Joe Carter at First Things blog recently posted this article about Thomas Kincade’s artwork.  I must admit, I’m not a big Kincade fan – I’ve never used one of his images for my desktop.  But I’ve never had anything against it either.  The glowing-window cottages are quaint.

The gist of the article is this: Kincade’s painting style has changed over the years.  He used to paint better than he does now.  The change has been from aesthetic excellence to Hallmark-quality art.  This change can be measured according to a transcendent objective standard of aesthetic excellence.  According to that article anyway.  The opposition, however, claims that glowing windows and bright lamp-posts are indeed nice to look at and that Kincade, therefore, is just fine in their eyes.  I’d recommend reading that post now if you’re not familiar with this issue yet (don’t forget to come back here, though!).

Some folks have extended this Kincade art debate into the realm of music.  I’ve read two blog posts that wondered if this discussion of visual aesthetics had anything to do with sacred music.  If so, that comparison would imply that music can also be judged by an external, objective standard of aesthetic value.  Let me suggest three reasons why I’m actually somewhat uncomfortable with that objective aesthetic standard philosophy.

In the first place, no one has defined what that standard actually is.  Some folks claim to link that standard to God’s character (and that sounds great!), but let’s be real and practical.  What kind of art is exactly like God’s character?  Is it Rembrandt, Monet, Ansel Adams, da Vinci or Warhol?  Or take music: is it a SoundForth recording, a Paul Jones hymn, a Bach chorale, a sacred Whitacre or Pärt song, the latest Getty CD or Patch the Pirate?  (And that’s not even beginning to answer questions about what kind of non-sacred music has value!)  This lofty, objective standard of aesthetic excellence sounds good, but no one actually knows what it is!

In the second place, making the kind of value judgment about Kincade art that the First Things article made borders on arrogance & snobbery.  It tends toward an artificial divide between “high society” and “the ignorant masses.”  The unspoken (and dangerous!) implication of the Kincade judgment is that if lots of people like it and buy it, then it is common, commercial and valueless.  The danger is that pride will set in and people will think that they have “more refined taste” than others and therefore are “better” than those others.

In the third place, this line of thinking almost entirely eliminates the validity of personal taste (or at least, it neglects personal taste).  When people decry the value of Kincade art, they forget that it’s OK for someone else to like Kincade paintings (just read through the comments on that post!).  They lose the ability to see other people as God’s image-bearers with different tastes.  Personal differences are made into an issue of good-bad, better-worse and right-wrong.

Of course, I agree that there are absolutes of morality based on God’s character.  Please do not misunderstand me or take these concerns out of context.  But do God’s absolutes really disqualify a Kincade painting of a warmly glowing cottage?  Music, of course, is a whole different story from paintings.  I’m not prepared to work out all the details of this question in the music arena.  But I will offer the warning that the first post with the criticism of Kincade’s work is incomplete – the real issue with Kincade is a matter of preference and not morality.

Oh, this image showed up in one of the comments and I thought it was well worth posting here!  :)

David Steinbach (my father) preached his first sermon last night at Heritage Baptist Church. He has a lot of experience with public speaking and with teaching Sunday School to various age groups, so his first sermon was a whole lot better than my first sermon was!

He preached Phil. 2.12-16, speaking about the Christian’s responsibility to live as lights to reflect the light of Jesus against the dark backdrop of the world.  It’s a careful sermon with many cross-references and clear application.  Listen here.

Please permit me to share my heart on behalf of young Fundamentalists. What really matters to us?

Many of us aren’t nearly as concerned about what a preacher is for or against as we are concerned about how he uses the Word of God to reach his conclusion. If we hear someone argue a logical, biblical case against something that we believe, we’ll let the Word of God re-shape our conclusion. And if we find a logical or exegetical error in that message, we’ll disagree, but we’ll keep respecting the preacher who demonstrates faithfulness to the Word of God but differs graciously on a peripheral stand or position.

What young Fundamentalists are sorely disappointed by is poor handling of the Scripture. If a preacher or speaker argues for the exact same conclusion that we hold, but argues fallaciously or by misreading God’s Word, we’ll note and remember that. Proof-texting, allegorizing and spiritualizing are techniques that irk us, no matter how holy and godly the application may be.

A passion of mine (and of many young Fundamentalists I know) is exegetical precision. Our reasoning goes like this: God promises that his Word will accomplish his purpose (Isa. 55.11); therefore, bending Scripture to any other purpose besides the one revealed in the specific text at hand is twisting God’s Word and breaking his purpose. I think our insistence on context-controlled, Spirit-filled exposition of Scripture is entirely justified (even necessary)!

So what issues matter? We talk a lot about Calvinism and Arminianism, music philosophy, millennial positions, entertainment standards, covenant / dispensationalism, alcohol positions and separationism. Occasionally, we still talk about translations. But those issues are not our hills to die on. We have, however, no intention of compromising our commitment to precise, careful exposition of God’s entire Word and clear, realistic application of it to daily life. Passionate, accurate exegesis and consistent, Spirit-filled embodiment of the Word: that is our desire, our goal and our heart.

Paul shares his heart’s desire for the Philippian believers when he tells them how he prays for them (Phil. 1.9-11). I’ve written the following poem to help us remember what God-glorifying love looks like. Pending the discovery of a suitable melody, I hope that this could be used as a hymn text.

A love abounding in me,
Growing more and more each day,
With knowledge and discernment
Grant to me, O Lord, I pray.
Choosing things that matter most,
That are honest, just and true,
To give You praise, please give me
A love that glorifies You.

A love abounding in me
As I wait for Your great day,
To keep me pure and blameless,
Grant to me, O Lord, I pray.
As I look upon Your face,
Make me pure in all I do.
To give You praise, please give me
A love that glorifies You.

A love abounding in me,
Bearing fruit in every way,
The righteousness of Jesus,
Grant to me, O Lord, I pray.
As Your Son transforms my life
With His glory shining through,
To give You praise, please give me
A love that glorifies You.

© 2009 James Steinbach. All Rights Reserved.

Dr. Dave Doran posted a link to a DBSJ article written in 1996 by Dr. Rolland McCune. Though it’s 13 years old, the article certainly merits the attention of Fundamentalists today.

“Fundamentalists must be doctrinally grounded so that what should be non-issues do not rise to be become divisive turf wars. Some would-be fundamentalist leaders and spokesmen are actually skating near the thin ice of heresy and seem totally unaware of where they are going. Biblical and theological ignorance can rapidly lead to a situation where a non-issue suddenly becomes the big issue and division results.”

McCune, Rolland. “Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Fall 1996): 184-5.

Today Kevin Bauder posted a Nick of Time article in which he reprinted letters and emails that he received in response to his previous two articles about Fundamentalism’s recent controversy over Calvinism. Dr. Bauder printed responses that disagreed with him as well as ones that supported him. The whole list is quite a read.

One recurring theme in the letters/emails caught my attention and raised a question in my mind. Here are several quotes that highlight that theme:

• I’ve often wrestled with some of the very issues you have brought up in your article, and am trying to think through them a little.
• I was beginning to think that I stood all alone.
• Thanks for saying so clearly, what everyone else is thinking!
• Thanks for representing CBTS, men like me who are tempted to shed the label at times, and the cause of Christ in general, with such grace and clarity.
• I just got off the phone with my dad who is a Bob Jones Institute guy and he, 65 years old, is fed up. Another pastor who is 62 years old just wrote me and said thanks to me for highlighting Sweatt’s egregious message. He’s been quiet for 40 years, like my dad, and I personally believe that they too are going to see this statement as a failure on the part of the FBFI leadership (and in their minds, the leadership of fundamentalism because that is the microcosm they are a part of.) … It’s guys like my dad who told me that Sweatt’s message was no different than what he heard thousands of times and never dared to critique who started secretly reading Piper because their sons turned them on to it.
• May you have continued courage to speak the truth that needs to be spoken. … We are in desperate need of this slight upheaval to our comfort zone; I would not be surprised if you are feeling pressure to soften your words.
• As a 28 yr. old conservative, fundamental Baptist pastor I want to thank you for voicing what I have felt over the last several years since I entered seminary (FBTS) until today.
• Thank you so much for addressing issues within Fundamentalism which have been close to my heart ever since 1982…
• You see, Dr. Bauder, the problem that we “young-ones” see is that the message from Pastor Sweatt was not a “new phenomenon” for the FBFI or for fundamentalism in general. I highly doubt that the message truly “caught the leadership of the FBFI by surprise.” (I know it did not catch me by surprise – it has been preached from the pulpit of my alma matter for the last two years.)

The connecting thread, I hope, is obvious now. There is a definite vein of “Thank you for stepping up to say what’s right even though I haven’t done that” running through some of the letters written to Dr. Bauder.

These words show that leaders in Fundamentalism have known about the problem that started this snowball (a trend of exegetically void, factually weak preaching that was carried more by the preacher than by Scripture or accuracy) for years – and many of them have simply kept quiet. These letters were written by several pastors, a retired pastor and a college president!

What caused this awkward silence? Why have these leaders stood quietly while other Fundamentalist “leaders” were allowed to misuse Scripture to fight non-essential doctrinal wars against brothers in Christ? I could suggest that fear of the wrong, yet vocal, minority was a factor, but it would probably be more effective if I let the people who wrote letters to Dr. Bauder tell you that:

• In standing up to these giants recently, who happen to be some of the only believers we can fellowship with [on a foreign mission field], we have risked being “savaged by them.”
• I will not be surprised if you take much flak for writing this…
• I cannot thank you enough for going to bat against the big talkers who are spoiling fundamentalism.
• I wish more than ever that I would be available to attend the FBFI meeting in June. I will be eager to hear what, if anything, is done to address this problem.
• I was going to ask, have the FBF men canceled your membership after that Sweatt reply?
• My background is the very camp of fundamentalist bullying that you address. I knew most of the men you list (Hyles, Rice, Roloff, et al). I aspired to be like them until I began to see the cracks in their armor in the light of Scripture.
• I found that the loud, aggressive “leaders” wanted you to park your brain at the door and let them do all your thinking and values setting for you. That may produce followers, but it does not produce mature disciples.
• I know my dad is writing Dan Sweatt a personal letter, but Dad knows that he’ll be rebuffed by the arrogance that has so long typified big-shots in fundamentalism.
• I would not be surprised if you are feeling pressure to soften your words.
• The FBFI is a strange organizational animal and it is difficult to expect much more in the time constraints given them. I do, however, expect MORE at the annual meeting. I am pessimistic that such will happen.
• Your criticism may well have provoked a gracious response from Fundamentalist leaders, but can anyone seriously hope that such a careful path would have been chosen if the critic (however gracious) was a lesser-known pastor, teacher, or layman?
• I believe that the greater issue at stake is how long will this “duplicitous and abusive leadership…pulpit tirades, doctrinal tomfoolery, and political gamesmanship” be allowed and tolerated in mainstream fundamentalism?

These are not the concerns of wild-eyed, headstrong, young and foolish college students. They are the words of several pastors, a missionary, a seminary graduate, an FBFI representative, a college board member, a college professor and a college president!

Could it be that the bullying response they fear has begun already? Let’s look at the words of those who disagree with Dr. Bauder and see how they voiced that disagreement to him:

• Is there really a need for this level of saber rattling?
• After reading your essay and seeing  that you attended Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, and Dallas Theological Seminary, I understand that you are espousing the new evangelicalism you were taught. Hopefully, you will see the error of your way and repent. Of course, most men who graduate from new evangelical institutions look upon faithful fundamentalists (Bob Jones, Jr.) with an air of contempt and superiority.
• I have suggested to Drs. Vaughn and Smith that they need to cancel you as a speaker at the National [FBFI] Meeting. … I am not saying you are not a fundamentalist, but I do have questions as to whether you are the militant type fundamentalist as those were with whom I had fellowship in the founding days of the FBF.

These comments come from a pastor, and writer without credentials and an FBFI board member emeritus. Their gist is clear: “don’t make such a fuss about this,” “you’re a new evangelical,” and “we’ll get you demoted from your position to speak at the coming FBFI meeting!”

Do you see the logic of their argument? Dr. Bauder said that Pastor Sweatt’s message made a great deal out of a non-essential debate, that it did not represent genuine Fundamentalism and that such messages are not appropriate for FBFI meetings. His opponents have chosen the “I know you are, but what am I?” response: “Oh yeah? Well, you’re making a big deal out of nothing, you’re not mainstream Fundamentalism, and you shouldn’t be allowed to speak at FBFI meetings either. So there!”

So what’s my point? “Bauder is right and the anti-Calvinists are wrong”? No, the issue is much bigger than that. My point is this: if poorly argued anti-Calvinism is fringe and everyone who knows better is quietly waiting for someone bigger to take a hit for the team, then Fundamentalism needs both strong, godly leaders and faithful, biblical team players.

I’m writing as a young man within Fundamentalism who is training to serve God in a position of Christian leadership. I really don’t care about loyalty to a group of human leaders, to a movement or even to a set of good ideas or ideals. I really don’t think that the rest of the young Fundamentalists are real keen on that kind of loyalty either. What we regard as non-negotiable is loyalty to Jesus Christ and to the Scriptures.

I speak now to the men who expressed their gratitude to Dr. Bauder for saying what they did not say. I implore you as a son to his father, please, stand up! In respect and love, I ask you Paul’s question: “Are you seeking the approval of men, or of God?” (Gal. 1.10). Your fears of being bullied and labeled “new evangelical” or “trouble-maker” may be justified – but they do not matter. If the stand taken by Kevin Bauder (and many others) is right and godly, then you must take it, too. Please stand up for the sake of young Fundamentalists (we don’t have the history with the movement that you do – some young men may respond to the pressure by stepping away from Fundamentalism). More importantly, please stand up for Jesus Christ and the truth of his Word!

To other young Fundamentalists, I’d recommend holding tight. We don’t like it when someone else is reactionary against our position; let’s not be reactionary in our response to this issue. Fundamentalism is working through this and the final resolution isn’t clear yet. Let’s see what happens at the upcoming June FBFI meeting. Let’s keep our pastors and teachers and leaders in prayer. Let’s not let every blogo-wind blow us around to leave one movement or join another. Let’s be fervent in personal devotion and compassionate evangelism. Let’s be faithful to God’s Word in both our theology and our conduct. If there were ever a time for us to take I Tim. 4.12 seriously, this is it.

John MacArthur has started the current wave of criticism against Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle.

Paleoevangelical appreciates and qualifies MacArthur’s criticism in two posts.

Chris Anderson posted his two cents’ worth.

Bob Bixby jumps into the fray with a dismantling of one Driscoll sermon that he heard.

Dave Doran deals with Driscoll’s doctrine.

Scott Aniol comments with a summary of previous posts.

And of course, I’m certain that there are others.

The substance of the criticisms is not hard to identify. They accuse Driscoll of distracting people from the Bible’s message by filling his sermons with humor. Some criticize the edgy/crass/lewd character of some of Driscoll’s language, jokes and content. Others claim that his doctrine is shallow, odd or wrong. He even gets picked on for his wardrobe and other aspects of his attempt at contextualization. All those criticisms can be backed up with varied levels of evidence and are, to some degree, true.

But why has this situation arisen? Why is Driscoll committing these errors? Ben at Paleoevangelical posts a quotation from a Driscoll sermon in which Mark Driscoll himself shares (with statements I’ve heard him make in other messages) what I believe is the root of all the areas that are being attacked:

I should’ve waited to plant this church. I had never been a pastor in a church before I started my own church…

I had not even been a member of a church when I started my own…

Had I to do it over again, I would have become a member of a church, I would have worked through the eldership process at a church, I would have subjected myself to the elders. I would have received rebuke and correction and exhortation. They would have talked to me about my pride and my anger and my bitterness, my short temper, my self-sufficiency–a whole list of things that needed work, and I would have humbled myself. And then when they confirmed that it was time, God could have lifted me up to go start Mars Hill.

That’s the heart of this issue, I’m convinced. I’d suspect that each and every criticism against Driscoll is a criticism of some expression of ministry immaturity. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Driscoll sees this problem and, with his usual frankness, admits this with a humble apology some time down the road.

God saw this situation coming and gave us a word about it in advance: “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil” (I Tim. 3.6). Mark Driscoll echoed what Paul wrote about the qualifications for a pastor when he said, “If I could do it over differently, I would.” Paul would tell him, “Yes, you should have waited and matured before becoming a pastor – it’s dangerous for people who are so young in faith to be church leaders.”

Paul warned would-be pastors about becoming “puffed up with conceit;” Driscoll regrets that his “arrogance, braggadociosness, pride, self-sufficiency… hurt the health of Mars Hill early on.”

The fact that Pastor Driscoll recognizes that his ministry immaturity allowed his pride to damage his church is a sign that he is growing. He wishes he could start over and spend time under the corrective authority of mature Christians; I hope that he listens to Dr. MacArthur’s well-reasoned and Scriptural rebuke with a teachable attitude.

I also hope that every blogger who “warns his readers” about Mark Driscoll’s preaching and ministry (a-hem, let’s hope that “warnings” aren’t a guise for attacks, gossip and slander) will also pray that Driscoll will grow in grace, mature in ministry and escape “the condemnation of the devil” (I Tim. 3.6). He is our brother, not our enemy, and any criticism written or typed should be washed in love and prayer. Don’t forget how Samuel rebuked Saul : “it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night” (I Sam. 15 KJV)!

May God give Pastor Driscoll grace to hear and live Peter’s pastoral exhortation: Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (I Pet. 5.5).

Some folks go to town on every political problem, societal ill, governmental shift or watchdog alert that they hear. They’d do well to meditate on Isa.. 8.11-13 instead:

For the Lord spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying: “Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

Occasionally you’ll run across the idea that while a young person is a child, he is required to obey; when he matures, he should honor his parents; then when he moves out and is no longer at home, he really doesn’t need his parents’ input or approval on his decisions.

While you might be able to finely split the word-definitions in Ex. 20.12 and Eph. 6.1-3 and come up with such an obligational scheme, that’s not the whole picture.

Consider the following proverbs:

• 15.20: A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish man despises his mother.
• 17.25: A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore him.
• 23.22: Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.
• 23.24: The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him.
• 30.17: The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.

Proverbs isn’t a book written to little kids or even specifically to young teens. The warnings about the adulteress (Prov. 5-7) would be rather out of place if the target audience were youngsters. Quite the opposite is true: even adults ought to listen to their elderly parents (Prov. 23.22).

I suppose that if you wanted to, you could split some hairs and call a technicality about what age/status allows one to stop obeying his parents. However, if you really want to do the biblical thing (the wise thing), even when your parents are old and you are grown, you will delight them and glorify God by listening to them and heeding their wisdom!

A helpful observation that applies to preaching with authority and to the lordship salvation question:

The gospel “is not, then, a system of how people get saved. The announcement of the gospel results in people being saved – Paul says as much a few verses later [in Romans 1]. But ‘the gospel’ itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative proclamation of King Jesus. He [Paul] can speak equally of ‘announcing the gospel’ and of ‘announcing Jesus’, using the term kerussein, ‘to act as a herald’ in each case (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:23; 15:12; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 4:5; 11:4; Galatians 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:9). When the herald makes a royal proclamation, he says ‘Nero (or whoever) has become emperor. He does not say ‘If you would like to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero.’ The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience – in Paul’s case, to what he calls ‘the obedience of faith’.”

N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 45.