Knowledge Nation
My apologies for not posting this morning or last week. I’ve been thinking a lot about canonicity and Christian education in the past two weeks – here’s a side discussion off of what I’ve been reading about.
Futurist magazines in the 1950s promised us flying cars and space travel as a commodity. Sixty years later we are no closer to the actualization of that dream (unless you live in rural China). However, knowledge itself has become a commodity. Let me explain what I mean.
You can access knowledge anywhere. If you’re reading blogs – you know this already. But think about the places where you can’t access email, news, and sports scores? Just take a look at the queues by free Internet terminals in airports to see how travel and culture can’t compete with a quick Facebook status update.
You can find out just about anything. My young nephew recently told me about this website called “The Google” where you could type in anything you want and it would “just appear.” I’m not just talking about the Internet. University libraries and collections provide access to specialist information and networks to find information if it is not immediately apparent.
The accessibility and quantity will only get greater and greater. Pranav Mistry recently showed off an interface that projected and parsed information through a video camera in front of you. Fascinating.
Because knowledge is a commodity – we urgently need the ability to think critically (in the classic sense of the word) with Biblical discernment. We need to spend more time learning how to think instead of what to think. Ten minutes reflecting on contemporary Christian thought by authors like Os Guinness, Ravi Zacharias, or David Wells will do far greater good than checking NRL scores.
Because knowledge is a commodity – we need to be creator’s… not just consumers. When was the last time that you created something using that office software on your computer that wasn’t work related? When was the last time you sketched out an idea on a piece of paper or took a photo that didn’t have people in it? We need to be able to see creation and communicate it.
That’s my thoughts… now back to reading…
~ Jeremy
A Thousand Thanks
O for a thousand tongues to singMy great Redeemer’s praise,
The glories of my God and King,
The triumphs of his grace!
Charles Wesley wrote thousands of hymns and was certainly prolific in his praise. He wrote this hymn to commemorate the renewal of his faith after a crisis of doubt.
The line “O for a thousand tongues…” is powerful, because it reflects our limited ability to express the unlimited value of Christ and His work. As finite beings, we are not able to fully contain the knowledge of the infinite Son of God. The last verse of John’s Gospel concludes:
“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
The Gospels are the most complete and sufficient record of Jesus’ life, yet they are also a selective record, as intended by God for our understanding. Even so, we fall far short in comprehending the glory of God. As Paul exclaimed:
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:33)
Considering Wesley’s hymn recently, I wondered: “You can’t praise God with a thousand tongues, but can you praise and thank God a thousand times?”
That day, I began brainstorming as many points of thanksgiving as I could, first thinking of God’s character and His works. Every theological point that came to mind was typed out sincerely (not trivially). I also reflected on God’s providence spanning my life. It was the most exhaustive “Thank you” I had ever expressed.
How many points did I gather? Less than five hundred. After that exercise, I did feel profoundly grateful. The massive quantity of truths and blessings was too great to express at once. And I was only halfway!
When was the last time you were overwhelmed by the immensity of God? We cannot understand God enough, nor can we thank Him enough.
“What shall I render to the Lord
for all his benefits to me?”
Psalm 116:12
Answering Questions on the Current Crisis
This morning’s post raised some significant questions which I feel deserve a thoughtful answer.
In this follow-up post, I’ll try to address some of the concerns that were raised.
An unfair assessment?
I agree that my assessment of the movement had serious implications. I can also see how it could come across as unfair and/or “pompous.” So I’ll try to give a fuller explanation of why I wrote what I wrote.
Additionally, I concede that I am indeed making some very broad generalisations. Perhaps I can give a better sense of why I believe the generalisations are generally accurate.
Evidence
The evidence I gave for my conclusions was brief:
“the declining enrolment in our colleges, the declining interest in our fellowships, and the explosion of conservative evangelical influence among our young men.”
I’ll take these in turns.
1) The declining enrolment in our colleges.
Several Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning in the US have recently either closed down or begun the process of merging. I think it is fairly common knowledge in the US context that colleges are struggling for students. This is leading toward expansion overseas and in distance programmes.
Here in Australia, our colleges generally have a dozen or so full-time students max. That’s a far cry from the 100 odd students at SBBC in previous decades.
2) The declining interest in our fellowships.
When I said “fellowships,” I was referring to such loose bodies as the FBF or SBF in the US or the NBF here. Attendance and participation in these types of organisations is down in my understanding of the facts. For instance, the Adelaide NBF in 1996 drew 1,000 people on a single night. In 2008, there was probably closer to half that number in the same city.
As far as attendance at churches (again, note that I wasn’t referring to that in the article, but I’ll address it anyway), I have watched a pattern of IB churches growing and then imploding in Australia over the years. I rejoice to see this pattern seems to be decreasing in severity (I presume due to the maturing of our movement), still, I can’t think of any church that has really accomplished anything in terms of attendance that wasn’t accomplished in the 80′s and 90′s in our movement here in Australia.
3) The explosion of conservative evangelical influence among our young men.
I don’t think this can really be contested. The “New Calvinism” made Time Magazine’s list of top ten ideas that are changing the world today. Men like John Piper, Paul Washer, and John MacArthur as well as blogging personalities like Phil Johnson and James White are drawing the attention of those who are serious about theology in our day.
Pastors in idolatry?
I think the most crucial issue raised was this question:
“Do you really think there are pastors in doctrinally sound churches out there, giving their all to the Lord, living holy lives as best they can, who need to repent of idolatry? That’s the implication of what you’re saying – and that’s a very big call to make.”
While I agree that our pastors are generally giving their all to the Lord and living holy lives as best they can, my response to this question is, yes, all of us are chronic idolaters. That is the basis of the gospel.
That I would call our movement to repent of its tendency to idolatry in this area should be neither surprising nor scandalous.
Do our churches really have this tendency?
The statement was made:
“It is rather a sweeping statement to say that [excessive commitment to cultural manifestations of Christianity] characterises the movement as a whole, or much of the movement in the Australian context.”
It is indeed a sweeping statement.
Again, I would never want to suggest that the problem is universal. On the other hand, I would not want to suggest that it is not generally true.
I hesitate to do this, for fear of getting sidetracked on these issues, but I’ll give examples of just two areas in which our movement generally puts culture/tradition above truth.
1) Dress.
While this is not a universal trait, and less and less so as time goes by, it is still common in IB circles for dress to be an issue beyond what God says.
God says we are to carry ourselves modestly.
Our churches have added much to that. To highlight the point, let me ask several questions:
- If your pastor showed up to preach Sunday night in shorts and thongs, would it cause a stir in your church? If so, why?
- If your pastors wife were to show up at prayer meeting wearing shorts, would anyone notice? If so, why?
- If a young man regularly wore jeans to church, would that affect your decision to give him ministry opportunities? If so, why?
- If a visitor showed up wearing shorts and a t-shirt, would you assume they were unchurched or from a Liberal church? If so, why?
None of these scenarios are addressed in Scripture except the last one (addressed in James) where people treat a visitor differently based on his clothes and presentation.
Still, you will be pressed to find a photo in an Australian Fundamentalist publication that shows women in pants or men in church wearing less than a tie. Not necessarily because the publisher has any issue with it, but because of a general sensitivity to this issue.
This sensitivity is based solely on culture and tradition. God’s word does not address it in the least. But that is not important. What is important is culture and tradition.
2) Texts/Translations.
I completely agree that each church should make their own decisions on matters such as what translation to use and what approach to take toward preservation.
Therefore, I have no problem with a church coming down in a different place from me. As long as the decision is based on God’s word and the truth, not culture and tradition.
Of course to do that, you have to discuss the issues. And yet time and time again, such discussion is hailed as divisive. The power brokers of the movement often work behind the scenes to see that those who open such discussion are shut down. This is not conjecture or guessing. I see these types of transactions occurring on a regular basis.
So I have no concern with people holding a different position from me on this issue. So what is my concern? My concern is that the arguments that are given are not valid. In other words, pastors routinely use factually inaccurate, misleading, logically invalid arguments for their positions and seem impervious to those who would point out the problems.
I’ll give you one example. One book that is widely used in our movement seeks to point out the serious omissions in the New International Version. But almost the whole of the book is spent addressing comparative differences in translation rather than addressing the textual variants or grammatical issues that underly those differing translations. Instead, the omissions are generally presented as being merely the attempt of wicked men to pervert God’s word.
Now I have no interest in defending that particular translation. But an honest person with their eyes half open can see that the above mentioned book is openly misleading. It relies on the ignorance of its readers to mask the fact that it isn’t even addressing the real issue (which is the underlying textual variants, grammar/syntax issues, etc.).
And yet the author of this book is in good standing with the movement and the book is still provided in even the more moderate of our institutions.
A word about Fundamentalism
Many argue that “Fundamentalism” doesn’t matter because it is too hard to define and no two Fundamentalists agree on what it means. While there is some validity to those points, I am firmly convinced that movements and labels are an inescapable part of human existence. Those who walk away from the movements and ignore labels invariably wind up grouping and taking on a new label, whether by intention or not.
Conclusion
I would never want to cast doubt on the “legitimacy of people’s love for the Lord or zeal for His church.” On the other hand, neither of those things preclude the human tendency toward idolatry and error.
As a general note, please note that I have not named any church/individual/etc. in a negative context and will remove any such references that are made in comments.
I very much appreciate those who challenge my thinking. It benefits me because it forces me to think through my points more carefully and it also forces me to consider the evidence for my views.
Finally, I want to say briefly that my heart is for the welfare of all those who faithfully preach the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. If I seem to be tearing down in this post, know that it is only in order that it might be rebuilt aright.
The Current Crisis in Fundamentalism
There is a crisis in Fundamentalism today and it is a crisis of credibility.
To boil it down, generally, the young men don’t want what the older men are giving.
The older men want to pour their lives into training young men for ministry, but the brightest and best of the young men are walking away—not from God, but from Fundamentalism (or at least the kind of Fundamentalism that the older men are offering).
As evidence of this, consider the declining enrolment in our colleges, the declining interest in our fellowships, and the explosion of conservative evangelical influence among our young men.1
The emerging middle2 is one of the biggest things happening in Christianity today.
Why is this happening?
I would suggest that part3 of what is driving this credibility gap is what could be termed a cross-generational gap. Here’s what I mean:
“Generation gap” is a label given to the difficulty two chronologically adjacent generations have in relating to each other due to cultural differences.
Fundamentalism does not have a generation gap. Fundamentalism has a cross-generational gap.
Sometime in the mid-to-late twentieth century, much of Fundamentalism began to canonise Christianised American cultural norms and to equate them with Christianity itself. This manifested itself in strong stands on things like prohibition, dress codes, attitudes toward certain social activities, etc.
Since that time, Fundamentalists have tended to change only in small and slow steps, particularly in certain areas. Many Fundamentalists gloried in their growing distance from the broader culture and were happy to be considered “peculiar.”4
This excessive commitment to cultural manifestations of Christianity has resulted in a Fundamentalism that, in many ways, still thinks like someone from the middle of the twentieth century. In America.
That’s why I say we have a cross-generational gap.
Many young Fundamentalists reject the thinking that has driven this commitment to culture over Scripture. They believe, instead, that we should carefully exegete both the Scriptures and the culture and seek to apply the former to the latter in order to reach a geoculturally contemporary expression of Christianity.
Unfortunately, such a young person will find himself not one generation away from the thinking of his parents, but three or four generations away.
This cross-generational gap is making even the most basic communication between the two groups difficult if not impossible.
Is this bad?
Let me be clear. I am not saying the emerging middle is a bad thing. I believe it is necessary. In fact, I believe it is the emerging middle that is doing the vast majority of the “contending for the faith once delivered”5 in our day.
But I do think it is sad that much of Fundamentalism has become an impediment to the spiritual well-being of its own children by elevating culture above God’s word.
Conclusion
In order to safeguard the gospel of Jesus Christ in our churches, Fundamentalism must cling to truth over culture. We must repent of our idolatrous traditionalism and re-establish a firm commitment to the truth no matter what its implications may be in our contemporary setting.
Our God demands nothing less.
.
1 These are my observations of Fundamentalism in general. Some apply more in the United States and others more in Australia.
2 I am referring to an article by Bob Bixby in which he referred to the young fundamentalists as part of the emerging middle. This reference has no connection whatsoever with Emergent Theology which is the seed of much error.
3 Other elements would include chronic mishandling of the Scriptures, a tendency toward man centred theology, erroneous doctrine, an overemphasis on externals, etc.
4 See 1 Peter 2:9 in the King James Version.
5 Jude 3.
Dead, buried and cremated…till the next election
The ghost of Work Choices still haunts Tony Abbott and his bid to enter the Lodge.
While he has tried to distance himself from the previous industrial reforms that were a vote loser for John Howard, this issue will not go away.
What was Abbott thinking when he pulled the ‘written promise’ stunt during a radio interview last week?
When you bring back to public memory a similar swifty that Mark Latham tried a few years ago you release all the wrong stenches of campaign gimmickry that become very hard to dissipate.
While Abbott is trying to neutralise a big electoral negative, the idea that a conservative party can simply ‘adjourn’ any serious industrial (and consequently economic) reform will disappoint many.
Abbott is by instinct a political street fighter, so waving the white flag, on such a significant issue, makes voters suspect.
Abbott promising never to resurrect Work Choices (or reform under a different name) is like KFC undertaking to remove chicken from the menu.
Then we have Gillard.
Our PM wants a ‘community forum’ to reach consensus about climate change, even though we have not one but two houses of parliament, namely the House of Representatives and the Senate, that the public pay millions of dollars a year for, to make such decisions!
Have I missed something?
What we will not see in this campaign is courageous leadership.
We will have, up to our eyeballs, risk-free, anaemic mutterings of future change ‘if only’ you will vote for us.
It is all about Labour trying to sneak in again for another 3 years and then pray like crazy they maintain some policy consistency with interest rates and unemployment in check.
For the Liberals it is all about reclaiming their rightful place in government (or so they think).
That however won’t be enough for a change of government. At least not this election.
Despite the disquiet over Rudd’s removal and the tardy handling of the mining tax, the Australian public don’t seem to want to change horses just yet.
I predict we will see Labour returned to power, but only just.
By Robert Apps
PS This post was put together before the leader’s debate last night. The debate was, consistent with the campaign so far, uneventful.
An ode upon the occasion of a final exam
[A brief doggerel composed on the surface of my desk in a moment of overwhelming boredom.]
.
If you can read this message drear
Forsooth you may assume
That some poor soul hath scribbled here
As he await his doom.
