if there are some valid points in there.
It sounds similar to a lot of what I hear from the FBFI; a strong emphasis on a “remnant theology” which has a tendency to result in perpetual wagon-circling. It reminds me of the movie “The Village.” (NOTE: this comparison will only make sense if you’re aware of the plot twist towards the end of the movie).
I’ll have to read the resolution again a few times. It makes some good points.I do wonder why this is about 10 years too late.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewMisunderstanding or Malicious?
I’m sorry, but if the ACCC thinks that Piper’s argument is that God is glorified when man is living for [what they imply as selfish] pleasure, then they haven’t read Piper. Piper specifically attacks that argument all over the place in his writings. Here’s literally the first result I got when I searched for “Desiring God Christian Hedonism”. I didn’t even have to open my copy of Desiring God [!]:
This is either sloppy misunderstanding or malicious attack. I’ll report - you decide. I know which way I am leaning.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewCensured!
I’d better not say this too loudly during deer season, but as a “four pointer” (I have trouble with limited atonement, but I’m still working through things), I got a kick out of how they made a point of referring to Calvin, Spurgeon, and the like as “deceased”. Really? So Genesis 6:3 has not indeed been removed from the Bible! Whew! I also got a kick of how they twisted Piper’s theory of Christian hedonism as saying “God’s glory is contingent on man’s pursuit of pleasure.” Agree or disagree with Piper, no, that’s not how he presents it.
Fun aside, I’ve got to commend them for being fairly specific in their allegations, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions. To wrestle with this:
1. Regarding popular culture, why is the popular culture of the 1600s through the 1800s acceptable—things like new instrumentation, four part harmony (except in camp meeting songs of course), the men’s suit, etc..—but popular culture of the 20th and 21st centuries is not? How can we possibly make a Biblical argument for this? Why is the dividing line roughly between revival songs and the blues and jazz?
2. Regarding the list of those from whom “new Calvinists” do not separate, I am at least partially in agreement. I can learn from Catholic and other theologians without having fellowship with them, as things like the Council of Trent get in the way. Billy Graham? Big phenomenon, but where is the long term fruit? The only thing I’d note is that we ought to be as hard on ourselves when our own outreaches bear little or not fruit. If God’s word does not return void, we ought to expect something.
3. Regarding charismatic theology among young Calvinists, I agree at least in part. While I am not personally a “hard” cessationist (as I suspect AACC and FBFI are), I simultaneously would agree that the hypothesis of cessationism is compatible with the general lack of evidence for genuine tongues, prophecy, and the like. We need to take reports of signs and wonders with at least a grain of salt.
4. Alcohol wasn’t mentioned? Really? When it’s a joke among “New Calvinists” that “Calvinist” means “Christian that drinks beer”? Something of a surprise, but seriously, space is limited, and I’ve got to commend AACC for NOT dragging this (and Tyler’s movies, and mine) into the matter at this point. They kept on topic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewThe ACCC "jumped the shark" when ...
ACCC warns on the “Danger of Neo-fundamentalism,” Kevin Bauder, Sharper Iron (July 2013)
Note: link to their resolution is dead (kind of a metaphor?)
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewFound it
The Danger of Neo-Fundamentalism:
Snip:
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewManager
See, Jim - you’re not retired after all. You’re a manager!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewI thought it was YOU!
Am demanding a complete audit to find where those commissions disappeared!
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewHumor
What we are clearly in need of is a resolution (maybe even a joint one by the FBFI and the ACCC) admonishing everyone of the evils of SharperIron and the need for all God’s people to stop reading and posting here. As a matter of fact, maybe we should ban the phrase ‘sharpening iron’ (and all possible cognates) from Christian vernacular as well, while we’re at it…
Hey Jim - looks like I bailed out of the admin team just in time, huh? That was what, three years ago? :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewYou can say ...
You can say … you separated from us
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewSame Song, Different Singer?
Back in the day when I was a “fellowshipper” (GARBC, NRBFC, FBF, IFCA, ACCC, World Congress of Fundamentalists) the ACCC was attractive to me because of its embracing of fundamentalists from varied denominations. (A quality not appreciated by some of the other fellowships.) I haven’t had any contact with them for years and this announcement surprised me, not for its content, but for the venue of the meeting. A relatively small (but sound) Baptist church in Maine. Maine? As I’ve said before, some of these groups have circled the wagons to the point where one wonders if there will be enough wagons to circle.
And Jay, welcome to “The Village” fan club. A number of years ago my son, who’s one of the YRR’s, invited me to watch “The Village” with him. I really got into the intrigue of the story. When the movie ended, I looked over to see him sitting with arms folded, staring at me. “We lived there didn’t we Dad?”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
NewHeh
Yeah, I guess I could, huh?
Well, “I will not hide behind a wall of stone while others fight our battles for us!!”
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewThe Village
I don’t remember anything about the movie. All I remember is the woman climbing over the wall and being confronted by a puzzled private security guard. I remember drawing an immediate parallel to certain segments of fundamentalism, and I recall the impact of that thought hitting me like a sledgehammer. That is all I remember about the movie.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
NewCoincidence . . . ?
I’m not trying to stir up debate about fundamentalism. I really don’t even like discussing it. But, to use a lame journalist excuse, that’s what’s newsworthy right now. Not my fault, is it!? All the same, I wonder why the FBFI and now the ACCC are issuing these salvos now. What is the impetus? What is the problem? What has happened recently to cause these two fundamentalist organizations to issue similar statements to their constituencies about essentially the same thing at the same time?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.