Going unpack my concern abt this & doing so because I love pastors & congregations. I’m not subtweeting anything. I teach seminary so helping men prepare for the pastorate is part of my life. I’ve counseled too many pastors/churches in conflict & would like to see less of it. /1

https://twitter.com/Grace4Motown/status/1587919241524690946

As a pastor, my desire for our congregation would be to never see: (1) members rushing to judgment w/o full information; (2) members making uncharitable interpretations of & assumptions about 1 another; (3) members passing along partial or false info about others; /2

Some thoughts about “taking stands” in doctrinal, moral, & ecclesiastical battles. Not all good men arrive at the same conclusion at the same time, so: /1 (1) be cautious abt criticizing harshly those who sound the alarm early & loudly—it may be they spot something others are missing. “The most dangerous errors in any generation are those that many Christian leaders do not see…And part of the gift of discernment lies not only…/2

“Have you ever met a person who says they fell in love with Jesus because a religious person or group of religious people scolded them for their morals, their ethics, and their lifestyle choices? In all my years, I have yet to meet a man, woman, or child with such a story.” Would like to interact w/ this idea a bit…
1) As an observation of experience (really non-experience) it doesn’t prove anything beyond the writer’s experience & others immediately shared their counter experiences. To draw firm ministry conclusions from it would be very unwise;

Speaking from personal and pastoral experience, perhaps the greatest challenge of our day is making clear the difference between so-called faith which is really just intellectual assent to ideas and biblical faith which involves the whole person (mind, affections, & will). 1/ It is challenging due to the tension of keeping the gospel “simple” (it is!) while avoiding easy believism on 1 hand & shifting the ground of assurance away from the righteousness of Christ on the other. The former seems the more common error, but the latter is not the answer. 2/

“We go too far when we look upon the success that God gives some persons, in making them instruments of doing much good, as a testimony of God’s approbation of those persons and all the courses they take” (Jonathan Edwards). /1 This is a root problem of evangelical celebrity culture and where it always seems to corrupt so badly. Namely, people wrongly conclude that apparent blessing = divine approval or endorsement. Larger blessing = stronger endorsement. /2

The mission of Jesus Christ to build His church (Matt 16:18) is the most important thing happening in this world and it should be the highest concern of every follower of Jesus Christ. All other responsibilities must be lined up properly with this one. 1/ Every word and deed should be measured against its effect on our mission. I encouraged our congregation Sunday to remember the three facets of our witness for Christ: the content of our message, our contact with the mission field, and our credibility of the Lord’s messengers. 2/

Some thoughts on the Grace Community Church situation: (1) it is possible to think both that this may not have been the right hill to die on (indoor vs. outdoor worship) & that the gov’t is engaging in excessive overreach; (2) due to the latter, defenders of religious liberty should put aside their differences (whether substantive or petty—of which there seems many) & lend their voices to back GCC. It may not have been the fight you wanted, but it is the fight we have & the stakes are high;

Let’s concede some people are sinfully brutal w/ the truth, but can we stop elevating how people feel to an equally sinful level of control? If I am wrong about something it really doesn’t matter how I feel about it. Give me the truth. That’s the most loving thing you can do. 1/ I am wrong to manipulate the discussion by my feelings, perceptions, or experiences. Saying you need to “read the room” better or you’re “tone deaf” very easily becomes a method to dodge the truth of what you’ve said or dismiss you so I don’t have to deal w/ your point. 2/

I am not Emperor over word usage, so people are free to use non-biblical terms & labels as they see fit, however, I’d like to make the case that people not use the word “fundamentalist” as a pejorative because: (1) all Bible-believing people accept an irreducible doctrinal core that is essential or fundamental to the Faith once delivered (aka they are fundamentalists in the historic, theological sense of the term);

Thoughts prompted by some current debates, but not specifically a response to them. The battle for doctrinal fidelity in parachurch institutions & cooperative efforts seems to consistently 1/7 involve 5 kinds of people/groups: (1) open proponents of error; (2) open opponents of error; (3) quiet/behind the scenes/undercover proponents of error; (4) quiet/behind the scenes/undercover opponents of error; and (5) the undecided and/or oblivious. 2/7

I think David French is right in the basic point, but the problem behind the problem is that false notion that there is an Evangelicalism that has leaders. We have religious entrepreneurs who represent only themselves and their organizations.

https://twitter.com/davidafrench/status/1121485310016262144

The prob won’t stop while the myth of Evangelicalism keeps being perpetuated. The desire to have something bigger than the local church for clout w/ the culture has created this mess. The strategic effort to create a movement in the mid-20th century bore this fruit.

You might be a fundamentalist...

If you believe there are doctrines so essential to Christianity that you cannot deny them and still rightly call yourself a Christian. You might be a fundamentalist...

If you believe that granting Christian recognition & fellowship to those who reject essential doctrines of the Faith is prohibited by Scripture.

I know I am in the minority on a lot, so probably here too—I think the principal players in the ShepCon Q&A did what they needed to do and that will make people who don’t agree unhappy. None of it was surprising to me and was actually pretty consistent w/ each’s M.O. While I disagree w/ Mohler’s views on church & culture (justice being a subset), I don’t see anything wrong w/ him choosing & defending his own strategy for addressing this issue. His angle was political in a legit sense of that term (stewardship of influence & power).

James 1:27 is regularly cited as proof of social justice implications of the gospel, so let’s think through how this passage and another one re widows help us see the difference between personal & congregational duties. Start w/ the simple observation that James 1:26 addresses an individual’s spiritual condition (“his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless”). The point of v. 27=same as epistle, I.e., test of genuine faith. The proper use of this text is personal, not congregational.

It might be very helpful for Evangelicals who are unfamiliar with the mid-20th century (1940-1965) conflict between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism to do some rdg abt the issues & divide that happened. Looks like a replay is on tap... Only with deeper divides already in place and decades of leftward movement among many professsing evangelicals (aka post-conservatives). Those who oppose “social justice” lang are already being called Fundamentalists, but as a pejorative, not a theological stance.