Why is baptism taking a knocking these days?

At the outset of this article I do state that, yes, I understand that “baptism” is not one of the enumerated “fundamentals of the faith” in any of the lists made some one hundred and more years ago. I get it, so please, there’s no need to try to comment that this blogger is trying to add to the fundamentals of the faith.

I am asking this question in light of Dr. Olson’s relegation of baptism to the backwaters of importance at NIU by his comments in his multi-part articles about What Matters Most. There was a time when NIU (Northland International University) was Northland Baptist Bible College (emphasis mine). One of those Biblical distinctives of being a Baptist is believer’s baptism. Even a brief overview of Baptist history reveals that both sides of this issue held their respective beliefs firmly in centuries gone by. While no one is dying at the hands of pedobaptists for holding to believer’s baptism, yet I find it most interesting that those who give the most ground when seeking some sort of cooperation between the two views, it is the believer’s baptism view which succumbs. Why? We hold the high and holy ground on this one. Ours IS the Biblical view. Yes, I said, IS the Biblical view.

Dr. Olson has also been one to tout “Great Commission Living” (The catch phrase at NIU is, Preparing the next generation of servant-leaders for Great Commission Living”). Look at the Great Commission articulated in Matthew 28:19, 20; “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” What marching orders does our Sovereign give us? Believers are to, 1) go to all nations, 2) teach all nations (make disciples, evangelize with/to Christ), 3) baptize those converts (identify with Christ), and 4) teach the Scriptures (indoctrinate with Christ). So part of the Great Commission is baptism. If the Great Commission is so important (and it is), why such latitude on this sub-point of baptism? It is clearly spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ that before one can be baptized one must first be converted, born again, become a believer. We have example after example in the book of Acts of that which the Lord Jesus Christ articulated in the Great Commission. Here are the passages in Acts:

Acts 2:37-41

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:35-38

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Acts 9:17, 18

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Acts 10:44-48

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 16:12-15

And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:25-33

And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.  And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

In every single instance, the pattern is salvation first then baptism. EVERY SINGLE TIME! There is not one exception. Is this pattern not clearly seen?

Second, and just as important, is the meaning of the underlying Greek words. Sadly, this is where English translators through the centuries, dating all the way back to William Tyndale’s English NT, have failed to translate the Greek word, βαπτίζω, and instead have transliterated the word from Greek letters to English letters. So what does βαπτίζω mean? It means, to immerse, to submerge, to place under (the water), to plunge. Hmm,…so, where does sprinkling, or pouring enter in? Answer, they don’t. These methods of baptism have no Scriptural precedent, whatsoever. Where does infant baptism come in the Scriptures? Answer, it doesn’t. Again, there is not one single passage that clearly states that a child, before they could understand the Gospel message and be saved, was baptized. Advocates of pedobaptism infer from passages such as Acts 16:12-15 and 25-33 that these two households surely had infant children present when the Gospel was preached and therefore they too were baptized. Just as valid an inference could be drawn that Lydia was a widow lady past child bearing years, whose children were grown and out of the house, who traveled about unencumbered with the domestic life of children so that she could promote the purple dye guild of Thyatira. And because she traveled about her servants were also childless so as to move about with her with relative ease. As to the Philippian jailer, surely we know him to be a retired Roman legion soldier who settled at Philippi because it was his last post as an active soldier of Rome. While he was at the garrison of Philippi he had made friends with the city rulers and upon his retirement they offered him the job of city jailer. He liked Philippi so well and the offer was a lucrative one that he just couldn’t turn down, besides it was a long and arduous journey to travel back to his native Gaul. Because he had spent his lifetime as a soldier he never had time for family life so his household was comprised of fellow retirees who had served with him in service to Rome. Again, no children were present in this home.

You see, those are just as plausible (and I would tend to think more highly probable) as those who infer that infants were present. The pedobaptist also try to tie baptism to circumcision as a rite of initiation, which is again nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Pedobaptism is a leftover tradition from Roman Catholicism that the Reformers didn’t place through the Biblical sieve. I am rather struck by the those of a Reformed bent or are sympathetic to said thought, who run out their “sola” statements (sola fide [by faith alone], sola gratia [by grace alone], soli Deo Gloria [glory to God alone], solus Christus or solo Christo [Christ alone], and sola scriptura [by Scriptures alone]) proudly and hoist them high for all to see. The last one is what really gets me, for you see, I do agree with these statements. It is by Scriptures alone. This is the first of the Biblical distinctives that Baptists hold dear. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. So why didn’t the Reformers really practice that and why don’t its adherents practice it today? A case in point is Ulrich Zwingli who indeed in 1523 stressed that it would be the Bible only by which beliefs would be judged, not men, not traditions, not creeds, or churches. To quote from Armitage’s Baptist history;

When Zwingli took lead in the Swiss Reformation, he demanded obedience to the Word of God in all Christian matters, and resolved to reject what it did not enjoin. When debating with Dr. Faber, before six hundred Catholic dignitaries at Zurich in 1523, he laid down this foundation principle. Faber demanded who should judge between them on the matters in dispute, and Zwingli pointed to the Hebrew, Greek and Latin Scriptures, which lay before them. Instead, the doctor proposed that the issue should be decided by the universities of Paris, Cologne, and Freiburg. Zwingli replied that the men in that room could tell better what the Scriptures taught than all the universities. ‘Show me’ he demanded, ‘the place in the Scripture where it is written that we are to invoke the saints.’ When Faber defended that doctrine by the Councils, Zwingli showed that as these erred, nothing was binding but the Bible, and said that he would go to the universities if they accepted the Bible as the only judge. Dr. Blanche said: ‘You understand the Scriptures in one way, and another in another. There must be judges in order to decide who has given the right interpretation.’ But Zwingli refused to give any man a place above the Scriptures. Many of his hearers had strong Baptist tendencies and took in this radical doctrine. Educated by so skillful a general, they turned his own weapons upon him when they took issue with him on other subjects; and he was powerless, being obliged to appeal to the sword drawn from the Catholic armory. He was the most advanced of all the reformers biblically, but the moment that he fell into controversy with his own Baptist disciples, he broke with his fundamental principle and made the magistrates of Zurich the decisive judges in the disputes. (p. 330)

As Armitage notes, followers of Zwingli followed that understanding that the Bible is the only authority and in 1525 refused to baptize their infants. They were removed from church and hunted down as heretics. Many eventually were martyred. Why were they killed? Because they accepted that last sola and stated that baptism was for believers only, that infants were incapable of salvation and thus should not be baptized. If the teaching of believer’s baptism is worthy of men like George Blaurock, Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and Balthazar Hubmeyer to suffer and die for, then why is it relegated to the backwaters of importance by a president of a supposedly Baptist institution of higher learning? Dr. Olson in his series of articles stated that the mode of baptism was a ‘functional distinctive’ of churches/para-church organizations. Then why did our Lord Jesus Christ declare that baptism was part of the Great Commission?

As I stated at the beginning, I fully understand that believer’s baptism is not a “fundamental of the faith.” With that said, neither is it some obscure, vague teaching of the Bible that is shrouded from clear view. There is no obscurity in the above mentioned passages concerning who is the proper candidate and the timing of their baptism.

I bring this to our attention to voice my continued concern with Dr. Olson and the direction he is taking NIU. He has tried to deftly relegate vital Biblical truth to some low rung of unimportance. His trajectory is moving NIU from its once historic fundamentalist position very rapidly. To his growing list of compromised, evangelical men, Dr. Olson is adding Conrad Mbewe, having invited him to speak at the upcoming Heart Conference. Maybe Dr. Doran gave the suggestion since he had Mbewe in for services a couple years ago. It is tragic to see an institution go the wrong way.

Does Dr. Matt Olson really get “What matters most”?

For the past couple of years now Dr. Matt Olson has presented a change in practice for Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College). Rick Holland from MacArthur’s ministry and the man behind the Resolved Conferences for young people spoke in chapel, Wayne Simien, former NBA star, came and spoke in chapel shortly thereafter as well, highlighting his sports camp in Kansas. Dr. Bruce Ware of Southern Seminary and progressive dispensationalism fame was brought in for a graduate Ministry course. All this is noted in a previous article, here.

Recently, Dr. Matt Olson embarked upon a multi-part series entitled, What Matters Most, at his blog site. What has created concern is his initial article where he relates a then recent visit to Philadelphia. He attended the services of a church that is tied to Sovereign Grace Ministries. Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of churches identifying themselves as; “We are evangelical, Reformed, and charismatic” (taken from the SGM website). At this church are several NIU alumni, one of which, Greg Dietrich, is retained as an NIU staff member while residing in Philadelphia and attending this church. Dr. Olson praised these alumni as, “they get what matters most.”

This has raised questions (which can be found here and here). At the IDOGTG (In Defense Of The Gospel) blog you will find a series of articles that Lou Martuneac has written on this subject of Matt Olson’s multi-part series. I will not reiterate what these men at their blog sites have said but I do wish to add to the conversation.

Matt Olson’s opening words in part one are;

We all believe in certain things, but not all of those things carry equal weight. This is especially true when it comes to our theology. There is a big difference between what you believe about the resurrection, and what you believe about the timing of the rapture, or how the polity is going to be structured in your church. Many things may be important, but not equally so. When we value everything we believe equally, we soon find ourselves dividing over secondary issues and neglecting matters of much greater importance.

This is why Paul said in I Corinthians 15:3, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance….”

We have an example of a poor translation driving one’s theology (or is it the theology of the translators driving their translating?). Matt Olson quotes I Cor. 15:3 from the NIV which translates the Greek word protos as “first importance.” Giving then the idea that this gospel is of the highest importance, all else is lesser. Pastor Steve Rogers had a good comment on this at IDOTG’s response to Matt Olson’s first article,

“Many fundamentalists are adapting the evangelical argument that the Gospel holds primacy over other inspired, doctrinal teaching. A current catchy trend is to take I Cor. 15:1-4 and say, see Paul says first, which means primacy. Not first, chronologically in NT Christianity, but primacy, the Gospel is the primary doctrine. In reality, Paul is not saying the Gospel is the premier doctrine to the exclusion of other doctrines, but that it is the first doctrine to be preached, and then other doctrines come after, not in importance, but in chronology in Christianity.”

You see, the Greek word protos has a broader meaning than just primacy. This is where context plays an important part in understanding the individual words. As Pastor Rogers has noted, when coming to a city Paul preached the Gospel first, just like that which was done to Paul. He too, first received the Gospel. Sure it is important, no one is denying that, but it must come “first” because all other doctrine stands upon the Gospel. What good does it do to preach on justification, sanctification, glorification, our eternal state, etc., etc., if first the foundation has not been laid which is the Gospel; the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? It is foolish and dangerous to proclaim the other “fundamentals of the faith” before first laying the foundation. This idea of the primacy of the Gospel over the other major tenets of the faith has opened up the flood gate of ecumenical evangelism, particularly since the days of Billy Graham’s compromise in the 50’s. One wonders if this push of primacy is not tied to Covenant Theology’s faulty understanding of God’s primary purpose on earth being redemptive rather than doxological. But then, Matt Olson has relegated CT and Dispensationalism to the second tier of importance.

In his part three article, Matt asks and then answers the question, “What do we separate over.” He answers with these three responses, “1) The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9). 2) The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13). And 3) The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).” Question, where does the false teacher figure into this? Does he figure into point one? If so, then is a false teacher only one who presents a false Gospel? Paul has made the case rather clear in Romans 16:17 and II Thess. 3:6, 14 that we are to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” and “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” and “if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Now if Paul meant separation to be only in regards to a false teacher giving a false Gospel wouldn’t he have said so in these epistles as he did in the Galatian epistle? Instead, he clearly is looking at a broader understanding when he uses these words “the doctrine,” “the tradition,” and “our word by this epistle.”  Continuing in part three, he states, “Let’s separate to Christ and enjoy the sweet fellowship with every believer walking with Him.” Clearly from the verses I have quoted, I can’t “fellowship with every believer walking with Him.”

Now, why does this all matter? For the main reason, that Northland is an institution of higher learning that churches look to for assistance in preparing future believers for the work God has called them to do. Sure we can disagree, as we do, but I have a high and holy responsibility to see to it that my flock is properly instructed. What we have seen and continue to see expressed at Northland is not assisting me in my ministry. How can I send them to an institution where the president has no problem disregarding the institution’s clearly stated beliefs in reference to the charismatic movement?

In Matt’s series of article he has sought to lay out a justification for his attending and endorsing the SGM church in Philadelphia by deftly relegating cessationism/non-cessationism to a lesser level of importance, practically speaking. He has expressed in this series of articles that while Biblical teaching on baptism (he says “mode of baptism” yet that is, practically speaking a non-issue; it’s not the “mode” [sprinkling, pouring or immersing] that is at issue but the “candidate” i.e. pedobaptism or believers baptism), church polity, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc., are at some level important, they are not separation issues just church/institution “functional” distinctives. I humbly disagree. As to eschatology, please note Paul’s words to Timothy in II Timothy 2:16-18. Evidently there is something within the doctrine of eschatology which causes us to “shun” those with false teachings on the subject. My lack of fellowship with those who are truly brothers in Christ who hold to such differing doctrinal beliefs does not deny their salvation. It does not deny the reality that one day when we are all in God’s presence that there will be true “unity” in Christ at that point. It is an unreality to think that somehow that “unity” is possible while still on this earth, especially by lowering that unity to a “Gospel only” criterion.

Is the use of “sanitized” SGM/Getty Music/Stuart Townend and et. al a “wisdom” decision?

Before I delve into this matter myself, I have here an article written by a pastor friend of mine, Bob Fricks, who shares with us his thoughts on this issue.

Since its inception the church has faced a concentrated effort to dilute its message and effectiveness. Sadly, we must admit that there has been a gradual, but consistent, encroachment of worldliness into the church. This may be observed in many, if not most, of today’s evangelical churches. 

In recent history music has been at the forefront of this issue. Beginning in the late 1960s a new genre of music exploded on the scene known as Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). With the introduction of CCM came a damaging influx of worldliness as seen in the style of the music, the nature of the presentation, and the lifestyles of many of those who produce and perform CCM.

While many have shifted their paradigm of worship to incorporate CCM into their services, others have, to the glory of God, stood firm. There is, however, a new and potentially more insidious threat.  There has been the fairly recent introduction of new compositions that include uplifting, biblically accurate words that are matched in an acceptable musical style. The concern of this writer is that some of those producing this music are not anywhere near being on the same page as the traditional, separated fundamentalist. There are applicable biblical standards to consider; let us consider two.

Consider one that has a very good friend who has built a successful business in a competitive market. Would he give him a birthday gift produced by his major competitor? One would expect that that gift would not be well received, even if given with the best of intentions; the giver of the gift did not consider the recipient in making the choice. God has set perimeters for that which is acceptable to Him in our offering of our gift of worship (music or any other aspect of worship). The standard is independent of our preferences, desires, likes/dislikes, and convenience. Anything knowingly offered that falls short is not pleasing to God and shows indifference toward Him. (Malachi 1:11-13)

There is also the principle of Haggai 2:11-13. That which is ceremonially clean becomes unclean if it comes into contact with any unclean item. This is at the heart of the matter-Music produced by those that are not submitted to God’s standards for worship, although acceptable in form and content, should not be used in our churches.

One must define his understanding of the purpose of worship to properly address this issue; purpose will determine the content of the worship. If the purpose is to entertain or to make one feel good, then chose that which is pleasing to you. If the purpose is to attract those outside the church, then choose that which appeals to the un-churched. If the purpose is to show love, dedication, honor, and glory to God then use only that which is pleasing to Him.

It is with a sad heart that the following is presented. This writer has sung and been blessed by many songs produced by those who are considered below. Had the characteristics of the composers of these songs not become known to him he would have gladly continued using them.

Let us consider one source of new music for the church, Getty Music. Among Keith and Kristyn’s credits are “In Christ Alone”, “By Faith”, “Power of the Cross”, “Speak O Lord”, and “O Church Arise”. Many of these were co-written with Stuart Townend. There are three areas that should be considered in evaluating Getty music:

1. Their philosophy of music-

The following statement is taken directly from the Getty Music web page. “Keith and Kristyn Getty have been writing hymns for more than a decade, demonstrating an ability to successfully bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary.” One might say this statement is justified by defining “contemporary” as new, but, as will be demonstrated, the definition of contemporary is that of CCM, music that is worldly. This is a gap that should not be bridged. God tells us “touch not the unclean thing”. It is a grave error to attempt to take that which is ungodly and attempt to “scrub it up” and “make it clean”. Stuart Townend has said “God loves electric guitars and drums.”(Stuart Townend: The Journey Gets Stronger, ChristianityToday.com, April 7, 2011). The bridge that would be established by Getty Music leads to a place that the Christian should not be.

2. The church’s need to maintain a clear message-

The right to speak against carelessness, casualness, and worldliness in worship is forfeited when that which is used comes from the very mindset we are speaking against.

3. The church’s obligation to separate itself from worldliness-

Keith and Kristyn Getty promote that which the church should have no part of. Let their performances speak for themselves. The link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZuIyrwSqHY will take you to a video of the Gettys performing “In Christ Alone”.  Another video to review may be found at http://vimeo.com/29837709 . These two videos give a good representation of that which the Gettys promote.

Some will say that there are others opposed to anything new. That is not the motive behind this article. There is a great need for new material suitable for worship to use in our churches. Let’s not abandon our biblical time-honored standards for the sake of being “up-to date” or “with-it” in the eyes of the world.

I give a hearty amen to what our brother has said and here add my own thoughts on the use of “sanitized” CCM.

When it comes to the discussion of music within the church setting emotions tend to rule the day and an objective interaction of ideas, opinions, and facts usually gets pushed aside. I daresay the same will happen here but I will try. It is because of the emotional pull of music that I bring up this question in the first place. Like any other issue it must be addressed factually and our emotions must become subservient.

I pose this question because it is an issue that will only continue to rise in importance within the IFB community. Admittedly I am a member of the FBFI and I bring to our attention a resolution passed by that fellowship in 1997 which reads as follows:

The FBF rejects the notion that music is not a matter of separation. Clearly, we would separate from a pastor or church that used rock music either to attract a crowd or-God forbid-in worship. Therefore, we recognize that it is a separation issue. The encroachment of "CCM" or Contemporary Christian Music as a musical genre has been ignored too long. It is wrong to judge motives subjectively, but it is essential to discern the implications of methods, particularly in music. Fundamentalists should be able to agree that we must be committed to Godly, Christ-honoring music. With sufficient prayerful discussion with Fundamentalist musicians, and necessary study of the subject by our preachers we will be able to move toward a consensus of what is meant by 'Christ-honoring' music in practice. We call for Fundamentalists to cease defending tastes in music as a matter of "preference" and begin to expound the principles whereby those who need guidance on this issue can be truly helped. We assert that those who boast of their "balance' and 'objectivity" while rejecting the teaching of biblical principles concerning music are compromising the means whereby this issue can be resolved. Neither tradition nor taste is the issue. The Bible communicates principles of music that is acceptable to God that can and should be known and taught.

Now, here at the outset I do wish to state that I am in total agreement with this resolution. The use of CCM is a separation issue. But we have a twist to this in the use of “sanitized” SGM/Getty/Townend CCM. For the most part the lyrics are sound and the music has been altered to be acceptable to those who hold to a conservative, traditional style of music. This, I believe, leads us to ask yet another question, does the “sanitizing” negate the CCM moniker that said song has in its original form? I would answer, no. Sanitizing does not negate the original intent of the songwriter/musician. I think a parallel could be drawn from the literary realm with the use of euphemisms for profane language. We would agree, I trust, that profane language is unacceptable speech for the believer (Ephesians 4:29; 5:4 comes to mind). Using the euphemisms in place of the profane is still unacceptable because of the link, tie, whatever you wish to call it, the undeniable association of the words. A person says the euphemism but is really expressing the profane. Some may do it in ignorance because they have never been taught the relationship of the words but that does not excuse the understanding that euphemisms are still unacceptable in our speech.

With our seemingly inexhaustible ability to access most anything via the internet, we have the issue of a slippery slope effect with the music. We present the sanitized version in our church and our people surf the internet and discover the original artists doing their original intent which we find unacceptable. We have opened the door to have some move in the wrong direction. Now for you naysayers about the slippery slope, exceptions don’t make the rule and neither do they invalidate the rule. There is abundant evidence to validate the slippery slope effect and yes, I agree that there are a few, and I mean few, who in various situations have not succumbed to the slippery slope. They do not invalidate the reality of the scores of others who have succumbed. I for one do not wish to be the one who provided for the falling of another. I am here to build up, to edify others, not provide the possibility for their falling down. The Biblical mandates governing the weaker brother certainly are applicable here. Sure, our mature church members can recognize the difference and remove the chaff and enjoy the wheat but we have those who cannot and they are led away by our opening the door to unacceptable practices. Notice what God teaches us concerning the weaker brother scenario; the mature believer limits his own liberty in order to assist and edify the weaker brother unto maturity (Romans 14:13-21, I Corinthians 8:8-13). Under this principle how is this “sanitized” CCM to be handled? Some might say that I am the weaker brother because I am unwilling to accept the “good” in CCM. If that be the case, what should the response then be of the “mature” brother who accepts CCM? By Scriptural instruction he should abstain from use of the music to help me to maturity. Now for the flip side, what if I am the mature believer and those who accept “sanitized” CCM are the weaker brother. What is my response? Again, I still abstain from that which I find wrong and I do so for the sake of the weaker brother to help and assist them to maturity.

Now, some may be asking what about the proper principles to instruct our people concerning musical choices? Well, here are a couple of resources I am familiar with and would recommend to you: The Battle for Christian Music by Tim Fisher, Gospel Music: Blessing or Blight? by Ken Lynch, and Church Music: sense and nonsense by Danny Sweatt. I do not know how available they are but hopefully they can be found.

Now, back to our original question; is the use of sanitized music just a wisdom decision? Well, first we must decide just what constitutes a wisdom decision. Typically people will go to Acts 15:36-41 to state the case for a wisdom decision and I agree, for indeed we have such an instance between Paul and Barnabas concerning John Mark. In that issue both men are right…and God used, what was to them the most equitable solution, division, to multiply the missionary teams sent out and eventually brought about a complete reconciliation/restoration of the men involved. What is a bit disconcerting for this writer is when men today use this passage to try to justify their current departures from Biblical norms. The sanitized CCM is a case in point. There are some who cry this is a wisdom decision. Which cannot be the case, for either CCM is right or it is wrong; it cannot be both. If CCM is wrong, and it is, then it cannot be found to be acceptable at any point.

In the FBFI resolution they note that this is a separation issue which would bring the Scriptures into this discussion. A couple of verses come to mind that have bearing on this; Romans 16:17; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15, to name a few. I have already commented on this in another article so I will not elaborate too much here. You can find the other article here. This brings us back to the original arrangement of the songs in question. Would we link with these ministries? Would we have these ministries come in and present this music in its original form? If we would not have them come because of our doctrinal differences, then why accept the sanitized version of their music? We know where it came from, and that source is itself to be separated from, so why is the sanitized to be received without question?

Is it easy to be 100% consistent in this issue (or any issue for that matter), answer; no, it’s not because we are all fallible human beings. With that said, that also doesn’t mean that we give up trying to be consistent.

There are others areas that could be addressed on this issue, such as the entertainment element that is prevalent within CCM, even within SGM/Getty Music and Stuart Townend form of CCM. I think there has been enough touched on to cause us to pause and consider the implications of our actions.

10.7.12 addenda
Here are links that aret in the comment section which can be accessed easier.

http://religiousaffections.org/editors-picks/the-sovereign-gracegetty-music-question/

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/14/as-goes-the-music-so-goes-the-ministry/#more-933

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/29/a-biblical-foundation-for-music/#more-974

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/09/11/why-cling-to-a-conservative-music-standard/#more-1017

Calling for coalitions, consensus or setting up the ensign or standard?

Are we calling for coalitions, consensus to build fundamentalism or are we setting up the ensign, standard around which men of like minds will gather?

I have heard a statement which is attributed to Margret Thatcher, “Consensus is the lack of leadership.” Historically Fundamentalism has not been a movement/ideal which was established by coalition, consensus. Historically Fundamentalism sought to mark itself by what it believes/stands for and has used those beliefs as the ensign, standard to which men rallied.

There are not too many who do not recognize that Fundamentalism has had its share of troubles. Since Fundamentalism is comprised of men, it is naturally understandable that there will be troubles for we all still possess our fallen, sinful nature though we are redeemed. This is not to make excuse for those troubles, just an acknowledgement that troubles will always be present in any human gathering this side of heaven.

The rub comes with the corrective measures that some wish to take in order to “correct” Fundamentalism and “move” it in the right direction. To seek out what is “common ground” in order to re-establish fundamentalism is to forget, reject how fundamentalism arose initially. Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the creeping tide of modernism within various denominations and as different men recognized the creeping tide of unbelief they established a “standard”, an “ensign”, if you will, which we call the Fundamentals which was used as the rallying point for fellow, likeminded men. They did not seek cooperation on the basis of consensus, or coalition building, finding the lowest common denominators by which men would come together. They established their beliefs, held them high and people who recognized the truth gathered accordingly.

Evangelicalism has been built using the consensus, coalition model and we see the problems that this has produced; a broad, wide tent of belief with only tenuous strings stretched out trying to hold the various differing factions together. They are still quibbling over what exactly binds them together (Just read the mistitled book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, to get a glimpse of this. I say mistitled for many understand, Andy Naselli, the editor included, that there are really only two views presented in the book; the right side of Evangelicalism {confessional or conservative} and the rest of evangelicalism which is left leaning).

We must return to this idea of stating our beliefs/position and let the truth of those beliefs/position draw like-minded men. Fundamentalism, I trust, has gone beyond the numbers games of decades gone by. This is not about who has the largest gathering, or who can have the largest following. This is about raising the truth found in God’s Word and having men respond to the truth.

Dr. Ed Nelson at last year’s national FBFI conference reminded the audience that God has been in the remnant business for a long time. We should not expect that the faithful followers of God and His Word will ever outnumber the other rallying points that are out in the broad spectrum of “Christianity.” God does call us to faithfulness (I Cor. 4:2), holiness (I Peter 1:14-16), Christlikeness (Rom. 8:29; II Peter 3:18) and it is toward God we are to ever be walking, striving in His enabling power by His Spirit.

Let us rejoice when others join us but may we never equivocate our beliefs, position, ensign for the sake of swelling our ranks.

The Story of Mr. Frog

In remembrance of The Fortress...

There once was a picturesque pond which was home to a colony of healthy, well-fed frogs. One day a young man came to that pond and captured an elder frog. Well, at first Mr. Frog was quite beside himself, having been taken against his will by this man. Mr. Frog’s friends followed at a safe distance to see what was to be the fate of their friend. Mr. Frog bellowed to his friends to beware these tall, two-legged creatures if any were to return to the pond. His friends thought long and hard on these warnings and indeed were cautious as they followed.

Chance would have it that Mr. Frog’s captor instead of bringing immediate harm to him gave him his own private pond. The water was fresh and inviting. This pond was elevated so as to provide Mr. Frog a grand view of his new surroundings. The pond was situated on a large, white plateau with a small ridge that rose slightly higher than the plateau. On the slope of the ridge there were what looked to be round, white bushes, four of them, neatly spaced apart from each other across the ridge. Unseen to Mr. Frog and barely visible to his friends on the window, there were four dark, circular trails on the plateau.

Well, Mr. Frog’s friends had found a window ledge that afforded them a perfect view of the pond and the plateau. On the way to the window ledge a few of the frogs noticed a book in which the author spoke out about the dangers of plateaus, dark, circular trails, and ridges with white, round bushes. By precept, principles and previous experiences of others years ago, the author laid bare the dire consequences of any and all who would venture into ponds on plateaus with dark, circular trails and ridges with round bushes. To be sure, these frogs thought it their responsibility to sound a warning to their fellow frogs to beware of these ponds on those plateaus.

When Mr. Frog saw his friends watching at the window, he called out to them in excited tones to come and join him. He told them about the cool, refreshing water. He told them about the fantastic views he had and how that he had been mistaken about the large, two-legged creature that had brought him here. Against the warning of some, a few of Mr. Frog’s friends decided to risk the venture and left the relative safety of the window ledge outside and found a way inside and joined him in the pond.

After a little while, Mr. Frog’s friends who had joined him lost their apprehensions and began to relax and enjoy this new pond as well. They too, joined in and sang out about the advantages that the pond afforded. Others ridiculed those who were shouting out warnings, suggesting that they were far too bellicose or self-promoting and even a bit loony with their words of warning. Still others, remembering that some older frogs had spoken out against these things, took them to task as well, denouncing their warnings as unwarranted, ill-conceived ideas. As all this commotion was going on, yet others started to leave the window ledge and make their way into the house to join these happy fellows, fearful of being around those who were at times blunt in their warnings. As they were making their way in, the large, two-legged creature came by and seeing the following of frogs that were coming into his home, decided to add three more ponds to the plateau so as to accommodate the new comers. Once the newcomers were happily in their ponds the large, two-legged creature reached back on the ridge and rotated the four, round white bushes.

Pretty soon the dark, circular trails that were underneath the ponds started to glow a beautiful reddish-orange. Upon seeing this discoloration the few frogs remaining on the window ledge started crying out with more incessant tones to their friends in the ponds that disaster was brewing. Those were not ponds but were pots and their friends were headed to an untimely demise. The frogs that were in the ponds on the plateau scoffed at the warnings. Others who were still making their way in to join them on the plateau scolded those who issued the warning noting that we live in days of change and therefore it was necessary to have the dark, circular trail change colors. The new color was more appealing and enhanced the overall décor of the plateau. Sadly, the warnings and appeals by those on the window ledge went unheeded by the hapless followers of Mr. Frog. And indeed the frogs in the four ponds soon expired never realizing that they were being boiled to death.

Sadly, this scenario has been played out over and over again within the realm of Biblical Christianity in regards to any number of Biblical issues that have been compromised by various people. Whether it is associations, music, or what have you, there have been countless believers that have left the safety of the clear teaching of the Word of God and sought after the comforts that compromise promises to achieve yet never delivers.