The Subtlety of “Good
Words and Fair Speeches”
People
who are called to serve the Lord as pastors, missionaries, and evangelists
understand the insecurity of ministry. They
know that people are often fickle.
Pastors understand the volatile nature of local church ministries. Many local churches are like powder kegs that could explode at the
first spark of a personality clash. The
natural tendency for pastor and missionaries living in such volatile conditions
is to live by the simple principle – PROCEED WITH CAUTION! Sadly, in many cases, pastors and evangelists
simply avoid any thing that is controversial just to protect the little bit of
job security that they have. The central
thrust of Romans 16:17-20 is a warning about the subtlety of the failure to
deal with the issues of false doctrine that regularly arise within local
churches. The thrust of the warning is
found in verse 18 – “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ,
but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of
the simple.”
“17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly;
and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19
For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on
your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple
concerning evil. 20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under
your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen”
(Romans 16:17-20).
I was
notified recently that the Minnesota Baptist Association will host its annual
Men’s Fellowship in September of 2013.
The featured speaker will be Phil Johnson, Executive
Director of Grace to You, the broadcast ministry of John MacArthur. John MacArthur is a hyper-Calvinist, believes
in Lordship salvation, Presbyterian polity, uses CCM and Christian-rock in his
church ministries, and is undoubtedly a New Evangelical. MacArthur was flirting with the National Association of Evangelicals back in the
early 1980’s when I was a member of the Independent Fundamental Churches of
America (I.F.C.A.). Phil Johnson
is essentially MacArthur’s public
relations person. MacArthur and
Johnson are certainly not independent
Baptists.
Why
then would an association of independent Baptist churches promote someone that
so blatantly disagrees with them in doctrine and practice? The answer is obvious. They do not disagree with him in his doctrine
and practice. They must think his
doctrinal positions to be at least viable.
They have changed!
Compromise
is often expressed in small increments. There
is a subtle and dangerous undercurrent
in the temptation to compromise. The undercurrent has to do with a pastor’s
inherent desire for self-protection and survival in the ministry. It also affects leaders of ministries like
Bible colleges and seminaries. When a
pastor allows such inherent feelings to dominate his thinking, he will soon be
led into varying degrees of incremental compromise. Pragmatic measurements, particularly in using
numbers of people in determining ministry success, lead many men astray. No one wants to see the numbers of people
diminish under their leadership whether it is in a local church, Bible college,
or seminary. Talk to any pastor who has
lost large numbers of people and almost always you will find a man who believes
he has failed. The fact is, he may have
been faithful in preaching the “whole counsel of God” and some people just did
not like it. When the solution to a loss
of numbers of people is anything other than revival, you will find the
willingness to compromise somewhere in
the mix.
Perhaps the main reason Paul was so faithful in his
many battles for “the faith” was that he saw himself as a “sheep for the
slaughter.” He told the Roman believers
earlier in his epistle to the Romans that their thinking of themselves as
“sheep for the slaughter” ought to be the norm for all true believers.
“As it is written,
For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter” (Romans 8:36).
Maintaining such an attitude in our
ministries is certainly difficult. In
order to maintain such an attitude, it demands that we do not view our ministry
as a job, and that we do not give
ourselves self-importance. Although pastors serve people, people are not their
employers. God is their boss and it is to Him they will
ultimately answer for our leadership. All
of this is even more difficult when we consider the threat to the financial
security of their families. In most
cases, we cannot they men-pleasers (I
Thessalonians 2:4) if they are going to be God’s ambassadors (II Corinthians 5:16-21). Although those that truly love the Word of
God will be pleased when it is preached without consideration of the fear or
favor of men, those who do not love the Word of God will wince and retreat when
it is proclaimed.
The church I pastor separated from the
Minnesota Baptist Association in 2012 because the M.B.A. began to redefine the
way they were going to practice separation.
The use of Phil Johnson as their featured speaker is merely a reflection
of their new Gospel Centrism (their Gospel is really Reformed
Soteriology). During the six years I was
the State Missionary of the Minnesota Baptist Association and editor of their
North Star magazine, I wrote many articles to keep the association from going
the direction it has gone. Apparently,
in most part, those articles have gone unheeding. In some cases, they were ridiculed. One such article, entitled The Hegelian Dialectic, is quoted
below:
“The Hegelian Dialectic is basically a process that ultimately results in
Centrism. This is accomplished by
bringing together diverse positions for dialogue. The process
involves bringing together a thesis
(extreme right) together with an antithesis
(extreme left) for discussion that moves both extremes towards the center (compromise). Two things happen to the majority of those
involved in the dialogue.
1. The majority of the participants form a synthesis (a composite position)
somewhere between the two extremes (this is the goal of the Hegelian
Dialectic).
2. Those not accepting the synthesis become sympathetic towards the various degrees of
positions of those involved in the dialogue in that tolerance becomes the banner under which the process functions.
This process
is repeated with each generation and the center
(synthesis) constantly moves towards the extreme left (compromise,
tolerance, and liberalism). No one likes to be viewed as an extremist or a
radical. That is why all Christians are
naturally prone towards moving towards the middle on every issue of
conflict. That is the reason why the
vast majority of local churches, associations of churches, and
conventions/denominations have become New Evangelical and Liberal.
When conflicting positions arise, we will find most people
settling for one of two solutions: tolerance
or compromise. Neither of these two positions is acceptable
to God. Neither should they be
acceptable to the person that calls himself a Biblicist. Truth is always a
constant. God is immutable. All truth originates in God’s
immutableness. Therefore truth is
immutable. Which of God’s truths is
inconsequential to Him? Which of God’s
truths does He delineate as a major
truth and which is a minor
truth?”
Therefore, Centrism is an
applicable term to describe the outcomes of what we see in the dialogue between radically different
theological positions. Romans 16:18
describes this process by the phrase - “good words and fair speeches deceive the
hearts of the simple.” One example of
this is how biblical separation is now being redefined during this dialogue. In order to justify the way separation is
being redefined, they must redefine the way unity
is defined. Therefore, they must take a Big Christianity view of the doctrine of
the Church rather than an independent local church view. This is Reformed Ecclesiology. Reformed Theology seems to be a common
denominator for defining who is going to be included in the dialogue and who is excluded. In fact, Dr. Kevin Bauder has regularly
criticized people for criticizing Reform Theology, especially Reformed
Soteriology. Under his paradigm, anyone
believing that Reformed Soteriology is unscriptural, and is willing to say that
publicly, is outside of his acceptable Fundamentalism.
Dr. Kevin Bauder, past president of
Central Baptist Theological Seminary, clearly defines “fundamental doctrines”
as those “doctrines that are essential to the gospel.” This statement seeks to reduce Fundamentalism to Gospel Centrism. Certainly,
Fundamentalism is Gospel centered, but the fundamentals of the Bible extend
into other areas of theology as well.
Anything less is the abdication of theological dogmatism regarding anything
other than the Gospel. In most cases, Evangelicals
cannot even agree on what the Gospel is and certainly do not agree on what
defines a biblical response to the Gospel.
“To be an
evangelical is to be centered upon the gospel.
To be a Fundamentalist is, first, to believe that fundamental doctrines
are definitive for Christian fellowship, second, to refuse Christian fellowship
with all who deny fundamental doctrines (e.g., doctrines that are essential to
the gospel), and third, to reject the leadership of Christians who form bonds
of cooperation and fellowship with those who deny essential doctrines.”[1]
New Evangelicalism essentially developed
in order to build bridges between
Evangelicalism and Liberalism (Theological Modernism). Gospel Centrism is a group within
Fundamentalism (actually Evangelicals), trying to build bridges to the ever drifting New Evangelicals now rapidly
becoming the Emergent Church. Dr. Kent
Brandenburg defines the issues in this form of compromise very well in a new
book he has recently edited and in which has written a number of chapters:
“Disobedience
to the Biblical doctrine of separation follows the spirit of this age, which
reflects post-enlightenment human reasoning.
The world will get to where man is in charge of everything, but to get
to that goal, there will be a series of compromises fitting to a Hegelian
dialectic. Dialogue and consensus
building are the means. The goal is the
‘third way’ that we often read about in politics today. The first and Biblical way is
separation. The second and man’s way is
getting along. The third way is the compromise
of separation in order to get along more.
The result of the compromise is called progress, reaching toward the end
of world peace. Churches are now caught
up in this cycle.
Compromise
is called love, which is really sentimentality.
The watering down of doctrine is labeled humility, which is really
pride. Humility submits to God. Pride replaces what God said with man’s
ideas, elevating men. Pride is the new
humility, however, in the new political and theological correctness. The new humility emphasizes nuance and
repudiates dogmatism. Finally, anything
anyone believes is accepted so that everyone can get along with everyone else,
except God.”[2]
Dr. Doug McLachlan seems to be a
connecting link to what he refers to as a “radical new center.” This “radical new center” is being fleshed
out by a form of Gospel Centrism in
some kind of New Fundamentalism. Unfortunately, this New Fundamentalism looks much like old New Evangelicalism. He has
stated that he believes that the way Northland International University,
Central Baptist Seminary, Calvary Baptist Seminary, and Detroit Theological
Seminary are now practicing separation is what he intended in the writing of
his book Reclaiming Authentic
Fundamentalism. This Authentic Fundamentalism is markedly
absent of a central characteristic of old Fundamentalism, which is
militancy. Dr. Roland McCune offered his
review of Reclaiming Authentic
Fundamentalism:
“Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as
adherence to principle. Militancy has
been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative
concept, even for many Fundamentalists.
Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an
excellent definition of militancy.
‘What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be ‘engaged in
warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).’ It springs from one’s values, is expressed as
an attitude, and results in certain behavior.
One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be
fundamentally important and true. From
this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these
fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when
these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any
activity which would minimize their importance.
The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one
believes to be true.’[3]
I must confess that I do not hear a
clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending
the faith is simply not there. (The
concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p.
140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.),
while certainly a biblical thought,[4]
seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s
non-confrontational type of personality.
Many of us could identify with this.
But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are
reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.”
Terms like “militant meekness” and “radical new center” sound very intellectual, but they are nothing more than “good words and fair speeches” that “deceive the hearts of the simple.” I wrote an article on this October 22nd, 2011 entitled - Has God Changed the “Old Paths” for a new "radical center"? The closing paragraph of the article is quoted below:
“I do not understand how knowledgeable men can so easily be led into the ditch of philosophical compromise. I do not understand how knowledgeable men can justify using the language of Centrism when they must know it is the language of cultural manipulation. I think they must understand their methodology and have adapted certain agreed upon talking points. If they are right (and their argument is that they are right), then everything to the right of them is wrong and everything to the left of them is wrong. Yet, they are willing to label everyone they say is to the right of them as Hyper, while labeling select individuals to the left of them as friends. Then they separate from those to the right of them (which means all those unwilling to accept their new center) and maintain fellowship with those they admittedly understand to be to the left of them. It does not seem too difficult to discern the direction in which they are moving, even though they claim they have not moved. This obviously tells us something about them. Either they never were where they once professed to be, or they have moved. Either of those two possibilities is unacceptable.”[5]
When professed fundamentalists such as
Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Douglas McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, and Dr. Dave Doran
begin to defend men like Al Mohler, John Piper,
Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, C.J. Maheney, and Rick Holland (to
name a few), it becomes very apparent that there has been a considerable change
in direction regarding the practice of militant separation. This goes one step further when they invite
these me to preach for them.
In Romans 16:19, Paul commends the Roman
believers for their obedience to “the faith” and then warns them in the next
sentence – “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet
I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.” The word “evil” is from the Greek word kakos (kak-os').
The context would imply the meaning to be about worthless teaching
that is harmful or injurious.
This context is established because the word “simple” is from the Greek
word akeraios (ak-er'-ah-yos), meaning unmixed
in the sense of being unmixed with false
teaching. Therefore, the word
“simple” here means harmless. An alternative reading of last part of Romans
16:19 might be, “I would have you wise unto that which is good, and
harmless concerning harmful false
doctrine.” The “harmful false
doctrine” refers to what Paul said earlier when he spoke of “good words and
fair speeches” that are intended to “deceive the hearts of the simple.”
The biblical doctrine of
separation is nothing to be trifled with.
The biblical doctrine of separation should certainly never be reduced
the way the Gospel Centrists are attempting
to reduce it. To propose that Christians
focus on the center while ignoring
the parameters is ludicrous and
bizarre. Such a proposition is to say
the center of biblical truth is more
important than the boundaries established
by biblical truth.
To emphasize unity at the sacrifice of doctrinal
continuity is equally ludicrous and bizarre.
This is what the New Evangelicals have done for years and is the
practice of those within the varying degrees on Emergent Christianity. We all certainly understand we are not talking
about doctrinal unanimity. No two people will ever be perfectly
unanimous doctrinally. However, there
certainly should be doctrinal unanimity
on what defines the Church and how it is to be governed. There certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on what the Gospel is and how people get saved.
There certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on what the Bible
teaches about the end times and the Christian’s part in these future events. There certainly should be doctrinal unanimity on whether sign
gifts have ceased or if they continue throughout the Church Age.[6] These are very important issues of orthodoxy
that radically impact orthopraxy and orthopathy.
To define the “unity of the
Spirit” outside of its parameters of the statement in Ephesians 4:5-6 is
equally ludicrous and bizarre – “5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all.” This simple
statement does not reduce unity down to one commonality as does Gospel Centrism.[7] This simple statement in fact expands the
“unity of the Spirit” exponentially by the phrase “one faith.” There is but one true God and He has given
only one inspired Bible. Therefore,
there is only one correct interpretation that defines the “one faith.” True “unity of the Spirit” will only be found
where there is unanimity within all the parameters of the “one faith.”
Who then gets to decide what defines unanimity? Does a Bible college get to define this? Does a seminary get to define this? No, every individual and every local church
must define unanimity for
themselves. Then they must decide how
they are going practice separation within their own definition and agreement. They must do this so as to insure no believer
will be led astray by identifying with someone, or another local church, that teaches
false doctrine or practices separation that appears to endorse false
doctrine.
Romans 16:17-20 appears almost as a
parenthesis within the context of Paul’s salutation to the faithful believers within
various local churches at Rome. The text
is Paul’s final statement defining a true Opus
Dei (the universal call to holiness).
Paul pleads with
these faithful believers to “mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans
16:17. There are two admonitions in the
text. These faithful believers were to
“mark” these people that causes “divisions and offences contrary to the
doctrine” and they were to “avoid them.”
The word “mark” is from the Greek word skopeo (skop-eh'-o), which literally means to take aim at. The intent is to put a mark on them like a
point on a target. The word “avoid” is
from the Greek word ekklino (ek-klee'-no), which means to deviate. The idea is to walk away from such a
person. Obviously the intent of the verb
is separation.
Let me be careful here to say that I do not
disagree with everything these men teach.
I have been often enriched and edified by their ministries, teaching,
and writings. However, this new pathway
of Gospel Centrism is a pathway on which we cannot walk together. It is serious enough to require biblical
separation from these men. It is serious
enough for spiritual men to separate them from their associations. I have talked to a few men in the leadership
of the Minnesota Baptist Association of churches regarding these issues. My comments were received with a smirk of
derision and ridicule. What they have
done is shunned the “mark” that should be put upon these men for their apparent
compromises. In doing so, they have
accepted a pathway of heteropraxy foreign to every Bible believing
fundamentalist for thousands of years. Thousands
over the centuries have adorned the true doctrine of biblical separation with
their own blood.
Most importantly, these men have rejected the clear
statements of the Word of God about separation in exchange for “good words and
fair speeches” intent upon the deception of “the hearts of the simple.” This was addressed in an article entitled Conservative Evangelicalism’s Distortion of the Doctrine of
Separation. The quote below is from that
article:
“We must understand
Paul’s instruction to ‘mark them’ and his command to ‘avoid them’ as referring
to anything that departs from ‘the faith’ he had just laid out in careful
divisions and meticulous detail including the vocational election of national
Israel, the details of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the
Palestinian Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the place of Church Age
believers in the unfolding already, not yet beginning of the New
Covenant. Paul gives details of
Pneumatology in Romans chapters 6 and 12 regarding the supernatural baptism
with the Holy Spirit (6:1-18) and the supernatural enabling of the Holy Spirit
in the lives of consecrated believers (12:1-8).
Paul gives details of the Church Age priesthood of all believers in
Romans chapter 11 and warns them of the consequences of unfaithfulness by
disobedience to what they were saved to do - Ambassadors of Reconciliation.
Secondly,
two practical outcome failures are addressed in the statement ‘cause divisions
and offences contrary to the doctrine.’
1. ‘Divisions . . . contrary to the
doctrine’
2. ‘Offences . . . contrary to the
doctrine’
Those
to be marked and avoided are those involved in these two corrupt
outcomes. The words ‘the doctrine’ are
synonymous with the words ‘the faith’ used elsewhere in Paul’s epistles. In fact Paul uses the phrase ‘the faith’ to
refer to the complete inscripturalized doctrines of the Word of God over and
over again in his epistles. I believe
Paul uses the phrase ‘the faith’ on 20 different occasions and Peter and Jude
each use it once. The phrase ‘the faith’
is what Paul refers to in Acts 20:27 as he addressed the ‘elders’ of the local
churches of Ephesus, ‘For
I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.’
The
word ‘divisions’ in Romans 16:17 is from the Greek word dichostasia (dee-khos-tas-ee'-ah), which
means disunion. Paul is referring
to doctrinal dissension resulting in division or sedition. Therefore, the primary meaning of ‘divisions’
is the breaking of what was previously joined together. ‘Divisions’ is doctrinal disunity as
contrasted with doctrinal unity.”[8]
The men I seek to mark by this article are creating “divisions contrary to the
doctrine.” This refers to heresy in that
heresy is creating a faction or a new group from those led away from a previous
group. This is explained in the same
article as the quote above.
“Once the division
is created and an individual is disjoined from the unity of the ‘one faith,’
this creates a faction or new sect within Christianity. Therefore, this division in doctrine
leads to heresy. The word heresy
in the New Testament is from the Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is),
which basically means to choose a party or sect. The negative aspect of the word heresy
refers to the removing of an individual from the main stream of Bible
believing Christianity to form another division that wants to represent
itself as the main stream or the norm.”[9]
“The Greek word hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is)
is often translated by the word sect rather than by the word heresy. There was ‘the sect {hairesis} of the Sadducees’ (Acts 5:17). There was ‘the sect {hairesis} of
the Pharisees’ (Acts 15:5). On two
occasions, true Christianity was called heresy
by the Jews (Acts 24:5 and 14). Paul
refers to the divisions within the church at Corinth as heresy (I Cor. 11:17-19).
Paul referred to ‘heresies’ as one of the manifestations of the ‘works
of the flesh’ in Galatians 5:19-21. Peter
referred to the divisive teaching of the ‘false teachers’ as ‘damnable
heresies’ in II Peter 2:1 that ultimately denies the Lordship of Jesus
Christ. The point is that even though
individuals who come under the pretense of unity,
but with some new divisive theological position thereby creating a new faction
and sect within Christianity, thereby this is the very essence of what defines
the word heresy. Therefore, although Paul’s use of the word
‘divisions’ in Romans 16:17 is not the Greek word hairesis, the outcome of these ‘divisions’ is heresy (new sects).
The second practical
outcome failure addressed in the statement of Romans 16:17 is that they ‘cause . . .
offences contrary to the doctrine.’ The
word ‘offenses’ is translated from the Greek word skandalon (skan'-dal-on),
from which we get our English word scandal. It is derived from a word meaning trip
stick. The context of use gives us
the meaning to refer to the outcome of false doctrine that would cause people
to be tripped up or to stumble in their Christian walk. This certainly would apply to the false
teaching of Conservative Evangelicalism that cooperation amongst various sects
of Christianity should only be determined by some ambiguous definition of the Gospel.”[10]
The words “good words and fair
speeches” in Romans 16:18 do not sound as ominous as these words that come
forth in the Greek text. We see how
ominous these words are when we look at the outcomes of their intent. David Sutton brings this forth in his
comments on this text:
“They deceive
the hearts of the simple. These good
words (xrestologia) have a pleasing
quality. They seem full of virtue and
reason. They are not brash or harsh, but
gentle, offering better results that the ‘old’ way. This is the same tactic that Satan used with
Eve. He questioned God, contradicted
God, and gave a reasonable solution for why Eve should do what he wanted. Does it work?
It does? The fair speeches (eulogia) come out as polished language,
smooth and flowing, filled with good words and blessing. Many times, these people speak their messages
with eloquence and style. They use
tactics that tickle people’s ears and capture their attention. They flatter,
look humble, sound sincere, and talk spiritual.
They know the Bible and often do good works. Yet something seems off. What they say does not line up with Scripture,
yet they seem so believable. The
spiritually mature see problems, but the simple do not. As a result, the simple are deceived in their
hearts (their way of thinking).”[11]
There is always a common pattern in
the process of developing leadership among people. The first step is to earn a hearing. The second step is developing a
friendship. The third step is winning
the heart. The fourth step is creating
loyalty. However, once these four steps
have been achieved, they can be used for good or evil. Those following these leaders must always be
extremely cautious when leadership appears to be taking a new pathway contrary
to God’s Word.
“There is a way
which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of
death” (Psalm 14:12).
“Thus saith the
LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is
the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they
said, We will not walk therein”
(Jeremiah 6:16).
[2] Brandenburg, Kent, editor.
Contributing authors: Custer, Michael; Mallinak, Dave; McCandless, Erich;
Mitchell, Bobby; Smith, Thomas; Sutton, David; and Webb, Gary. A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of
Ecclesiastical Separation. El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing,
2012, page 296-297.
[3] George Houghton.
“The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994)
[4] The idea of
“servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was
severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety
about it. But it is false piety, or it
plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical
understanding. Contemporary servant
leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose
convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune
themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their
direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp.
214-15). His attack was directed at the
lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New
Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the
prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming
. . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive
prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find
his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own
proposal. Well’s point is well taken:
Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Brandenburg, Kent, editor. Contributing
authors: Custer, Michael; Mallinak, Dave; McCandless, Erich; Mitchell, Bobby;
Smith, Thomas; Sutton, David; and Webb, Gary. A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastical Separation. El
Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2012, page 40.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete