FINO? Ridiculous.

Don has me pegged as a “Fundamentalist in Name Only” or what he calls a “FINO.” Why? Because I learned something from Mark Driscoll’s lecture on the Emergent Church and said so. It made perfect sense to me that Driscoll’s drilling of the EC is significant because (a) he’s no fundamentalist, (b) he has a history with the EC, and (c) he functions as what we might label a hostile witness, as in “even radical contextualizers like him see the problems with the EC.”

Apparently, however, learning from someone with whom you disagree on significant issues but who is an expert with unique insight in a particular field is a violation of separatist principles now. Gotcha. I’ll just purge my library of all non-fundamentalists. I’ll just ignore the insight of anyone whose ministry I can’t endorse. And while I’m at it, I’ll publicly bemoan the fact that Paul didn’t interrupt his train of thought by offering disclaimers of the secular sources he quoted. Of course, we might assume that Paul figured no one would be so simple as to think every positive reference or quotation is a whole-hearted endorsement. Duh.

Maybe I shouldn’t have cited Driscoll as a model Christian, pastor, and preacher.

Oh, that’s right: I didn’t.

Maybe I should have cited references from fundamentalists who have spoken out against the EC.

Oh, that’s right: I did.

Maybe I should have mentioned that what makes Driscoll’s take on the EC so intriguing isn’t his exemplary character but his history with the movement and those who lead it.

Oh, that’s right: I did.

Maybe I should have made it clear that I don’t agree with Driscoll on everything, maybe even with a word like “obviously.”

Oh, that’s right. I did that, too, though I confess that I didn’t finish the disclaimer off sufficiently, say, by praying that fleas would infest his armpits. My fault.

Maybe, on the other hand, some are just eager to find compromise behind every bush. Maybe some are all-too-ready to throw careless accusations around. Maybe some are confusing contending for the faith with being unnecessarily contentious.

Seriously, determining who is “in” or “out” based on a book or lecture they read or cite—or the degree to which they agree with you!—has got to stop. When separation is hijacked to protect our reputations and fundy cred rather than the gospel, something is amiss. This isn’t a separation issue. There is no fellowship. There is no cooperation. There isn’t even a tacit endorsement. Indeed, I’ve spoken out against Driscoll’s crassness online and in print. I’ll probably do so again. This was just the citation of a resource that, while imperfect, is helpful, if only on an academic level.

Such a citation makes me a “Fundamentalist in Name Only,” according to Don. So be it.



45 Responses

  1. Chris, here’s my problem.

    I would never recommend that my people listen to or read Driscoll. His problems are too grievous to run the risk of exposing my people to his many many errors. (And I am not convinced that he is on the ‘good’ side of emerging, or that there is a good side.)

    On the other hand, I could recommend some MacArthur, Dever, etc material. Not the same class. Still disclaimers, but a different sort.

    Yet some of them (especially Dever, Mahaney, and Piper) deserve severe criticism because of their associations with Driscoll. It is not just that they don’t make disclaimers, they go out of their way to support and encourage him. Yet from the young fundie crowd, what do we here? Nothing but cheerleading. So… what is all that about?

    That’s why I came up with my acronym. I don’t know who it fits, but it seems that it fits some. Time will tell on all of this.

    Finally, in light of the recent problems with Driscoll, which seem to me to be so far beyond anything I have seen before (read Steve Camp’s blog for the verbatim), I am just in shock that anyone could come anywhere close to a recommendation of anything Driscoll. I grant you were probably not aware of it. But I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near it, and wouldn’t have wanted to be anywhere near him to begin with.

    God bless, Chris, I don’t want to get into a fight over this, and I don’t plan to go back and forth here. I wish the best for you and your ministry, but it is apparent that so far we have some significant philosophical differences.

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  2. Don,

    You did essentially the same thing I have done when you made this post (and probably many others). You found a Christianity Astray article that agreed with you, and you cited it as support for your point. Your exact quote about doing so?

    “This evening, I discovered an unlikely ally in making my point: Christianity Today.”

    That’s all I did, but you didn’t even offer an itsy-bitsy disclaimer. I’d never want to recommend CT! If the citation weren’t bad enough, you closed by saying, “I think the quote speaks for itself,” as if you didn’t need to distance yourself from the flagship publication of new evangelicalism which now promotes all sorts of worldliness and heresy. It’s clearly far to the left of conservative evangelicals, yet you sent people over there as if it were a safe source of information.

    I’m dismayed and disappointed.

    (Okay, I’m not. You assumed your readers had the maturity to read your source without either stumbling over it or picking it up to hit you with. Makes sense to me.)

  3. Chris, chalk one up for reason and common sense. Not a pleasant thing to do, but it needed to be said. Thank you.

  4. I’m no “fundamentalist” (so I’ve been told…lol), but I’ll stack Chris’s credentials as a fundamentalist against any pastor on this Continent (not having met him personally) based on his writings and heritage. I know he is a true man of God who rightly divides the Word of Truth. I like his style. He is sincere, and his love of the Gospel is above reproach flowing from every sentence he writes on his blog. His sermons are spot on Gospel. He’s as good as they come, and you can quote me on that.

    Or maybe not…lol.

    Btw, never quote Steinbeck, Chris. You may be mistaken for a social darwinist/humanist/socialist.

  5. Absolutely incredible! According to Don, some with whom he disagrees may be quoted and some may not…and the difference between being a fundamentalist and a FINO is knowing which ones you can quote?!? And one wonders why fundamentalism loses so many of its young?

  6. Well, I guess by Don’s estimation (utilizing SOFT–Standards of Fundamentalism Today) his alma mater (BJU) and the school some of his kids go to is also Fundamentalist In Name Only, seeing as their bookstore stocks Warren Wiersbe, Kent Hughes, Paul Tripp, Josh Harris, John MacArthur, Gleason Archer, John Frame, and Leith Anderson, just to name a few.

    I’m not an alumnus, but I’m sure BJ probably says something like “BJU does not endorse everything about the author etc etc.” Such a position is decidedly un-fundamentalistic, clearly characteristic of a FINO. How could they consider themselves a fundamentalist institution and yet actively promote clearly new evangelical authors???

    Bleh indeed. I’m with you on this, Chris.

  7. Here’s what I thought was funny–in Don’s response he wrote “read Steve Camp’s blog….”

    No disclaimer.

    And Don thinks that Steve Camp’s music is “profane” along the lines of Driscoll’s verbal profaniity.

    I’d like to offer this disclaimer for any IC church members who are reading this–don’t talk like Driscoll and don’t read Don.

  8. Chris,

    I am sure Don is a great guy, but my guess is that by this point most on this blog take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt. I cannot imagine reasonable people feeling that way about your article. But I do think his reaction highlights a fear that seems to exist in much of fundamentalism (hyper-fundamentalism?) today.

  9. Dave,

    That’s a weak disclaimer. I am preparing a blog post now to point it out. I am struggling to come up with a good acronym though. Any ideas?

  10. DINO (disclaimer in name only). I suppose a small one would be a DINOmite. Or a whiny one could be a DINOsour.

    I better get back to something productive.

  11. Good morning fellows.

    Let me make another attempt at describing what is going on.

    You are suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between my citation of CT (and others) and Chris’ citation of Driscoll.

    So… I cite a notorious new-evangelical rag and Chris headline with a photo and a RECOMMENDATION that you listen to a man who makes a joke about Our Lord Jesus Christ making homosexual advances to his redeemed saints, and somehow we are talking about the same category?

    Well, just one question, men:

    Do you believe the Word of Our Lord in this passage or not:

    ESV 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one.

    It seems to me that the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ should simply shun this man. He shouldn’t be invited to Desiring God conferences, or encouraged and supported by leading preachers, or recommended to the saints as one worth reading or listening to about anything.

    But you all know better than me, so I’ll leave you to it.

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  12. I think that would be either a DINOsour or a DINOsore.

  13. Don,

    For what it’s worth, and from a friend, I still don’t get it. I think your criticisms of Chris (and DBTS on other occasions) are not well founded. I suspect that we could read through CT and find articles just as offensive as what Driscoll said, but really, that is beside the point. Chris didn’t give an opened ended recommendation to read and listen to Driscoll. He just pointed out one MP3 on one specific topic — that is hardly associating with him. If anyone in the fundamentalist blogosphere is speaking out consistently and fearlessly against the problems in evangelicalism it’s Chris. And from an institutional standpoint, I’d have to say the same thing about DBTS. There are so few bloggers or institutions that are engaged at all in the defense of the movement or the idea or however you want to characterize fundamentalism or Biblical separation. Obviously, you would do some things differently, just like I might. But Chris and DBTS, they are not the problem; they are still in the battle. Personally, I would suggest saving your ammo for more legitimate targets.

  14. Would someone please address the issue at hand? Pastor Johnson said that Mr. Driscoll made a joke about, “Our Lord Jesus Christ making homosexual advances to his redeemed saints.” Is this true?

    And if it is true, just how bad is it? Is it bad enough to break fellowship?

    Pastor Doran, as a teacher of seminary students, and a fundamentalist leader wouldn’t you counsel your students to stay clear of someone who would apparently go this low in his ministry as to make this kind of joke?

  15. It appears that Mr. Driscoll has made quite a name for himself in the world (evangelical and otherwise.) I for one have only heard pieces of three messages that he has ever preached. I heard one little piece this morning of a message he was preaching where he talked about trying to find Mormon underbritches and it was impossible so if someone knew where he could find some, please send it to him and he could perhaps use it in a future sermon, “praise Jesus.” The last phrase was absolutely said lightly and was taking our Lord’s name in vain. I would simply not recommend the man based on that.
    HOWEVER, what if I wouldn’t have heard that and had only heard bits of 2 messages where what Mr. Driscoll said was ok? Knowledge puffeth up but love covereth a multitude of sins. I”m not trying to cover Mr. Driscoll’s sin of taking the Lord’s name in vain. There is no excuse for it. However, if Chris was saying something of truth that he had heard Driscoll use in another message, we should always agree with the truth.
    Don, if you have a prob with Chris, then in a spirit of love you should point out what your problem with Driscoll is/was. In the internet world there is so much out there that it would be impossible for everyone to know what everyone else knows.
    It was interesting to me to hear that Piper had Driscoll at his conference last week–just because I remember reading something that Chris had written about him last year on a post. If what Len or Don says is true about Driscoll, then he is someone who has a vile mouth that is sending out blasphemies. However, if he said something true about the emergent church, that doesn’t make it not true.
    Chris said, “I don’t agree with much of what he says, obviously, but he offers a thorough and serious critique of the movment.” If that’s not quite to your liking Don, maybe you should warn your people in your own harder way. That’s fine. But Chris did do that. Some might like it in a little stronger way, but again, how do you know that Chris knows everything that you know. A little charity would have avoided the whole waste of time discussion above. No?

  16. The issue at hand is not whether Mark Driscoll made the joke nor even whether it was “bad enough” to break fellowship. The issue is whether a Christian can point to print or video of someone with whom he may or may not associate to recommend that particular excerpt for review by those interested in studying a subject. Calling for vagaries such as “shunning” and “staying clear” has no scriptural support in regard to a recommendation on research material.

  17. It seems to me we could draw an analogy to what Chris has done. Suppose I was writing a political blog against Jeremiah Wright. Suppose I used a speech by Barak Obama to point out that even Obama has expressed concerns about Jeremiah Wright. Would that use of Obama’s speech qualify as an endorsement? Of course not. It is simply a form argument to prove how radical Wright is. That seems to me what Chris has done in referencing Driscoll. He clearly left disclaimers and clearly is not recommending Driscoll’s ministry. I think this is reaching for straws and overblown.

    I also wish I could come up with a cool acronymn, but I will quit while I’m ahead.

  18. Len,

    DISCLAIMER: I am not defending Driscoll or his joke. He shouldn’t have said it.

    But his point was about those who interpret the Song of Solomon as a metaphor for Christ and his church. He was making the point that such an interpretation leads to that kind of view of Christ and his church that Driscoll painted, and it should be rejected.

    So the joke was not about Christ making homosexual advances. It was about Christ not making homosexual advances because it is contrary to who Christ is.

    DISCLAIMER: I think it was wrong and stupid to say. I think it should not have been said. I hesitate to end my disclaimer there because someone will come up with an acronym for me, and claim that I have offered a mild disclaimer. And I am sure that some yo-yo will accuse me of defending Driscoll. So let me say it again: I AM NOT DEFENDING DRISCOLL. HE WAS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID IT.

    But the fact remains that if you want to know about the EC, you should listen to Driscoll … either this one or the SEBTS one. Both are similar.

    The idea that we can’t learn from people that we disagree with is nonsense. And the idea that we have to offer an unabridged disclaimer everytime we drop a name is nonsense too. Let’s get over that.

  19. That’s what I was trying to say too. If it’s truth, it’s truth.
    However, to open a can of worms, :-) Jesus sometimes refused the true sayings and declarations of demon-possessed people even though what they were saying was true. (And of course, I’m not saying Driscoll is demon-possessed for any wackos out there.) He did refuse the declaration of truth sometimes. I”m not sure if that has anything to do with the conversation or not.

  20. Len,

    “The issue at hand” is simply that I cited Driscoll as an expert on the Emergent Church—which he is. As I said in reply to your earlier query, I didn’t know what he said about SoS when I made the post. I think it’s reprehensible. I’ve tried to make that clear. But, beside the fact that I didn’t know about the comment, I didn’t cite him as a valuable commentator on SoS, on pulpit demeanor, or anything other than the EC. “The issue at hand” is that Driscoll knows the EC better than anyone and that he is, to quote Don, “an unlikely ally” in the EC discussion.

    To smear me because Driscoll said something irreverent and crass (in an entirely distinct message from the one I cited) would be as weak as smearing Don for the garbage like this (a positive review of the blasphemous movie “Bruce Almighty”) that CT regularly puts out. It’s absolutely an apple-to-apple comparison.

    We’re talking about research, not fellowship.

  21. Chris,
    clearly the proper way to link to this type of thing in the future is to set up a secondary, offshore website and place the link there, then link to that offshore website on m2c. It would provide at least secondary separation… :)

  22. By the way, Driscoll is wrong about saying SoS is not allegorical. What is described through the intimacy of love and faithfulness in SoS is exactly what is supposed to be carried across to our relationship with Christ. Driscoll couldn’t see past making a crass comparison rather than a philosophical one. We all know that marriage mirrors the Trinity in relationship. For him to make and giggle about crude sexual innuendo shows lack of discernment on several levels.

    But then, that won’t stop me from checking out what he has to say about EC–something he may be more familiar with than OT interpretation.

  23. We all know that marriage mirrors the Trinity in relationship. For him to make and giggle about crude sexual innuendo shows lack of discernment on several levels.

    I am not sure we “all” know this. Marriage mirrors the relationship of Christ with his church. But perhaps revealing my own forgetfulness here, I am not aware of it mirroring the Trinity that I can recall from Scripture.

    But then I can’t recall a scriptural basis for the allegorical interpretation of SoS. Perhaps that’s my problem. I need to get away from Scripture more.

  24. Since we’re off the topic of whether or not my head should be on a platter for citing Driscoll on the EC issue, maybe this will help with the other discussion?

    More here:

    Disclaimer #1: I don’t agree with everything Schaap says, obviously.

    Disclaimer #2: This won’t really help. Shocking, though, eh?

  25. Chris, hang in there, friend. We in the Heartland love you, your ministry, and we pray for you all the time. God’s blessings on you and your flock in Ohio, dear pastor.

  26. Don’s very small post sounded good intentioned and sincere. He seemed to me to be trying to be helpful. Perhaps he wasn’t sensitive enough. SINO, Sensitive In Name Only.

    What I see above in the post and in the comments seems to be the equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb on a pickpocket. I certainly wouldn’t call what Don did as persecution. I think Chris might be able to recover.

    Probably not from Chris here, but there is a strong like for Driscoll out there among young professing fundamentalists at a time when even conservative evangelicals (MacArthur) are blasting him. And Piper seems to be bridging the gap for them. Evil companionship does corrupt good behavior—that is axiomatic; it will happen whether we’re “careful” or not. God always true and every man a liar.

    I’m puzzled about the regular usage of something like: “I had to laugh,” or “I thought it was hilarious when.” Total mockery being communicated. That is very offensive speech to Don. Is that justified in light of what Don said? That kind of thing seems curious coming from people who often emphasize tone and style and niceness.

  27. I apologize to Larry and any others for including in my above comment that “we all know” something. It was silly for me to make a statement like that when obviously people may be of different opinions.

    It was also silly of me to change the discussion focus to one on which volumes have been written and would require much more research/study. My comment on marriage reflecting the Trinity in relationship was meant from the aspect of love. So please don’t read too much in that comment. The allegorical implications of the SoS for Christ and the Church are explored more thoroughly in Spurgeon’s sermon series on SoS published as a book called The Most Holy Place.

    With that I’ll leave everyone to his/her own studied opinion and keep mine to myself.

  28. I have no doubts about the sincerity of Don’s post. I have no way, however, of truly evaluating the intentions of his post other than by what he wrote. On the basis of that standard, I am hard pressed to evaluate them as good intentions. Don filed it under “FINO sighting?” and I think that speaks to his intentions (and thankfully Don has acknowedled that this was wrong).

    Even with this admission, it still seems that his intention was to call into question MTC’s fundamentalist convictions and pastoral wisdom. The pushback here has been aimed at disagreeing with that assessment. I don’t think this site, or those who have commented on this thread emphasize tone, style and niceness over accuracy and truth. Don took a public potshot and Chris defended himself. Others, including me, agree with Chris.

    Don remains convinced that he is right (and that all of fundamentalism is shrinking to a small circle of those likeminded to him). I would think that such contrasting views would like to strong interaction, but it’s nowhere near nuclear–not like a post that says Kent alluded to 1 Cor 15:33 in language that sounded a lot more like the NASB or NIV than the KJV! :).

  29. Dave and others,
    I don’t think Kent was saying anyone emphasized tone, style and niceness over accuracy. I think the point is that the tone of the truth being spoken has not been one of love. I think anyone who feels themselves or their ideals being attacked will automatically desire to defend themselves, but is that the right action to take? Are we here to defend ourselves or to uphold the truth God has revealed to us? I’m not sure of a time when Christ ever defended Himself against a personal attack. He was not cowardly when it came to proclaiming His Father’s truth, but did he ever defend Himself when attacked? I think this would be a good study to see how Christ handled situations that often turn us to anger.

    Trying to speak the truth in love,

  30. Michael,

    While I appreciate the point you’re making, I don’t think you are accurately judging what is happening here and I believe it is misguided to use Christ’s example as you have–surely Paul wasn’t being unChristlike when he defended himself and his ministry, was he? IOW, even if what you say is true, it doesn’t prove your point.

    And the issue really isn’t about a person per se, it’s about the basis for drawing conclusions about men and ministries. Don used the weakest of arguments to draw a very harsh conclusion. That kind of argument has been the central thing debated/discussed above (i.e., does citing Driscoll indicate a lack of conviction regarding separation and/or a lack of pastoral discretion?). No doubt, some conclusions have been made about those who use such weak arguments to advance an agenda. That seems justified from my perspective.

  31. Please help me understand my misguidedness, because it seems like you are saying that it is okay, when examining our conduct, to prefer Paul’s example over that of Christ’s. I know that is not what you are saying, but can you see how that could be inferred?
    My point is that the spirit with which Don or his misjudgement (which really doesn’t surprise anyone) is being dealt with seems a little less than Christ-like. And it seems ironic that all of this has stemmed from an article on a guy that is criticized for his harshness and sarcasm.
    So please help me understand what is happening here. I have read the post and all the comments. I’m no scholar, but I believe that I have gotten a proper sense of the discussion. As far as the issue being about the basis for drawing conclusions (more irony), I ask again what are we defending? You are stating that it is a man and his ministry. My question was if that was Christ-like. Your answer seems to indicate that this is an invalid question.

    I think if you read through the original post and following comments, you will find sarcasm, a sense of persecution and a bit of mockery. What would Paul do? As you have said – defend his ministry – I’ll let you site the references where he did it using any of the afore mentioned techniques. And then I will still put his example against Christ’s.

  32. Does Don’s criticism change who Chris is?

    Does it change the the opinion of those who know him?

    Could the discussion above change Don’s mind?

    Will the discussion serve to warn others, or to turn them off?

    Can one person revoke another person’s “fundamentalist” label? How important is this label outside fundamentalist circles?

    Are those “without” seeing brothers in Christ reason together in love for both sides, wanting to see growth toward Christlikeness?

    Why are Paul’s rebukes cited more frequently these days (in my experience) than his praise/commendations of brothers in Christ?

    I anticipate the best for Chris and for Don as they are used for His glory in their respective places of service.

  33. Good questions, Beth. Thank you for your insight.

  34. That would be nuclear, Dave. I might lose my KJVO club credential card. None of my perfect preservation, Lordship salvation, anti-Keswick, expositional preaching, skirts-on-women/pants-on-men, separatist, local-only, Baptist perpetuity, premillennial, door-to-door evangelism, and scriptural music friends would ever have me preach again for them.

    I had to dumb down the translation for the Bob Jones’ grads, Dave. :-)

  35. A few commenters have questioned the content and tone of my original post on this thread and the motivation behind it. I’d like to respond to that briefly.

    I think Don took a cheap shot. I was frustrated both by his assertion that I am compromising (a “Fundamentalist in Name Only”) and that the basis on which he reached that conclusion was not any fellowship or alliance with error, but simply the citing of a resource—with a disclaimer, no less. I responded (after seeking counsel) first because a commenter on my original post drew positive attention to Don’s accusation with a link pointing those who read MTC there, thereby removing the “just ignore it” option (which I’ve employed on other occasions) and requiring a response from me. The sort of public insinuation he made sometimes sticks. More importantly, I responded because I believe that there are issues at stake in this situation and others like it which matter more than anyone’s reputation, including the folly of determining one’s faithfulness simply on the basis of the resources he uses, the danger of seeing compromise where there is none, the harm of shoot-from-the-hip labeling (especially in public), the need for those who make ungrounded charges to be held accountable, and the habit of fundamentalists to expend their ammunition on those who should be allies. Sometimes a stand should be made against such nonsense, lest fundamentalism is left to its worst elements, such as fear-mongering, suspicion and intimidation. Based on Don’s post and his insinuations about faithful men on other occasions, I thought this was one of those times.

    Let me take a second to address Michael’s comments directly. Michael, I think you’re wrong on this for a number of reasons. First, Paul did defend himself and his reputation quite aggressively precisely because the attacks leveled against him could hurt (and actually were hurting) his ministry. At times he seemed almost embarrassed to have to do it (2 Cor 11:23), but he still did it—under the inspiration of the Spirit! (See 2 Cor 10-13 and Gal, for example). And yes, he utilized irony and sarcasm in making his defense. More importantly, your pitting of Paul (again, writing under inspiration) against Christ has heretical implications. What Paul said under inspiration is no less authoritative than what Jesus said. Be careful there. And FWIW, even Christ pointed out the folly of false chargers to a point. (See, for example, Matt 11:16-20 and John 10:32.) The reason He didn’t do so at His trial was that He was determined to die, not that defending himself against falsehoods was somehow immoral. Certainly his not returning reviling for reviling is a model to us (1 Pet 2:23), and a convicting one, but we shouldn’t mistake that for the sort of passivity that makes defending oneself against false charges somehow sinful.

    That said, and in conclusion, I’m not proud of the tone with which I wrote the initial post. I think reasonable principles should be defended and false charges sometimes should to be answered, but I didn’t need to slice and dice as I did. The problem with sarcasm (which can be useful, as Scripture indicates) is that I’m too good at it. My flesh likes putting out zingers. That’s a confession, not a boast. Sentences like “Gotcha,” “Duh,” and “Oh, that’s right” bring more heat than light to the conversation, and it’s not the tone I want to be known for or encourage in others, especially as a pastor. I think the content of my response was necessary. The condescending tone was not. I apologize for that.

    Don has sent me a private note apologizing for the “FINO Sighting?” label of his post, which he has removed. I think a retraction of the entire post is in order, but I know that Don and I disagree on the issue. I do appreciate Don’s stepping away from the most overt part of the accusation.

    Now let’s move on. I’m sure we all have better things to do. I don’t plan to invest any more time in this.

  36. I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks!

    I’ve learned that you have to make BIG disclaimers if you ever quote outside fundamentalism (and sometimes even inside it!).

    But then again, this is what secondary separation gets you, boys! Don didn’t like the “association” with Driscoll so Chris gets nailed. Then, everyone has to make sure they publicly voice their support for one or the either. It’s just how it goes.

    Driscoll is by no means my model in ministry. He IS crass in the pulpit. But he is no enemy, brothers. I wonder if any of you have confronted him on his ungodly joke. I know I have said things that I have come to regret and repent of after loving confrontation. I’m glad that everybody doesn’t make choices to fellowship or not with me based on one joke that I made in the past.

    Where is the grace?

  37. “I think a retraction of the entire post is in order . . .”

    If Don did retract, than this post wouldn’t be necessary. So why don’t you take the first step.
    And as far as following Paul’s example, do you really think your ministry is/was harmed? That is why Paul set up his defense, right? It seems to me that more harm was done by responding in a wrong manner than would have been done if you had just let Don rant a bit. The reality is, in this situation, ‘defending’ yourself only established yourself with those who think the same as you do about this. So where is the benefit? To your right, you have offended. To your left, you have shown yourself to be a bit of a squabbler. All three (left, right and your own) are believers. Perhaps you received some bad ‘counsel’ upfront. Answer not a fool . . .To your credit, you admitted your wrong. But if you really want to follow Paul’s example, maybe do it upfront (See 2 Cor. 11:17).
    Just some thoughts from a guy whose thinking supposedly has heretical implications.

  38. Hi, Michael.

    1. I’m moving on. Or trying.

    2. I said that my tone was more severe than necessary, not that I was wrong. I don’t think I was wrong, either in my original post or this one.

    3. Your comment did have heretical implications.

    4. Are you squabbling? :) Seriously, for a guy who often argues for peace vs. confrontation, it seems like you enjoy making contrary posts, even when things have obviously died down.

  39. 1. I couldn’t help it. Someone else broke the silence.
    2. My bad. But maybe you should rethink that . . .
    3. That is a hard one. I want to say that my comments could have had heretical implications, but ‘could’ and ‘implications’ almost make it too shaky of a statement. I could have definitely been more clear about the fact that I hold Christ’s example as the first to follow when there is doubt.
    4. From the left’s perspective, I’m definitely adding to the squabble. And I’m not against confrontation (as my posts apparently testify too). But as much as lies within us, we should live at peace. I see it more like verbal boxing between friends. There will be some hard shots landed and maybe a nose broke, but when it’s all over we can sit down and have a beer . . . uh, I mean . . . pop together and laugh about it. Contrary would be two guys boxing because they don’t like each other. I would call my posts challenging. But maybe that is just my ego seeing it that way.
    As far as the timing of my post, it is only a testament to the intense mental stimulation your site provides. The effects are long lasting. You should take it as a compliment. And that, my friend, is not a sarcastic comment.

  40. Liberal.

    Next you’ll be saying the Apostle Paul quoted pagan Greek writers without endorsing paganism!

  41. Hey Chris,

    I’m sorry Don thinks you are a fundamentalists in name only. I know that has to be hard for you. Type A’s (even you A- guys, have to protect your label….man I have felt your pain so here I am ready to give aid and comfort to your pain…..yes I’m a week or so late and no one will probably read this, but that’s the way I prefer it!)

    A quick aside – I really liked what you said about not being tagged for that which goes beyond the gospel (I think you said something like that in your first self-apologetic). I actually would agree with you and give you a hearty “Amen!”

    For the record I’m quiet sure you are very much a fundamentalist. I’m really speechless about Don’s thoughts towards you. I mean really……accusing a ministry from the OBF of not being a fundamentalist is like accusing the pope of not being Catholic. I am very sure, that It is almost impossible for an OBF guy to not be a fundamentalist!. It’s written in your DNA or something. That’s from a Type B guy who get’s accused by Don and others of not even looking like a fundamentalists let alone being one in name only. Chris, I’m here for you bud!

    Brian, good attempt at helping these guys as they work it all out. I can feel the love!

    Straight Ahead guys!

    Hope you can figure it all out guys!


    ps – Enjoying the AZ October in the Lawn 4000. This is when we “get” to live in AZ.

  42. Funny thing is, I’m actually thinking the name isn’t worth fighting over. I’m ready to say “just keep it.” Maybe that’s what I should have said in the first place.

    I’m probably 180 degrees opposite of what Don suggested. I’ll be a FIABN (Fundamentalist In All But Name). Seriously, the name probably has more baggage than it’s worth between Islamic fundies, Mormon fundies, etc. Not to mention whacky Christian fundies.

  43. I agree with you Chris. A Biblical Christian would be a good title that would be good to fight for. I used the term “fundamentalist” our first year on the mission field and haven’t used it since. We seek to be Biblical Christians.

  44. Chris,

    I’m thrilled and a bit surprised to see you write this. The name does indeed have baggage. I’ll be looking forward to seeing what different name you come up with. Straight Ahead Ohio!


  45. I know this comment is a little late, but situations like this are why I have loathed even the very word “fundamentalist” for so many years now.

    If not for people like Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder (and you) I wouldn’t even bother to read anything a fundamentalist has to say.

    I will admit, however to being a FIABN; hopefully I’m the right kind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: