Fire and Ice

Last night, our pastor debated the editor of Q Salt Lake, Bob Henline.  Originally, Mr. Henline asked Pastor Mallinak to write an article explaining the Biblical position on homosexuality.  Shortly after this, Mr. Henline invited Pastor Mallinak to debate the Non-discrimination ordinance in Ogden…that is, the debate was over the possible Ogden ordinance, and the debate was held in Ogden.

 

In an admirable show of respectability and propriety, both sides were mostly able to maintain a civil front and actually discuss the issues.  This debate was very different than what you might here on most talk-radio or TV shows.  The tone was fairly calm and honorable, but the debate did become fairly heated.

Discussions began with opening arguments and follow-up rebuttal speeches.  Following that, Darcy Goddard, of the ACLU, moderated questions from the audience and responses from participants in a fair and gracious way.  She did an excellent job.

(Darcy Goddard)

Pastor Mallinak made the points that this ordinance, which prohibits someone from “harassing” or “discriminating” against someone who is LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender), will restrict a Christian’s right to express himself according to his faith and belief in the Bible.  He further pointed out that this ordinance was coercive, and it allowed the city government to venture in to an area that should not be part of its jurisdiction…religion and morality.

Mr. Henline argued that this does not restrict a person’s right to express his religious beliefs, but it does govern his acting upon those beliefs.  He said, “Your religious freedom stops when it causes you to take actions that harm other people.”

Pastor Mallinak countered by saying that at some point, two people with two different standards of morality will collide on an issue.  When that happens, one or both will be “harmed” in the process.  Who then is to say which standard of morality should outweigh the other?  He also went on to deliver an enthusiastic appeal for the protection of private property rights of both business owners and landlords.

In the end, it was a good opportunity to see a topic discussed, challenged, examined, and contested in a manner that allowed the focus to remain on the issue, not personal antics, as is usually the case.

To counter any heated tempers or fiery debates, we had another snowstorm.  About three inches fell in three hours.  After that, everything froze.  It made for quite a “Winter Wonderland’…in March.

The Sword of the Lord and of Shelton

OK, you are right.  We’ve been hammering on these guys for a bit now.  And, with all the other material out there, we probably should lay off for a bit.  After all, if we write about these guys too much, they might get a complex, and our readers might think that we have an obsession.  Like we’re virtual stalkers or something.  And, we realize that if we keep it up, the ardent SOTL defenders will be on here accusing us of gossip, of slander, of compromise, of being divisive, of being bitter, of being unimportant, and (probably) of voting for Obama.  “Don’t we have anything better to do?” they will ask.  And we, of course, won’t have an answer.

So, we agree, we really should lay off.  After all, we do have other things to talk about, and although this has dominated the month, we do feel the need to talk about something else soon.  Which we fully intend to do.  But before we do, we need to make sure (for the sake of those obsessive compulsive members of the Good-Ole’ Boy Network who find themselves googling the Sword of the Lord, reading all 753,000 results, and somehow managing to stumble across our fine little blog) that we invite all our readers to review all the posts from this month, and especially this one and this one.

And for the third time, yes, we really do have better things to do than to talk about Shelton Smith and the Sword of the Lord all day.  Which is why WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT THEM ALL DAY.  That is one of the nifty little things about the Internet, and particularly about blogging.  All we need to do is to put up these couple of posts, and Google does the rest.  That way, we can write once, and give you the impression that all we ever do is talk about the Sword of the Lord (and Shelton Smith).

But we really don’t talk about Shelton Smith and the Sword of the Lord all that awful much.  They are, after all, not that important.  Which is why we have only dedicated about three posts (or maybe two-and-a-half) to them.  We’ve got many more posts on things that are much, much more important.  Just in case you were wondering.

But, I should get to my main point.  We admit, we’ve been a bit rough on these fellas.  And we want everyone to know that we don’t hate them at all.  In fact, we hope that our little blog here could help to make a point.  You see, we think that this particular branch of Fundamentalism could do better than what they are doing right now.  It isn’t that souls aren’t still being saved.  We hear that they are.  It’s just that they’ve gotten themselves all wrapped up in, well, in themselves.  And that makes a pretty small package.

Here’s what we think.  We think that these guys should lock themselves in a room, away from their cell phones, away from their flatterers and away from their admirers, away from their Day Timers and their schedules and their meetings, and that they should get alone with God.  We think that what is really needed is for these guys, the Big Shots, to take all their sugar-stick sermons, all their persona’s and all their hair-do’s, all their infinite plans for building programs, and all their priorities, and lay them out before the Lord.  Then, we think that what should happen is that these guys should say (and I quote here), “Lord, this is all ME.  It is all the work of my own flesh.  It is wood, hay, stubble.  It is all built on me, on who I am and what I do.  And none of it is built on you.  None of it is built on Who You are or what You do.  Lord, tear it all down.  Every last straw of it.  And build your own work in its place.”

Then, when these guys have found the Lord’s face, we believe that their next step should be to tell their people that there has been too much ME in their ministry.  They should point their people once again to the Word of God.  They should promise their people that they are going to speak more and preach more of God’s Word, and stop preaching so much of their own agenda.  They should promise to quote more of God, and less of themselves and of each other.  They should promise to strive more for the “Well Done,” rather than for the “atta-boy.”  They should start hungering and thirsting after Christ, and stop desiring so much credence amongst their peers.

And, having said that, we think that they should then make a pact with the Lord, that they are going to stop helping to hide all the affairs and the chicanery that goes on in The Circle.  They should make a solemn vow before God and before their own churches that they will no longer help to protect the charlatans within The Movement.  They will no longer protect predators, or shelter those marriage-wrecking preachers that have characterized our movement for the past three decades.  They are going to rebuke them before all if necessary, but they are not going to look the other way any longer.  They should make this pact with the Lord, and then they should promptly announce this to their church, followed by a detailed example of what they mean.

This is what we think should happen.  Really.  Until they stop taking themselves so seriously, nobody else is going to take them seriously at all.  Until they decrease, God will not increase.  Until they stop obsessing about numbers (and somehow equating it with “success”), they will never find any sort of Scriptural success.

Believe me, or don’t believe me, but either way, I really do have a burden for the SOTL crowd.  I would like to see a change.  I do believe that the churches featured on the pages of the Sword could make a difference, could have a mighty impact across this land.  But not so long as they stay more intent on honoring each other than they are on honoring Christ, through honoring His Word.

So, what say you?  Throw away those sugar-sticks, get rid of those messages that relentlessly wonder the countryside in search of a text.  Preach what the text says, and stop forcing to text to say what you say.  Make a difference by being different.

Welcome to the Good-Ole'-Boy Network. Here's Your Lapel Pin

Say you are just coming in to the ranks of Fundamentalism, having chosen the Sword branch as your particular nesting place.  And, say that you are wondering how one goes about getting his name highlighted in the Fundamentalist Hall of Fame, and perhaps getting his very own personal invitation to the Good-Ole’-Boy Ball.  You might need some pointers as to how you can get yourself into the “rising star” category.

We are here for you.  We wouldn’t want you spending too much of your time in wasted effort when it comes to such worthy pursuits.  So, let us help.

Never mind that we JackHammers have not ourselves yet gotten our Invitations.  We are sure that they are in the mail even as we type.  And in the meantime, we have been sitting back and watching — have even looked over some rather broad shoulders and watched them open up their very own envelopes.  We think we know how they got them.  So should you.

First, Invite the Big Name Preachers to preach at your church.  They like this, and if you provide them with a decent enough show (and, of course, that show is accompanied by a check of significant proportions), you have a very good chance of making a great impression.  You will, of course, want to make sure that you really build up Dr. Big Shot before he comes, so that your people are adequately prepared beforehand to be impressed, yea even dazzled.  When you introduce him, be sure to sprinkle your introduction generously with a variety of superlatives, like “most” and “best” and “greatest.”  And be sure that he doesn’t leave without an invitation to return (make sure you include a few dates with your invitation, and that those dates are within the next calendar year).

Second, be sure to be well-traveled in the Dr. Big Shot circuit.  That would include (as a minimum) attendance at every Major Conference.  Minimum attendance requirements will include (of course) the National Sword of the Lord Conference, The Leadership Conference, and at least two of the Regional Sword Conferences.  You should also keep an eye on the conferences advertised in the Sword of the Lord.  Though you will not be required to attend every one, you must be sure to attend one or two of the ones that include Shelton Smith and at least two of the other Important Preachers and Rising Stars who annually preach at the National Conference.

Third, when on vacation, you must visit one of the churches prominently advertised in the Sword of the Lord “church directory.”  Attendance at a non-prominently advertised church is permissible in extreme circumstances, however, this should be the exception and not the rule, and should only be done as a charitable effort to “be a blessing” to a struggling church.  In general, however, it is unacceptable to go on a vacation in an area where there isn’t one of these Important Churches (i.e. – churches prominently featured in the Sword Church Directory).

Fourth, advertise in the Sword.  Buy the most expensive advertisement that you can.  If you want to fish, you’ll need to bring some bait.  Put it in your Missions Budget if you need to.  But you’ll never see one of those guys with the teeny-weenie ads up on the stage at the National Convention.  So, you’re gonna need to drop some coin on this one.

Fifth, get some sugar-sticks and preach them.  Regularly.  Every week.  Throw out the bad ones, and laminate the keepers.  There are several very important reasons to do this.  First, you never know when Dr. Big Shot might have a member on vacation in your town.  You’ll need to always be prepared.  Secondly, you’ll need to have a big crowd (i.e., a “packed” auditorium) at all times, and that will require a year’s supply of sugar-sticks.  Thirdly, you’ll need to be in practice for when you get your Invitation.  When you come to the Big Dance, you’ll be needin’ to know the steps.

Sixth, preach only from those texts that everyone agrees with.  This is essential.  Understand, there are entire books of the Bible that have no place in these kinds of churches.  If, for instance, you were to say, “Turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 9,” or, worse yet, to Amos, you could be voted off the Island.  Immediately.  Find those passages with the texts that everybody likes, and stick with them.  For that matter, you’ll need a minimum of five messages on David and Goliath.  That way, when you get your invitation, you’ll have a sermon ready-made for publication.  The only other topic you’ll need to cover will be Soul Winning.  Really, every message that isn’t on salvation or on David and Goliath will need to be on Soul Winning.

Seventh, throw away any expository messages that you might have.  You won’t want to be caught with anything like that.

Eighth, forget any Greek or Hebrew you might have learned in college.  Can you tell me how to order a pizza in Greek?  I didn’t think so.

Ninth, start a quote book immediately.  Any time you preach, you will need a variety of quotes from the other Important Preachers in the Network.  When you go back and revise any message, you will need to be sure to add in both the famous saying and the Famous Sayer (e.g., “ole’ Dr. Bob used to say, ‘do right ’til the stars fall.”).  Don’t forget to name the guy who said it.  And, it is vital that you not mix the speaker and the quote.  Remember that most of your audience (at least when you hit the National Stage) will have every Really Famous Quote memorized by heart, and could say it in his sleep.  You won’t want to mess it up.

Tenth, you’ll need to get yourself a very large (and, I might add, expensive) mirror.  This is for several reasons.

• First, you’ll need it for your preaching.  Practice preaching in the mirror.  Remember that style always trumps substance, so don’t worry about having any more than three points and a poem.  Just leave lots of space between each point, and make the majority of your notes read like a prompter… “shout here,” “stomp here,” “Billy Sunday pose here,” “pull out hanky and wave here,” “pull out crisp $100 bill here,” and etc.  Remember that the majority of your audience at these kinds of Conferences are in The Club, and hence are veritable connoisseurs of “preachin’.”  You’ll need to be sure that all your poses are performed flawlessly.  This is why the mirror is so essential.
• Secondly, you’ll need to work on that hair-do.  Your couple of squirts of hairspray ain’t gonna cut it.  Get yourself a stylist.  You’ll also be needing a blow-dryer.  Get some professional advice on the style that is best for you.  If you are under thirty, the wet look will probably be the most appropriate.  If you are over forty, practice your comb-over.  Either that, or shave it to the skin every day.
• Thirdly, you’ll need it to check yourself out on a regular basis.  You are going to be in the Big Time, Brother.  You’ll need to practice everything… your walk, your handshake, how you hold your Bible (high and tight usually works best), and especially crossing your legs while sitting on the platform.  Do not underestimate the importance of appearances.  Especially if you’re going to get your Invitation to the National Stage.

Eleventh, get yourself a large Bible, with large margins.  Write in it.  Mark all over it.  Practice chucking it across the platform.  Practice pounding it.  Practice waving it in the air.  Practice beating people over the head with it.  Remember, practice makes better… perfect practice makes perfect.

Twelfth, learn to pause at appropriate places in your preaching, so the audience has a chance to “Amen!” you.  If the audience is a little slow, learn a few insults that you can use to sorta ‘prime the pump’ a little.  Practice getting that incredulous look on your face that says it all for you, so that your audience will know that you really can’t believe that they missed such a golden opportunity.  Learn to cup your hand to your ear, lean forward, and kick your opposite foot back.  You will need to come down out of the pulpit and “Amen!” yourself at least once every message, so that your audience will know that no matter how much they ”Amen!” it is still inadequate (though you will want to say “Thank you” very emphatically a couple of times during the message, so that your audience will know that you appreciate their feeble efforts).

Thirteenth, practice preaching in a microphone.  Note that I did not say “with” a microphone.  You will need to get into that microphone.  Learn to talk with your mouth right on it.  Practice that husky, intimate voice.  Work on bombast.  Learn to scream into it so loud that you hurt your own ears.  Be ambidextrous (screaming and stomping or else screaming and spitting simultaneously).

Fourteenth, do not stand still.  If you need to know why, refer back to point #7, 8, and 10.  You will need to step on every square foot of carpet on the platform as well as on the altar and the first four pews while you preach.  Consider yourself to be like Joshua (Joshua 1:3).  You want that mountain, it belongs to you.  While you are at it, you will need to learn how to walk on pews while preaching.  If your balance is good enough, you will need to learn how to walk on the backs of the pews, too.

Fifteenth, learn how to flatter.

Sixteenth, get a big church.  Remember those immortal words of John R. Rice, “It is not a sin for a church to start small.  It is a sin for a church to stay small.”  I’m sure that he had a chapter and verse on that one.  But he doesn’t need one.  He, after all, had a big church.  Make sure you do not sin so against the Lord.  Three to Four hundred will not do.  As Dr. Rice reminded us, the church at Jerusalem had thousands.  We don’t know about any of the others, like Corinth or Ephesus, but we can assume that they did too.  Otherwise, they would have been in sin, and since Paul never rebuked them for being small, they must not have been.  Because Paul would have rebuked them if they had been small.  Because it is a sin (Rice 13:2) to stay small.  So, get big.  If you can’t get big (say you are in a town of 300 people), then move to a big church, and make it bigger.  Mediocre pastors have no place on the platform of the Sword of the Lord.  Period.

I am very confident that if you perfect these sixteen little points, you will find that your Invitation to the Big Dance will be on its way in short order.  So, stay by the stuff.

Oh, and if you struggle with that last one, then get yourself a tent, go up in the woods somewhere, and write “1000″ in the dirt 1000 times.  That should cure you of your mediocrity.

The Island of the Voices

The meal would have been pleasanter if it had not been so exceedingly messy, and also if the conversation had not consisted entirely of agreements.  The invisible people agreed about everything.  Indeed most of their remarks were the sort it would not be easy to disagree with: “What I always say is, when a chap’s hungry, he likes some victuals,” or “Getting dark now; always does at night,” or even “Ah, you’ve come over the water.  Powerful wet stuff, ain’t it?”

C.S. Lewis The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, p. 124

With apologies right off the bat for offending my fundamentalist friends by quoting (gasp!) C.S. Lewis, I could not help myself when I first read this passage.  First of all, the Dufflepuds were one of Lewis’ most hilarious (and brilliant) inventions.  I understand that some of our readers object to C.S. Lewis.  I’ll not disagree with some of your objections.  But the Chronicles of Narnia are a delightful set of books, and if a father will take the time to guide his children through them, spitting out the bones, he will find a wonderful tool for teaching and discussion.  And a remarkable story, to boot.

But the Duffers are my favorite.  Besides Shasta.  Shasta reminded me of myself.  But the Duffers reminded me of my childhood.

You see, I grew up in the part of Fundamentalism that really is an island of voices.  You can read some biographical material about my early years over at my other (hardly active) blog.  I’ll not bore you with details, other than to say that our church was a full-fledged Hyles church, complete with a pulpit custom designed to match the pulpit at First Baptist Church of Hammond.

In fairness, this month is to be on Fundamentalism, and now that I have left the island, I recognize that most of fundamentalism is not Hylesish.  But if I am to write about that with which I am the most familiar, then I will need to start with this sort of fundamentalism.

I do, however, have another purpose for using this as my springboard… although much of fundamentalism has distanced itself from Hyles, his influence on the movement continues to this day.  A very large segment of fundamentalism would still loosely associate themselves with him.  And, his methodology in particular still dominates the fundamentalist landscape.

Brown or Dark Brown?

A few years ago now, Joel Tetreau attempted a taxonomy of Fundamentalism over at Sharper Iron.  At the time, we got a good laugh out of his attempt, and of course, his taxonomy sort of fell apart when placed under the scrutiny of fellow fundamentalists.  I have read enough of Joel to say that I don’t find him hard to like, but that his attempt at a classification system disentegrated because he tried to define and classify fundamentalism along lines of demeanor and attitude.  The “Type A” fundamentalist turned out to be more like a “Type A” personality.  The “Type B” was more phlegmatic, while the “Type C” was downright gregarious.

Since then, others have suggested a taxonomy on the basis of core beliefs or standards of separation.  I don’t know that there is a proper way to distinguish between the various flavors of fundamentalism.  In some cases, it goes back to my boyhood struggle with the difference between my blue-green crayon and my green-blue crayon.  In many cases, we are merely discussing different shades of the same color… almond or burnt almond, brown or dark brown.

The clearest distinctions amongst fundamentalists tend to be between those of the Sword of the Lord variety and the Bob Jones University variety.  We could include in the Sword crowd places like West Coast, Crown, Ambassador, Hyles, and the various start-up colleges that have sprung out of Hyles, such as Champion, Commonwealth, and perhaps Shawnee.  Oh, and the Jack Hyles School of the Bible down in Florida, where Tom Neal Kneels.

Sticking with the “institutional” identity, we could include in the Bob Jones crowd places like Maranatha, Northland, Central Seminary, Calvary, and so forth.  Of course, there are other groups out there that would probably not fit in either one of the above named “camps.”  The World Baptist, Baptist Bible, and Southwide Baptist Fellowships tend to be in their own world on this, occasionally overlapping into the two main camps.  Branches intertwine, but they are all of the same bush.  Obviously, Sharper Iron has flushed out some other fringes to the entire movement.

Is this a way of distinguishing between types of Fundamentalists?  Obviously, it is not an airtight classification system.  But there are good reasons to make distinctions this way amongst Fundamentalists.  Because in the fundamentalist movement, associations are everything.  We measure and are measured by the camp we associate with, by the company we keep.  The fundamentalist movement has historically tended to be wrapped up in a man or men, and as a result, to be somewhat polarized from the other segments of the larger movement.  And, to illustrate, often when people call to learn about our church, they want to know who we associate with.  I, by the way, always tell them Kent Brandenburg — though I can’t for the life of me figure out why it is that they immediately hang up on me.

The Good-Ole’-Boy Network

The Fundamentalist Movement as a whole struggles to shake off the charge of being “man-centered.”  The movement has historically been driven by strong personalities and (in many cases) Type A leaders.  I do not see the leadership issue to be a problem per se.  God did give the work of the ministry over to vessels of clay, and since angels will not do the work, and Christ has ascended to heaven, we men must do it.  I do not wish to be overly critical of the fact that men have driven the movement.  I don’t know how else there could be a movement without the work of men.

Nor do I criticize loyalty as a quality, and in a pragmatic sense, as a necessity for those who would accomplish something in this life.  Loyalty is, in most cases, a virtue.  Other than in the world of Jack, where it has become a millstone, loyalty is honorable.  I can appreciate the kind of loyalty that stems from gratitude.  In fact, I would trace my own institutional loyalties back to my own personal gratitude towards those who were so helpful to me in my spiritual life and training.  If it is true that the purest form of loyalty comes from gratitude, then I am the most loyal person of all.

But the Sword branch of Fundamentalism has taken “man-centeredness” to all new heights of grandeiur.  The Good-ole’ boy network is on display in the pages of the paper, and the annual conference is a regular parade of “Who’s Who” in Sword of the Lord Fundamentalism.

Now, this particular branch of Fundamentalism (which, by the way, I would feel the most affinity with of all of Fundamentalism) does not take self-criticism very well.  We at JackHammer have learned this all too well.  We have dared to offer up some criticisms of men who, by and large, we are in basic agreement with.  Our criticisms have been offered on the basis of what is Scriptural and right.  The responses from the supporters of those we criticized have been, shall we say, less than Scriptural.

One particular case-in-point would be Kent’s questioning of Clarence Sexton.  Kent’s questions were asked on a Biblical level.  We thought that Sexton was King James Only.  His materials say that he is.  We understood him to hold the standards that those in the Sword crowd typically claim to hold.  Kent questioned Sexton’s inclusion on the FBF’s platform, a couple of years ago.  The FBF has as one of their stated resolutions that they separate from those who hold a strong KJVO position.  The FBF publicly repudiates some of the standards that Sexton publicly holds to.  The questions Kent asked were couched on grounds of separation, and Kent asked if anyone had a Scriptural defense for what Sexton was doing.

We at JackHammer learned some interesting things through Kent’s public questioning.  Clarence Sexton’s followers must google his name an awful lot.  In fact, we found that Kent’s post on Sexton, and some of the posts we did on Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap, were the top posts ever in our history, nearly three years of blogging.  The only followers who google their leader’s name more often are those who follow Tom Neal.

And when Sexton’s followers encountered our post, they… you guessed it… didn’t answer.  They emoted.  They pouted publicly.  They chastised us.  How dare we question DOCTOR Sexton.  He is a MAN-O’-GAWD.  He has probably won more souls to Christ in one day than any of us have in our lifetime.  We are judgmental.  We slandered him.  We are critical.  We are negative.  And HE is a PASTOR.  Unlike any of us.  How DO you LIKE that (pastor) BRANDENBURG.

Ironically, not one time did a Clarence Sexton follower offer a Scriptural defense.

To be completely honest, I was surprised by this, because I thought better of the good people from Knoxville.  I have been in the Hyles camp long enough to know what to expect from them.  When we did our month on Hyles, we got the predictable response… lots of spewing, lots of bombast, lots of chest thumping, and about enough content to fill a thimble to the half-full mark.  Their responses and their preaching share so much in common.  But we expected that.  In fact, we predicted it.   And as a service to our readers, we offered regular interpretation of the Hylot comments.

But the Crown folks?  Wouldn’t have expected the same from them.  For some reason, I honestly believed that they would have something substantive to say, that there would be a conversation.  How very wrong I was.

Like So Many Dufflepuds

And this is my point.  The Sword of the Lord crowd holds The Chief Voice in the highest regard, and refuses to hear any question about him.  No challenges, no discussion, no considerations, no probing, no trying the Spirits (I John 4:1).  In fact, I would dare say that the Sword crowd will take that as a great compliment.  We shouldn’t be questioning preachers.  We shouldn’t be challenging assumptions.  We should be saying, “Amen!”

Amongst the Sword crowd, there can be no discussion, only agreement.  Discussion is divisive.  Probing questions destroy unity.  And we love unity more than truth.  As a result, we really are an island of voices.  An island in that we have isolated ourselves from the rest of the theological world in our quest for oneness inside our circle.  We have nothing to learn from those outside of our own little island.  We read only our own authors.  We buy only those books recommended and advertised in the Sword of the Lord.  We trust only those Spurgeon sermons that have been safely sanitized by the Sword.  We discuss only those things that we all can agree with, like the wetness of water.  In short, we are an island to ourselves.

As an island of voices, we cheer, we flatter, we glad-hand, we chatter, we echo, and by and large, we say nothing.  We simply repeat our favorite catch-phrases, cliches, and psycho-chatter until we find ourselves to be the wisest of the wise.  If conceit is God’s gift to little men, we are the kings of conceit.  We are the first generation to get it all right.  Questions ended with us.  No more considering, just get in line.  Hear our voices.  We are smart, because we talk alot.

But the collective chatter of our chorus stands in awe and speaks not at the sound of the Chief Voices.  For the Chief Voices cannot be questioned.  They are unquestionably right.  Attend the annual parade of the Chief Voices, also known as The Sword of the Lord Conference, and hear the noises.

Of course these litle one-footed men couldn’t walk or run as we do.  They got about by jumping, like fleas or frogs.  And what jumps they made! – as if each big foot were a mass of springs.  And with what a bounce they came down; that was what made the thumping noise which had so puzzled Lucy yesterday.  For now they were jumping in all directions and calling out to one another, “Hey lads!  We’re visible again.”

“Visible we are,” said one in a tasselled red cap who was obviously the Chief Monopod.  “And what I say is, when chaps are visible, why they can see one another.”

“Ah, there it is, there it is, Chief,” cried all the others.  “There’s the point.  No one’s got a clearer head than you.  You couldn’t have made it plainer.”

“She caught the old man napping, that little girl did,” said the Chief Monopod.  “We’ve beaten him this time.”

“Just what we were going to say oursleves,” chimed the chorus.  “You’re going stronger than ever to-day, Chief.  Keep it up, keep it up.”

“But do they dare to talk about you like that?”  said Lucy.  “They seemed to be so afraid of you yesterday.  Don’t they know you might be listening.”

“That’s one of the funny things about the Duffers,” said the Magician.  “One minute they talk as if I ran everything and overheard everything and was extremely dangerous.  The next moment they think they can take me in by tricks that a baby would see through – bless them!”

Like the Duffers, the Swordlepuds shout their loud Hosannas at each and every gratuitous statement and cliche, echo one another’s sentiments and as a whole find themselves agreeing with every word.  The Chief Voices can hardly preach without quoting the Other Chief Voices, and the Other Voices fill their minds with all the “right” phrases.

How We Became Invisible

The result of this echo chamber also known as the Sword Crowd is that doctrinal content plays second fiddle to the agreed upon talking points, and shallow sermonizing is considered eloquence.  We’ve roped off the deep end — that’s where the ‘bad’ guys swim — the guys who never do anything.  We’re all havin’ a great time splashing in the kiddie pool, with our inflatable floaty toys and our water shooters.  And every once in a while, someone makes a big splash and gets us all wet.

Ironically, the argument has been made that the problem with Fundamentalism is that it is too divisive.  That may be a problem to the rest of the evangelical world, with whom Fundamentalists have very reserved (if at all) fellowship.  But it is not the case within the circle of the Swordlepuds.  Their unity couldn’t be stronger, and simultaneously weaker.

I certainly would not urge an ungodly sort of questioning and probing and challenging spirits, that treat questions as if they are ultimate.  But there is a healthy kind of discussion that I’m convinced hasn’t taken place in the last thirty years within the circle.  This was evident when Jack Hyles offered up his defense of himself against Robert Sumner.  It was evident again when Bob Gray was arrested for French Kissing 1st grade girls (and by some odd twist of fate, simultaneously, and quite magically, disappeared from the upcoming Sword conference, where he was scheduled to speak).  It is evident every time the preachers get together for a Pastor’s Fellowship.  It is evident every time you read from the current sermon selection.

There is such a thing as healthy discussion that questions, that probes, that seeks the truth.  But that kind of thing can only take place when we value the Word above the Voices.

It's Not About Race. It's About the Issues!

You may have already seen the YouTube interview linked at the end of this post, but it illustrates a problem that has become all too evident in this Presidential Campaign.  Obama has more than just skeletons in his closet.  He has corpses in there, rotting and swollen and maggot infested.  But the voters don’t care.  And why don’t they care?  The reason that the voters don’t really care is that the media isn’t making a big deal about it.  If it were important, the media would be making a big deal about it.  Since the media doesn’t make a big deal about it, it must not be important.

All of this making Neal Postman’s important work in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death that much more prophetic.  In fact, this election, like none before, has proven him right.  We really do turn off our mind.  The TV really is our epistemology.  Television really does free politicians from the limited field of their own expertise.  As a friend of mine said recently, elections are not about politics.  Elections are the new American Idol.

Postman said,

We are not permitted to know who is best at being President or Governor or Senator, but whose image is best in touching and soothing the deep reaches of our discontent.  We look at the television screen and ask, in the same voracious way as the Queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?”  We are inclined to vote for those whose personality, family life, and style, as imaged on the screen, give back a better answer than the Queen received.  As Xenophanes remarked twenty-five centuries ago, men always make their gods in their own image.  But to this, television politics has added a new wrinkle: Those who would be gods refashion themselves into images the viewers would have them be.  (pp.. 135)

So, we should not be surprised by this interview, which was produced by (gulp!) the Howard Stern Show, of all things.  To be fair, he had one interviewer who supported McCain, and thought that Joe Biden was McCain’s running mate.  But as you listen to these interviewers, I want you to repeat with me… “It’s not about race.  It’s not about race.  It’s not about race.  It’s about issues.”

The ObamaNation (of desolation)

The polls say Obama will be our next President.  We can discuss how accurate and/or reliable the polls are.  Ann Coulter has an outstanding article on polls, demonstrating that they are reliably skewed in the Democratic candidate’s favor.  In one sense, the polls are unreliable.  But in another sense altogether, the polls are entirely reliable.  They are reliably unreliable.  And they are reliably skewed in favor of the Democratic candidate.

But we should also note that, although the numbers have always been inflated for the Democratic candidate, these same polls have also accurately picked the winner.  Clinton had a 12-15 point lead in his first election.  He didn’t win by 12-15 points, but he did win.  Clinton had a 9 point lead in his second election.  He didn’t win by 9 points, but he did win.  In fact, in each of  the examples that Coulter gives, the polls picked the winner.  Their assessment of the spread was off, but their winner won.

Last Sunday, according to Zogby, Obama had a slight lead (about 2 points) over McCain.  This week, that lead moved to as high as 12 points.  If you have been following Zogby’s daily tracking, you might have noticed that Obama’s lead seems to be very volatile.  Coulter’s explanation could be correct.  But still, Obama holds the lead.

So, like it or not, we are likely to be saying “President Obama” for the next four years.  The ObamaNation will have its day, as it appears now.

Discouraging?  May I remind you that, in the sovereignty of God, we could get the President we want, and that could be the worst thing that ever happened to us.  Or, we could get the President we fear, and that could be the best thing that ever happened to us.

That might be hard to imagine, so let me demonstrate.  The first proposal for an income tax came during the administration of James Madison.  The first time an income tax was imposed was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln.  And Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to openly propose both an income tax and an inheritance tax.  You can read an interesting history here.

Republicans gave us the Patriot Act.  Republicans founded the Department of Homeland Security.  A Republican administration (a pretty conservative one, too, as I recall), nominated Sandra Day O’Conner to the Supreme Court.  Another Republican nominated John Paul Stevens.  Another Republican nominated David Souter.  During Republican administrations, America has not moved closer to repentance or revival.  Churches have grown more worldly and apathetic in the last eight years.  As has already been pointed out, no Messiah will be forthcoming out of Presidential Politics.

The fact is, if we “win” this election, we will likely breath a collective “Shew-w-w! that was close!” We will likely wipe our collective foreheads, dry the sweat off our collective hands, and continue on in our collective complacency, in our collective apathy, in our collective lukewarmness, and in our collective slide towards Gommorah.  Just like the last 8 years.

If, on the other hand, we wind up losing this election, that could be the best thing that has happened to us in some time.  Will we get more serious?  Will we pray for our nation, more earnestly?  Will we repent and seek the Lord for a revival?

I have to think so.

Yes to McCain is Yes to Palin

In my last post, I mentioned that if I voted for McCain at all, it would only be because I support Palin.  For that matter, if I could simply skip straight to Sarah Palin, I would.  And that is a part of what bothers me about this election… Never before have I voted for a man in hopes that he would not finish his term.

It must have been last week that Rush Limbaugh ended his show by saying, “we have three hundred million people in this country, and the best two we could come up with for President are John McCain and Barak Obama?”

I have to agree.  This may be one of the most hotly contested Presidential elections since… well, since the last two anyways.  But I think the reason it is so has more to do with Barak Hussein Obama than with John “The Maverick” McCain.  Obama supporters are in a frenzy.  Chris Matthews gets a chill up his leg when he hears Obama speak.  And on the other hand, the NObama people get a chill down their spine when they think about the possibility of saying “President Obama” for the next four years.  The frenzy is on both sides of Obama… and McCain is merely an accessory.

With that in mind then, I have just a few random thoughts to put up on the blog for you to kick around in the comments thread.  These thoughts are truly random in a very random sense of the word.  No particular meaning should be attached to the chosen order .

First, if we vote for McCain, we are voting for Sarah Palin to rule over us.

Secondly, that (in my opinion) is not such a bad thing, for several reasons.  I do not believe that a woman should rule over us, and I believe what the Bible says about such a case as that — in other words, that it is a sign of chastisement on us as a people.  But with that in mind, I am not at all surprised that it has come to this, only that it has taken so long for it to come to this.  Nor do I believe that this chastisement necessarily means that God is casting us aside.  As a matter of fact, in this case, I can definitely see the possibility that this chastisement is meant to correct us in order to bless us.  Palin is a true conservative — I don’t believe that the analogies of Palin as “Reagan in a skirt” are that far off — and takes a strong stance on abortion.  And, as a woman, Palin has an opportunity to attack abortion in a way that no man could do it in this age of “sensitivity.”  I realize that we have good reasons for remaining pessimistic about the possibility of putting an end to abortion in the next four years.  But that should not keep us from trying.  It would not be the first time that God has used chastisement in order to bless.  Palin strikes you as an everyday woman: down to earth, middle class, “you betcha.”  If you watched her debate with Joe Biden, you couldn’t help but feel that this was a friend.  Could she be a bit too innocent for the Washington shenanig-meisters?  Perhaps.  One certainly has cause to fear that the wolves might devour her once she gets there.  But, one might have thought the same of “Jael with the nail.”

Thirdly, if I were given the opportunity to choose my chastisement (as David did), I would prefer the chastisement of a woman ruling over me to the chastisement of Obama ruling over me.  In following Rome’s path to destruction, I prefer Constantine to Nero.  Obama is a truly dangerous man (I’ll get to that in a minute).  But Sarah Palin is dangerous in a different way – and to a different set of people (namely, the American feminist).

Fourthly, those who think that Sarah Palin is incompetent to perform the duties of Vice President should pay more attention.  Actually, you should pay less attention to the Agents of Propaganda (a.k.a the News Media), and more attention to what is actually happening here.  Consider:  when McCain chose Palin to be his running mate, she was virtually unknown.  The media immediately sent a crew to dig up all the dirt that could be found on Sarah Palin.  And, not surprisingly, she got some dirt on her.  Then, for the next couple of weeks, we were treated to an avalanche of stories about all the dirt on Palin, until the media finally figured out that this strategy was backfiring, and that support for Sarah Palin increased in proportion with the number of hit pieces on her.  So, the media backed off.  They left her alone.  They said nothing about her.  For a couple of weeks.  Then, THAT became the story… that nothing is being said about her.  That obviously meant that she’s not doing anything, she’s not as popular as she was, people are cooling in their ardour for Sarah Palin.

This brings us to my fifth point — that we really have come to the place where image is everything, where propaganda matters, where propaganda trumps substance, and where invented ethos overrides character.  Sarah Palin is a textbook illustration of this.  Most of what we know of Sarah Palin we know from her reputation in Alaska (which is, by the way, very good), and from our Agents of Propaganda, the U.S. News Media.  In her case, it is a battle between situated ethos (her reputation that results from her character), and invented ethos (her image as formed by the Creators of Image).  In time, character always impacts reputation.  But in Sarah Palin’s case, there is not time enough for her true character to shine through.  The media has taken full advantage of this, and thus Sarah Palin has been painted as a bimbo.  That’s too bad.  But the fault lies at our door, when we allow the media to shape our opinions and to invent images for the main players in our political games.

And speaking of invented images, my sixth point has to do with Obama.  In the era of image politics, Obama is the culmination of years of practice at carefully manufacturing the right Suit and Haircut to be President.  The American people really don’t know him.  Not that they care.  He looks good, he sounds good.  And when he has the right tools (think teleprompter), he actually sounds like he believes what he is saying.  But Obama’s character will shine through his reputation as well.  As long as this Presidential season has been, it has not been long enough for Obama’s character to overcome his reputation.  It will, though.

But then, I have yet another thought here.  Consider it my seventh point.  Obama reminds me more of a manikin in a suit than he does a despot.  Perhaps this is the danger of an Obama presidency.  We are not really sure if Obama is the dangerous one, or if the people who manipulate Obama are the dangerous ones.  I could be all wrong on this, but Obama seems to me to be like a puppet on a string.  He dances skillfully, no doubt, but we are left to wonder if we should be impressed with him or with the people pulling his strings.  Watching him reminds me of watching one of those ventriloquist acts with a very accomplished ventriloquist.  I can’t tell if that really is his voice, or if someone else is doing the talking.

And that, in my opinion, is the real danger of an Obama presidency.  One gets the eerie feeling that Obama is not his own man.  Someone owns him.  Should he win the presidency, someone else will run him.  We have always understood the smoke-filled rooms where deals are made.  But we have to think that an Obama presidency would be exactly that.

And that is why, all things being equal, my talk of voting third party is just that — talk.  I’m thinking out loud.  When it comes time to vote, I don’t want Obama in the White House.  Not that I think Obama would be so dangerous by himself.  Get him away from his handlers and his teleprompters, and he is LESS than ordinary.  Rather, it is that I think that Obama’s handlers are extraordinarily dangerous.

I think I’ll vote Palin.

Voting Third Party

If you had asked me four years ago, I would have told you that voting third party was foolish.  Throwing away your vote.  Wrong for the country.  Not the way it works.  But then, I’ve done some thinking since then.  And I want to share some thoughts with you.  This month, I’ll let the pundits do the high class opinionating.  I’d just like to think out loud.

John McCain is the very first presidential candidate to ever get me to think about voting third party.  A couple of months ago, as I was driving my wife home from school, I mentioned this to her.  I cannot stand the thought of John McCain being our next president.  The only thought that makes me shudder more than a McCain presidency is an Obama presidency.  And that is what leaves me in a quandary.

In the political season Before Palin (B.P.), I had decided that I was not voting for McCain.  But, when McCain nominated Sarah Palin, I gave it another look.  Am I one of those deplorable “undecided” voters, the kind I used to revile?  To be honest, yes.  I am.  Here is why.  If I could bypass McCain and vote directly for Sarah Palin, I would do so.  We can discuss the whole voting for a woman president issue in the comments section if you like, but for right now I will only say that I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher, and I would have voted for Deborah as well.

My quandary is in voting for a Presidential ticket because I support the Vice Presidential nominee.  If I did vote for McCain, I would be doing so in the hopes that the Vice President would become President.  I’ve never voted for a guy hoping that something would happen to remove him from office.  Nor am I persuaded that I should.

No doubt our commenters will have plenty to say on this issue, some giving good reasons for voting McCain anyway, and others giving good reasons not to.  I’ll let the comments section carry on that debate.  I meanwhile intend to throw out some thoughts on voting third party, which is what I will do if I don’t vote for McCain.

First, these elections are not in the voters hands.  God controls the nations.  There is no power but of God.  God removes kings and sets up kings (Daniel 2:21).  The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men (Daniel 4:17).  By Him, kings reign and princes decree justice.  By Him princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.  Elections are not in our hands.  Our vote counts, but when the votes are counted, God’s will is always done.

This is not a fatalistic view of the election process.  It is a simple acknowledgement of the Sovereign rule of God.  It is not up to us to vote or to “ensure” that we get the best man in there.  God will take care of putting the man in office that He intends.

This also reminds me of a conceit that voters often have — the conceit that says that my vote, especially in a Presidential election, makes a difference.  We have been told this and told this, and yet we all have the vague notion that the argument and reality have nothing whatsoever in common.  Neil Postman called voting “the next to last refuge of the politically impotent.”  He went on to say that “the last refuge is, of course, giving your opinion to a pollster…”

Here is my point.  I have had the privilege of voting in four presidential elections.  In two of those elections, William Jefferson Clinton was elected President.  In both of those elections, my vote was overwhelmed by those in favor of Clinton.  In the other two of those elections, George W. Bush was elected President.  In both of those elections, my state voted nearly 70% for Bush.  As much as I would like it to be the case that my vote mattered, it really didn’t.

But thinking out loud, I’m not sure anymore that this is a reason for me to vote.  In other words, I’m not convinced that “your vote matters” is a moral argument for voting, or that it is a moral argument for voting for the candidate that has been forced on me by the two parties.

Rather, I consider my vote and my right to vote to be a gift from God, a sacred trust.  Understanding that the outcome is according to His decree, I view my vote to be more of a responsibility on my part — a responsibility to use that vote to make a statement (however impotent that statement may be) about who should be leading this country.

When I think about it that way, the old “hold your nose and vote” idea goes away.  Obviously, I cannot give my approval, no matter how inconsequential my approval might be, to an unqualified candidate.  Not even if that unqualified candidate is the overwhelming choice of The Party.  In matters of conscience, The Party should never be granted authority to dictate who will be voted for.

Some will no doubt argue against this, that voting Third Party is like voting for Obama.  But I would invite those who argue this way to take a fresh look at the history of Presidential politics.  There has been a time or two when one or the other of the two major parties split.  The Bull Moose Party comes to mind, when Teddy Roosevelt prevented the Republican candidate from being elected.  Whenever the split has been severe, the result to the party has been reform – sometimes for good, other times for bad.

The Republican Party really does not represent our values, not even the way it did in the 1980′s.  Clearly not in the way it once did.  Until we as Christians stand up and say, “enough is enough,” the Republican Party will continue its slide right behind the Democratic Party.  A split in the party might put a bad guy in the White House for four years.  But the good accomplished could also straighten up the mess in short order, if the Republican Party got the message.  And that could be a good thing.

Soul Winning

This message found its way into our hands during the past week, and we thought that it might add something to our discussion for the month.  The sermon is one of those messages of encouragement that Spurgeon is so beloved for.  It reminds us that the work of evangelism really is the work of God, but that God puts his treasure in earthen vessels.  It reminds us that as we go in our weakness, God perfects his strength in us.  It reminds us that as we pour our heart into the work, and pour ourselves out for others, we can expect to see God do a wonderful work.  Most importantly, it reminds us that we need wisdom, and that souls won are the mark of answered prayer in this.  We trust that it will be a blessing and encouragement to you, as it was to this soul winner.  Most importantly, we trust that it will push you back out into the highways and hedges more fervently than before.

SOUL WINNING

NO. 850

DELIVERED BY C. H. SPURGEON,

AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.

“He that winneth souls is wise.” – Proverbs 11:30

THE text does not say, “he that winneth sovereigns is wise,” though no doubt he thinks himself wise, and perhaps, in a certain grovelling sense in these days of competition, he must be so; but such wisdom is of the earth, and ends with the earth; and there is another world where the currencies of Europe will not be accepted, nor their past possession be any sign of wealth or wisdom. Solomon, in the text before us, awards no crown for wisdom to crafty statesmen, or even to the ablest of rulers; he issues no diplomas even to philosophers, poets, or men of wit; he crowns with laurel only those who win souls. He does not declare that he who preaches is necessarily wise – and alas! there are multitudes who preach, and gain much applause and eminence, who win no souls, and who shall find it go hard with them at the last, because in all probability they have run and the Master has never sent them. He does not say that he who talks about winning souls is wise, since to lay down rules for others is a very simple thing, but to carry them out one’s self is far more difficult. He who actually, really, and truly turns men from the error of their ways to God, and so is made the means of saving them from going down to hell, is a wise man; and that is true of him whatever his style of soul-winning may be. He may be a Paul, deeply logical, profound in doctrine, able to command all candid judgments; and if he thus win souls he is wise. He may be an Apollos, grandly rhetorical, whose lofty genius soars into the very heaven of eloquence; and if he wins souls in that way he is wise, but not otherwise. Or he may be a Cephas, rough and rugged, using uncouth metaphor and stern declamation, but if he win souls he is no less wise than his polished brother or his argumentative friend, but not else. The great wisdom of soul-winners, according to the text, is proven only by their actual success in really winning souls. To their own Master they are accountable for the ways in which they go to work, not to us. Do not let us be comparing and contrasting this minister and that. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servants. Wisdom is justified in all her children. Only children wrangle about incidental methods: men look at sublime results. Do these workers of many sorts and divers manners win souls? Then they are wise; and you who criticise them, being yourselves unfruitful, cannot be wise, even though you affect to be their judges. God proclaims soul-winners to be wise, dispute it who dare. This degree from the College of Heaven may surely stand them in good stead, let their fellow mortals say what they will of them.

Beyond Door-to-Door

And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.  (Acts 5:42)

And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Acts 20:20-21)

Our idea of door-to-door evangelism comes from these verses, and verses like them.  Our church tries to follow this model as faithfully as we can.  We have a Thursday night program which we call “Evangelism Express.”  Every Thursday, we meet for thirty minutes for a lesson on evangelism, and then we load up the bus and head out to a neighborhood in town.  (When we first started this, we almost called it the “Soul Train,” but we thought better of it).  This has been a tremendous program for our church, a wonderful time of fellowship, and a blessing to this pastor.  But that being said, we have no results to boast of.  Over the summer, we knocked on nearly 3,000 doors, with just one person calling on the name of the Lord for salvation.

That being said, we are not ashamed of our efforts.  God has given us particularly stony ground to plow, and we will not feel sheepish about rejoicing when we coax a single plant to life.

Making initial contact through door-to-door evangelism is a part of what, as we understand the passages above, Paul and the early New Testament Christians were doing.  But we should not consider that to be the limit of what they did.  In fact, as we read these two verses, we find that their evangelism consisted of much more than this.  It certainly demonstrates a shallow understanding of these verses to say that they just “went soul winning.”

First, we find that they were both “teaching” and “preaching” Jesus Christ.  This implies more than a mere cursory explanation of the gospel at the door.  They went beyond the “A, B, C’s of Salvation,” and thoroughly taught them God’s plan for the salvation of men.  They most certainly preached the gospel at the door.  But then the preaching at the door moved into teaching in the house.

Paul says that he taught them, both publicly and privately, “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.  He kept back nothing that was profitable to them.  In other words, this was more than a one time gospel presentation at the door.  Paul brought a course of study into the home, and there he taught them.  His course of study was thorough, was instructive, and was designed to present the whole council of God.

Because we have been engaged in door-to-door evangelism so much, we have learned to boil the gospel down to “the essentials” (as some would say).  This is not necessarily wrong, except that as a result, many believe the gospel to be the summary, and have missed out on the gospel in its fullness.   In our witness, we should never be satisfied with giving the boiled-down, strained-out version that can fit on the three folds of a gospel tract.  We should desire to teach the the gospel in its full-orbed glory to all we meet.  But this will require us to go beyond door-to-door.

God has wonderfully blessed our church with souls saved and fruit that remains through the evangelistic efforts of our church.  We have seen God turn the world upside down for a couple of faithful families.  But in each case, what we have seen is that the work at the door was only the start.  Each time, the real work of evangelism began after that initial contact, through regular contact and scheduled teaching times.  After between five and eight weeks of teaching that involved between six hundred and one thousand verses of Scripture, we saw God do His work and draw these families to salvation.

In each case, when we have taken the time to teach and preach Jesus Christ over a length of time, and have kept back nothing that was profitable, but have shown and taught them repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, have we seen that lasting fruit.  But in each case when we have taken the time to thoroughly teach and preach Jesus Christ, we have found that the results were truly lasting.

“Easy come, easy go” describes the results in the average church.  We almost could call it a spiritual law.  When we see easy conversions at the door during the initial contact, we rarely ever see any lasting fruit.  But when we take the time to thoroughly teach and preach Jesus Christ, we can expect something different.  Paul’s work of evangelizing was no flash in the pan.  When he went into a city to preach, we see that he had lasting results.  Is this not what we want?  Then we will need to do more than just talk at a door.  We will need to dig in and do the real work of evangelism.  That is not to say that door-to-door evangelism isn’t “real evangelism.”  Rather, it is to say that the door-to-door part is starting the mower.  Once you have started the mower, you will still need to get in the yard and mow the grass.