A Vision for Shawnee Baptist College

 Address given in Shawnee Baptist College chapel, April 15, 2014

 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.” Mat 22:37-38

  As I look over our movement, I recall the words of Tolkien:

      Where now the horse and the rider?  Where is the horn that was blowing?

      They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadows.

      The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
 

       There is a terrible cry in our churches for biblically-centered Christians, equally committed to loving God with their heart and mind.  That call could be answered here.  This school will move forward with two great goals in mind: to train students to study the Word of God, and to train them to proclaim it to the world.  We will do this by aggressively engaging the mind, to teach you to understand complex ideas, to evaluate truth claims, to apply the Scriptures to every thought, activity, and tradition.  We will train you for the dark and angry world who seeks to overcome the light, both in themselves and in you.  We will teach you apologetics, so that you’ll have confidence in the Scriptures to quench the attacks of the sceptics.  We will train you to preach and teach, to overcome the darkness with the knowledge of the Gospel.  We will teach you to understand the Scriptures, the anvil upon which the Holy Spirit will break the will of men.  No great work for Christ was ever done apart from the ministry of the Word, so we will strive to give you the tools to dig into the Bible, to understand the deep things of God, to unearth the gold in his revelation.  The world, the flesh, and the devil will employ friends and enemies to undermine you, pastors and family. We will offer you the tools to understand these attacks, to meet them in battle, and to defeat them, with the grace of God and the Bible.  The calling of this school is to equip you for the greatest calling in the world: the ministry of the Word, the proclamation of the Gospel.  We will push back the cloud of anti-intellectualism that has hung over our movement for too long.  There is no virtue in ignorance.  Chesterton warns us

    “Ideas are dangerous, but the man to whom they are least dangerous is the man of
     ideas. He is acquainted with ideas, and moves among them like a lion-tamer. Ideas
     are dangerous, but the man to whom they are most dangerous is the man of no
     ideas.”

       Your calling is a dangerous one.  You are to stand between the church and world, between your students and the false teacher, between truth and error.  To do this you must be equipped.  You must be grounded in the inerrant, inspired Word of God.  No other foundation will suffice.  No other philosophy, education, or authority will be adequate.  We hope to give you both the tools and the training to grasp that foundation.  When secular humanism beats at your door, you must answer with authority of God.  When false teachers speak deceit, you must counter with the voice of truth.  When preachers fail the church in life and leadership, you must offer the Lordship of Christ.  When you are drained by the attack of the devil, you must drink at the pure fountain of Scripture.  And drink deeply.  As Moore urges, Shawnee Baptist College “must ever struggle to retain intellectual rigor. This academic prowess is an act of love, equipping these brilliant students to push back the arguments behind which guilty consciences hide, in order that they may hear the voice that calls “Adam, where are you?”

       We are not perfect, but we are committed.  We are not entirely qualified yet, but we are dedicated.  I can’t promise you that we will give you everything you need, but I can tell you this:  We are serious about preparing students for the ministry.  Some of you may not return, some of you are not sure.  I don’t know entirely what next year holds, but if you join us we can give you something real.  I offer you not tradition, but theology; not rules, but holiness; not information, but Scripture, not control, but Christ.    We have a chance to do something here that no one else is doing: to study C.S. Lewis and John R. Rice.  To read Spurgeon and Augustine.  To study apologetics and evangelism. To love people and teach the whole counsel of God.  Our movement desperately needs young people who are equipped, not afraid to ask questions, to search the Scriptures, to defy tradition, to proclaim Christ in all his glory, both to the heart and the mind.  I believe that we can help you be those leaders.  “…that in all things Christ might have the preeminence”

 

Why Study Church History? A Biblical Answer

Prov. 27:17 - Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

          The experiences of Christians throughout history offer an invaluable resource for how men and women have lived, understood, and experienced Scriptural truths.  Just as we look to pastors, teachers, and friends to encourage and edify us in our Christian walk today, we should also look to the long line of members in the Body of Christ.  The characters in church history offer us insight, inspiration, and warning for our own personal walk with Christ.

2Ti 2:15-17 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.  And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

          The study of the Scriptures is a deadly serious task, both because of the necessity of the Word and the danger in distorting it. Church history looks at how people have carried out this task in their own lives.  It is the history of applied hermeneutics.  The above verses use past religious leaders as a warning to remain faithful and avoid the errors of other men.  We study the lives and beliefs of other Christians, ancient and modern, in order to learn from their mistakes, and to inform our own understanding of the Scriptures.  The Bible is eternal and perfect, but man is limited and weak, and we must look at how others have handled the same Word that we have so that we can recognize our own errors, limitation, and successes. 

         Every man is held captive by his own generation.  He is freed from this short-sightedness when he steps outside of his environment and sees how the church has survived for the other 2000 years.  Only then can he appreciate what his own time has to offer, as well as the value of the other members of the Body of Christ, living or dead.

An Exposition of Jeremiah 6:16

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

     This passage is a part of the second sermon of Jeremiah to Judah, which begins in chapter 3, verse 6 and ends at chapter 6, verse 30.  The people of Judah had turned from the Lord, so God sent Jeremiah to call them to repentance.  He pointed out their sin, warned them of the judgment, and offered them an opportunity to repent.  These are the three great themes of this sermon.  God’s mercy and grace are contrasted with Judah’s wickedness.

      In 6:13-19, Jeremiah was drawing the sermon to a close, and summarizing the message.  The condemnation was stated clearly in vs. 13-14 where the false prophets and people had rejected God.  Given the divine condemnation, the LORD calls them to return to the old paths, the good way.  However, the people refused.   Though God offered them a chance they would not heed, and judgment was prophesied.

But what were the old paths?  The simplest answer would be the opposite of what they had been condemned for.   Because this was the summary of the sermon, the particular sin was not given here, but it was made clear throughout the message.  There are many descriptions, but only one sin: rejecting Jehovah  to worship pagan gods.  These were not idols of the mind, flesh, or wrong priorities.  Judah had worshipped the graven images of the surrounding nations.  At the beginning of the sermon Jeremiah graphically described Judah’s behavior as whoredom. (3:9)  Leaving the Jehovah, they had “committed adultery with stones and with stocks.”  They had been unfaithful to the true God, and had turned to idols made of rock and wood.  The religious leaders had not left their vocation, but directed it toward pagan gods. In 5:31 the prophets had spoken false words, words that had not come from God.  The priests had ruled by their own means rather than God’s Law, and the people loved it.  There were both pagan leaders and pagan followers.  The sin of Judah was not merely breaking the Law of Moses, or not serving God as well as they should, but a wholesale rejection of Jehovah.  The gravity of the situation was labeled as an “abomination” in 6:15. 

       Despite this polytheistic heathenism, God called them back to the right way.  "The emphasis is on the good way - which was the way of God, not just the way of old." (Dave Delaney)  There were many "old paths", but only one "good way."  The good way was the life the Israelites had walked when they were founded as a nation at Mt. Sinai.  This old way was laid down from the beginning by Moses, summed up in “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deut. 6:4)  Judah was being called away from paganism, back to the very foundation of their nation, back to the original life, the old, good path, where they had one God - Jehovah, whom they served.  They had left this path for Balaam and would be made desolate as a result.  The only way to divert this was to return to worship and service of the LORD, Jehovah.  To fail to do so was to bring judgment by a foreign nation. 

The sin of Judah was paganism, the remedy was repentance, and obedience would bring mercy; failure would bring captivity.

Stop Talking and Explain Yourself: A Call for Clarity

“To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. 

 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning.” Proverbs 1:4-5

 

“It is necessary to affix right ideas to words.” Thomas Paine

 

One of the difficulties with inheriting a movement such as fundamentalism is the vocabulary that is assumed by its members.  And since the vocabulary was originally meant to define the positions of the movement, the terms became rallying cries for its leaders (e.g. separated, fundamental, etc.) Unfortunately, current leaders are often lax in explaining what they mean by the catchphrases they continue to use.  Whereas the original leaders were creating distinctions between themselves and others with their terminology, subsequent generations often adopt those words as labels, with very little time spent defining them.  To make matters worse, as the controversy or culture that gave context to those terms changes or disappears the words themselves become more and more obscure. 

This lack of precision in language was, ironically enough, the strength of the liberal movement.  By using traditional Christian language, yet attaching different meanings, and carefully avoiding drawing clear lines on what they had changed, they were able to infiltrate the churches and schools of conservative denominations.  Yet fundamentalists, despite their origins as a reaction to these same liberals, have begun to slouch toward this same practice.  Preachers and leaders trumpet this word or that phrase as a cry for biblical faithfulness, yet never stop to carefully explain the content of their message.

While the liberals had a sinister intent, many modern fundamentalists are simply unwilling or unable to avoid their mistakes.  Almost the entire ministry of a Christian leader is to communicate biblical truth to the next generation, yet our leaders have simply latched on to simple slogans that summarize their position or belief.  Whatever happened to edification, teaching, or simply clear communication?  Rather that define their terms or explain the biblical content of their labels, these leaders simply repeat them over and over, assuming all know what they mean, and denouncing all those who would fail to rally around them.  There is a serious lack of awareness of the difference between compromising the truth, and hesitating to adopt a truncated summary of the truth.  We may believe the same, but that does not mean I have to use the same words as you.  And if you refuse to tell me what you mean by the things you say, you have failed to prove yourself trustworthy, either as a leader or as an authentic torchbearer for our tradition.  If the leaders of our movement (or any other movement) wish to see the next generation follow their beliefs, they had better stop talking and explain themselves.

A Brief Objection to Limited Atonement

           Of the five points of Calvinism, Limited or Definite Atonement strikes me as the most incompatible with the Scriptures.  Though Calvinists have Scripture passages they believe support the doctrine, I find there is more Scripture to clearly oppose it.  I would like to briefly outline what I believe is the correct position on the doctrine of the atonement.  First, let us look at the other side:

Calvinists’ View

            When Jesus was offered as a sacrifice for sins, he had specific sinners in mind, namely the elect.  God purposed beforehand to save a certain group of people and sent Jesus to die for those people.  He had a definite purpose for the death of Christ.  God did not accept the death of Jesus as a general covering or substitution for every sinner, but for a particular group of sinners, those he had predestined to salvation.  In John 10:11-16, 26-29  Jesus speaks of laying down his life for the sheep.  God had given him certain people, the sheep, and they are the definite object for his work on the cross.  Also Ephesians 5:25 reveals that “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.”  The goats and the non-church are not mentioned here as the object of Christ death.  Jesus speaks of a propitiation for a limited, definite group of people – his people (Matt 1:21.)

My Objections

            2 Peter 2:1, “But there are false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”  We find here a group of false teachers, preaching a different gospel, denying Christ, headed for destruction.  Yet even these people are the object of redemption, though they rejected it.  I believe that this verse reveals the extent of the sacrifice of Christ.  He died and bought even false teachers, who, despite this sacrifice, reject Christ and receive condemnation.  These teacher were unsaved, headed for hell and leading others with them, yet they are among those that Christ died for.

            Another verse that makes Definite Atonement objectionable is 1 John 2:1-2, “My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not.  And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”  Christians have an advocate in heaven, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for us.  This intercession and removal of sins is made possible because of the covering that Christ’s death provided.  But though Christians have an advocate, the whole world has a covering.  The Bible clearly states that Christ death afforded a covering for not just the sins of the elect, but also the sins of the unsaved, the whole world.  The world does not have an advocate but they do have an opportunity, a way of salvation, a means of removing sin – the death of Christ.  This verse seems to emphatically indicate that the whole world, every sinner, was the object of the atonement.

            This doctrine of unlimited or general atonement often leads to the accusation of universal salvation.  Since Christ covered all the sins of the world then why do they not go to heaven?  A simple answer is that the atonement was provided for them, intended for them, but was not applied to them.  The non-elect have no high priest, no advocate, and no intercessor.  Christ offered a gift, paid for by his blood, but they rejected it.  Thus the death of Christ was sufficient for all, intended for all, but only applied to those who repent and believe.  Let us take this message to the whole world:  “Christ died for every one of you: repent of your sins, and call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved.”

What is Fundamentalism?

In response to several people's question I offer below my definition of fundamentalism (in which I include myself, but only by this definition.) 

This is a short article so if you disagree please ask for clarification before assuming error. I welcome the chance to defend and possibly alter my views here. I have not included footnotes in the body but I have included a short bibliography at the end that provides the source of my views.   

Definition:
Fundamentalism is a 20th-century militant anti-modern/liberal orthodox Christian movement.  This definition is drawn from the history of the movement, from it's inception in the early part of the 20th-century until the present. Though many fundamentalists also hold other beliefs such as King James Only or believer's baptism, I do not include those beliefs here, for that would exclude men such as John R. Rice (not KJV Only) and J. Gresham Machen (Presbyterian), both recognized leaders of fundamentalism.

Below is a more detailed explanation of the terms used above:

  I. The Enemy: Liberalism To understand fundamentalism one must first understand its opponent: theological liberalism or modernism. The core of liberalism is it's reliance on experience over doctrine. Thus the liberal will maintain that the Bible is not necessarily true doctrine but merely information about people's experience with God. A liberal will appeal to the individual experience of a Christian as the basis of authority. The power of liberalism comes from its use of Christian language with a new definition. Since they reject the objective truth and rely on experience, then words such as 'salvation,' 'Christ,' and 'resurrection' are not taken from the Bible but redefined in a subjective or modern sense. This new definition is formed using modern principles of criticism, science, and philosophy. Thus liberalism is an experience-based theology, that rejects the inerrancy of Scripture in favor of subject personal relationships and modern scientific methods.  Though some would define it differently, to do so would reject the writings and arguments of the vast majority of fundamentalists over the past century.

II. Historical Setting To understand fundamentalism is to place it in its proper context, namely 20th-century America. Some would trace its beginnings to the twelve-volume set of essays entitled The Fundamentals published between 1910 and 1915. However, despite it's name, the authors of these writings were not all fundamentalists. Several of the authors held to shallow views of Scripture and would later strongly oppose fundamentalists and ally themselves with liberals and moderates.  The Fundamentals should be considered the prequel to fundamentalism, before the movement was forged in later battle.
      Fundamentalism's anti-modernist nature necessitates that there exist modernism for it to oppose.   Thus before the late 1800s and early 1900s fundamentalism could not exist because liberalism did not exist, at least not as a movement or theology. To attempt to find fundamentalism in the centuries prior is impossible, though you may find individual aspects of it, such as doctrinal purity or separatism. Only when Christianity was mixed with modern methods of science, history, and theology would there be a need for a group to oppose it. This is the movement we call fundamentalism.

II. Doctrinal Orthodoxy The most basic aspect of fundamentalism is its adherence to the inerrancy of Scripture. This can be defined as a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures by God that completely rules out any possible error in the transmission, so that what the writers penned on paper was completely true: doctrinally, historically, and scientifically. This view is not a strictly fundamentalist view, as other conservative denomination and groups have also ascribed to it, but it is an essential part of its doctrine. Along with the inspiration of Scripture, fundamentalist hold to four other doctrines, collectively entitled "The Five Fundamentals of the Faith:"
1) Inerrancy of Scriptures
2) Virgin Birth
3) Christ's Substitutionary Atonement
4) Christ's Bodily Resurrection
5) The Second Coming of Christ
While many individual would hold more than these, no fundamentalist could hold less. For instance, dispensationalism would later become a hallmark of fundamentalism, but was rejected by J. Gresham Machen, leader of Presbyterian Fundamentalism, and Williams Jennings Bryan, who fought evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The guiding principle in fundamentalist thought is that the inerrant Bible is foundational to knowledge, and that modernism, with its accompanying ideas of subjectivism, Darwinism and higher criticism, is to be rejected.

III. Militant Stance Militant is defined as "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause." This is what separates fundamentalism from conservative moderates. While a moderate may believe in the fundamentals of the faith, they decline to actively defend them. When modernism was gaining power in American religion, the group of conservatives that rose to oppose them were labeled fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is defined by its open defense of pure doctrine.

IV. Separatism The final mark of fundamentalism is its willingness to separate from liberalism. This is a more difficult trait to identify in the movement. Since fundamentalism is also defined by militancy it is necessary for it to engage in battle for truth, and during this battle, or upon victory, the fundamentalist remains. However, failure to defeat liberalism will drive a fundamentalist to separate.  This was evidenced in various leaders of the movement: Machen left Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary, J. Frank Norris left (or was kicked out) of the Southern Baptist Convention, John R. Rice separated from the Southern Baptist Convention and then later from Billy Graham when he associated with liberals. While these men did not categorize these groups as liberal, they believed that they were tolerant of such, and thus separated to defend doctrinal purity.

Bibliography:
Marsden, George. Fundamentalism and American Culture.
Dorrien, Gary. The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, Modernity.
Longfield, Bradley. The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalism, Modernists, and Moderates. Lyon, Matthew. Separatism and Gender: The Unique Contributions of John R. Rice to Fundamentalism.