October 23, 2014

Singing Lies by Dr. Clay Nuttall

The underlying purpose of Shepherd’s Staff is to create discussion. By choosing controversial subjects, we often manage to “tick off” some segment of our readers. That is done on purpose, since it is at the heart of what we do and also because it gets people’s attention. This issue is bound to get just about everyone thinking, because it has to do with the lyrics of music used in churches today.

Our concern for truth in music is not confined to what is often called “contemporary” music. One only has to pick up a well-worn old hymnal to find endless illustrations of non-truth in some of the lyrics. An error, no matter how old, is still an error. While some statements might be borderline, there are those that are downright offensive to scripture. Some of this has to do with ignorance on the part of the writer, while others are a deliberate repetition of doctrinal error held by religious groups or movements.

Old standard hymns have often reflected a brand of universalism. Many current items of music sound like a gathering of proof texts thrown into a blender, in that they do not represent the clear statements of scripture. Some of the old, as well as the new, are so egregious in theological error that they approach heresy. Music is often chosen just because we like it, when it’s “foot stompin’ fun” or rises from a current rock style. In pleasing ourselves, however, we may fail to please God. Frankly, God is not pleased when we are singing lies and then daring to call it worship.

SPLITTING HAIRS

The serious Bible student will pick up on doctrinal error, even in music. People who are bent on having their own way and accommodating the flesh argue “What's the big deal, anyway? The big deal is that God has condemned false witness, lies, and the doctrines of man and devils.

The big deal is that God has condemned false witness, lies, and the doctrines of man and devils.

Does it really matter why people write and sing lies? Many song writers don’t have the slightest idea about what God has clearly said on certain subjects. If it sounds good and feels good, it has got to be good. Ignorance is a terrible thing, but ignorance of God’s Word could be eternally fatal. The majority of worship leaders - past and present - do not have enough theological understanding to know the difference. They often plead that they carefully go over lyrics to make sure they agree with the Bible. The question is, how can you candle music by the Bible when you know so little of the Bible?

The underlying problem here is that church members in this day and age seem to know less and less about what God has said. The translation issue is one of the reasons. Another is dependence on elite scholars for theological answers. Those who tout excellence in grammatical interpretation can’t agree, and they leave us wondering if anyone could possibly know what God has said. Thankfully, every believer can know what the clear teaching of God’s Word is, but many are too lazy to expend the energy necessary to do so.

EXAMPLES OF SINGING LIES

You are keenly aware that I avoid using names in this publication, because the minute I do, those who worship that person will stop reading. In this situation, however, a few theological subjects may be able to put us to shame in our lust for entertainment when we offend God’s Word. The sloppy use of the word “kingdom” is high on the list. It is sung with boring repetition and constantly thrown into conversations. What kingdom are you talking or singing about? Even an elementary student would know that there is more than one. A Bible student might know that there is the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of Darkness, the Old Testament Theocratic Kingdom, and even The Millennial, Messianic, Davidic Kingdom, just to begin with. So, which kingdom are you talking about? You say it doesn’t matter? It may not to you, but it does matter to God when we sing lies. You say that many good people disagree. The Bible isn’t about good people; it is about a good God. The liberal crowd used to talk about “growing" or "building” the kingdom or “enhancing” the kingdom. What kind of arrogance is that? God is building His own Kingdom, and He neither needs nor wants your help. I'm sure you get the point.

The things that are missing from “misunderstood” worship are just as dangerous. When was the last time you heard a song, hymn, or chorus that clearly taught the any-moment return of Christ for His church, the Blessed Hope? Erroneous prophecy provides a boatload of lyrics, and so much of it is error. If it isn’t what the text clearly states, then it is error and a lie.

WHY WOULD YOU ARGUE FOR LIES?

You don’t have to listen to me; I know that lies are popular and are well hidden in the skin of a truth. The Bible is not a dart board, and you don’t get to create your own truth. The Bible has nothing but truth in it; we don’t have the luxury of private interpretation. Yes, I read the article last week, even if you didn’t. If we are not careful about the plain, clear statements of the Bible, how could anyone believe what we have to say about any part of it?

It seems to me that each of us needs to back up and ask, “Am I actually singing a lie?” “Does it matter to me?” “Does it matter to God?” My wife and I just returned from several months on the road. I could not count the times when, in various churches, I simply stopped singing and thought, “Am I the only one in this room who realizes that we are singing lies?” All I ask is that you think, and don’t run from the obvious.


SHEPHERD’S STAFF – October, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com or http://shepherdstaff.wordpress.com.
Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

October 15, 2014

Northland Joins Southern Seminary: Culmination of a Modern Day Tragedy

Not that today’s joint NIU, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) announcement should come as any surprise, but NIU made it official, and has come under the umbrella of the SBTS.  Is it, however, simply a “strategic partnership,” or has something deeper transpired here?

Daniel Patz, president of Northland since 2013, attended the meeting and told trustees “This is a gift from Northland to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But really, I feel almost, even more so, it is gift to us in order for this legacy and this mission to continue....


The NIU website carries the same announcement and quote from Daniel Patz. The Southern News headline, “Southern Seminary Trustees Accept Gift of Wisconsin University Campus.”

From those joint statements one might reasonably conclude that NIU has been sold to or otherwise turned over to the Southern Baptist Convention.
NIU has become the property of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary!

In the same Southern News release the irony of this note should not be lost, “Trustees also celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Ministry.” Billy Graham, the high priest of New Evangelicalism, honored by SBTS.  Today, the former Northland Baptist Bible College (NBBC) is now in formal partnership with Graham’s legacy of betraying the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

For the many fine former NBBC faculty, staff and graduates this is indeed a tragic and closing chapter for their alma mater.  Northland once was unique and unwavering in its fidelity to the whole counsel of God.  Under Matt Olson’s tenure as president the school was steadily lead into compromise and ultimately ruined for the cause of Christ.

The slide that Matt Olson initiated finally landed Northland in the mire.  One need look no further than Daniel Patz warmly shaking hands with Al Mohler to understand that NIU has aligned itself with a modern day leader of New Evangelical like compromise.




So ends the once fine ministry of Northland Baptist Bible College.  We have been witness to a modern day tragedy for the New Testament church.
LM

Links to the Announcements:
Northland Joins SouthernSeminary

Southern Seminary Trustees Accept Gift of Wisconsin University Campus

Related Reading from NIU:
A Woman Preaches in Northland’s Chapel








October 14, 2014

Kevin Bauder: Revisiting The "Rant & Tirade" of 2009

A few weeks ago Pastor Brian Ernsberger posted an article titled, So, Who Exactly is Critical of Allegory? Really!

On July 18, 2014, Dr. Kevin Bauder posted an article critiquing the national FBFI conference held a little more than a month before in June. Now, right up front I want to note that I too was at the conference…. Towards the closing of his article, Dr. Bauder gets to the real reason for his writing, the criticism of Calvinism. Now, I give him credit for coming to this in a much better tone than he did back in the early summer of 2009 when he ranted and ran off on his tirade against about five minutes of Pastor Danny Sweatt’s message at the southeast regional FBFI conference in the spring of that year. Back then, Dr. Bauder didn’t just tirade and rant in one article but did so in two articles and finished with snippets from his inbox about his self-made brouhaha.
From the archives is a three part series, a record of and reaction to Kevin Bauder's "tirade, rant, self-made brouhaha." From June 2009 please read, Even More than "Nuff Said" to Warrant Kevn Bauder's Removal from the FBFI Annual Fellowship Platform.




Some Would Like Me to be Removed From the Platform of the FBFI this Summer,” (Dr. Kevin Bauder).




In recent days there has been a great deal of controversy and sharp contention among Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) within and around the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI).

In my previous article I issued, A Call for Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship. That followed The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!, which at the time I thought would be a single treatment of that particular issue.

Among other reasons given in my two previous articles for recommending Dr. Kevin Bauder’s removal from the national platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship included:
1) His rhetoric about Dr. Bob Jones Jr. has never been retracted. Dr. Bob Jr. was a big part of the FBF in yesteryear. Should an FBFI speaker be allowed to publicly (as one man noted to me) “throw Dr. Jones under the bus and nothing be done about it?” What message is sent when an open attack against Dr. Bob Jones is tolerated with no response or consequences whatsoever?

2) Missionary John Himes (grandson of John R. Rice) wrote,
Again, I am very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”
3) And as I noted,
With an opportunity before him (Bauder) to promote unity, healing and reconciliation in the IFB community Dr. Bauder chose to pursue a different tact. Instead he further polarized factions, alienated many and fueled further division among men in and around the FBFI. I can’t imagine a more unnecessary, unwise and ill-timed moment as this juncture in the chain of events for Bauder to publish sharp criticism of widely respected men from our own IFB heritage.
4) And contra to the FBFI’s call for men to Speak the Truth in Love,
“Dr. Bauder’s criticisms of Dr. Jones and Dr. Rice was not speech that edifies. It was not a display of Christ-like love. Bauder’s tone was not the sound of humble integrity. The caricatures of Jones and Rice, while barely skirting personal attacks, certainly did not honor the Lord or those men. It is irrefutable that the speech with which Dr. Bauder described Drs. Jones and Rice is antithetical to what the FBFI leadership called for.”
If Dr. Bauder had limited his commentary to the first article, Time to Speak Up,  there would be some degree of just cause for his removal from the national platform. His second Nuff Said, a continuation and expansion of the same themes as the first, raised grave concern over his appearing on the national platform and legitimized calls for serious consideration that he be removed.

Following Bauder’s second article, Nuff Said, one might have assumed enough had been said by Bauder, but he had not yet, Said Nuff.
On Friday (5/29) Kevin Bauder, at Nick of Time published another and third installment of what has become a series. The title is, From the In Box.

In Bauder’s From the In Box, after some opening commentary, he published a long series of private correspondence he received in regard to his two previous articles, Time to Speak Out & Nuff Said. Bauder stated that he,
…believes in giving one’s opponents a hearing…that I (Bauder) would give my opponents the final word in any discussion. For this series, I am doing the same thing. I have made a point of including words of opposition from both sides—and I will offer no rejoinder.”
I did an informal content count of the e-mails Bauder presented. You will find 35 responses that support Bauder’s two previous articles. There are 4 that object and 5 others I felt were neutral. How does that kind of lopsided numerical make up constitute a sincere effort to give his opponents a hearing and/or the final word?

Making matters worse some letters continue Bauder’s critical themes of historic fundamentalists. Some are a continuation of angry reactions to the message by Dr. Sweatt. Calls for greater censure of Dr. Sweatt by the FBFI were included. Following are examples of the more egregious letters Bauder posted,
As a young fundamentalist and a Calvinist, I cannot thank you enough for going to bat against the big talkers who are spoiling fundamentalism. It is refreshing to see a man in leadership such as yourself speaking out against what I perceive to be atrocities committed in the name of Christ.” (bold mine)

The Calvinism issue is definitely one of our questions, and I thank you for addressing it. But, I believe that the greater issue at stake is how long will this ‘duplicitous and abusive leadership...pulpit tirades, doctrinal tomfoolery, and political gamesmanship’ be allowed and tolerated in mainstream fundamentalism?” (bold mine)
How does Bauder’s inclusion of incendiary and vitriolic commentary such as that contribute to a constructive, healing discussion of the issues? Why would Bauder include statements as extreme as these?

Occasionally, I receive articles for my blog that include statements I feel are excessive and needlessly inflammatory. In good conscience before God, to protect the character of men I disagree with and to avoid needlessly stirring emotions I revise or remove inflammatory commentary. If Bauder had any thought that the e-mails cited above might be over-the-top he would not have included them. Is it possible he let those anonymous men say for him, what he could never get away with saying himself?

Dr. Bauder publishing anonymous correspondence from other men perpetuates controversy. Why does Bauder bolster his views and flank himself with others men’s private e-mail? Does he think piling on more rhetoric legitimizes his own? Is he lobbying to keep his seat on the FBFI Annual Fellowship platform?

It has become clear through various on-going blog discussions that most of the men who were offended by Dr. Sweatt’s message are not satisfied with the FBFI’s Speak the Truth in Love response. In Nuff Said Bauder did acknowledge, “We need to give credit where credit is due.... The leadership did what they needed to do for this moment. They took a step that was intermediate but adequate.” There are, however, others who are agitating for stronger more immediate punitive measures to be taken against Dr. Sweatt, to IMO make an example of him. For example from the e-mails,
The FBFI statement is either arrogance or timidity. And I think they’re bed partners, frankly.”

When I read the FBFI statement, I thought that it was a non-statement that was laughably vague, yet here you describe it as courageous!”
No other recognized “leader” I am aware of in the IFB community or featured speaker for the upcoming FBFI Annual Fellowship is at the present publicly airing grievances (his own and those of others that were meant to be private). No other IFB leader is stirring the pot of controversy, taking on a political tone and essentially ignoring the FBFI’s recent attempt to calm the waters. Kevin Bauder is the only recognizable leader perpetuating controversy in the public forum. Other men who are slated to speak at the annual fellowship surely have a position on current events. They are, however, keeping out of the public fray most likely preferring private prayerful discussion. However, we have in Bauder, a high profile seminary president, engaging in public blog commentary (blog warfare as some call it).

Calls for Kevin Bauder’s removal from the national platform are not doctrinally motivated. Instead we have a pattern of behavior from Bauder that is working against unity, harmony and reconciliation in the IFB community.
Kevin Bauder’s on-going commentary has fostered hard feelings and is contributing to a polarization of factions within the broad base of IFB believers and the FBFI membership in particular.



Dr. Bauder has fashioned himself into a lightning rod for controversy! He has done nothing less than *increase the voltage being introduced into the atmosphere of the IFB community. On his own initiative he has made himself a flashpoint of controversy. Bauder’s perpetuating and expanding controversy is a major contributor to what is becoming a “toxic climate” for fundamentalism. In my opinion Bauder’s From the In Box, his third foray into controversy, erases any lingering doubt as to the necessity of his being relieved of any speaking responsibilities at the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship.

I do not envy the difficult position that Bauder has put the FBFI leadership in. The FBFI is at a crossroads. Whatever the FBFI decides on Bauder’s appearance at the annual fellowship there will certainly be some level of fallout. Concerns over potential political fallout must be set aside. Name and reputation must be set aside. The only question is: What is the right thing to do?

With his third article Dr. Kevin Bauder has Said (way more than) Nuff to warrant his removal from the national platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. There is sufficient reason...to call for and/or agree that Kevin Bauder must be removed from the platform of the [2009] FBFI Annual Fellowship.

 
LM

*I chose the photo of lightning bolts over the Chicago skyline for a purpose. In Bauder’s Time to Speak Out article speaking of, “a more historic species of fundamentalism” he wrote,
Fortunately, I do not have to look very far to find a better, more biblically faithful, and more historic species of fundamentalism…. It shows up here and there in the toxic climate of Illinois….
Kevin Bauder is creating a highly charged “toxic climate” in Chicago, Illinois for the FBFI Annual Fellowship.

Important Related Reading:
In February 2013 Kevin Bauder incredibly annouced that he believed it is his "duty" and "responsibility" to clean up the FBFI. His self-declard duty to clean up the FBFI included "hauling out the trash." This is typical elitist, arrogance laced rhetoric from the pen of Kevin Bauder. See, Kevin Bauder: Haul Out the Trash in Your Own Home, First!

Updated (2/11/10):
I attended the FBFI Annual Fellowship in 2009. During the Q&A Symposium fears that Kevin Bauder might once again launch another unprovoked attack against historic Fundamentalism were realized.

Toward the end of the Q&A Bauder dodged a direct question put to him by symposium moderator Dr. John Dr. Vaughn about the conservative evangelicals, which was the subject of the Q&A. His dodge extended to an open attempt to besmirch Bob Jones University for its having hosted various candidates for political office.

Bauder just could not let his three previous attacks on the legacy of Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice be “Nuff said.”

The irony is that current BJU president Stephen Jones was ill and, therefore, could not appear in the Symposium as scheduled. So, Bauder lowered the crosshairs on the most recognized personality from BJU that was available to him on the panel: Dr Mark Minnick.

Dr. Minnick was obviously uncomfortable with Bauder ambushing him with criticism of BJU administration decisions and calling on him to explain it. Dr. Minnick graciously tried to leave the discussion for the BJU administration to answer since he (Minnick) it not a BJU administrator and cannot speak for the administration, but Bauder kept up the pressure.

IMO Bauder, with that final performance, gave all the reason necessary to ensure he should never again be given a platform presence at an FBFI sponsored event.