The Rise and (Fall) of Dispensationalism

 Putting "Fall" in quotation marks is an addition to the title of the book, by Daniel G. Hummel, which is the topic of this post. The subtitle of The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is "How the Evangelical Battle Over the End Times Shaped a Nation." 

I'm not writing a review. For that, I point you to Pastor Gary Gilley's review of the book. It was his review that brought the book to my attention. Having read the book and then reread Gilley's review, I think he does a good job. Instead, what I am doing, here, is sharing some, somewhat random, thoughts about the book and what the book, intersecting with my background and current place in life, raises.

I grew up spiritually in an environment in which the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, were second only to the Bible itself, in authority. I was surrounded by pastors who were graduates of Moody Bible Institute. Both D. L. Moody, and the Bible Institute he founded take up a lot of Space in The Rise and Fall . . . (R&F). I graduated from a Bible Institute that was, in many ways, a smaller clone of Moody. It's Founder and first president was a graduate of Moody. My Theology prof received his doctoral degree at Dallas. He had actually heard Lewis Sperry Chafer lecture. Dwight Pentecost's book, Things to Come, was assigned reading. I also spent two years at a Bible College that was thoroughly Dispensational. The President of that school, at the time I was there, is quoted in R&F.  My post-graduate studies were in a school that wasn't particularly known for being dispensational, but it clearly welcomed Dispensationalists on the faculty. Buildings are named after Tim Lahaye.

I still claim Dispensational Premillennialism as my Theological House, but as John MacArthur is widely quoted as saying, my Dispensationalism might be a bit "leaky." It's not that I have come up with a system of Ecclesiology and Eschatology (in my humble opinion, those are the two areas of Theology where Dispensationalism makes the most difference), rather in my book of Things to Emphasize Dispensationalism doesn't take up as many pages as it once did.

Some years ago another Pastor and I attended a conference on Dispensationalism. It was one of those conferences in which experts/serious scholars presented papers to their colleagues, who would then ask questions and give comments. We got to listen in. One of my teachers and a schoolmate were among the presenters. The experience could have served as an illustration for the latter portion of Hummel's book. This was a small gathering. While the presenters were brilliant men, with the possible exception of the President of Dallas Theological Seminary, none of them were at risk of being interviewed on national TV. The Theologians at the conference occupied a narrow strip of Biblical real estate between the up-and-coming more reformed scholars and institutions, on one side, and the "Left Behind"ers on the other. I detected the smell of holding-on-for-dear-life.

Reading the book reminded me of, and strengthened an observation that has informed my ministry for the last thirty or thirty-five years. I heard the point made by a college roommate of mine, who was, ironically enough, working for Moody Bible Institute at the time he made the comment, that no system of trying to systematize the whole flow of Scripture is sufficient to take it all in. Not long after I heard, essentially,  the same statement made by a nationally known pastor. At about the same time, I spent a considerable amount of time working through and preaching from the Sermon on the Mount. That series changed me. For reasons I won't go into here, I came to decisively reject the old, extreme, Dispensational "truth" that I had been taught, that the Sermon on the Mount was "Kingdom truth;" it didn't directly apply to the Church. With D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and others I concluded that Jesus most famous sermon was every bit about the here and now.

I sort of channeled a concept that I had heard powerfully expressed by an old-time preacher from West Virginia. B. R. Lakin began his career riding a mule to speaking engagements. He became a successful pastor and popular revivalist. The experience he spoke of was during what Hummel would call the "Rise" phase of Dispensationalism. I'm paraphrasing, but the old preacher, speaking from the platform of that thoroughly Dispensational Bible Institute said something like.

I attended a Bible Conference and saw a man with a bed sheet and fishing pole [Lakin was obviously referring to one of the Dispensational Charts that Dispensational prophecy preachers were famous for. The charts developed by Clarence Larkin are probably the best known]. He told me that this part of scripture applied this time and this other part of the Bible applied to another time [what old dispensationalists often referred to as "rightly dividing the Word"]. I went home and tried to do that for myself but finally gave up in frustration. I simply took of all of the Bible as God's word to me and sought to apply it to my life in my time and place. 

To any who may have been present at that Chapel service or who know Lakin better than I do, I emphasize again that I am working from memories of an incident more than fifty years ago. I also know that good preaching is often hyperbolic. I'm confident that Lakin's hermeneutics were more sophisticated than this anecdote implies, but the mule-riding preacher's words have haunted my mind and heart for most of my life.

I'll leave tracing the impact of Dispensationalism on a national/international scale to better minds, like Hummel's. I'll just say that too many pastors and Bible teachers approach Scripture and ask, "From a Dispensational point of view, what does this passage mean?" I know that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere," but I do believe that trying to adopt a less prejudicial perspective is important. Approach the text with the necessary agnosticism. After you see what the text means, you may find that it aligns with your overall view of things, be that Dispensational, Covenental, or whatever. Fine. Just be sure you let the text speak. Don't put words in its mouth.

Apparently, I'm an outlier. The fact that I see nothing in the New Testament that indicates that I should bring a lamb to church tomorrow, indicates to me that there are at least two ways of doing things presented in Scripture. A straight-forward (literal, with a right understanding of the word) indicates that Israel is not the same as the church and the church is not the same as Israel. In fact, the tenses of the New Testament in reference to the formation of the church indicate that it didn't even exist in Old Testament times. I do live in a time in which the residents of the planet, except for those saved by grace, are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3), the world itself is in the power of the wicked one (1 John 5:19), and that this wicked one apparently has a lot of freedom to do his anti-God work (1 Peter 5:8). I could go on, but all that I am saying is that when I take God's word for what it appears to me to say, I see what has come to be called Dispensationalism. On the other hand, some of my go-to commentators would be insulted to have their name associated with Dispensationalism. I go to their books because they deal honestly with the text. I will enjoy telling them if I live until the Rapture, "See I was right." In the meantime, they are a help to me. If we both live to some one-size-fits-all general judgment day I'll say, "Well, what do you know?" 

I'd like to finish this before the Rapture, so I'll stop.

Some thoughts at the death of a great evangelist and evangelical, from an, at least somewhat, reformed Fundamentalist:

I just heard the News that Billy Graham died. I am sad that a man of his stature has departed, but then, in reality he has not been the force in Christendom, that he once was, for some time, now. From all I heard over the last few years, he has been but a fragile shell of the man he once was. His dear wife, Ruth, died some years ago. A long time ago I read a book Dr. Graham wrote about heaven. I rejoice at his transition; now he can check things out to see how much of his book is right.

As far as my spiritual upbringing, I grew up a Fundamentalist. I am thankful for my heritage. Men like my pastor in my formative years, Rev. Eugene Marsceau, who later became my father-in-law, the President of Appalachian Bible Institute, Dr. Lester Pipkin, my Theology prof. Dr. Joseph Pinter, and my pastor during the last two years of my college career, Rev. Victor Decker were/are all Fundamentalists. All of them were gentlemen. Though Lester Pipkin was one of the strongest, most effective preachers I ever heard, and all of these men were men of strong conviction, none of them had the fire-breathing, eat-nails-for-breakfast-and-spit-out-tacks-at-lunch persona for which Fundamentalists are famous. All of them were but one generation removed, though, from the Fundamentalist battles of the early and mid-20^th Century. For them, to be called an “Evangelical” was not a good thing. To be called a “Neo-Evangelical” was even worse. Graham was both. At the famous (in my circles) Madison Square Garden Crusade, he sold out his more conservative comrades. At least that was the view in my camp. They wanted to maintain a higher degree of doctrinal purity. Graham, and his core associates, wanted to be as inclusive as possible to gain a broader hearing for the Gospel. (You can do your internet search to read the history.) Fundamentalism never forgave Graham. Graham not only continued on to become the most prominent, widely-heard evangelist in the history of the church, he also became the visible representative of the Evangelical movement.

I remember early in my pastoral ministry, The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was holding a Crusade in a city not far from my home. A delegation from Bob Jones University, at the time a bastion of militant Fundamentalism and a school where Graham was once a student, set up a picket line outside the auditorium where the crusade was being held. I was impressed with Billy Graham’s humanity when I heard that he quoted Dr. Bob, Bob Jones I, “If a hound dog is howling for Jesus, I’m on the hound dog’s side.” I suppose that became my statement about the matter. I didn’t and still don’t agree with all the decisions the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has made over the years. There were times when Evangelist Graham reached too far in his attempt to be inclusive. Still Graham preached the John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans-Road Gospel. I knew people who had clearly come to know the Lord through his ministry. I might not be able to offer wholehearted support for everything, but I sure didn’t want to oppose what God was doing through Billy Graham. I wasn’t alone in my discomfort about “Fundamental” opposition to Graham.

I’m guessing it was about 30-35 years ago. Another Billy, a good pastor friend of mine, and I attended a pastor’s meeting with an old Fundamentalist warhorse evangelist, who was holding meetings at my friend’s church. After the meeting, we sat for maybe two hours in my van and talked. That two-hour conversation was the equivalent of a semester of 20^th Century Evangelical/Fundamentalist church history. Our older companion was close enough to Graham that they still exchanged Christmas cards. Rev. John was well aware of the Madison Square Split that had taken place between Graham and those who objected to his inclusiveness.  Rev. John remained firmly on the side of those who felt the famous evangelist had gone too far. Yet, Rev. John was convinced that Billy Graham was a man that God had greatly used, and was using. He told a story about being on the platform in a meeting where Graham was preaching. He was not impressed. He leaned over and whispered a comment to the person sitting next to him, “This isn’t going anywhere.” Almost as soon as the comment was made, Rev. John said a change took over the meeting which he could only explain as the power of the Holy Spirit. I thought it was a statement of rare transparency. Here was a man of God who concluded that Graham was wrong, yet was convinced that the hand of God was on him. When those who differ with you praise you, that is powerful praise.

 That lesson, about being on the side of the canine who howls for the Lord is but one of the lessons I learned from Billy Graham’s long an effective career. He helped me see that one is contaminated not only by what one approves but also by what he opposes.

·         One cannot look at the evangelist from a farm family in North Carolina and not believe that God can accomplish great things through a life given to Him. Several years ago I read Graham’s autobiography, Just As I Am. Not only did it help me make sense of Rev. John’s history lesson, it bore eloquent witness to the old adage that “the chief ability is availability.”

·         Billy Graham was the gold-standard in ministry purity. He lived through the era when many notable pastors, evangelists, and leaders in Christian ministry brought shame to the cause of Christ. He was like Job, “Have you considered my servant Billy?”

·         As one who is at the far end of his ministry, I think Graham, by and large, set a good example for aging and stepping out graciously. There were a few times when in later years he said some things that caused some of us to wonder, mostly, though, he was content to let others be out front, while he stayed in the background where the ravages of aging had compelled him to sit.

I didn’t know the famous evangelist, but seeing him from afar has not only caused me to rejoice in what he did, but to be thankful for the impact his ministry had on me. I’m confident that he was greeted in heaven with a “Well done.”

Looking back to not only where I've been, but where we've been:

In a couple of previous posts, here, and  here, I've talked about the transitional phase of life and ministry that I'm in, right now.  Since I last posted on the subject, things, as they sometimes do with the passage of time, have cleared up a bit.  After March 15, I'll be a part-time associate pastor with a missionary component thrown in.  At least for now.  The church's commitment on this is only for the rest of year, and I'm entering a phase of life when very little, besides heaven, is long-term.  If you are really curious, you can find out more here.

Tomorrow and the following Sunday, 3/8/15, I decided I'd do some looking back at a couple of messages that have particularly motivated and given definition to my ministry--a couple of capsules of ecclesiastical autobiography.  For most of my life I have preached messages.  I have preached sermons about sermons--the Sermon on the Mount, for example.  Having preached in the same church for more than 40 years, there are plenty of times that I have preached the same message.  The first message I preached as Pastor of Covington Bible Church, I've probably preached 25 times (On March 15, I'm planning to use that one for my half of a tag-team sermon.  I'll start and Pastor Doug will finish.), but I don't remember preaching about one of my past sermons.  (We'll be posting the videos of the message at our Truthcasting site.  I'll try to remember and post the links in the comments on this blogpost.

As I said, the past message, as will tomorrow's message, have an autobiographical element to them.  I grew up spiritually in Fundamentalism.  I owe much to that heritage, but I am bothered that so many have taken an excellent heritage and squandered it.  They have forgotten what to be fundamental about.  They are the reason that I seldom use the title to describe myself.  I don't think I've changed all that much.  Much, maybe most, of the movement has.  You can listen to the message, when it is posted, to find out more, but below are a couple of good articles that help explain Fundamentalism and what has become.

• The first article was published last summer by Biola University.
  The Fundamentals vs. 'fundamentalism'The Fundamentals publishing project is a part of the history of fundamentalism in America, to be sure, yet the two words are also different in important ways
  Note especially the last section on legacy.
• The second is published by Wheaton College's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals.  The article, titled simply "Fundamentalism" gives a brief history of the movement.
• This third, very short, article, by Alvin Pantinga, is, using the standard of many Fundamentalists, vulgar.  He uses the term that technically means that one's mother is a canine several times and with several regional variations in his brief article. If you are going to be insulted or bothered by that don't click the link.   I include the article, with warning to stay away if you are likely to be offended, because it gives a clear picture of how most people outside the movement see it.  They regard "Fundamentalist" as a " term of abuse or disapprobation"--an insult.  Again I offer a warning.  Here is the link.
  Keep in mind though, that sometimes being insulted is a good thing.  I didn't tell you this was easy.

A while back in the midst of a health crisis I recited my heart-health heritage.  It is awful, full of people who died young and had major crises/surgeries even younger, but we don't have the privilege of picking our ancestors.  Since most of us were young and dumb when we started our Theological journey, we didn't have a lot of intelligent choice over that heritage either. What we do with our heritage is another matter.  I'm still working on that.

A definition of Fundamentalism?

I am doing my reading in a Kindle reader on my computer, so I don't have page numbers, but what I'm writing about is toward the end of the book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
It is near the beginning of John Stackhouses response to Al Mohler's chapter--neither of these guys regards himself as a Fundamentalist, yet it appears to me that in essence Stackhouse is accusing Mohler of being one.  (Elsewhere in the book, Kevin Bauder, the Fundamentalist representative, tongue in cheek, tries to protect his friend, "Brother Al," from such a fate.)

Anyhow, it looks like Stackhouse's accusation makes a definition that sounds pretty good to me:

I respectfully suggest that his position is not “confessional” so much as it is “conservative,” and in exactly the way American fundamentalists understand “conservative”: conserving what they understand to be the basics of the Christian faith, regardless of when or by whom in church history they might have been formulated. As far as they are concerned, what they defend is simply what true Christians have always affirmed—and it comes right out of the Bible.  (emphasis mine)

Hansen, Collin; Naselli, Andrew David (2011-09-20). Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) (Kindle Locations 1795-1798). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Fundamentalism, Fundamentally understood, may be more correct than some of us have been willing to admit:

I've been doing some thinking/reading/even a bit of writing, about my Fundamentalist roots.
Maybe I've just started paying attention, but it looks to me like some people have been writing some really good stuff on Fundamentalism recently.  The fact that Fundamentalism was given one of the four places at the table in Zondervan's recent book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, is significant in itself.  That some thoughtful Fundamentalists are presenting their position with scholarly sensibility, and that thoughtful leaders from outside the movement are taking these Fundamentalists seriously is highly significant.
I was saved and grew up in a church aligned with the Independent Fundamental Churches of America.  My pastor, who liked me so much that he became my father-in-law, knew William McCarrell, founding father of that movement, on a first name basis.  I attended 2 Fundamentalist Bible Colleges, and later received a Masters from Liberty Seminary--back before it had broken into the big time.  For some reason I never received the Sword of the Lord; you card-carrying types will have to forgive me.
For all of my adult life I have pastored a church that is firmly rooted in the "come out from among them" mentality that marks Fundamentalism.
I have great respects for the battles that my Fundamentalist forebears fought.  I am incredibly thankful for what I received from that heritage--a rock solid respect for the Bible, a believe in the power of the Gospel, the commitment to Christian living that is distinct, in Biblically defined ways, from the life of the world, that sort of thing.  Yet, I've never been all together comfortable with the title, or with what I regarded as some of the more troubling realities of Fundamentalism.  While I think I have continued in the road on which my early church and college training set me,  I'm not sure I can call myself a Fundamentalist.  That's not a big deal, but it would be nice to know what box to check.

One of the problems I had with the movement is, it just seemed like Fundamentalists were mean.  Apparently I'm not alone.  Kevin Bauder, the capable writer who capably gives the Fundamentalist position in the book mentioned above, talks about some of his early observations here.  The ones that were held up as heroes didn't seem like the kind of folk one would want to spend time with.  I remember reading back in the old days (for me) the innuendo filled articles.  They dripped with the syrupy sweetness of avoiding "naming names," yet were loaded with coded certainty as to just who was being talked about and put down.  The authors professed great sadness at having to say what they said, but there often appeared a clear element of self-promotion in the process.  Thankfully, I can't remember any specifics.  I just remember the repeated impression.
I often wondered if Bob Jones University offered a class on creating a stink.  It seemed that many of those who claimed BJ as their Alma Mater were good at it.  I remember one time when a delegation connected with BJ publicly boycotted a Billy Graham rally.  (Years before, the old original Dr. Bob had told Billy he wouldn't amount to anything when he left BJ.)  Anyhow, I remember how cool I thought it was when Billy quoted the old Fundamentalist war-horse.  "If a hound dog is howling for Jesus I'm on the hound dog's side."    I agreed with, and still do agree with much of the rationale behind the boycott, but I thought the protest was utterly wrong..  In making a decision about what to do about a local Billy Graham Evangelistic Association meeting, I remember siding with the hound.  I didn't get involved, prayed that folk would get saved, and mostly kept quiet.  I lacked the mean-gene that seemed to be in the DNA of the big-gun Fundamentalists.
I remember sitting in my living room talking to one of the finest--maybe the finest--men of God I ever knew.  One of the Fundamentalists watchdogs who ruled a domain that overlapped with the sphere of ministry of my friend was trying to pressure  my friend into conformity with the "truth."  My friend resisted, hung in there, and survived.  It wasn't pretty.  It was mean.  In more recent years I watched as Fundamentalist enforcer "A" exerted pressure on Fundamentalist leader "B" to exclude leader "C" from some of the perks that come with belonging to the "club."  There is always an unfortunate cost to be paid if one stands up to these strong-arm tactics.  I've been fortunate enough to have ministered in a place that is off the radar.  I'm sure that the apologists for "Taking a stand,"  (For any non initiates who might read this, that is an old Fundamentalist code word.) can give another, more spiritual explanation, but it sure came off as mean to me.
When Fundamentalism began to be popularly associated with extremes like King James Only-ism, the easiest thing for many of us to do--this is still pretty much my position-- is to just note use the title.  A former card-carrying Fundamentalist, Charles Wood--his Woodchuck's Den emails are well worth reading (Write LORCHUCK@aol.com & tell him I sent you.).  The Woodchuck now calls himself a Conservative-Evangelical.  You can find out more here and here.  Pastor Wood says there is a group of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who could be described as "conservative" who have much more in common with each other than they do with their brethren to the left (Evangelicals) or to the right (Fundamentalists).  Another recent blog post takes this thought further.

Bauder affirms what confessional evangelical, Mark Dever, recently said: “There is nothing wrong with our having fences. But let us keep our fences low and shake hands often.” I concur with Bauder’s response: “That remark nicely summarizes the sense of a growing number of fundamentalists” (Ibid., p. 103).  (http://sharperiron.org/, "Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism, parts 1 & 2)

 I find this conversation refreshing.

Let me close with a question.  Bauder talks about what he calls "indifferentism."   It appears to me to be a distinction between Evangelicals who hold to all the Fundamentals, and even act Fundamental, and true Fundamentalists.  I don't feel I am indifferent to the errors of others, but when those faults are of a secondary nature, and they don't impact on my ministry, I don't feel nearly as much motivation to take a stand as the Fundamentalists I grew up with did.  I would rather say that I hold to "Leave-them-alone-sim."  I find Rodney King's Theology to be somewhat attractive, "Can't we just get along?"
So, who am I?

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism:

I'm reading the book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism.  It is one of the Zondervan Counterpoint books.
Thus far I have read the first view by Kevin Bauder. Before I even read his chapter, just the inclusion of Fundamentalism as one view of Evangelicalism was informative.  The fact that a serious Fundamentalist (Though in good Fundamental fashion some Fundamentalists will likely criticize Bauder of doing so) leader would be a part of the project provided further insight, light and encouragement.  I also read the first response to Bauder's position, a  CONFESSIONAL EVANGELICAL RESPONSE R. ALBERT MOHLER JR..

I have come to appreciate both of these men in the past couple of years.  Their contribution to this book--what I have thus far read--is encouraging.  I look forward to reading more.  I welcome conversation with others who are reading the book.
 

I Both Embrace and Reject Fundamentalism:

Several years ago a Bible College instructor whom I greatly respect came up to me after I had been privileged to preach in chapel at the conservative, I think in the good sense of the word, Fundamental, Bible College where he teaches, and observed, "You are on a crusade, aren't you?"
I was glad he noticed. I'm not sure if he intended his comments as I took them, but I was encouraged. Perhaps I am the ecclesiastical version of Don Quixote, tilting at windmills hung from steeples, but I do continue on, lance in hand.
As far as I understand what it means to be one in the historic sense, I am a Fundamentalist. As far as how Fundamentalism has come to be defined at this point in history, I utterly reject the label. Too many Fundamentalists became too committed to too many principles, convictions, and conclusions that weren't fundamental at all. They allowed--in some cases caused--themselves to be defined by what music they didn't use, what Bible translations they rejected, which well known Evangelicals they separated from, etc., etc. They made silly distinctions, such as separating from Theologically solid people who failed to do due diligence to some Fundamentalist sacred-cow, while continuing to tolerate--in too many cases even embracing--those who hold to heresies like King-James-Only-ism. No wonder many young people who grew up watching these contradictions rejected the whole business.
When I've had the opportunity--they are few, and my circle of influence is small--I have challenged this drift in our movement. Thus my friend's observation: It may be a tempest in a Theological teapot, but I am crusading when I have opportunity.

Recently I came across an article by Dr. Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis. Bauder appears to be a Fundamentalist with solid credentials, yet in his article, "Let's Get Clear On This," he chides his colleagues for some of their foolish distinctions and lack of sound thinking. I highly encourage you to read the article and then the follow-up articles, http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time. The follow-up articles are listed in reverse order. As of today there are eleven. You need to scroll to page two in order to find the first one, "Now, About Those Differences, Part 1 - Why This Discussion?"

The whole set of articles is well worth the time it will take to read them. I'm so impressed, I'll be taking time to read them again. I hope to post some comments on this blog. I welcome yours.

Can a church lacking in orthopraxy, really be orthodox?

Again, if this is the first time you are reading this blog for a while, you might want to read the last 2 postings. Hopefully, they will make this one make more sense--or less nonsense, maybe.

[in the picture to the right, Asial Ruda, a Chuukese missionary to Yap, and Harald Gorges, Liebenzell Mission, Germany]

I grew up spiritually in an Fundamentalist environment. My church was an IFCA, Bible Church. My pastor graduated from Moody, back when it was a bastian of conservative Christianity. I attended a Bible Institute and Bible College that both had a clear linkage to the birth of Fundamentalism in the early-mid 2oth

Century. I pastor a church that comes from the same heritage.

If I am talking to the right person, I might describe myself as a Fundamentalist. I owe a great deal to those who came out from among the liberals and Biblical compromisers of the past.

However, the word Fundamentalist has come to mean something different than it once did. It seems like Fundamentalists used to stand for something. Often, now, they primarily stand against things. Then there are many who call themselves Fundamentalists who have taken extreme positions--KJV only, various dress-codes, a very narrow view of aceptable music, etc. When people have this in mind when they use the term Fundamental, I reject the label. Unfortunately, in the current culture, I'm afraid that this is the kind of philosphy that people usually associate with the term. (Likewise the term "evangelical" is becoming so associated with politics that it may be a worthless description as well.)

I tell you a little about where I came from, in order to give you a frame of reference for what I am about to write.

Fundamentalist type mission agencies, in my experience have been rather quick to declare vast parts of the world as devoid of any sound churches and in great need of evangelism. I think everyplace is in need of a greater witness, and the Lord commanded us to go into all the world, but the following anecdotes will give some idea of what I mean:

• I remember hearing a missionary, speaking in a Bible College Chapel, say concerning an entire country that there was no sound gospel witness there. I remember sittng there, thinking about a friend of mine who was a missionary in the country that was being mentioned. The problem was my friend ministered with a mission that didn't have "Baptist" in it's name. So it didn't count.



• I was, a couple of years ago, in a preacher's meeting where a representative for a stateside church planting mission was speaking. He made the categorical statement that every community, not just town or city, but every community ought to have a Bible Church. I remember thinking what if a small community has a conservative Presbyterian church, a solid Baptist Church, through in a Brethren, Gospel preaching Charismatic, and a solidly Evangelical Methodist Church for good measure. Should that community have a Bible Church? Should the resources that are perhaps already spread to thin be further dilluted by the entrance of another church? I fear that the gentleman would have unequivocally responded, "Yes."



• In recent years I have become acquainted with some fine Christians from other parts of the world whose heritage is much different than mine. My Fundamentalist upbringing (and colleagues, I fear) look at suspiciously at these believers. (To be sure there are areas of disagreement between me and them, but) I have been impressed with these folk's passion to serve our Lord and to live life based on the teaching of God's word. These Christians don't cross their "T"s and dot their "I"s in the same way I do, but they are solid Christians doing good work. I have been privileged to be in parts of the world where they have left their missions imprint. Some of the churches they have left behind are carrying on solid ministry; others, not so much--not unlike the pattern I observe in churches founded by more Fundamental mission agencies. Yet many in the Fundamental camp are not even willing to give these folk a place at the table. They look at what they have done and instantly declare that it is insufficient, and not worthy of support.

I asked the question in the title of this post, Can a church be orthodox if it is lacking right practice? One of the problems is that we in the Fundamentalist tradition have been very good at "rightly dividing" the Word of God and constructing ever more narrow doctrinal statements to keep out various heterodoxies. It is much harder to look at a church and judge whether or not the ministry is leading to sound living. I know the two should go together. My observation is they often do not.

I fear that too often decisions about where to plant churches are being made on an entirely insufficient search for orthodoxy, without a correspondingly rigorous investigation concerning the difference that a ministry may be making in the lives of people.

Again, I'm open for comment.