Monday Menagerie V

PyroManiac devotes Monday space to esoteric and offbeat things, in the hope that these will supply learning experiences for us all.

The Bunhill Fields nonconformist burial ground

My first introduction to Bunhill Fields was an article by Warren Wiersbe in his book Listening to the Giants: A Guide to Good Reading and Great Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). Wiersbe was my pastor for six years and one of my earliest mentors. His book and its predecessor, Walking with the Giants, introduced me to a number of authors and historical church leaders who became my favorites. The Bunhill Fields article (which, if I recall correctly, was an appendix in Listening to the Giants) made such an impression on me that when I first began to visit London in the early 1990s, I always tried to stop by that little-known non-conformist cemetary, where some of the greatest figures in Puritan and Baptist history are buried.

It's a peaceful place and a rare bit of quiet greenery in a noisy, concrete part of London. To get there, first make your way to the Liverpool Street Station. From there it is an easy quarter-mile walk to City Road. Or you can take your choice of the 214, 275, or 205 buses to City Road. Get off at Wesley's Chapel (which is well marked). Bunhill Fields (which is not so well marked) is directly across the street.



I suspect the cemetary's history is not fully appreciated by the hundreds of modern Londoners who walk through it or eat their lunch there daily. But here you will find the graves of several Protestant luminaries, including John Owen, John Bunyan, John Gill, and John Rippon.

Here's an account of Bunyan's death and burial, from an 1884 work titled Brave Men and Women, by O. E. Fuller:

In the Summer of 1688 he undertook to plead the cause of a son with an angry father, and at length prevailed on the old man not to disinherit the young one. This good work cost the benevolent intercessor his life. He had to ride through heavy rain. He came drenched to his lodgings on Snow Hill, was seized with a violent fever, and died in a few days. He was buried in Bunhill Fields; and the spot where he lies is still regarded by the Non-conformists with a feeling which seems scarcely in harmony with the stern spirit of their theology. Many Puritans, to whom the respect paid by Roman Catholics to the relics and tombs of saints seemed childish or sinful, are said to have begged with their dying breath that their coffins might be placed as near as possible to the coffin of the author of the "Pilgrim's Progress."

Bunyan's tomb was restored in 1862, so what you see here is a Victorian-era monument, but the gravesite is the original:

John Bunyan's tomb

When the refurbished tomb was complete, Charles Spurgeon was asked to be the speaker at a dedication service held May 21, 1862. The weather that day was too rainy to hold a service by the gravesite, so Spurgeon spoke from the pulpit of Wesley's chapel across the street.

You didn't have to be named John, and you didn't have to be a theologian to be buried at Bunhill Fields. This is also the final resting place of literary giants such as Daniel DeFoe (author of Robinson Crusoe), poet William Blake, hymn writer Isaac Watts, and dramatist Joseph Reed. Also prominent are the graves of Susannah Wesley (mother of John and Charles), Thomas Bayes (the mathematician who developed Bayes's theorem of inverse probability and gave his name to the theory known as "Bayesian probability"), and George Fox, founder of the Quaker movement.

Here's a map to the famous grave sites in the cemetery. And here's a website with more pictures and information.

One of the most intriguing—and disturbing—tombs in the cemetary is the vault of Dame Mary Page. One side of her tomb says, "Here lyes Dame Mary Page relict of Sir "Gregory Page Bart. She departed this life March 4 1728 in the 56th year of her age." The other side includes this timeless epitaph:

"In 67 months she was tapd 66 times
Had taken away 240 gallons of water
Without ever repining at her case
Or ever fearing the operation."

Ouch.

The size of Dame Mary's tomb indicates that she was from a very wealthy family. Indeed, John Gill apparently disapproved of the ostentatious display of honor shown to the Lady at her funeral. Soon afterward, Gill wrote a piece titled "An Essay on the Origin of Funeral Sermons, Orations, and Odes. Occasioned by Two Funeral Discourses, Lately Published on the Death of Dame Mary Page, Relict Of Sir Gregory Page, Bart. The One by Mr. Harrison, with an Oration at Her Interment; and an Ode Sacred to Her Memory. The Other by Mr. Richardson. With some Observations on each of them."

Gill began,

I have for some time been of opinion, that the custom of preaching Funeral Sermons, and making Orations at the interment of the dead, took its rise from some such practice first in use among the Heathens. Two discourses of this kind having been lately published on the death of the Lady Page, both attended with some odd circumstances, which I am sensible you are no stranger to, they have occasioned some fresh thoughts on this subject, the result of which I now send you, together with some few observations on the said discourses, all which I humbly submit to your impartial judgment.

The full essay, which is much to long to reproduce here, is part of the John Gill collection available from Ages Software.

Finally, here's more from Spurgeon on Bunyan:

Bad men die out quickly, for the world feels it is a good thing to be rid of them; they are not worth remembering. But the death of a good man, the man who was sincerely a Christian—how different is that! And when you see the body of a saint, if he has served God with all his might, how sweet it is to look upon him—ah, and to look upon his coffin too, or upon his tomb in after years! Go into Bunhill-fields, and stand by the memorial of John Bunyan, and you will say, "Ah! there lies the head that contained the brain which thought out that wondrous dream of the Pilgrim's Progress from the City of Destruction to the Better land. There lies the finger that wrote those wondrous lines which depict the story of him who came at last to the land Beulah, and waded through the flood, and entered into the celestial city. And there are the eyelids which he once spoke of, when he said, "If I lie in prison until the moss grows on my eyelids, I will never make a promise to withhold from preaching." And there is that bold eye that penetrated the judge, when he said, "If you will let me out of prison to-day, I will preach again to-morrow, by the help of God." And there lies that loving hand that was ever ready to receive into communion all them that loved the Lord Jesus Christ: I love the hand that wrote the book, "Water Baptism no Bar to Christian Communion." I love him for that sake alone, and if he had written nothing else but that, I would say, "John Bunyan, be honored for ever." And there lies the foot that carried him up Snow Hill to go and make peace between a father and a son, in that cold day, which cost him his life. Peace to his ashes Wait, O John Bunyan, till thy Master sends his angel to blow the trumpet and methinks, when the archangel sounds it, he will almost think of thee, and this shall be a part of his joy, that honest John Bunyan, the greatest of all Englishmen, shall rise from his tomb at the blowing of that great trump. You cannot say so of the wicked. What is a wicked man's body but a rotten piece of noisomeness? Put it away, and thank God there are worms to eat such a thing up, and thank him still more, that there is a worm called Time, to eat up the evil influence and the accursed memory, which such a man leaves behind him. All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done." Charles Spurgeon The Wicked Man's Life, Funeral, and Epitaph 13 June 1858

---

A London Journal—Day Four

Happy Independence Day!

Photo credit: Darlene Johnson Taken at the stroke of noon from the Westminster Bridge, July 4, 2005

---

A London Journal—Day Three

The Metropolitan Tabernacle

The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London is a thriving evangelistic congregation. Anyone who thinks Calvinism is hostile to evangelistic zeal ought to come here and see firsthand what evangelistic Calvinism looks like.

In fact, this church goes against all the wisdom of modern church-growth experts. It's an inner-city church doing a fine job of reaching its own local community with the gospel. The neighborhood is about as diverse as you can imagine, comprising people from more than a half dozen cultures—African, Russian, Asian, Sri Lankan, Indian, Eastern European, English, and more. The congregation, including the diaconate, reflect that heterogeneity. Yet, as far as the style of worship is concerned, there's no accommodation to cultural diversity. The services are pretty much like they were in Spurgeon's day. Nothing is deliberately contemporary or entertainment-oriented. There are no choruses. There are no video screens. There are none of the accoutrements of "contemporary worship." Although all the church-growth experts continually insist such things are absolutely necessary, the conventional wisdom is belied by the reality of what is happening here. The centerpiece in every worship service is the preaching of the Word. It's straightforward and plain. And yet every service I have ever attended at the Tabernacle has been full to capacity.

This plaque was brought from Mentone, France, when the hotel where Spurgeon died was demolished. It's part of the Tabernacle's superb memorabilia collection.

Probably the most significant change in worship "style" since Spurgeon's time is the addition of an organ. But even that is kept carefully in check. It's there to keep tune and tempo on track; you won't hear any embellishments or creative harmonizing from the organist (who is a fine musician nonetheless). Dr. Masters once told me he likes the fact that English hymnbooks usually include the words only, because it encourages people to sing in unison. (That's very different from what I have heard in Wales, where people sing with great gusto in beautiful harmony; or in Scotland, where every man sings what is right in his own eyes.)

And yet, the music at the Tabernacle is hearty and robust and strangely moving. I've been here more than a dozen times, and I would estimate that only about 15 percent of their hymn-tunes are familiar to me. But the tunes are easy to learn, and the hymns are rich in theology and vivid language. Consider this first stanza from a hymn we sang tonight:

Extended on a cursed tree,
Besmeared with dust, and sweat, and blood,
See there, the King of glory see!
Sinks and expires the Son of God.

We also sang "Rock of Ages" to a stately tune that I presume is the original one Augustus Toplady's own congregation would have used. It was much more solemn and dignified than the trite tune most American congregations use—or used in those days long ago when we still sang that great hymn.

Anyway, I love the hymns and the worship here. I realize that puts me in a small minority, but the vibrant congregation here at the Met Tab is a living and very definitive rebuttal to those who think contemporary "style," rather than the power of God's Word itself, is the essential key to church growth.

I spoke today in the morning service on "The Limits of Temptation" from 1 Corinthians 10:13. Tonight Dr. Peter Masters gave a wonderful evangelistic message on Luke 11:27-28. He made good use of his own testimony as an illustration of how unbelievers use various bogus means to defend and preserve their own unbelief in the face of every good reason to believe. I thoroughly enjoyed and was blessed by every aspect of the day.

She's got a tikka to ride

More on London food: My friend Duncan, who is a doctor here in London, informs me that recent surveys show the most popular food in England is not fish and chips, not bangers and mash, not bubble and squeak—but chicken tikka masala?!!

There's no accounting for British tastes. If they like spicy Indian food, why are their own traditional foods so devoid of taste? Or is London's love for ethnic fare merely a rebellion against the generations of blandness in their diet? Seriously, there are kebab shops, Mediterranean restaurants, and spicy ethnic foods of every imaginable kind on every street in London. Not much that is truly American, though. Even Burger King's burgers are assembled by Ethiopians, who seem to think more is better when it comes to condiments. Darlene had a Whopper with cheese that was so dripping with mayonnaise that it proved to be inedible.

And speaking of chicken tikka, one of my longtime favorite London fast foods is a chicken tikka sandwich on a baguette from The Upper Crust, a sandwich franchise you can find in every train station in town. The one I had tonight, however, was laden with about a half cup of mayonnaise and twice more chutney than chicken. It was awful—at least as bad as Darlene's burger. I can't wait till Starbucks opens for breakfast. Strong coffee and a muffin is just what I need.

Speaking of Starbucks, there seem to be almost as many Starbucks stores as drunken Canadians in London. Sometimes you'll see two Starbucks within a block of each other. I'm not sure what that's about, since Brits still prefer tea to coffee. I guess the ubiquitous coffee places cater mostly to tourists. But seeing all the Starbucks helps me understand why Europeans are so worried about American economic imperialism. I'd feel the same way if The Upper Crust moved into Santa Clarita on every corner.

But the Cornish Pasty shops are still welcome.

See you tomorrow. It's a study day for me.

---

A London Journal—Day Two

Not your typical day in London



LONDON—I slept till 10:00 AM. I don't know how I accomplished that in spite of the early summer sunrise and traffic noise. But Darlene was quietly watching Wimbledon on the telly when I finally awoke. After I finally got ready to go out, she wanted lunch and I wanted breakfast, so we walked to Waterloo Station, where I went to Starbucks for coffee and a scone. She got a healthy lunch at McDonald's, and we sat together at a nearby table. I love her.

On the way home, I got a haircut at a randomly-chosen barber shop in the neighborhood. Risky, I know. But it looks pretty good.

There was a lot going on in London today: the Wimbledon women's singles final (Venus won), the massive Live 8 concert at Hyde Park (I was nowhere near the place), a one-day cricket match at Lords (the Pommies fought Australia to a rare draw), a televised rugby match from Wellington, NZ, that had people packing into the London pubs (the All Blacks had their way with the British and Irish Lions); and the Gay Pride parade from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square. Oh, and did I mention the massive cleanup job left by last night's Canadia Day reveling?

My thoughts on "Live 8"

I hate to be a killjoy, but I find all the hype, hysteria, and hypocrisy of Live 8 nearly as revolting as the Gay Pride proceedings. Live 8 was broadcasting all day, so it was on the telly in the barbershop and everywhere else I went all day. Is there a silly rich blonde girl anywhere in London today who wasn't handed a microphone so she could emote for the audience about how "no one has done anything about poverty for 20 years, since the original Live Aid Concert"? I doubt it.

The BBC's coverage also featured a non-stop parade of worldly luminaries who have devoted their whole lives to shallowness—now suddenly smitten in conscience and determined in a single day to "Make Poverty History." Someone (I think it was Bob Geldof) convinced everyone that they could end poverty the same way Hal Roach's Little Rascals survived the Great Depression: "Hey! Why don't we put on a show?" The celebrities alternated as if on cue between giddy and grim.

Do sane people really think Western materialism, self-conceit, and celebrity-worship can be leveraged to solve the problem of African poverty? I agree with this guy.

The most disturbing picture of the day was when Snoop Dog took the stage and began spouting appalling profanities in rhythm to a rap beat. The camera cut away to an English dude (probably a banker) in a pin-stripe suit and tie, squinting as if deep in thought and nodding in time to the cadence—as if he really gets it.

Sorry. I know stuff like that tends to make most people get all teary-eyed and sentimental, but it has the opposite effect on me. John 12:3-8 seems appropriate in this context. There you see an artificial concern for the poor motivated by selfish pretext. It's a sin at least as old as Judas. And consider how arrogant the "Make Poverty History" slogan is, in light of Jesus' words in verse 8.

Anyway, to something only slightly less dour—

More about London food

Actually, the food situation in London is not as bleak as some travelers like to make out. I think the biggest problem is the high price. But that is true of everything in London. I know how Londoners could end poverty in Africa if they really took a mind to: turn all the restaurants in London over to African owners. The food would be better, I'm sure. And a couple weeks' profit could probably pay off several developing nations' debt.

But the scarcity of good food in London is exaggerated, frankly. If you know your way around, you don't have to resort to Pizza Hut to find edible dishes. (I swore off British Pizza Huts some 15 years ago, because the pizza didn't have an authentic Pizza Hut look and feel. I like sausage pizza, and sausage in the UK is—well, that's another story. Bangers. An acquired taste. Not bad for breakfast, once you get used to them. But they don't work on pizza, and never will. First time I asked for sausage pizza in England, the waitress said—and I am not making this up—"Ha! That's an interesting idea!) Anyway, the restaurant scene all over England has vastly improved over the past half decade. They still have a way to go, but there's no need for an American to feel like a total foreigner.

Tonight, for example, I took Darlene to Chiquito in Leicester Square. They offer a reasonable facsimile of Mexican food. The tortilla chips have a vaguely rye flavor, and in order to make the nachos substantial enough for a meal you have to buy a side cup of chili (look for "chilli beef" on the menu), but the jalapeños are authentic and the salsa is pretty decent, all things considered. I've been there before, and the chimichangas are passable, too. Darlene always has the cheeseburger. She gave me a bite tonight, and it was decent—not like the typical English cheeseburger, designed to be eaten with a fork and knife. (More about English manners in a minute.)

Then, as one of my commenters pointed out, there's always Chinatown, a block north of Leicester Square. I've eaten in three or four of those restaurants over the years. Every one I have tried was authentic and superb.

If you're in a train station and want fast food, skip the American chains like McDonald's and Burger King and go for the Cornish pasty shops. Really fine. I wish we could get decent Cornish pasties in Santa Clarita.

For snack food, the Brits have invented something really wonderful: Galaxy Minstrels. They are like M&Ms, only four times as large. I'm not a huge fan of sweets and chocolates, but these are really, really good. (Note to self: Bring back two large bags for the bowl on Kim's desk.)

English manners

The difference between the English and the Americans can be summed up by a look at their respective road signs:

English American

Plus, the English eat everything with a fork and knife. Not only cheeseburgers, but even chicken wings. Tonight at Chiquito, people at the tables on either side of us were trying to eat fajitas with a fork and knife!

So, since the English are known worldwide for such impeccable manners, can someone please explain to me why central London is now dotted with public, doorless urinals? I'm not talking about the Live 8 concert here; they have one of these things in the Strand, traditionally thought of as an upscale location, just across from the Hotel Savoy, and right in the main traffic pattern of one of the busiest sidewalks in central London. They have them at Leicester Square, too—always the busiest, most crowded spot in London when Live 8 is not in town. I confess I don't get it. I suppose it could be just a big joke for the tourists' sake. You never know with the British.

See you tomorrow.

---

London Journal—Day One

LONDON—Our hotel practically abuts Lambeth Palace, the London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It's nearly midnight, and the Bishop has not yet stopped by or phoned to check on us.

We arrived from the airport at about 2:45. After unpacking and making sure I had Internet access in the room, I took a nap for an hour and a half. I realize travel experts will tell you a midday nap on arrival in a far-off time zone is a sure-fire way to exacerbate the problems of jet lag, but I do it every time I come. I have no choice; I couldn't possibly stay awake after the cramped and grueling overnight flight. I literally fell asleep in the taxi on the way from the airport. Why I can sleep in a London cab that jolts to a stop every thirty feet but I can't sleep decently in an airplane (no matter how smooth the flight) is a total mystery to me, too. But there you have it.

When I awoke, the computer was inexplicably off. The power cord had shut itself off, so the computer went into sleep mode. When I plugged the power cable in again, it wouldn't stay on. The green light would light and immediately go out. Although the cord is made to be compatible with the 220 current in the UK, I suspected something was overloading. So I unplugged everything, including my webcam, the cable for synchronizing my Palm computer, and the computer's power cable. The computer itself seemed to be working fine.

I plugged the power cable back in. The green light stayed on this time, but the whole room was soon filled with the smell of overheated electronics. By sniffing around, I isolated the source of the smell. It was coming from the back of my computer, where the little exhaust fans are. The fans have been extra noisy lately. Not any more. I shut the computer off, unplugged the power cord, said a prayer for the healing of my computer, and went to dinner with Darlene.

London is legendary for its lousy restaurants. If you want good food in London, the Asian restaurants are usually your best option. English food tends to be bland, stale, and meager. (Why did the British conquer the world in search of spices, of all things? What did they intend to use them for? Embalming?) There's a superb Indian restaurant just two doors away from our hotel. I love the place, but Darlene isn't fond of Indian food. That's OK. I also know a wonderful restaurant with (believe it or not) great English food.

The place is Porters, a full block west of Covent Garden. It's a across the Thames and about a mile and a quarter from our hotel, but we needed a long walk anyway. So we set out across the Westminster bridge around 6:30 PM. (The weather was threatening rain, and it sprinkled a few times but never really unleashed.)

On the way to Porters, we saw an unusual number of noisy drunken people wearing maple-leaf insignias and Canadian colors. Turns out today is some kind of Canadian holiday. (I'd been on an airplane for hours; didn't get to read Challies today, remember?) Anyway, I didn't know Canadians were permitted holidays, except for "boxing day," and an oddly-timed and barely-noticed Thanksgiving. But it seems some Canadians got really worked up about this back in 1868, and (envious of our July 4) they had July 1 declared a holiday. In 1982, it was given the name "Canadia Day." Who knew?

Well, a lot of people in London know about it tonight. There are so many revelling Canadians in central London right now—I wonder if anyone is left in Canadia. A block before we got to Porters, on the adjacent street (which has the misfortune of being home to a Canadian-themed pub), the entire area was jammed with Canadians drinking beer for at least a quarter mile. They stood, shoulder to shoulder, not doing anything except trying hard not to spill their beer. The only thing holding them up was each other. There were at least 10,000 of them. No lie. That's more Canadians than I have ever seen in one place, even when I went to an Expos game in Montreal a few years ago while the Expos were actually in a pennant race. Many of tonight's Canadians in London are carrying multiple six-packs. (Public consumption, sadly, is quite common here in London.) Its going to be a long night. I hope Challies will be able to post tomorrow.

Anyway, the food at Porters is as great as ever. Their fish & chips are the best I have ever had, with some really fine tartar sauce on the side. But my favorite side dish is mushy peas. It's a small bowl of well-cooked and mashed peas—about the consistency of refried beans, but with the flavor of a really rich split pea soup. You're not supposed to use it as a condiment for dipping fries, but it works superbly that way.

The desserts at Porters are legendary. Of course in England, all desserts are called "puddings" in that delightful British patois. Even cake is a "pudding." (Believe it or not, pig intestine is also called "pudding.") The specialty of the house at Porters is a famous English pudding called "Spotted Dick." If I were in the mood for a pudding—which I'm not—I think I'd go for the pig entrails.

Back at the hotel, the electrical smell was gone. I plugged the computer in, observed that the electrical cable was working; checked to see that the light signifying a charging battery was on; and noted that everything seemed normal. So I turned on the computer, and as you can see, it seems to be working fine.

Something in it is melted, however. I'm pretty sure of that. Maybe it has something to do with last Saturday's coffee fiasco. I don't have time to worry about it now. I'm going to bed. Bill Fickett: I'm going to get that new lap top ASAP when I get back home. You and Ted can start pricing units.

Update before my final edit: The computer turned itself off without warning a few minutes ago. I think I'm in trouble.

---

Emerging from the London fog

LONDON—I hate long flights. Anything over four hours can drive me up the wall. But one of the things I like to do on overseas flights is catch up on my reading.

Yesterday I packed a four-inch-thick stack of papers (mostly web documents that I had printed out over the past three months, thinking I would read them at the first opportunity). They all roughly fit in about four categories:

1. Articles and reviews (both pro and con) about the New Perspective on Paul; Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology; Norman Shepherd; and "Reformed Catholicism."
   
2. Open letters and blogged replies both defending and critiquing the Emergent Church Movement. (Most of these were items occasioned by "Our Response to Critics of Emergent," from Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris Seay).
   
3. Some really long and diverse blogposts from various souces on assorted topics (ranging from the whimsical to the deadly serious). They all looked interesting but were too long to read when I found them.
   
4. A few academic papers on hyper-Calvinism.

On top of that, I had about a dozen recent magazines—mostly issues of World, dating back to late April. This was a thick stack of magazines I had not had time to read. I read them and left them on the plane, so my luggage is already 7-10 pounds lighter than when I left home.

That's how our ten-hour flight became a marathon reading session for me. It's a typical way for me to occupy myself on long flights, really. I can't usually sleep on planes, and on overseas flights, everyone else always does. So it's a great opportunity to read. But about seven hours into the flight, my brain is totally fried. There's no way I can possibly read through everything. That's OK. I'll read the rest on the way home.

Here are the three best items so far:

1. "Emergent church proponents respond to their critics," by Ron Gleason at Challies Community Blog. This was sharp and witty, and the interaction in the comments was a hoot to read. Best quote: "By the way, if McLaren and the others didn't want to create new jargon, they've failed miserably because everyone from James McClendon to McLaren, to Miller uses virtually identical jargon. They are, in a word, 'jargonal.'" I loved this article and Gleason's writing style. This was my first encounter with Ron Gleason, but I'll be searching out more of his material. I see he also has an article about Emergent's pet foul-mouthed virago, Anne Lamott. I'll be reading that next.
   
2. Al Mohler's two-part evaluation of D. A. Carson's critique of the Emerging Church. A good digest of the problems with pomoism. Favorite quote: "There is a thin-skinned sensitivity on the part of many of those who identify with the Emerging Church. Even as they level severe and unstinting criticism at the inherited evangelical models, they recoil from criticism directed at their own proposals." Precisely: "Let's have a conversation—only you don't get to talk at all unless you affirm me."
   
3. Gary North's assault on T. David Gordon's infamous article, "The Insufficiency of Scripture." The Gordon article, published in the Jan/Feb 2002 issue of Modern Reformation, has discreetly been removed from the magazine's online archives. It was probably the low point (or perhaps second lowest) of that magazine's otherwise often distinguished record. North's analysis is, as you would expect, acerbic, entertaining, informative, and a perhaps a little paranoid. But hey, that's why we read Gary's stuff. This article reminded me what a keen mind Gary North has, and what a shame it is that he has been so obsessed over the years with doomsday scenarios and money-making techniques. The best quote of this particular article is too long to cite in full here, but here's a bit of it:
   

   The problem as [Gordon] sees it is this: the Bible is insufficient.
   
   

   I would suggest that part of the reason our unbelieving friends succeed as often in marriage as we do is that they are never hoodwinked by any misunderstanding of the self-sufficiency of Scripture. They are never counseled to "read two verses and call me in the morning."

   
   Is this clever, or what? Can he zing pastors, who spend much of their time in marital counselling, usually free of charge?
   
   My conclusion: It is a lot easier to give lectures at a humanist-accredited, PCUSA-run college than it is to give counsel to couples about to divorce.
   
   OK, let's get down to specifics. Let's go to the Bible. Here are my two verses. Dr. Gordon can call me in the morning.

By the way, here's a fourth item that I really enjoyed, and since I haven't indulged in BlogSpotting for several days, I'll shamelessly and vaingloriously point this out: At the end of the current issue of World, Marvin Olasky includes a special section: "Useful books for summertime reading." He gives a thumbs-up to Fool's Gold?—a book published recently by Crossway that several of us who are connected with The Shepherds' Fellowship collaborated on. It seems Mr. Olasky liked my assessment of N. T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul a whole lot better than Li'l Brudder did.

Good stuff. Now I'm going to take a nap.

---

Good eye!

Kudos to Steve Camp, who was the first one correctly to identify the mystery location featured in yesterday's post. He nailed it in the very first comment. It's Bunhill Fields, the famous Puritan and non-conformist burial grounds in City Road, London—burial place of Isaac Watts, John Gill, John Rippon and many other Protestant and Puritan celebs. Directly across the street to the east is John Wesley's home and the church he pastored. I'll try to post a more thorough description of Bunhill Fields with some pictures in Monday's blogpost.

By the way, speaking of Campi—he has officially entered the blogosphere. I always thought his website was his blog, but he now has a cleverly-titled alternative blog with cool graphics and room for readers' comments. (The blog seems to mirror what is already at Audience One, but with the opportunity for commentors to reply, and presumably it won't accumulate three miles of material and take longer than an episode of "Martha Stewart" to load.) Judging from Steve's blogcontent so far, he is going to be prolific. Legit.

As noted all week, I am invading Adrian Warnock's nation for a week. If Britain had those silly colored terror-alert signals, I'm certain the powers that be would set the alert level to the brightest possible glowing crimson.

Anyway, my flight departs early this evening, but I've got to get home, pack, and get to the airport two hours early. So I'm signing off till I get to the UK. My hotel there is supposed to have high-speed access in every room. If it works, I'll blog a little bit when I get there, including a full update on what I plan to be doing in London and what I'll be speaking about during the School of Theology.

Some quick thoughts on my way out

1. The final tally on the BlogSpotting poll was lopsided in the extreme—10 to 1 in favor of the links. BlogSpotting stays for the time being, though you'll see a lot less of it in the near future, chiefly because—
   
2. As announced, I'm leaving town tomorrow. Darlene and I will be in London for a week.
   
3. Speaking of which, here, courtesy of Google Maps, is a satellite photo of a location in London. Note the grove of trees in the center of the photo, just north of the large green square. This is one of my favorite places in the whole UK. I'm planning to write about it in the "Monday Menagerie" post next week. Anyone recognize the location? Ever been there? If so, leave a comment.

---

In Memoriam: Dr. Jack MacArthur, 1914—2005

Dr. Jack MacArthur, 1914—2005

Yesterday I made a fast round-trip flight to Eugene, Oregon to attend a memorial service at First Baptist Church for Dr. Jack MacArthur, who died exactly two weeks ago, at the age of 91—after 70 years of faithful preaching and teaching. He preached almost every week from the time he was 19 until poor health forced him to stop just a few short months ago. He was beloved by thousands who had sat under his ministry.

Dr. Jack was, of course, the father of John MacArthur and a profound role model not only for his son, but for many other young men who entered the ministry under his tutelage. Dr. Jack's own radio ministry, "Voice of Calvary," began broadcasting in 1942 and has aired continuously ever since. (Production of the program will cease in October.) From 1956 to 1983, Voice of Calvary also sponsored a television broadcast.

John MacArthur and Dr. Jack

Over his long and distinguished career, Dr. Jack was a pastor, conference speaker, author, and church planter. He founded Calvary Bible Church, Burbank, CA—still a thriving congregation. In the 1940s, Dr. Jack served as an Extension speaker for the Moody Bible Institute. Later, while pastoring in Southern California, he and Dr. Edwin Orr founded an outreach ministry to people in the film and television industry.

Best-known as a biblical expositor, Dr. Jack influenced many other preachers (not the least of whom is his own eminent son) to preach the Word faithfully, helping to stem the tide in an era when evangelical preaching was becoming more and more gimmicky and less and less Bible-centered. John MacArthur has often recounted how when he told his father he sensed a call to the ministry, Dr. Jack gave him a Bible inscribed with Paul's instructions to Timothy: "Preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2). Dr. Jack's faithful advocacy of biblical preaching may well prove to be the most important and far-reaching legacy of a very full and fruitful ministry.

Jack MacArthur was an inveterate reader with a broad range of interests. He had a particular concern for apologetics, and his preaching and writing were often peppered with facts and illustrations designed to demonstrate the trustworthiness of God's Word. One of his books was titled How to Stay Away from the Psychiatrist. It was a practical study of how biblical principles apply to the problems of life.

Dr. Jack earned a degree in theology from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—and a D. Lit from Pacific College (now Azusa Pacific University). He also received an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Bob Jones University.

His wife, Irene, went to be with the Lord five years ago. They were the parents of three daughters and a son; with seventeen grandchildren. At his death, Dr. Jack had twenty-two great grandchildren.

"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord . . . that they may rest from their labours" (Revelation 14:13).

---

Jon Campbell: Servant of all

Jon Campbell January 11, 1949—June 22, 2005

During the renaissance of Christian radio that flourished from the mid-1970s through the turn of the millennium and beyond, Jon Campbell was one of the most important men in the Christian communications industry. The Lord took him to heaven last Wednesday after a difficult battle with cancer.

You may never have heard of Jon, but you have almost certainly felt the impact of his work. Together with his wife, Peggy, Jon gave direction to Ambassador Advertising Agency, a Fullerton, CA-based company that represents (and gives production and distribution support to) some of the best-known evangelical radio ministries now on the air, including Grace to You (John MacArthur); Breakpoint (Chuck Colson); and Joni & Friends (Joni Eareckson Tada). Ambassador was founded in 1959 by Jon's father-in-law, Al Sanders. Jon went to work there in the early 70s, after graduating from Biola.

In 1989 Jon became President of the agency. Under his leadership, Ambassador helped shape the entire Christian radio industry. Over the past three decades, Jon and Peggy helped launch the radio ministries of Dr. James Dobson, Chuck Swindoll, and many others.

Jon was a true friend, and I am personally very much indebted to him. He began freely sharing his wealth of knowledge about Christian radio with me long before Ambassador became the official agency for Grace to You (the ministry I serve). I knew Jon for more than twenty years and never knew him to say or do anything harsh, inconsiderate, or unchristlike. He was always kind, generous, encouraging, gentle, gracious, thoughtful, and humble. That wasn't an image he cultivated. It's who he really was.

I last saw Jon a few months ago. He and Peggy came from Fullerton (about an hour and a half away) just to serve lunch to our entire staff. Jon knew then that he was seriously ill, but you would hardly have known it. His desire to serve us (even though he himself was weaker than anyone knew) embodied the spirit with which he lived his whole life. Content to serve and to stay in the shadows, he was nonetheless an authentically great man (Mark 10:43). We will miss him badly.

For a full bio of Jon, click here.

---

Monday Menagerie IV

PyroManiac devotes Monday space to esoteric and offbeat things, in the hope that these will supply learning experiences for us all.

The Sad Case of the Collyer Brothers

The following is an excerpt from John MacArthur's 1991 book Our Sufficiency in Christ.

Langley Collyer in happier times

Homer and Langley Collyer were sons of a respected New York doctor. Both had earned college degrees. In fact, Homer had studied at Columbia University to become an attorney. When old Dr. Collyer died in the early part of this century, his sons inherited the family home and estate. The two men—both bachelors—were now financially secure.

But the Collyer brothers chose a peculiar lifestyle not at all consistent with the material status their

Inside the Collyer mansion

inheritance gave them. They lived in almost total seclusion. They boarded up the windows of their house and padlocked the doors. All their utilities—including water—were shut off. No one was ever seen coming or going from the house. From the outside it appeared empty.

Though the Collyer family had been quite prominent, almost no one in New York society remembered Homer and Langley Collyer by the time World War II ended.

Langley ponders life as a recluse

On March 21, 1947, police received an anonymous telephone tip that a man had died inside the boarded-up house. Unable to force their way in through the front door, they entered the house through a second-story window. Inside they found Homer Collyer's corpse on a bed. He had died clutching the February 22, 1920 issue of the Jewish Morning Journal, though he had been totally blind for years. This macabre scene was set against an equally grotesque backdrop.

The body of Homer Collyer is removed through the second-floor window

It seems the brothers were collectors. They collected everything—especially junk. Their house was crammed full of broken machinery, auto parts, boxes, appliances, folding chairs, musical instruments, rags, assorted odds and ends, and bundles of old newspapers. Virtually all of it was worthless. An enormous mountain of debris blocked the front door; investigators were forced to continue using the upstairs window for weeks while excavators worked to clear a path to the door.

Nearly three weeks later, as workmen were still hauling heaps of refuse away, someone made a grisly discovery. Langley Collyer's body was buried beneath a pile of rubbish some six feet away from where Homer had died. He had been crushed to death in a crude booby trap he had built to protect his precious collection from intruders.

Workmen haul away the stash

The garbage eventually removed from the Collyer house totaled more than 140 tons. No one ever learned why the brothers were stockpiling their pathetic treasure, except an old friend of the family recalled that Langley once said he was saving newspapers so Homer could catch up on his reading if he ever regained his sight.

Homer and Langley Collyer make a sad but fitting parable of the way many people in the church live. Although the Collyers' inheritance was sufficient for all their needs, they lived their lives in unnecessary, self-imposed deprivation. Neglecting abundant resources that were rightfully theirs to enjoy, Homer and Langley instead turned their home into a squalid dump. Spurning their father's sumptuous legacy, they binged instead on the scraps of the world.

Langley Collyer

Too many Christians live their spiritual lives that way. Disregarding the bountiful riches of an inheritance that cannot be defiled (1 Pet. 1:4), they scour the wreckage of worldly wisdom, collecting litter. As if the riches of God's grace (Eph. 1:7) were not enough, as if "everything pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3) were not sufficient, they try to supplement the resources that are theirs in Christ. They spend their lives pointlessly accumulating sensational experiences, novel teachings, clever gurus, or whatever else they can find to add to their hoard of spiritual experiences. Practically all of it is utterly worthless. Yet some people pack themselves so full of these diversions that they can't find the door to the truth that would set them free. They forfeit treasure for trash.

More on the Collyer boys:

• "But where was Langley?" from Useless Information
  
• "The Hermits of Harlem," by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace
  
• "Collyer brothers," from Answers.com
  
• "Extreme Phobias: The Collyer Brothers," from Hypnotic WWWorld

---

The Death of BlogSpotting?

Here's a really long BlogSpotting post. Could be the last one ever. See below and top right.

Note to all with hyperactive RSS readers: No substantive changes here. I'm just reposting this to fix a broken link. I know I have edited this post a dozen times or more, but if this is going to be the last ever BlogSpotting post, I'm determined to make it the best, most complete one ever.

Darren of "Nicene Theology" takes me to task in a comment at Thinklings. He's fed up with sloppy Calvinistic exegetical work, and he's not going to take it anymore. I can kinda relate to what he says, but. . . Ah, well. (Darren later takes another slap at my exegesis on his blog.) Jared, in the post that provoked Darren's tirade, thinks he has a more fitting name for PyroManiac. Matthew Hoover ponders how "limited atonement" can be said to apply to "the whole world." I like his argument (except that I can't quite agree with his assertion that "the physical world is not . . . being destroyed"). Still, I think I know what he means, and the gist of his argument is correct.

• Samuel at Adagio County does some name dropping. He thanks all the little people and Marc Bulger. He writes, "It's ironic that [Phil] mentioned me for mentioning him and now I'm mentioning him because he mentioned me mentioning him. Do I need some commas in that sentence?" Yes, just before the word and. Don't mention it.
  
• David Gibson recommends something I wrote in a book about "open theism."
  
• Brian McCrorie at SharperIron.org informs me that I am not universally despised. He discovers a place where he can make friends just by saying my name. Hey, my mom loves me, too.
  
• Jon Mackenzie warns of my impending visit to his side of the Atlantic and posts a link to info about The School of Theology.
  
• Doug Phillips finds inspiration in "The Do-It-Yourself Group Blogging Kit for Emerging Religious Types."
  
• Pastor Phil Siefkes encourages his readers to scope out PyroManiac. He gives a gentle disclaimer about my pert attitude, but even Darlene would agree with him about that.
  
• Jeff Spry, who has a really cool graphic blogheader, also has a very unusual insult for me.
  
• Michelle Arnold tries her hand at fisking my post on the high cost of pedophile priests. The most interesting thing here is the comment by Tim M., who marvels at "how many protestants think that the Roman Catholic church is the same as what it was at Trent." Funny, when I have pointed out inconsistencies between Trent and Vatican II, every Roman Catholic apologist I have ever encountered has fallen back on the semper eadem argument.
  
• Jim V. finally figures out how to add links, and figures a BlogSpotting notice will be good for a few hits. I feel so used.
  
• Ryan DeBarr doesn't really deserve to be here. He hasn't blogged any remarks about PyroManiac that give me any fodder for a reply. But he does have me linked in his blogroll, and he's an old friend, so I'm giving his blog a freebie.
  
• Jon Trainer posts a really great B&W picture of the Capuchin crypt.
  
• Dan Paden adds me to his blogroll in hopes he'll get BlogSpotted. Success at last.
  
• Lycaphim at "Think Christ" is posting some lists of good, bad, and theologically incorrect websites. I like that he put PyroManiac in his "Good" category. I like even better that he sandwiched me between Challies and Triablogue. But I'm offended by his suggestion that I look like James White. Time for a new blogpicture. Maybe an aerial shot, to emphasize my full head of hair.
  
• By the way, in an earlier post, Lycaphim offered his unique perspective of what he sees as a running battle between the iMonk and me. (For the record, I have no personal animosity against the iMonk. In fact, I think he's a fine writer. Although I don't seem to agree with him on some of the very issues he feels most passionate about, he has always been warm and cordial in his personal interaction with me. Those who want to see me take him on in a personal way are going to have to settle for this.)
  
• Speaking of Michael Spencer, he employs some wonderfully picturesque language to describe my recent appraisal of Ron Sider's latest book. (For insight into the iMonk's nickname for me, click here. And here is why my nickname for him will henceforth be "li'l brudder.")
  
• DJ Chuang includes a link to PyroManiac alongside news about his bathroom remodel.
  
• Bruce Blakey wonders if I will catch his link. I do. His thoughts on legalism are well worth reading.
  
• Tim Challies makes a lame and desperate attempt to get mentioned in what he fears might be the last BlogSpotting post ever. It works.
  
• David Morris observes that PyroManiac has attracted an oddly mixed community composed of a few cheerleading friends and a whole lot of people who hate everything about me, all the way down to my Haiwaiian shirt.
  
• Perhaps for similar reasons, whoever writes the blog at Faith Bible Church, in Murrieta, California, suggests you read my blog, but skip the comments.
  
• Geoff Robinson muses between sips of suds about therapy and blogs that go unread. But, Geoff, the articles about CT aren't being "plan[ned]"; we're already more than two years into the series. The articles appear regularly in each issue of Pulpit magazine, where people actually do read them. What happened here was that I posted one of them on my blog, just because I was too lazy to write a fresh blogpost for that day. Sorry if my introductory note was confusing. But, then, nobody actually reads that stuff, anyway—do they?
  
• Loki Odinsson, who likes really big fonts as much as he dislikes evangelicals, spots more proof that the word evangelical has lost any real meaning.
  
• Doug Burtt wrestles with the question of whether good works are indeed a fruit of sound doctrine—and accidentally pins himself to the mat.
  
• William Dicks at Just thinking... (scroll down past his blogroll if the posts don't show) joins the throngs of people complaining that I have blogged more than I initially promised.
  
• Fred Butler Suggests some possible blogtopics. Love your blogname, Fred. You don't need an invitation to stop by my office. Let's do luch. I'll buy.
  
• Paul Lamey likes the look and content at PyroManiac. But I suppose we should tell Paul that the stout is over at the Boar's Head Tavern, not here. We're strictly teetotal.
  
• John Moody spits into the prevailing wind.
  
• Brian Adams at Christendom Blogosis offers a detailed analysis of what is right and what's wrong with my blog. He is not a fan of my graphics.
  
• Dave Cruver thinks he should get a discount on the bobbleheads, too, even though his brother Dan's blog was where the idea was hatched. Dave's probably right, though. He helped uncover a huge market for bobbleheads over at SharperIron.
  
• Adrian Warnock trembles to contradict me but does so anyway. Then he is relieved to discover that his disagreement with me is not as profound as he initially feared.
  
• John Schroeder wonders what all the fuss was about in the first place.
  
• Mark Ritchie linked to my comments about Baptist Confessions.
  
• Peter Epps thinks if he disagrees with me politely, referring to me only obliquely, without mentioning me or linking to me, he won't get BlogSpotted. It doesn't work.
  
• Rae Whitlock notices that I noticed his link again. One of his commenters wonders how sincere all that recognition can possibly be if I haven't put Rae in my blogroll. See number 1 in my reply to Joshua Sowin (below).
  
• Jon at Misplaced Keys misplaced more than his keys. He'll bait me when he gets back from vacation. (Assuming he can find his keys.)
  
• Joshua Sowin thinks all the "back-patting" in these links is "shamelessly (and needlessly) vainglorious," and he dares me to admit it. I think I did once say, Joshua, that BlogSpotting is my nod to the native narcissism in the blogosphere. Nonetheless, here are four things I hope you'll note:
  
  1. These posts are primarily intended as a way of recognizing those who network with me, without having to create a permanent, mile-long blogroll. I have deliberately tried to keep my remarks light, humorous, and generally non-self-congratulatory.
     
  2. I try to link to every blog where I encounter comments about PyroManiac, whether the remarks are negative or positive. The only exceptions are those who use profanity or have other unsavory material on their blogs. I refuse to link to them.
     
  3. So far, I don't believe I have answered any of my blogcritics with anger or deliberate personal insult. In as many cases as possible, I have tried to let the critic have the final word.
     
  4. One might make the case that "tip jars," "wish lists," bobbleheads, and blogging itself are all inherently vainglorious. I hope you'll at least give me credit for abstaining from putting a tip jar or wish list on my blog. (If anyone would like to make a donation, though, e-mail me for information on how to wire large sums of cash into my account. Unless you're dealing in Nigerian currency. In that case, e-mail the iMonk.)
  
  Not wanting to cause unnecessary offense under any circumstances, however, I have decided to sponsor the first-ever PyroManiac poll. "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14).
  
  So please take the poll in the right sidebar—and the BlogSpotting posts will live or die by the vox populi. What is your pleasure?

---

Thought-fragments during a very busy day

1. I spilled a full cup of coffee (with cream, no sugar) directly into my keyboard this morning. Quick thinking seems to have saved my lap top. I instantly turned it off, flipped it upside down, and used a towel to dry off everything I could reach. Then I used Q-Tips to soak up as much from under and between the keys as possible. It's not the kind of keyboard where the key caps pop off easily. (Last time I tried popping keys off, I had to have my whole keyboard replaced.) So I just let it dry naturally for two hours. Since the coffee got all over my gym shorts, too, I waited till they were fully dry before turning the lap top back on. It seems to be working flawlessly so far. It's a Dell, BTW. It's been an amazingly sturdy machine. I've had it more than 2 years and dragged it all around the world with me. I can't tell you how many times it has been dropped and spilled on. Darlene saw how much coffee I spilt, and she was genuinely amazed when the computer started up perfectly two hours later. As it heats up, it's giving off a nice aroma of coffee & cream. But I think it's about time for me to start shopping for a new lap top.
   
2. Here's a book you're not likely to encounter in most Christian bookshops, but it's well worth a careful read. Contending for the Faith is a biography of E. J. Poole-Connor, by David G. Fountain, originally published in 1966 with a foreword by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Poole-Connor was an important figure in British Evangelicalism whose ministry spanned the first half of the twentieth century. He was arguably the most important evangelical separatist in the UK between the time of Spurgeon (who influenced him greatly) and Lloyd-Jones (whom he in turn influenced). This revised edition includes an appendix about Lloyd-Jones's separatism and a postscript by Dr. Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. Unfortunately, biblical separatism is not a particularly popular idea these days among evangelicals anywhere—but especially in the UK. So I'm grateful to see this book in back in print in a new edition. It's an insightful perspective on the history of the early twentieth-century evangelical movement in the UK. If you're a subscriber to The Sword & Trowel, you should have received a copy by mail already. If not, you can purchase a copy at the Tabernacle Bookshop—and be sure to subscribe to S&T; you can do it on line.
   
3. Speaking of the Met Tab, I'll be there next Sunday (a week from tomorrow), and for most of the following week. That week is the annual School of Theology, one of my two favorite annual conferences in the whole world. (The other is the Shepherds' Conference at my own home church.) You might think "School of Theology" sounds like a forum for dry, technical academic lectures. Not so. The conference is attended by hundreds of lay people and students, and although the biblical and theological issues that are usually addressed are not the kinds of things you would naturally think of as "user-friendly," I've never heard anyone complain that either the speakers or the issues were over anyone's head. I've always found it richly edifying, and the fellowship with likeminded people there is likewise manna for my soul.
   
4. Another of those infamous BlogSpotting posts is on its way tomorrow. Could be the last one ever. Watch for details to come.
   
5. The rest of this coming week promises to be a hard one for me. I have two memorial services to attend—one Monday, another Tuesday. They are for two different Christian leaders who were each used by God in profound ways to further the work of the gospel—and whose impact you have most likely felt in one way or another, whether you knew these men or not. They each went to heaven last week within days of each other. Their services are in separate states, so I'll definitely be on the road more than usual this week. I'm planning a couple of special blogposts to honor each of these two dear brethren. Watch this space.

---

The Scandal of the Evangelical Fringe

The powers that be over at The Shepherds' Fellowship have graciously granted permission to post this article here.

Christianity Astray Perhaps you page through each month's issue of Christianity Today as I do—baffled and disconcerted to see that venerable magazine being used as a platform for so many of the dubious fads and disturbing theological trends that constantly flourish at the fringes of the evangelical movement. Until now, all I could think to do was wince and chuck the magazine in the circular file. But from now on, I'm going to express my frustration by writing about it. Pulpit magazine—the online periodical of The Shepherds' Fellowship—has allotted me a column ("Christianity Astray") to write about the latest aberrations seeking acceptance from the evangelical mainstream—in the pages of CT and elsewhere. This is from the May/June 2005 issue of that column. Phil Johnson http://www.romans45.org

The Scandal of the Evangelical Fringe

For some thirty years, Ron Sider has been one of the most outspoken political liberals in the evangelical menagerie. He doesn't like that label, liberal. (And, to be fair, he is no knee-jerk leftist. Sider opposes abortion and doesn't support the gay-rights lobby.) But Sider's friend and fellow evangelical liberal Tony Campolo (who doesn't mind the label and who has voiced sympathy for much of the gay-rights agenda) says Sider is definitely a man of the left. According to Campolo, "If you want to know Ron Sider's view on capital punishment, you don't even have to ask. If you want to know his view on El Salvador, you don't have to ask. If you want to know what he thinks about disarmament and the military, you don't even have to ask. If it looks liberal, and it smells liberal, and it tastes liberal, it's liberal."

As a matter of fact, the first edition of Sider's 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, was so fiercely radical that some early critics denounced it as socialism in sheep's clothing. Sider blamed all poverty on systematic injustice perpetrated by governments, corporations, and economic systems. "Evil" was something embodied in institutions. Almost every solution he proposed involved a scheme for restricting capitalism and transforming government into an instrument for the redistribution of wealth. Out-and-out Marxists could—and did—advocate many of the same policies Sider championed.

In 1981, David Chilton wrote a scathing book-length rebuttal, published by the Institute for Christian Economics (ICE) and titled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators. Chilton argued (quite convincingly) that Ron Sider's views on economics were wrongheaded, naive, unbiblical, and full of potential mischief. The release of Chilton's book coincided roughly with the end of Jimmy Carter's administration, the onset of the Reagan years, and the rise of the religious right. Sider's book (which had already sold more than a quarter million copies) suddenly all but disappeared from the evangelical radar.

Although he still prefers left-wing politics, Sider's views have softened considerably over the years. What persuaded him to tone down his radicalism is not entirely clear. It might have been Chilton's book, the collapse of Communism, the changing political climate in America (especially with the militant secularization of the radical American left), or all of the above. Whatever the reasons, Sider has issued two major revisions of Rich Christians (a second edition in 1984, and a twentieth-anniversary third edition in 1997). Each new edition was significantly less radical than the preceding one.

In fact, none other than Gary North, ICE founder (and publisher of David Chilton's book), declared Sider's third edition "harmless." In a review ("Ron Sider Has Moved in the Right Direction"), North wrote, "For a man who rejects economic reasoning and biblical blueprints, what he proposes is not all that bad—uninspiring, but not that bad."

"It is also not very good," North was quick to add.

On a personal level, however, it is easy to feel a sympathetic fondness for Ron Sider. He grew up in rural Ontario in a denomination with strong Anabaptist roots. His radicalism, his pacifism, and his insistence on an abstemious lifestyle are all deeply engrained convictions that Sider has drawn from his spiritual heritage. By all accounts he is a gentle soul who practices what he preaches. He lives a simple life in a modest home in a non-exclusive urban neighborhood.

Self-styled "evangelical liberals" sometimes enjoy stirring controversy by questioning core evangelical doctrines like the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of hell, or the exclusivity of Christ. (Evangelical post-modernist guru Brian McLaren, for example, who has strong sympathies with the political left, sneers at the historic evangelical stance on all three of those doctrines.) Sider hasn't done that. He frankly doesn't have a lot to say about abstract theology. But what he does say about salvation, Christ, the authority of Scripture, and other vital Bible doctrines seems more genuinely evangelical than most of the self-styled evangelicals who are camped out at the left end of the political spectrum these days.

Don't mistake that remark as a wholesale endorsement of Sider's theology. Far from it. Although Sider has backed away from some of his 1970s radicalism, it's hard to imagine that he could have emerged totally unscathed from a phase that might well be interpreted as a dalliance with Liberation Theology. But for the record, Sider's organization, Evangelicals for Social Action, uses the Lausanne Covenant as a doctrinal statement. It may not be the most thorough and doctrinally precise doctrinal statement ever written, but Lausanne does explicitly affirm the authority and inerrancy of Scripture as well as the exclusivity of Christ. I am very glad that Ron Sider affirms those truths. Many of his political allies on the evangelical left do not.

Anyway, Mr. Sider is back in the limelight again with a new book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? (Online excerpt courtesy of Books & Culture.) While it's not a book I would recommend overall, it is a much better book than Rich Christians, and Sider makes some points that I would gladly add a hearty amen to. For example, he decries contemporary tendency to turn the gospel into a message about self-fulfillment—the polar opposite of Jesus' message about self-denial. He deplores the materialism and worldly superficiality of the modern megachurch movement. He is rightly concerned about Western Christians' infatuation with entertainment. He points out that our giving isn't really as generous as we like to think. On those and other points, his message cannot be gainsaid. When he is right, he is right.

The April 2005 issue of Christianity Today features an interview with Ron Sider about his new book. Of course, it caught my attention.

I won't dissect the interview, because that would take more time than I can afford and more space than I've been allotted. But I do want to respond to Mr. Sider's central argument, perfectly summarized in the subtitle CT gave their article: "Ron Sider says the [evangelical] movement is riddled with hypocrisy, and that it's time for serious change."

Of course, it's perfectly obvious that the evangelical movement is long past due for "a serious change." We've been saying the same thing on almost every page of Pulpit for the past two years. So I agree with that part of the assertion. What I disagree with is Mr. Sider's diagnosis of the underlying malady. He thinks the problem is merely hypocrisy—that people just aren't living up to what they believe. Therefore he simply repeats the same mantra he has been chanting for thirty years: what evangelicals need most is a lifestyle change.

It seems to me that the trouble with today's evangelical movement runs much deeper than that. The real problem is that many self-styled "evangelicals" don't truly believe basic evangelical doctrine anymore. Large numbers of them couldn't even explain the gospel in the simplest terms. Many flatly deny the relevance of God's Word and its authority over their lives. Leaders like McLaren and Campolo have fostered these problems and now are openly challenging our right to believe anything with any kind of certainty or conviction. What kind of behavior would you expect to be the fruit of such thinking?

Let me be more explicit: I fear that many (perhaps most) of the religious people whom Christianity Today and Ron Sider want to sweep into the evangelical movement aren't even true Christians.

CT's interview with Ron Sider begins precisely where Sider's book begins: citing data from a controversial 1999 survey conducted by evangelical pollster George Barna. Barna's figures supposedly demonstrate that the divorce rate among evangelicals is no better than the divorce rate among the total population of America. The problem with Barna's survey is his watered-down concept of what constitutes "evangelicalism." (See the lead section of "The Good the Bad, and the Ugly" in this issue of Pulpit for more on this same subject.)

Pollsters like Barna, aided and abetted by Christianity Today, have systematically been moving the boundaries of the evangelical movement outward for years. It's pretty hard to imagine any theological opinion so deviant that one could not hold it and credibly claim to be an "evangelical," given the paradigm for evangelicalism used by people like Barna, Sider, and CT's editors. The evangelical fringe has become so large and all-inclusive that old-style mainstream evangelicalism frankly seems like an oddity when you look at the whole of the visible movement. Historic evangelicalism is now under fierce attack on several sides from within the "evangelical" camp. As a result, the group Barna and company label "evangelical" is filled with people who don't even understand the most basic truths of the gospel—justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, the lordship of Christ, and all that. Their real problem is not that they don't live up to their beliefs, but that they don't really even have a biblical belief system.

Ron Sider himself is part of the problem. He denies that orthodoxy takes precedence over orthopraxy. He would claim, of course, that sound doctrine and good works are equally paramount. That's essentially the argument he attempted to make in his 1993 book One-sided Christianity (republished in 1999 as Good News and Good Works), where he claimed that evangelism without social action is "lopsided Christianity." Throughout the book, he treats sound doctrine and good works as disparate virtues to be balanced.

He is wrong on at least four counts.

First, in practice, Sider himself does not place nearly as much stress on sound doctrine as he does on humanitarian works. Virtually all his books tend to neglect the issue of faith (or take it for granted) while emphasizing the importance of good deeds. Far from attaining "balance," he has reversed the proper priority between faith and praxis.

Second, Mr. Sider is obsessed with a peculiar kind of "good works." For some thirty years he has talked incessantly about social activism, political justice, environmental protection, government-based anti-poverty programs, and similar liberal public policy issues—as if these were the epitome of all truly "good works." He actually seems to regard political support for a liberal social agenda as the true barometer of authentic Christian piety.

Third, it is a serious mistake to think either truly sound doctrine or genuinely good works can stand alone. The two are not distinct features to be set in balance by weighing them against one another.

Which is to say, fourth, that authentic good works flow from sound doctrine; not the other way around. Orthodoxy is what gives rise to orthopraxy. It never works in reverse. This, after all, is the basic message of Christianity: good works are a fruit of genuine faith. Faith, not any kind of work, is the sole instrument by which we lay hold of justification (Romans 4:4-5). And the practical righteousness of sanctification follows that (Hebrews 11:6; Galatians 5:6). Genuinely good works do not—and cannot—precede faith (Romans 8:7-8).

In other words, orthodoxy does take precedence over orthopraxy. That is an essential ramification of true biblical and evangelical doctrine. Orthodox doctrine really is more important than social action.

That is not to suggest that good works, human compassion, or godly virtues are optional. Far from it. (That certainly ought to be clear; for more than 35 years, our ministry has opposed the kind of antinomianism that portrays good works as irrelevant to authentic faith.) But good works are secondary to faith and sound doctrine, because they flow from it. They are caused by it. They are never the cause of it. Social action and political causes (whether on the right wing or the left) are simply not as important as the truth of the gospel message, and every Christian's personal priorities ought to reflect that principle.

Furthermore, whenever good works are absent in someone's life, you can be certain that person's doctrine is not really sound. It is an utter fallacy to imagine (as George Barna seems to want us to believe) that right belief can fail to produce righteous behavior.

To give Ron Sider credit, he does touch on this truth, albeit briefly. In the middle of his analysis of Barna's statistics, he writes, "Biblical orthodoxy does matter. One important way to end the scandal of contemporary Christian behavior is to work and pray fervently for the growth of orthodox theological belief in our churches."

What makes Sider's book so utterly disappointing is that he never develops that point. He gets sidetracked, as usual, by the political agenda. Unfortunately, Ron Sider himself has a seriously faulty worldview, and it begins with the fact that he invariably defines "good works" in political, rather than biblical, terms.

Sound doctrine is not just "one important way to end the scandal of contemporary Christian behavior." It is the answer to the whole problem. "Orthodox theological belief" is the key to a proper Christian worldview. And a truly biblical worldview is the only possible foundation for right praxis. That is what we must stress if the evangelical movement is ever to be salvaged from its current scandalous state.

At the end of the day, the real scandal is not merely that people who call themselves "evangelicals" behave badly. What is truly scandalous is that so many men at the forefront of evangelical leadership don't seem to understand this basic truth: The kind of teaching that encourages people who live worse than infidels to think of themselves as "Christians" isn't really Christianity at all—even if CT persists in labeling it "evangelicalism."

See also:

• "Ron Sider's Unsettling Crusade: Why does this man irritate so many people?" by Tim Stafford
  
• "Prophet or Siren? Ron Sider's Continued Influence," by Paul A. Mastin
  
• "The Evangelical Agenda for Bush's Second Term," an interview with Ron Sider
  
• "Sider on Evangelicals Mirroring the World," by Jeremy R. Pierce, at the Parableman blog

Copyright © 2005, Pulpit-Shepherds' Fellowship. All Rights Reserved.

---

One Final Round of BlogSpotting for a Busy Week

A huge thanks to those who e-mailed me with links and tips on how to find bloglinks to PyroManiac without hours of Googling. The biggest HT of all goes to the anonymous commenter who posts as "Josiah." He gave me a link to Technorati^TM—where I found way more than enough stuff to fill this special bonus edition of "Blogspotting."

Chris Meirose has lunch at Chipotle (an establishment that seems perfectly suited to a PyroManiac's tastes) and ends up starting a fire. John Rabe finds a little satisfaction at PyroManiac—something we Cub fans typically don't like to give Cardinal fans like John. (Though it certainly happens often enough.) Jorge Luis notices my blog.

• "Head," a gun-wielding right winger, pontificating from deep beneath the Texas coastal gumbo in the mosquito infested Holy City of Houston finds inspiration for a church blog in a rather unlikely (but in his estimation "rather excellent") place. And who am I to argue with a man who is so heavily armed?
  
• Jacob Hantla tries a clever ploy to see if I will notice and send people his way. I don't.
  
• Joe Fleener is a busy man. He doesn't have time to read my blog every day. Neither do I, Joe. That's why it's full of typos.
  
• Rob Wilkerson thinks he can design a better bobblehead. You know, he did do a pretty good job with the "Phil Johnson" graphic.
  
• Dan Cruver wants a discount on bobbleheads for his blogclients. His own photo at the top of his blog is one of the best I've seen.
  
• Mark Gibson at "Posse Blogare..." credits me with helping inspire his "lameness." And don't say he didn't warn you about me.
  
• Stephen Dunning from Rhyl makes good use of the PyroManiac logo.
  
• Jon Kopp has been burned again.
  
• Shaun Nolan thinks he smells a pyromarketing conspiracy.
  
• Matthew Self makes some optimistic predictions about me and then thinks better of it. Turns out he knew about Technorati all along and didn't tell me.
  
• Richard Goff: No comment.

Mid-Morning Addendum:

• Joshua Mack writes stuff I wish I had said all the time.
  
• Scott Aniol and a commenter at his blog are mysified as to why anyone would like me better after being exposed to my "humorous wit" or my virtual bobblehead. You gotta admit, they have a point.
  
• Tim Challies blasts me for fiddling with my posts so much. He's the reason I decided to amend and republish this blogentry one more time.
  
• James White warns that my Blogspotting threatens to turn the entire blogosphere into a massive burned-over district. He may have a point, too. See, he posted about me, so now I'm compelled to link back to him. Where will it all end? I'll tell you what, James: let me borrow Angel to help with the graphics on PyroManiac, and I'll stop.

---