Dead Man Blogging

Last Wednesday morning, a guy at Bible study mentioned that his 4 year old son had managed to memorize Proverbs 9:9 by overhearing him trying to learn it.

I was curious to see whether my 2 1/2 year old son could do the same, so that evening we reviewed it. I went through it 3 or 4 times with him - first a couple of words at a time, then a phrase at a time, then in halves, then the whole thing. He could recite it, so I thought “cool” and let it drop. Well, until the next evening, when he spontaneously quoted it and the reference perfectly. Mind you, this is the KJV that he’s quoting, too.

So I wondered what else he could do. Thursday he learned Psalm 119:105, although he messes up the reference there since he’s unfamiliar with numbers that high. He also says “into” instead of “unto” sometimes.

Friday night, he quoted both of them, so we also learned Proverbs 22:6.

Saturday night, we learned Genesis 1:1.

Each of these times, I’ve only gone through the verse a handful of times - maybe 5 or 6 times max. I’m not drilling him on them, just telling him the verse, getting him to repeat it a couple of times, and letting it go. A few hours later I’ll ask him his verses, and he almost always nails them perfectly.

I think he’s understanding them, too, because sometimes he rewords them in ways that make sense.

Last night, my parents came over and I was showing off what Joshua could do. I was going to show them just how amazingly fast he can learn a new verse. I was going to teach him Romans 3:23, but Mom suggested “Jesus wept” (Jn 11:35) instead, since she thought I was “straining his little brain”. So he repeated “Jesus wept”.

My wife asked him, “Do you know what ‘wept’ means?”

“Yes. If I take a bath, then I get wept.”

Read the obituaries of Qusay Saddam Hussein and Uday Saddam Hussein, both of whom are now burning in hell for all eternity.

Is it any wonder that Iraqis are celebrating?

Baghdad’s curfew was broken by the crackle of gunfire as word spread last night that Saddam’s hated sons had been killed.
…
On the streets, many Iraqis were prepared to speak out for the first time about Uday and Qusay. But while some celebrated their deaths, others wished they had been captured alive.

Alaa Hamed, regularly beaten with clubs while he worked as a producer for Uday’s television station, said: “I don’t want him dead. I want to torture him first.”

You know, if we don’t find WMDs, then I’m pretty sure it was wrong to invade Iraq. We should apologize to those Iraqis and withdraw entirely. Uhh, right.

Bill Clinton on Bush’s Iraqi WMD claims:

“You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president,” he said. “I mean, you can’t make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now.”

“We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.”

“I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying ‘we probably shouldn’t have said that,’ ” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was “a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for ” in Iraq.

“So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, ‘You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.’”

Clinton told King: “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Sources: Fox, CNN.

Therefore “Come out from among them and be separate,” says the Lord. “Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” –2 Corinthians 6:17

The church’s mightiest influence is felt when she is different from the world in which she lives. Her power lies in her being different, rises with the degree in which she differs and sinks as the difference diminishes.

This is so fully and clearly taught in the Scriptures and so well illustrated in Church history that it is hard to see how we can miss it. But miss it we do, for we hear constantly that the Church must try to be as much like the world as possible, excepting, of course, where the world is too, too sinful….

Let us plant ourselves on the hill of Zion and invite the world to come over to us, but never under any circumstances will we go over to them. The cross is the symbol of Christianity, and the cross speaks of death and separation, never of compromise. No one ever compromised with a cross. The cross separated between the dead and the living. The timid and the fearful will cry “Extreme!” and they will be right. The cross is the essence of all that is extreme and final. The message of Christ is a call across a gulf from death to life, from sin to righteousness and from Satan to God.

“Lord, help me to be willing to be different. Forgive me for the sin of blending in. I pray that our neighbors would see something different in our church and our people and be drawn to the Savior. Amen.”

From: Tozer on Christian Leadership
Christian Publications, Inc
For More Books by Tozer call:
1-800-233-4443

From an email I received.

In my quiet time yesterday I was reflecting on Proverbs 21. I read verses such as:

2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
8 The way of man is froward and strange: but as for the pure, his work is right.
16 The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.
21 He that followeth after righteousness and mercy findeth life, righteousness, and honour.
27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?
29 A wicked man hardeneth his face: but as for the upright, he directeth his way.

And I just kept thinking “it’s all about the heart”. A couple other verses that I read a few days ago also came to mind:

Proverbs 17
3 The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.
16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

It seemed to me, as I read and prayed through Proverbs 21, that there was something significant just beyond my grasp, and I had no idea what it was.

I kept praying “God, try my heart. God, make me pure. Give me understanding. Teach me to pursue righteousness.” But I wasn’t getting the response in prayer that I expected to get. Instead, Romans 12:2 came to mind and I thought “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind“. It was as though God was telling me “It’s not your heart that needs work” but I was reading “the LORD trieth the hearts”. I just didn’t understand it.

Finally, I understood. The thought came into my head “Robert, you’re already saved. Your heart is already pure.”

Wow. Of course! I’m not a “rusted out shell of a car” trying to discipline myself into spiritual life. It’s not my heart that needs work. God’s already given me His Spirit! I can trust that I’m not a fool. God has pondered not my heart, but Christ’s heart. I am pure, because of Christ. I am not wicked, and my sacrifices are not an abomination to the Lord. When He looks at me, He sees Christ and not me.

That changed my meditation from one marked by anxiety and doubt, but one based on gratitude. I no longer prayed “God, try my heart. God, make me pure. Give me understanding. Teach me to pursue righteousness.” Instead, I prayed “Thank you that I have the Holy Spirit. Thank you for making my righteous. Thank you that my sacrifice is not an abomination to you. Thank you that I’m accepted. Thank you that I’m a saint in your eyes.”

Now that is a transformed mind, one that keeps in mind my own changed nature, and the changed relationship I enjoy with God.

I’ve had a lot of discussions with people about the subject of Christian liberty. What are Christian standards? How is this different from legalism? How about brothers with weak faith?

Lo and behold, this question was clearly answered almost five hundred years ago in a little pamphlet of only about 30 pages. Martin Luther’s Christian Liberty is excellent at answering this question.

Luther does not address the question of sinful acts at all. Those are clearly to be avoided. A Christian has no business getting drunk or high, engaging in extramarital relationships, dressing immodestly, participating in forms of recreation that are designed to cause them to lust (whether that’s porn, the SI Swimsuit Edition, a movie with some racy scenes, or whatever), being entertained by ungodliness (Will and Grace comes to mind, as does Friends…). This is a “gimme”.

But once you leave the area of “sin”, there’s a huge questionable area of works. Should a Christian watch this or that? Mixed swimming? Drinking at all? Dancing in clubs? Wear certain types of clothes? Listen to certain forms of music?

Luther divides “works” into several classes, and covers the range from legalism to licentiousness.

First, he addresses legalism, which he correctly defines as an attempt to earn God’s favor through external actions. He writes

It does not help the soul if the body is adorned with the sacred robes of priests or dwells in sacred places or is occupied with sacred duties or prays, fasts, abstains from certain kinds of food, or does any work that can be done by the body and in the body.

He even writes, speaking of “ceremonialists who … prescribe, and insist upon their ceremonies as a means of justification” that “in the presence of such men it is good to eat meat, break the fasts, and for the sake of liberty of faith do other things which they regard as the greatest of sins.”

The next area of works which Luther discusses is perhaps the most pertinent to our discussion. He goes to great lengths to distinguish the flesh and the spirit, the inner and outer man. Faith alone justifies and santcifies the inner man. But, as Paul explained in Romans 7, their is a war between the inner and outer man. My spirit is willing to serve God, but my flesh is weak.

Luther writes “In this life he must control his own body and have dealings with men. Here the works begin; here a man cannot enjoy leisure; here he must indeed take care to discipline his body by fastings, watchings, labors, and other reasonable discipline and to subject it to the Spirit so that it will obey and conform to the inner man and faith and not revolt against faith and hinder the inner man”.

These works are not done in order to justify a man, or to gain extra favor with God, since we are saved and sanctified by faith. These works are battles in the war we fight inside ourselves. These works perfect (mature) our faith (James 2:22).

These are the types of works that Christians have been lacking in. We have neglected the battles between the inner and outer man. We do not try to conform our flesh to the will of the spirit. We wallow in our vaunted liberty without realizing that the way we exercise it is only hurting our Christian growth.

Can I watch a movie filled with violence and profanity? Sure. Can I drink without sinning? Yep. Can I read, watch, listen to, whatever I want (within certain broad limits)? Sure. Go to clubs? No problem.

But in doing so, I’m neglecting my spiritual development. These things fail the test of Philippians 4:8. I’m not testing everything and holding on to what is good.

Paul wrote in 1 Cor 9:27 that he beat his own body (perhaps metaphorically) in order to keep it under subjection, for the sake of his spiritual life (which he calls a “race” rather than a “walk”). We, on the other hand, won’t give up our TVs or certain types of music or certain types of fashion because we have liberty.

(I fall into this category too. For instance, I am currently wearing shorts, do not forbid my wife from wearing jeans or shorts, listen to alternative CCM, and watch some - not much - TV and movies. I don’t know if this makes me a hypocrite or not.)

Luther next addresses works done for the good of others. In this, he includes works done not to offend those still struggling with legalism. He distinguishes between those who teach and preach legalism, who he suggests we go out of our ways to offend, and those who are simply caught in its snare, who we must be very sensitive to. And he discusses all the good works that we must do for one another.

Finally, Luther addresses antinomians.

Finally, something must be added for the sake of those for whom nothing can be said so well that they will not spoil it by misunderstanding it. It is questionable whether they will understand even what will be said here. There are very many who, when they hear of this freedom of faith, immediately turn it into an occasion for the flesh and think that now all things are allowed them. They want to show that they are free men and Christians only by despising and finding fault with ceremonies, traditions, and human laws…Our faith in Christ does not free us from works but from false opinions concerning works, that is, from the foolish presumption that justification is acquired by works.

Luther compares works to building plans. They are not to be despised, but are valuable while the work is going on. The work is our practical sanctification, the maturing of our faith. They are not, however, ends unto themselves, which is to say they do not contribute to our justification. He writes “what we despise is the false estimate of them since no one holds them to be the real and permanent structure”.

A proper understanding of the nature of works should help a Christian navigate the course between legalism and antinomianism. Our works - both what we do and what we avoid - are indispensable tools to guide us towards a mature faith where the flesh is under the control of the spirit. They do not justify us, but neither are they to be disregarded in favor of a false understanding of Christian liberty. Our liberty is a liberty from legalism, not a liberty from obedience.

I’m pretty discouraged and frustrated right now.

Until recently, I was more of a political blogger than a spiritual one. The other day I was reading some popular political blogs and four of them in a row were filled with all sorts of nastiness. It wasn’t that I disagreed with the sentiment; I agreed with most of what they wrote. I just thought it was pretty vicious.

I was reminded of a few verses such as Philippians 4:8. So I thought that I’d stop readng the political blogs, and start reading Christian ones.

Unfortunately, those haven’t proven to be a whole lot better. In fact, they are worse.

In my discipleship group this morning, we got into a discussion pretty similar to two discussions I’ve been in recently online. We were blunt, but not hateful. There was no mockery or insults. Nobody swore to never again speak to each other. Nobody was publicly ridiculed.

I don’t think we all came to agreement, but it was certainly profitable and edifying.

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

It seems that even mildly controversial religious topics are not best discussed in print. I’ve seen many of them, in Yahoo clubs, mailing lists, and now blogs, quickly turn pretty nasty. Strangely, unbelievers seem to be quite capable of having civil disagreements online, from what I can tell. But Christians can’t.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Maybe blogging is just a bad idea for me.

I was thinking about the recent Evangelical vs Fundamentalist dicussion (here, here, here, here, and sort of here), as well as the God Hates Sinners discussion at Deux Ego.

I was thinking about the question of just how Christians ought to relate to the world. What I was thinking is, “Why don’t they get it?” They, of course, being the folks who disagree with me. I mean, we serve the same Lord, read the same Bible, and have the same mission.

My mind wandered to a bit of a book I read once, Moral Politics. The author explains that conservatives and liberals don’t agree, and don’t even understand each other, because they view the world through different metaphorical models.

It’s probably obvious to everyone else, but I just figured it out. Fundamentalists and evangelicals don’t agree, or even understand one another, because we are using radically different metaphors to understand how Christians relate to the world.

I’ll attempt to identify those metaphors, demonstrate how they play out in our thinking, and suggest a possibly better metaphor.

Fundamentalists have a war metaphor. We see the world primarily as the enemy, to be defeated or at least defended against. We attack, with the goal of getting the enemy to surrender. If the enemy surrenders convincingly enough, and begins to behave like “one of us”, then they are accepted. But we must always be on guard for enemy infiltrators, who are to be shot on sight. An enemy soldier could be hiding anywhere; each door might be boobytrapped. There are also other soldiers who are the enemy’s enemy, but that doesn’t make then our friends. We’re very suspicious of them and don’t want them getting too close. Just like the Russians and the British/Americans in WWII.

Consequently, fundamentalists are very suspicious of the world. If it doesn’t come from a fellow fundamentalist, it could well be a trap. Secular entertainment is a full assault by the enemy. Christian rock is a trap. We could be ambushed at any time.

Non-fundamentalist Christians may be Christians, but that doesn’t mean they are on the right side. We can fight against a common enemy today, but tomorrow we don’t know. They aren’t Nazis, but they are Communists. Yesterday’s ally might be tomorrow’s enemy.

The lost are our enemies. You can’t get too close or you’ll get a bayonet in your gut. It’s best to shoot at them, and maintain a defensive position until we’re convinced they are surrendering. Even then, we have to be cautious. Once they are converted, it’s imperative to immediately begin to transform their lives just to be sure they don’t revert and betray us.

This explains why fundamentalists tend towards isolationism. We distrust the world, so we want to stay away from it. No telling what it might do. This is why we are separatists rather than ecumenical - we don’t trust Christians who do not identify completely with us. And this explains our approach to evangelism. Preach at them, hand them tracts, but don’t get too close. You can’t trust them.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, have an assistance metaphor. They see the world as in need of assistance, and not as an enemy. They use phrases like “just one beggar telling another beggar where to find food”. They view the world as either neutral or in need of help, and rarely as an opponent, because who would object to helping someone?

Evangelicals are ecumenical. Any little bit helps accomplish the mission, and does it really matter where the help comes from? If you’re trying to pull someone out of a lake, it doesn’t matter whose rope you use, or who else helps you pull it. The goal is to get a person on shore.

Evangelicals tend to embrace the world, and only reject that which is unmistakably evil. They’ll watch most movies, even those with some objectionable content. NC-17 and some R is off limits, but most everything else is OK.

Evangelicals will jump right in with the lost and try to help them swim to shore. They have little patience for those on the shore who do nothing but shout encouragement to the drowning victim.

Each metaphor has significant shortcomings. Fundamentalists tend towards holy huddles. We needlessly reject much that God has given to us. We are sometimes eager to separate from other Christians. We know Jude 23 but not Jude 22. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to embrace the world far too much. They don’t recognize the danger posed by the world. They fail to recognize that we do have enemies.

A better metaphor is available to us. It lacks the simplicity of the ones I described, but it perhaps more accurate and balanced.

Borrowing from recent world events, I present the war of liberation metaphor for Christians.

We are at war with the world to liberate, not destroy, the world. We’re rescuing people, but some of them are shooting at us. Not everyone needs to be shot at, not everyone can be loved on, at least not in the usual sense.

Jude 22-23 says
And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

In the recent war against Iraq, there were roughly three groups of Iraqis. Some Iraqis vocally welcomed our arrival and even assisted us. Other Iraqis were, for whatever reason, pretty neutral. And some actively opposed us, and continue to do so.

I think there’s a spiritual analogy here. Some of the lost will welcome the proclamation of the gospel. Preaching, handing out tracts, and door-to-door evangelism will be very effective with these people.

Some of the lost are fairly neutral. They must be won over. Just like the Iraqis, we have to win over their hearts. They need to see Christ’s love demonstrated - Christians taking care of each other and the lost. Once they are convinced we’re authentic, they will be won over. Jude 22 works on them - have compassion, making a difference. Being “forceful” with them will just push them away. It’s unnecessary. These are the folks in Christ’s time who were the poor and downtrodden, who saw in Jesus something they knew they needed.

Then there are our opponents. They are not open to our message. They are like the people described in Romans 1. Jude 22 will not work on these people. The only approach is to defeat them. Sometimes we will win them over, per Jude 23. Often, we won’t. Gentleness is not appropriate here. It’s still love, just not the usual kind. In Christ’s time, these were the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and moneychangers. We know what approach He used with them.

Obviously, these categories are not rigidly defined, and I won’t bother to speculate about the size of each group. All three approaches to evangelism are Biblical and ought to be regarded as such.

When it comes to relating to the things of the world, apart from evangelism, the idea of a war of liberation is also useful.

We are generally in enemy territory. We must be very careful. Skepticism is called for when dealing with the things of the enemy.

It’s reckless to say “all truth is God’s truth” and embrace secular psychology for childrearing and unbiblical conclusions about evolution. It’s reckless to trust unredeemed educators with our little ones. It’s reckless to expose our minds to all but the worst (morally speaking) forms of entertainment that the world puts out. We have to be careful when dealing with the enemy.

We must always be careful when we identify our friends, too, and should realize that not all our allies are completely trustworthy. I’ll use the WWII illustration again. Americans and Brits had nothing to fear from each other. We were friends. We were allies with the Russians, but we all know how that turned out. You can’t trust everyone, even when they appear to be on the same side this time.

It’s great that Protestants and Catholics can work together against abortion, for instance. But when Billy Graham starts sending new converts into Roman Catholic churches, conservative evangelicals ought to cry foul.

Finally, among our true allies there ought to be pretty much complete trust. We don’t need to keep an eye on our friends. Sometimes our friends will make a mistake, but a friendly fire incident need not become a war itself. And we might not always agree perfectly, but pretty much the definition of a true ally means we will have essentially the same positions on most things.

“One size fits all” is not a legitimate approach to Christians relating to the world. Christ said we’re salt and light. The light was a city on a hill - separate, even aloof. The salt was mixed in with what it was preserving. The light must not be hidden and must not go out. The salt must not lose its saltiness. A light down in a valley does no good - it has to be elevated where it can be seen. A lighthouse is far more useful than a man with a flashlight. But salt in a shaker is useless.

I realize that not everything and everyone should be treated as an enemy. But can we also agree that we are in a real, spiritual war, and can we respond accordingly?

As a self-titled fundamentalist, I want to present my own side of 10 distinctions between fundamentalists and evangelicals as presented on Thinklings.org.Please note that I’m using “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists” in the way that those terms are used on the site I linked to.

1. Human thought. Fundamentalists in general distrust scholarship and can be very anti-intellectual. Evangelicals on the other hand, believe all truth is God’s truth, that our minds are God-given, and that we insult God when we fail to think and use logic (or science when it is appropriate).

Fundamentalists have no objection to any science, logic, or so on unless it’s set against God’s revealed Word. This is the difference. For instance, an evangelical is more likely to employ psychology and worry about “self esteem” in childrearing, whereas a fundamentalist strives simply to teach children to obey God through instruction and corporal punishment. Evangelicals are far more open to unbiblical interpretations of biology, geology, anthropology, and so on. If taking God’s Word at face value instead of secular science means I’m anti-intellectual, then I guess I must be.

2. The nature of the Bible. Fundamentalists adhere to a literalism so broad, even they are doomed to violate it. (Stott points out: “Not even the most extreme fundamentalist believes God has feathers” (Ps.91:4).”) Evangelicals, however, while believing that whatever the Bible affirms is true, add that some of what it affirms is figuratively or poetically (rather than always literally) true and is meant to be interpreted thus.)

All fundamentalists I’ve ever known are quite happy to figuratively understand particular parts of the Bible, such as Psalms, Proverbs, some prophecy, Christ’s parables, and so on. We believe, however, that those elements are pretty self-evident. The alternative approach is to include passages that don’t appear to be figurative, such as much of the Old Testament, Christ’s miracles, and even plain instruction in the epistles.

3. Biblical inspiration. Fundamentalists belief in this regard tend to view the inspiration of Scripture as having occurred in a somewhat mechanical process (Stott points out, much like Muslims see Muhammad taking dictation from Gabriel) in which the human authors were fairly passive. Evangelicals emphasize, however, that the divine Author spoke through human authors while they were in full possession of their faculties.

It’s very clever the way Stott implies similarity between Christian fundamentalists and Muslims. I’m impressed.

The end result of the particular means of inspiration is irrelevant. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, both believe that the human authors wrote exactly what God intended them to write.

Liberal and moderate evangelicals, however, will use this ambiguous view of inspiration to provide cover for claiming the Bible contains uninspired human opinions. These claims usually include accusing Paul of being a misogynist.

4. Biblical interpretation. Stott writes, “Fundamentalists seem to suppose that they can apply the text directly to themselves as if it had been written primarily for them. They then ignore the cultural chasm which yawns between the biblical world and the contemporary world.” Evangelicals insist on interpretation before application and strive not to let the latter inform the former. Evangelicals struggle more with cultural contextualization than do fundamentalists.

Claims of “cultural context” generally are only launched against passages which restrict women’s roles in church, proscribe modesty, or teach male headship in the home.

Fundamentalists try to take what’s written at face value when possible, and interpret it only when absolutely necessary. We do not “explain away” problem passages.

5. The ecumenical movement. While Stott affirms that there is ample justification for suspicion in the ecumenical movement, he senses an undue paranoia in fundamentalism. He cites fundamentalist lack of critical thinking and abundance of inflammatory rhetoric. Evangelicals, while generally cautious about the liberal tendency in the ecumenical movement, prefer to affirm what is good and reject what is not on a more case-by-case basis.

We will not work with Rome. Evangelicals are more than happy to do so. Guilty as charged, and proud of it.

6. The church. Fundamentalists tend to hold to separatism and to community withdrawal. They can be isolationist, believing “being not of the world” involves to whatever extent possible “not being in it.” They promote schisms between themselves and those who are not as dogmatic about non-essentials in doctrinal matters. Most evangelicals, while affirming the truth in seeking doctrinal and ethical purity in the church, believe that perfect purity cannot be attained in this world. Stott adds, “The balance between discipline and tolerance is not easy to find.”

Evangelicals seem quite happy to embrace the world and the things of the world. If you look at an evangelical and his unsaved neighbor, you won’t see much obvious difference. They watch the same movies and TV shows, read the same books (just more John Grisham), send their kids to the same schools, wear the same clothes, listen to the same music, and enjoy the same forms of recreation.

Fundamentalists take 2 Corinthians 14-18 seriously. We sang “be careful little eyes what you see” and took it to heart. We are very picky about what we watch, what we do, where we go, what we listen to, what we read. We homeschool too.

Fundamentalists didn’t get the pamphlet from God explaining which doctrines are essential and which ones aren’t. In our ignorance, we tend to think it’s all pretty important. We wish evangelicals would show us the pamphlet.

We know that perfect purity is not attainable in this world, but unlike evangelicals it doesn’t keep us from trying.

7. The world. Stott writes, “Fundamentalists have tended sometimes to assimilate the world’s values and standards uncritically (e.g., in the prosperity gospel) and at other times to stand aloof from it, fearing contamination. By no means all evangelicals escape the charge of worldliness. Nevertheless, at least in theory they seek to heed the biblical injunction not to conform to this world and are also anxious to respond to the call of Jesus to penetrate it like salt and light in order to hinder its decay and illuminate its darkness.” Evangelicals, I might add, also view changing the culture from within as more valid, more Scriptural, and more effective than shouting at it from the outside.

It has been my observation that evangelicals are far more worldly than fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists believe we are a city on a hill. We believe we are to let our light shine by doing good works. This evokes in us images of lighthouses - apart from the sea, not caught in the crashing waves, showing others the way to safety. We do not believe being light means being a man with a flashlight plunging into the darkness. We’re believe those well-intentioned souls get themselves lost in the darkness they are trying to rescue others from.

We are not “shouting from the outside” at our culture, but are definitely attempting to stand apart from it and hold up the standard God set for us. We’ve never seen the “change from the inside” approach work.

8. Race. Stott here points out that, while racism and bigotry is not foreign among evangelicals, fundamentalists — especially in the United States and South Africa — cling to the myth of white supremacy and defend racial segregation.

This is even better than the Muslim comparison. There’s nothing I’ve ever seen in fundamentalism that supports white supremacy or racial segregation. It’s simply a slur Stott uses to advance his case.

9. Christian mission. Fundamentalists seem to equate mission/evangelism with merely preaching the gospel. Evangelicals, in an effort to live out the merging of faith and works, affirm social responsibility.

Fundamentalists believe the gospel has social implications, but that preaching the gospel is the most important tasks. We are more concerned with hearts than stomachs. Evangelicals seem to forget about hearts. You’ll never encounter a fundamentalist outreach program and leave without a good presentation of the gospel.

10. Christian hope. Fundamentalists tend to dogmatize eschatology, particularly their understanding of it, which often refers solely to the future. (Which, I could point out, usually in their views refers to the present — as in, “We are definitely living in the last days,” a cry Christians have heard for the last 1000 years.) Stott writes, “[Fundamentalists] often go into considerable detail about the fulfillment of prophecy, divide history into rigid dispensations and also espouse a Christian Zionism that ignores the grave injustices done to the Palestinians. Evangelicals, however, while affirming with eager anticipation the personal . . . and triumphant return of our Lord Jesus Christ, prefer to remain [generally] agnostic about the details on which even firmly biblical Christians have differing viewpoints.”

With the popularity of the Left Behind books, it appears that there are a lot more of us nasty fundamentalists than anyone thought.

In my experience, this charge is a lie. Premillenialists are almost always dispensationalists. I’ve contacted all but one of the fundamentalist Baptist churches in this area and asked them about dispensationalism. Without a single exception, they denied being dogmatic about it. They usually said something to the effect of “Yes, we are, but we don’t really make a big deal about it and we think those who do are weird.”

I live in north Texas and these are hard core fundamentalist churches. It may be true in fundamentalist charismatic churches, but not the Baptist churches I’ve contacted.

Kim du Toit wrote about the city of McKinney, Texas trying to shut down Collin County Gun Range. Emperor Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler also picked up on it. Both were very disappointed (that’s an understatement!) in the NRA for apparently not stepping up to the plate and helping out CCGR.

I contacted the Texas State Rifle Association about this, which is a state organization somehow affiliated with the NRA (not sure of the exact relationship).

Alice Tripp of the TSRA responded to me very quickly. Here’s her reply.

Mr. Williams
I believe that NRA contributed many thousands of dollars to the defense of the range (I seem to remember the amount was $10,000 or more).

Also, TSRA was contacted early on…very early on, 3 years ago, and attended many of the early hearings to learn as much as possible the history and story around the range.

The annexing of the land the range sits on could not be stopped. This meant that the range was now subject to a whole new authority, the city of McKinney. Some ranges survive being annexed into cities because of a continuous good relationship with their neighbors and others don’t. Some ranges are highly profitable businesses and are able to sue a city to recover the loss of their source of income, other businesses are not profitable and can’t sue for what they have not lost.

I personally involved several state reps in the Collin Co. Range situration a couple of years ago. We couldn’t stop the urban sprawl and we couldn’t stop the annex. I hope if the range ultimately closes that they make a bundle on their land and find a better place to move.

In 1999 we were able to pass legislation to protect shooting ranges in unincoporated areas (counties). This legislation stops ranges for being harassed for noise or other nuisance problems (short of safety) and it didn’t matter who was their first, the range has the advantage.

Be assurred that TSRA and NRA have been very concerned and as involved as we were asked to be and as we were able.

The loss of any safe place to shoot is felt by the whole community.

Sincerely
Alice Tripp
TSRA

I’m not sure why there is such a discrepancy in the two accounts of CCGR’s plight, but it does sound like the NRA and TSRA have been somewhat involved in helping them.

I guess I will go ahead and renew my NRA membership next month, and probably join TSRA too.