Adult Children as Fruit of Man’s Ministry, Part Two

Adult Children as Fruit of a Man’s Leadership

*I apologize for the paragraphing. I can’t fix it for whatever reason.

In this post I postulated that the adult children of Christian leaders, particularly fundamentalists, should be considered as part of the fruit of their ministry. In this post I will opine on the fact of children as fruit generally, regardless of denomination or evangelical/fundamentalist lineage.

When everybody is an exception to the general rule, the general rule is no longer a general rule. It’s an exception.

A proverb by definition is a general rule. It is granted that there are exceptions, but it is general truth that is so recognized it’s, well,  proverbial. Proverbs 22:6 is such a general rule. It is not, however, a promise. Many people have either consciously or unconsciously twisted the general rule that if you train your child in the way he should go when he is old he will not depart from it into a promise and therefore eviscerate the proverb of any force by responding in one of several ways depending upon the outcome of their children’s lives.

1. If their children turned out as models of Christian discipleship, they write a book and market their opinion on everything related to parenting from feeding times to choice of colleges. The promise of God proved true, they conclude, and having found the key of good training they offer it to anyone who will listen. And for $11.99 per CD. They are as one dear friend keeps saying, “results-based.”

This, of course, misses the point of the general rule. It may be an uninspired general rule that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but it does not follow that if the doctor has been kept away it is necessarily because of the daily apple. A general rule admits exceptions. It is true only generally, not absolutely. Thus, exceptions also admit the possibility that the rule is not necessarily the cause of the desired effect. The daily apple has been consumed, the doctor has been kept away, and while it certainly reinforces the general rule about the value of daily apples it does not preclude the possibility that the daily fresh spinach and goblet of red wine were a more effective cause for the desired effect than the daily Red Delicious.

Parents who are blessed with grown children who love and serve Jesus Christ often illustrate this fact. Younger parents want to know what the key to their success was and often they are disappointed when they say, as my own parents have often said to younger families, “It is the grace of God.” My own parents who have five adult children that are all disciples of Jesus and love His Church do not disprove the general rule, but neither do they see themselves as proof of it. They humbly realize that just as there are exceptions to the general rule there are also exceptions to the general rule as it is expressed in the negative: if you do not train your children up in the way they should go, when they are older they will depart from it. As humble people, they readily admit the possibility, indeed the reality,  that they are exceptions of that rule. By grace. For the best parents can always identify what they did wrong more quickly than what they did right and they marvel at the benignity of God toward them.

2. If their children reject the faith and live in flagrant immorality they claim to be the exception to the general rule of Proverbs 22:6. In order to buttress their claim as an exception to the general rule they begin to list all the people they can think of who are “good Christian people” and have been disappointed by the outcome of their adult children. In other words, in a weird kind of irony, in order to prove that they are the exception to the general rule, they amass as much information as possible of all kinds of other exceptions. However, if everyone is the exception to the general rule then the general rule is no longer a general rule.

One friend has written me, concerned that the way I am articulating this will “force an inevitable outcome of either pride over ‘successful parenting’ or guilt over ‘parental failure,’ and both fall short of the message of the Gospel that I know is so vital to your heart and thinking.  I also believe your rhetoric unintentionally sets the table for sinful judgment in the hearts and minds of others that parents of rebellious children somehow love God less and somehow put less effort into discipleship than those who don’t.

I am very afraid of that outcome and respect my friend’s critique. We agree so much on this. However, I see two potential pitfalls that grace-loving, Gospel-oriented people may slip into in their zeal for the guilt-ridding promotion of the Gospel.

Pitfall #1: Guilt is bad. Conviction, grief, sorrow, shame, and self-abhorrence are right. More parents need to face Spirit-imposed conviction before trying to dismiss it as bad guilt.

Pitfall #2: Outcome based judgment is sinful. Outcome based analysis, however,  is not only biblical, but commanded. And wise. To pronounce a sentence on a parent as having been bad because of the outcome of a bad child is wrong. It should be avoided like the plague. To analyze said parent on the basis of the outcome is wise and it is the logical result of reading verses that say, “He must manage his household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive.” How do you actually apply this without actually analyzing the children? This is not judgmentalism.

So, let me put this in all bold font: I do not judge or want to give anyone the idea that he can judge the spiritual love and character of a parent because of the outcome of his children. I am arguing, however, that the outcome of the children must be a legitimate point of analysis, particularly with leaders. And to ignore the fact of so many children rebelling against their parents’ faith is to make everyone the exception and to ignore the general rule. I speak generally and not of particulars.

Now, I am fully aware of the fact that there are many efforts to interpret Proverbs 22:6 in a way that guts it of its obvious implication, but (and though I am not a scholar, I am a good reader) I have not read any argument that effectively undoes the common sense understanding of cause and effect that is implied in the proverb. It is still a general truth that is substantiated in all of the Scriptures that if a child is trained up in the way he should go, he will not depart from it. And it follows that it is logical to surmise that the host of parents with wayward children are proofs of this general rule rather than exceptions to it.

As already stated, I think there is devastating danger of interpreting proverbs as commands or promises (although both commands and promises may be reasonably derived from a proverb). Nonetheless, the proverb stands. General rules are generally true and even more so when they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that the spiritual condition of grown children be considered as the fruit of a man’s ministry.

Random Reasons.

1. The Bible refers to children as fruit. “Be fruitful and multiply” and “children are an inheritance from the Lord” are just a sampling of statements that reveal a theme throughout the whole Bible. Perhaps an extreme hyper-dispensationalist would argue that the Old Testament verses only applied to the covenanted people of God under the Old Covenant, but would they go so far as to say that consequently in the “dispensation of grace” children are not an inheritance from the Lord? Sometimes it takes a non-genius to point out the obvious and I readily apply for all non-genius jobs, so here’s the obvious: the Scripture views children as fruit from the Lord and the general assumption is that His people will be good stewards of that inheritance and see to it by their dedication in rearing children that the pearls are not thrown to the swine.

2. In other areas of life we rightfully assign responsibility even though we are conscious of the fact that there are many variables outside of the person’s control that could potentially exonerate the person from blame. If a farmer repeatedly fails to harvest good fruit we all rightfully assume that he is not doing something right even though we know that few occupations depend on the elements more than farming.

3. God does not give commands that are not also accompanied with a reasonable expectation of success. He does not say, “Make disciples, but remember that you will utterly fail.” A mark of a true disciple is that he is a disciple-maker and if he is unable to make any disciples we assume that he probably is not a disciple. Sometimes the fruit is not forthcoming. Sometimes it is not immediate. But there is always fruit. Always.

4. The most logical place one might expect a man’s influence to be strongest is in his home. It is natural for children to follow the steps of their parents. The cobbler’s son becomes a cobbler. The teacher’s daughter becomes a teacher. Etc. This is because children are followers, but what most people forget is that children follow affections more than they follow instructions. They can see what Dad loves even though he preaches a good game from the pulpit. They can tell what Mom is passionate about even though she laces all her speech with Christian truisms. Thus, Moses reminded parents, first, to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul and mind, “and these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.” Then he told them to instruct the children.

A child can tell when his Preacher-Dad is in love with the applause of men even though he preaches discipleship from the pulpit. He can see how his Dad gets depressed if he is maligned, how he refuses to speak his mind if he may lose friends in high places, how he dodges the responsibility to confront sin. He also sees how passionate his Dad gets about sports and what he watches on TV. He absorbs what his Dad really loves and, being a weak human, will always follow affections before he follows instructions.  This is why Jesus had to tell the people, “practice and observe what they tell you, but do not do what they do” (Matthew 23:3). Sometimes I have to tell the children of pastors, “You must do what they tell you, but you cannot be distracted by what the really love.”

It is very obvious, of course, that children may have a perfect set of parents and rebel. Therefore, we cannot assume that any particular parent is unholy in his affections just because a child rebels, but we are wrong to presume that the parent has no responsibility when the general tone of the whole Bible is that parents are expected to reproduce not just physically, but spiritually.

If we cannot reasonably assume that our influence will bear positive fruit then we should despair. And if we can reasonably assume thusly, it follows that we can also reasonably assume that when a great number of leaders are failing to influence their children in the ways of God that there is a problem. Humility would demand parents of rebellious children to at least admit this very real possibility.

But what do we mean by influence? I find it fascinating that Moses’ command, though hyperbolic, to teach our children in the morning, evening, going out, going in, inside, outside, etc. follows the command to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Who actually can do that? Only the Gospel can help a parent love God and even that is never as it should be. The parent who is constantly changed by the Gospel is the parent who will have the most effective Gospel influence on his followers. “Let your progress be seen by all.”

Sadly, however, since most parents are legalistic in their mindsets they truly believe that they have done everything right by their rebellious children. And they assume that the “man of God” certainly did everything right. They can check everything off the list. Good school? Check.  Church three times weekly? Check. Family devotions? Check. Spankings? Check. And the list goes on and on. And they happily absolve themselves of any responsibility and piously mourn their children’s rebellion. Be mournful over bad children. Check.

Perhaps they should ask deeper questions. Were we making an idol out of the Christian school and expecting it to do what only God can do in the heart of our child? Did my professional ministry gratify my flesh more than the ministry of shepherding my child daily in the ways of God? Was I unable to see this because the fact that it was church work masked the fact that my ambition and pride drove me? Did the long periods of boredom with the things of God and apathy about my coldness in matters of the heart go unchallenged because I was performing as a good pastor? Did I choose a church because of its amenities (i.e. school) and not for what a church is supposed to be? Did my ignorance about the Gospel influence the way I spanked my children? Did I enforce a behaviorism that ultimately trained my child to hide the realities of his heart?

Instead, great effort is made to come to the defense of the good Christian parents. Rare are the Christian people who humbly say, “We were so ignorant. We miserably failed. If only we had known such-and-such about the Gospel. If only we had not been so legalist. Etc.”  However, I have had the joy of seeing such parents and it has been a thrilling thing to see, in some cases, God give their children back to them in their adult years. One family I know lost all their children though they were good fundamental Baptist church-goers. Through prayer, humility, and tears God has gloriously saved their adult children except for one. And we’re still praying for him. The point is, however, that they refused to assume that they were the exception to the general rule and, instead, humbly realized they proved the rule.

Friends, it is not kind to grieving parents to tell them they did everything right when their adult children are arrogantly rebelling against God. This is to fail to be a good brother in Christ.

A. You can only say they did everything right as a parent if you know that for a fact. And you don’t. Period. Impossible.

B. You can only say they did everything right if you are a legalist and have an approved checklist. And, though you may be a legalist, you don’t have the right checklist. No one does.

C. You can only say they did everything right if you know what they passionately loved all the time. And you don’t. You do not know those parents as well as those children do. How come this is not more obvious to most people?

If a parent is truly grieving, not under guilt for not having checked various boxes, but realizing they failed to be disciples while they had their best opportunity to make disciples of their children, then the kind thing to do is to take them back to the Gospel. Remind them that the Gospel can save people at any time in life. Help them realize that though they take responsibility they do not need to feel guilty anymore. Have them confess it to the Lord. Let them believe that He will hear their prayers. Incite them to believe that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation and encourage them to redeem the time that they lost while the kids were in the home by praying with fervor to Almighty God for the souls of their children. And then tell them, though it is not certain, it is at least reasonable to hope that God will give them their children as fruit. Even if it is years after they are already in heaven.

5. Biblically, it can be reasonably argued that if a man does not have believing children (as adults) he may be disqualified from the ministry. I personally don’t think the “qualifications” of the ministry in Titus and Timothy are really qualifications in the truest sense of the term, but that is another topic for another day. However, what is clear is that these “qualifications” are external marks that God has ratified as legitimate points of analysis when we are considering the quality of a man. However you read Titus 1:6 you cannot ignore the fact that it was at the very least a reasonable expectation that the children of a leader be believers. It is not a stretch to read that he is specifically saying that older children must be believers (younger children could not be given to dissipation). Therefore, since the world “believe” is used and since “dissipation” is an big-kid matter, it is reasonable to hold as John MacArthur does, that this means adult children who are saved. If they believed (and that is a saving sense) then they are still believing when they are out of the home. At the very least, it is no leap of logic to assume that if the Bible mentions a man’s children’s conduct that we have to look at the children’s conduct.

One does not have to agree that an unbelieving child disqualifies a man from ministry, but one does have to admit that it is reasonable to expect that God’s people would bear good fruit in and through their children.

It is a remarkable tragedy that many leaders are failing with their children. I am not speaking about the one black sheep that proves he’s the exception because the rest of the children love God and serve His Church. I am particularly grieved that many leaders do not have any fruit in their homes. I interned with a pastor when I was a young man who had more than five children. None of them served God. All of them were profligate. As MacArthur says, “Successful spiritual leadership of their own families is their proving ground, as it were, for spiritual leadership in the church, because they are to be models of Christian living.”

Now for the caveats:

A. General rules allow for exceptions so we should graciously assume that others are the exception when their children rebel.

B. I am not judging, and do not judge, anyone who has rebellious children because I simply do not know.

C. I am merely saying that in that part of their life they do not have good fruit where good fruit is expect. And that is the point of the whole post.

D. Pray for me. It’s reasonable to expect good fruit from my home. It won’t happen unless God is gracious to me in a big way.

E. My hope is not in a technique, in a parental philosophy, in my good standards or wisdom. My hope is in the Gospel.

F. And, again, it is reasonable to expect the Gospel to bear fruit.

Dr. Russell Moore

Kevin Thompson is a dedicated member of our church who hosts a internet radio program each week. This last week he interviewed Dr. Russell Moore on the topic of adoption. It is 30 minutes well spent. Please listen here!

Is it fair to look at the adult children of fundamentalist leaders while evaluating their message and culture?

Why the adult children of leaders, particularly fundamentalist, should be considered as part of the fruit of their ministry.

I wish to make two points.

1. A large percentage of believing children [I know] who grew up in the homes of outspoken fundamentalist leaders [I know] have not rejected the faith, but have rejected fundamentalism. This suggest several possibilities (note: I said “possibilities”)*:

a. The leaders were ineffective and could not influence their own children enough to maintain their “sectarian” views even though the children are followers of their God. Or,

b. The leaders were actually very effective and they adequately relayed to their offspring their highest priorities, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the beauty of the Gospel, and the centrality of the Church despite their public pontifications on secondary issues.

Either way, it is legitimate, therefore to consider the closest disciples of these outspoken leaders in an attempt to discern what is really of eternal value. And this is my second and most controversial point.

2. It is legitimate to consider the adult children of leaders, particularly fundamentalists, as part of the fruit of their ministry. And I emphasize “particularly fundamentalists.”  I think, however, that this can be reasonably defended to show that it is not a wild and off-beat charge of a desperate cynic trying to find whatever weakness he can contrive. I think it can be shown to be rational. But first, point one.

Point One. A close look at the leaders in the fundamentalist movement who have succeeded by the grace of God in transmitting to their children a love for Jesus Christ and His Church will show that a very large percentage of those adult children have also repudiated the idiosyncratic loyalties of their godly parents toward the fundamentalist movement and its sub-culture.

This is telling.

Ironically, these children, having repudiated fundamentalism, have embraced the fundamentals! This reminds me of conversion of C. H. Spurgeon to Baptist ecclesiology.

My mother said to me, one day, “Ah, Charles! I often prayed the Lord to make you a Christian, but I never asked that you might become a Baptist.” I could not resist the temptation to reply, “Ah, mother! the Lord has answered your prayer with His usual bounty, and given you exceeding abundantly above what you asked or thought.”

Many sincere, Gospel-loving servants of the Lord in the fundamentalist sub-culture have been given far more than they asked or thought in that God has not only made Christians out of their children but has led them out of the confines of the fundamentalist sub-culture. Fundamental Baptist college presidents have children serving God in evangelical para-church organizations. Men who are known for their hard stance on music have adult children passionately serving God in churches with contemporary music. Leaders of Baptist fellowships have children minister as Presbyterian pastors, etc. A large percentage, perhaps the majority, of grown children who have embraced their parents’ Lord have shed their parents’ culture.

I view this as a manifestation of thrilling grace. Because this is the good news. We are not considering here the host of adult children who have abandoned the faith completely. So, rejoice! But it does leave the fundamentalist leaders vulnerable to scrutiny. How is it that they can constantly claim that their movement is a paragon of Christian standing when their closest followers, their children, have latched on to the part of their faith that the world hates while rejecting in some cases kin and home in its repudiation of the fundamentalist cultural mores? Is it because the Spirit endorses one but not the other? I think so.

Some of these leaders pontificate on music and standards and separation and humble Christians around the nation listen with rapt attention to their chest-beating bravado for a movement that they are utterly incapable of convincing their own children to stay in. Some of these men are merely parrots, regurgitating the party line in order to keep their place on the political ladder of their favored circle, but because some of the views that they foist on people are abusive and controlling it is even more significant that at the first opportunity of escape their children abandoned their father’s authoritarian good-old-boys’ club for the fresh environment of politics-free Christianity. (Whether they actually have found that politics-free Christianity is another story, but the point here is that they quit their parents’ circles.)

I think the Spurgeon anecdote is useful here. I think that while a greater percentage of children have abandoned the faith altogether, fundamentalists who have children who love God and Church should rejoice that they have actually been doubly blessed. It also shows that the sub-culture of legalism and sectarianism that makes up most of fundamentalism is on a weak foundation, unblessed by God’s Holy Spirit, and vital Christians will either find themselves thriving despite being in it or, when free to make their own choices in life, walking away.

In another post, I will try to explain my rationale for Point Two.

*Editorial changes made per Jeff Straub’s criticism.

“Junk in the Pulpit”

Dave Doran is rightly upset about “junk in the pulpit.” Some people who find it hard to understand my difficulty with fundamentalism need to read this and then go to the message. I adored Jack Hyles as a child and young teen. I listened to him several times a week. My grandmother nearly worshipped him and told me all the time how much she wanted me to go to his school just to get somewhere close to the shadow of that “man of God.” At eighteen I began my pilgrimage away from that kind of circle when I balked at wearing a pin that said “100% Hyles.” By that time, I had started reading and thinking and growing and, well, being Christian.

Legalism is the Slippery Slope

The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids. ~ R.B. Kuiper

I want to push back. A Fundamental Baptist pastor has alerted his people to the dangers of Bob Bixby, saying that I am a New Evangelical and have opened the door to compromise and worldliness. I think a push-back is necessary because truth that is more important than my reputation is at stake. Quite honestly, the concern that this pastor and other Fundamental Baptist pastors may have about me is more flattering than realistic. The fact is that the people leaving their churches will, in the main, find my church to be utterly uninteresting to them. We take church and the gospel too seriously for most disgruntled fundamentalists.

But the psychological phenomenon of sectarian groups of attacking most vociferously the people closest to them remains a reality in the Fundamentalist world and though I could dismiss the criticisms as another illustration of how out-to-lunch some of these leaders are about the real situation they are facing, I feel compelled to write something because I know that there are many people from those churches who peek at my blog while in the secrecy of their own homes. And gospel truth matters. So, let me put it plainly:

I am more fundamentalist that many of the fundamentalists who criticize me because I actually believe that fundamentals are fundamental and non-fundamentals are not fundamental. If everything is a fundamental, nothing is a fundamental. The Gospel and the biblical outworking of that Gospel in life and practice, both individually and corporately, is a fundamental and to hold on to that Gospel without caving to the pressures of sectarianism or legalism is the tenacious commitment of anyone who really cares about the fundamentals.

You often hear the camel’s-nose-in-the-tent or slippery slope argument applied to the new electric bass in the church or the use of drums or the abandonment of a strict dress code for youth activities. We are told that these are evidences of a slide toward New Evangelicalism (ignore the fact that the term is anachronistic and irrelevant except in the Fundamental Baptist sect). The reality is that legalism is a long slippery slide into antinomianism and most leaders in Fundamental Baptist circles don’t have to look much farther than their very own children to see the proof of this. Thus, it is laughable that they should even perceive our kind of church as a threat because the reality is that most people who abandon fundamentalism are leap-frogging right over Gospel-centered churches and landing right in the thick of the most man-centered ooze of evangelicalism that they can find. They rush from Hyles to Hybles. The hard truth is that most leaders in hyper-separatistic fundamentalism should be filled with joy if their child would come to a church like ours. And some of them would privately rejoice even though they would faithfully denounce our supposed “new evangelicalism” in their ministries.

Having been relentlessly enculturated by a flippant treatment of the Scriptures and an unbiblical understanding of the nature of man many fundamentalists either stay in their churches where they can preen in holier-than-thou clubs without actually being a disciple or, not agreeing with the cultural taboos of the club, escape to another place with fewer if any cultural taboos to bask in another man-centered environment that will feed their self-righteous flesh while studiously avoiding any real Gospel demands. They mistake true discipleship as legalism.

This is because most fundamentalists have been nurtured to think that the legalism that they adapted to was discipleship. Consequently, when they see discipleship in a Gospel-practicing church — real discipleship –  they mistake it for legalism. That is why most fundamentalists who leave the far right will go to the far left overnight. They may pass our congregations on their way, but it is only to fuel up for their real destination, a haven where their self-righteousness can still be fostered minus the pesky and silly rules of right-wing cultural fundamentalism.  Minus discipleship.

What is Legalism?

The working definition of legalism is “anyone who is more strict than me.” No one thinks he is a legalist. We all look down our noses at people who get their underwear in a wad about something we find completely acceptable. Thus, the term is really difficult to use because people to my right will dismiss what I have to say because they are assuming that I’m looking down my nose at them for being more conservative than I am on various issues. However, I would like to assert that I struggle with legalism everyday and appeal for the sake of this article that we understand legalism with the following basic points in mind:

1. Legalism is righteousness or morality outside of Christ. It is anything I do that is good and upright that is not Christ doing it in me.

To effectively communicate the Gospel cross-culturally a preacher must identify the righteousness of the people, not their sins. It is our righteousness, not our sins, that is as filthy rags before God. Our righteousness is our sin. Before a person is saved he is completely in the flesh and every good thing he does is an abomination to God. “Even the plowing of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.” When the person repents of his righteousness and submits to the righteousness of Christ he is a new creature but he still has his old nature that likes to do good. So sometimes he goes to church in the Spirit; it is Christ who is doing it through him. Other times he goes to church in the flesh. At that point he is doing good and living by a law that is other than the law of Christ and he is being legalistic.

2. Everybody is a legalist outside of grace.

We all live by rules. We either live by the rule of grace and walk in the Spirit or we live by our own rules. We make up laws all the time. The rules may be an attempt to please God or another god, but it is still rule-making. “Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.” The key is “that which is right.” Even the atheist does “that which is right” (righteousness), but it is a rightness that conforms to the laws of his own making. In this sense, everybody is a legalist in that it is our nature to “do that which is right,” but we do it according to our own way. Only grace rescues a person from that which is right in his own eyes.

3. Thus, there is a false dichotomy between the “legalism” and “licentiousness.”

It is common, particularly in Fundamentalist circles, to defend themselves against the charge of legalism by using a two-pronged defense that eviscerates the Gospel in the process.

The Two-pronged Defense Against the Charge of Legalism

A. “We are not legalists because we believe that man is saved by grace alone.”

This answer is obviously a simplistic reduction of the problem of legalism and essentially creates a straw man that is easily rebuffed. The fact of the matter is that few people are charging them with the heresy that they have to work for their salvation. Ironically, they are often charged with easy-believism. However, the simplistic reduction of the term legalism to mean only works-based salvation may score points in the immediate with unthinking congregants, but in the long run it fails to understand what the Gospel is. The Gospel is not only about saving people from hell, but saving them from their sins. It is not only that grace provides a way to heaven, but that grace is the way. The Good News is not merely that God has given us a ticket to the Pearly Gates through the work of Jesus Christ, but that the life of Jesus Christ in us is the only acceptable life we can offer to God even after our conversion.

B. “The opposite of legalism is licentiousness and we must live in the balance of liberty.”

My Christian college tried to explain legalism as polar opposite from licentiousness and that Christians were to exercise their liberty with great care as  if the ditch on either side was something to be avoided. It was understood, however, that legalism was the lesser of the two evils. But this is a false dichotomy.

The opposite of legalism is liberty. Period.

Some legalists are culturally restrictive. Other legalists are licentious and unrestrained. They both flesh out their own righteousness. Thus, this second argument misses out on the main point of the Gospel. Legalism is just as anti-Christ as licentiousness. Legalism and moralism are more dangerous in that they are so deceptive. As one old-fashioned preacher opined during the Prohibition Era, “If the Devil gets a hold of this city he’ll see to it that every bar is closed and all crime has ceased.” The wicked enemy is all about passing himself off as an “angel of light.” If the Devil had his way everybody would be going to church insofar as they did not come to Christ. Because churchgoers are far less inclined to see a need for another righteousness than the hooker in the gutter. Both the churchgoer and the hooker have lived life by “what is right,” but both of them need to be freed from their legalism and learn to walk in the liberty of Christ’s righteousness.

Now back to my points on legalism:

4. Legalism is operating by a different set of rules, a different law.

I’ll argue this more thoroughly, Lord willing, in another post on judgementalism, but suffice it to say right now that this is the point that James 4:11 teaches. If we presume to be able to speak evil about a brother outside of the parameters of the Scripture (we must judge at times), then we are making ourselves higher than the law and the Giver of the Law. By speaking evil about a brother, by passing judgment where the Bible is silent, I am speaking evil of God and His Law and thereby saying it is insufficient. I’m operating by a set of different rules. I’m making up new laws. I’m a legalist.

It should be evident by now that fundamentalists do not have a monopoly on legalism. Some of the most legalistic people that I confront, hyper-judgmental individuals, are often people from evangelicalism. Fundamentalists merely have a monopoly (we must admit) on a host of often-silly cultural taboos which is only one of many forms of legalism.

Therefore, it is completely legalistic of Fundamentalists to be worked up about T4G and the Gospel Coalition and literally scare their people from joining places where “pseudo-Fundamentalists” are enjoying the fellowship of these conservative evangelicals. These “bad boy mavericks” like myself are unabashedly enjoying fellowship around — gasp! – the fundamentals. And you people that are in the FBF type churches need to understand that we actually have more in common with historic fundamentalists than your churches; doctrinally, ethically, and socially. The Gospel and the practical outworking of the Gospel in the local church is the focus of a real fundamentalist church and therefore I would say that the tragedy of the times is that the name “Fundamentalists” has been hijacked by a movement represented by the likes of Jack Schaap and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship.

The reality is that I am the fundamentalist and a growing group of churches and pastors who have begun to understand soteriology and ecclesiology and the importance of Christian discipleship and are no longer bullied by the intimidation of the mother-ships. I relinquish the title to Jack Schaap and Brad Smith. They may have it. They share the common fallacy of adding to the fundamentals so many things that their own followers cannot discern up from down. Soon they begin to think that the real fundamental, the one that really matters, is loyalty. Loyalty to the pastor’s description of the movement. Loyalty to “the man of God.” Loyalty to the one or two favored institutions. Loyalty to a mishmash of incoherent and contradictory teaching and practice that make no logical and biblical sense once a person begins the process of thinking. The title of fundamentalism is theirs.

I will not, however, relinquish the claim that it is I, not these other men, who is the real fundamentalist. And I will argue that it is a matter of faith and doctrine that their legalism and unscriptural practices must be denounced. Go to an FBF meeting and look at their leaders beginning with the president and do a study of their adult children. (The last one I attended in 2009 it was obvious that most of the attendees were old enough to have adult children.) You will find that the second-generation of Fundamentalism results very frequently, if they are graced by God, in abandonment of their fathers’ ideology while retaining true fundamentals (thankfully) or, sadly, a whole-hearted plunge into antinomianism. Do a survey of all the graduates of any Christian school in Fundamentalism and discover what many of us know and others refuse to acknowledge. You can tell a tree by its fruit. And the fruit of legalistic fundamentalism and its unbiblical application of separation from the world and the Body of Christ is rotten.

My brother pastors in fundamentalism: if you think that your disgruntled are going to come to our churches, you’re mistaken. Most of your disgruntled will find that we take the Gospel and the Church too seriously. So, for the sake of the Gospel and the health of your churches, I plead with you to stop embarrassing yourselves by making us the enemy. Our enemy is lurking in our hearts. It’s our anti-gospel flesh.

That is what I’m fighting. That is what I wish you’d fight.

John Murray was right:

Many … Christians today seek to impose standards of conduct and criteria of holiness that have no warrant from Scripture and that even in some cases cut athwart Scripture principles, precepts and example.  The adoption of extra-scriptural rules and regulations have sometimes been made to appear very necessary and even commendable.  But we must not judge according to the appearance but judge righteous judgement.  Such impositions are an attack upon the sufficiency of Scripture and the holiness of God, for they subtly imply that the standard of holiness God had given us in His Word is not adequate and needs to be supplemented by our additions and importations.  When properly analyzed this attitude of mind is gravely wicked.  It is an invasion upon our God-given liberty just because it is an invasion upon the sufficiency of the law of God, the perfect law of liberty. It is therefore, appearances to the contrary, a thoroughly antinomian frame of mind. It evinces a lamentable lack of jealousy for the perfection of Scripture and invariably, if not corrected and renounced, lead to an ethical looseness in the matter of express divine commands. In the words of Professor R. B. Kuiper, “The man who today forbids what God allows, tomorrow will allow what God forbids.”

Legalism is the slippery slope. And some fundamentalists are finally beginning to get off the slope and find a firm footing in the grace of God and true biblical discipleship.

If Jack Bauer were my pastor…

I never made it through an entire episode of the 24 show. I found it uninteresting, hyperbolic, and mindlessly uninventive. But I only watched 30 minutes of the multi-year series so I may not be a good critic! Anyway, I know enough of it to get a laugh out of Altrogge’s musings about “If Jack Bauer were my pastor.”