Thursday, October 26, 2006

Driscoll on the Chucks - (3) Hell and the Rapture

Driscoll's next point of commentary/analysis:

Hell. Again echoing McLaren and the Emergent folks, Smith Jr. says in his response video that he does not believe hell should be used for evangelism and such. While this sentiment may sound kind, it is not. Jesus spoke of hell more than anyone in the Bible and any effort to downplay eternal conscious torment of the unrepentant in hell is the first step in promoting false doctrine. Additionally, for those who are dying, the consideration of an eternity in hell is not only an effective means by which to compel them to repent of sin and trust in Jesus, but also a pastorally kind one because if they die apart from Jesus they will spend eternity in a fiery hell. It is more kind to offend them today and spare them that fate than to spare them today and send them to that fate.

Not much I can add here, except to lend a hearty "amen." This is one of the reasons I have come to really like Driscoll; at the end of the day, he is Biblically conservative.

Next point:

Rapture. The rapture, like the age of the earth, is an issue that Christians should discuss and debate, but not divide over. Years ago when I first read Smith Sr.s book Calvary Chapel Distinctives, I was surprised to see that in addition to the Holy Spirit, Bible, grace, Jesus, and love, which all make sense, the premillenial pretribulational rapture of the church was an essential doctrine. Curiously, the rapture is a doctrine that has existed for less than two hundred years in the church's history. The word itself started at a peculiar and possibly cultic charismatic prayer meeting where a women prophesied that the church would be raptured. From that simple beginning, the doctrine has now become the leading eschatological position in American evangelicalism. For more on this issue, the book The Incredible Cover Up: Exploring the Origins of Rapture Theories by Dave MacPherson is a fascinating historical read. Since the doctrine was not even heard of by men such as Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley, we should not make this doctrine the litmus test of biblical faithfulness, otherwise we are saying there was no faithful eschatology for the first 1,800 years of the church.

...and this is one of the reasons why, though I like Driscoll, I find myself having to disagree with him.

Before analyzing Driscoll's analysis, I must again point out that this is an "in-house" debate. This is an area over which we can vigorously disagree (and we do) and still remain brothers and maintain the bonds of peace and unity. That I maintain that Mark is wrong here is not the same thing as saying I think he's not a brother. Again: this is not an apologetics issue.

So, first off, and sort of as a "things that make you go hmmm" thing, note that Driscoll says, "The rapture, like the age of the earth, is an issue that Christians should discuss and debate, but not divide over." True; however, we're not "dividing" over this particular doctrine in the sense of breaking fellowship with those who are wrong. To be sure, Calvary Chapel has defined adherence to a hope in the pretribulational, soon return of Jesus for His Church as being part of that which defines us as a movement; but we do still think that at least one or two of those who get it wrong on this point may yet still make it to heaven (tongue-in-cheek alert, tongue-in-cheek alert). Later in the post he says, "Since the doctrine was not even heard of by men such as Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley, we should not make this doctrine the litmus test of biblical faithfulness, otherwise we are saying there was no faithful eschatology for the first 1,800 years of the church." I'll comment on the bulk of the statement later on; for right now, I want to focus on his assertion that "we should not make this doctrine the litmus test of biblical faithfulness..."


Calvary Chapels don't use the Rapture as a litmus test of biblical faithfulness - at least, not in the way that Driscoll's implying here (that is, of drawing that proverbial line in the sand and saying, "if you're on that side, you're nothing but a filthy rotten heretical ninny!"). We do unapologetically say that we adhere to it, and that such adherence is a sine non qua of our movement. If you disagree, we love you, we can interact as brothers and gain much from each other... but you'd be much more comfortable in another movement which doesn't hold to this doctrine as a distinctive. No harm, no foul. I mean, you're wrong, but we still love you. ( I really need to flash the tongue-in-cheek alert again...?)

It is fascinating, however, to note Driscoll's glaring inconsistency here. Driscoll's church puts Calvinism, and his Acts 29 church planting netowrk puts elder-led church polity, and the like in their Statement of Faith - defining these things as being their distinctives, foundational to who and what they are.

At John Piper's recent Desiring God convention, Driscoll delivered a session in which he delineated nine "non-negotiables" of the faith:

  1. The Bible

  2. The sovereignty of God

  3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ

  4. We must argue against Pelagianism, a denial of original sin

  5. We must contend for penal substitutionary atonement

  6. The exclusivity of Jesus

  7. We must contend for male and female roles

  8. We must contend for hell

  9. We must contend that kingdom is priority over culture.

Not a bad list, but as a non-Calvinist, I have certain problems with it. I don't see God's sovereignty in quite the same fatalistic/deterministic sense that he does... and though I confess to not having yet listened to Mark's session (though I fully intend to) I cannot help but wonder whether or not his stance on "Pelagianism" is really a poorly veiled attack on Arminianism - which is not the same thing, Calvinist calumny aside. (Okay, I just finished listening to his session at the conference, and I must say, it was for the most part quite good... but he did, in keeping with his ingrained Calvinism, make continual reference to Arminianism, equating it with semi-Pelagianism, which totally cheeses me off, but is the subject of another post... Also spared few words denigrating dispensationalism... so my point in this paragraph stands.) I'm not a Calvinist, and I'm not an Arminain, either; but he'd almost certainly consider me one, given that I reject things like limited atonement and double-predestination. So... am I "off the list" as far as not meeting "the litmus test of biblical faithfulness...?"

...why is Driscoll and Mars Hill allowed to delineate their distinctives, but we aren't, I wonder?

...pot... kettle... black...

Like I said, "things that make you go, hmmmmmm..."

Now, regarding Driscoll's redredging up of the common nondispensationalist contumely that the doctrine of the Rapture is a recent development by some chick in England and is really an elaborate plot... blah, blah, blah... and that Dave MacPherson did a bang-up job in shattering its myth... ::yawn:: MacPherson's scholarship is occluded by his loathing of dispensationalism, and his fact-checking is a bit... wanting. There are many great, shcolarly dispensationalist responses to MacPherson & others... but for a simple, short, easy-to-understand treatment of the more glaring problems with his entertainingly flawed hypotheses, check out this article.

Did dispensationalism only erupt on the world stage in the "last two hundred years," as Driscoll asserts?

Well, my first question would be, even if that were true (which it ain't), "What possible difference would that make?"

Driscoll's a Calvinist, for crying out loud! Calvinism has only been around since - what - the 1600's? Okay, so it's got 200 years on Darby. Yippie. And yes, I know that many Calvinists argue that they're really Augustinians... fine; I personally like going back a wee tad farther to - oh, say, the New Testament. For me, the question isn't, "did the church fathers believe x, y, or z," but rather, "what did the Holy Spirit originally say?" Church history is a history of compromise and failure and continual restoration due to that failure. Driscoll's own Reformed tradition exists precisely because certain doctrines had been lost to the church, and needed to be restored. Driscoll's also friendly to the gifts of the Spirit - something which is also a recent development in church history (as the expression of the gifts is currently understood). He has no problem with that - even though his more cessationist brethren would use the same argument against the gifts as he tries here against the Rapture (the gifts weren't practiced like that in the 1800 years before Azusa Street, etc.). We could go on.

An appeal to authority only works if that authority is, in fact, authoritative. Or, in the context of Driscoll's argument, an appeal to history is only valid if history is considered authoritative.

Now, before you go and get all freaked out on me, let me point out that I'm not advocating historical isolationism or a minimalist/reductionist view of history. The fool ignores that which has gone before.

The fool also places that which has gone before on too high a pedestal. And interpreting Scripture through the lens of church history rather than church history through the lens of Scripture places history at minimum on par with it. The strongest arguments that Catholics and Eastern Churchmen have revolve around this very appeal.

Besides, the argument that nobody prior to about the 1800's is... well, to be charitable, I'll call it inaccurate.

I'd formally like to recommend Koinonia House, the Pre-Trib Research Center, and these articles, among a plethora of other resources, for "from the horse's mouth" perspectives on dispensationalism, rather than the weak caricature that we usually read from those who don't much care for the doctrinal perspective.

But, bottom-line, the issue boils down to, "what does the Bible say?" This is not the place for an in-depth Bible study, so I won't go there here. Driscoll & co. state in the Acts 29 Network's statement of beliefs that, "We are not eschatological Theonomists or Classic Dispensationalists (e.g. Scofield) and believe that divisive and dogmatic certainty surrounding particular details of Jesus Second Coming are unprofitable speculation, because the timing and exact details of His return are unclear to us." I thoroughly disagree - and a quick reading of the relevant section in the Distinctives gives a pretty good theological argument for the Blessed Hope that lends the lie to Mark's assertion. I won't waste blogspace recreating the arguments here.

So, to recap: Driscoll states that Calvary Chapel (in essence) has made the Rapture an "essential doctrine." ...yes and no. "Essential" in respect to being a Calvary Chapel, but not in respect to what Driscoll means, in respect to being Christian. Driscoll states that the Rapture is a recent innovation. Yeah, ah... no.

Soooooooo... on to the next point, when I can scare up time for that...

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Wings 2, Sharks 1

Okay, last post of the night. Yes, yes, I know; if you're going to blog, the experts say, you should have a clearly defined purpose and not be so scatterbrained - current events one post, then theology, then spirituality, then sports, then...

Blah, blah, blah...

The Wings won 2-1. Good game... it was dicey up until the third period... I'm so excited about sports season!

During first intermission, I found this great classic clip on YouTube...

There is no greater rivalry in all of the sporting world...

Wings vs. Sharks

Okay, total stream-of-consciousness time here... I'm watching the Wings play the San Jose Sharks... it's just about the first intermission, San Jose's scored a weasel of a goal... game's at 1-0.

I love digital cable...

Bob Coy @ Midwest Conference - Session 8 Notes

More of my notes from the recent Midwest Pastors' Conference... this is from Bob Coy's second session (actually Session 8 of the conference)...

2006 Midwest Conference

Session 8

Bob Coy


  • Our mission, our mandate: make disciples.

  • How prepared really are the folks in our fellowships?

  • II Timothy 2:1-7
    • v.7 "consider" = "silly putty"

    • much like chewing the cud

  • Spirit of a soldier:

    1. Submission in all soldiers (II Samuel 15)
      1. "heed" = "pay attention"

      2. do I think that I'm more fair & kind & merciful than God?

      3. I want to be that person, that pastor, that God can depend on.

      4. I never want the Lord to say I Samuel 15:11 about me.

      5. Did He ask me to be here?

    2. Submission with absolute surrender (Ephesians 6)
      1. "evil day" = "evil in effect or intent"

      2. the enemy, and the Lord, will push us beyond our

      3. when I gave my heart to Him, I gave everything to Him

      4. we are His illustrations

      5. we are on display

      6. "casualties of war"

    3. Serves with the hope of reward (Hebrews 11)
      1. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him

      2. purple heart

      3. some soldiers advance - some hold the ground

      4. the rewards for sowing & reaping are the same.

Mark Driscoll on the Chucks - (2) The Kingdom

Quoting from Driscoll's blogpost:

Kingdom: The problem with the older generation of strong dispensationally minded evangelicals was that they had an under-realized eschatology. By this, I mean that they saw the kingdom of God as an almost entirely future event. The younger generation of evangelicals are more prone to embrace an over-realized eschatology whereby the kingdom of God is essentially here already, so talking about heaven, hell, and the eternal state is not important. On this point, Smith Jr. echoes a drum regularly beat by McLaren and others affiliated with the Emergent group. The problem is that the kingdom of God is not yet here, but it does break in through the church, the preaching of the gospel, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a balanced eschatology that holds the "already/not yet" tension of Paul is the only hope for a biblical position on this issue.

This critique has a bit more of a leg to stand on. Important as eschatology is, and I believe it to be one of the most important of the secondary ("right-hand" is the Piperism) doctrines of the faith, it is secondary. I think I stated it in a previous post, but here it is again: I believe Creationism to be more foundational than one's eschatology.

Even so, much like how one's approach to the first chapter of the Bible ultimately dictates one's approach to the rest, I've found that one's eschatology can tend to determine his approach to the rest of
Scripture, too.

Somewhat of a side note: "Secondary" does not mean unimportant or even less important. All doctrine is important, all doctrine should be taken seriously and prayed through & thought out thoroughly, and not be considered "disposable" - otherwise, why bother? "Secondary" refers to the nature of the doctrine as not being definitional to Christianity - Biblically faithful Christianity, anyway. We can disagree all day long on secondary points of doctrine and still be brothers. Primary doctrine, by way of comparison, are those which define what a Christian is. Differ on primary points of doctrine, and now we're no longer brothers in Christ.

Incidentally, I find it more than slightly disingenuous that Driscoll consistently (albeit, gently) chides Chuck Sr. for holding "right-hand" doctrines like eschatology too tightly when he himself puts things like Calvinism in the "left hand" (see his session at the recent Desiring God conference). Ooops. My faults always look worse on you.

Now, on the subject of the Kingdom, Driscoll demonstrates a penchant for Laddian thought. George Eldon Ladd was a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary who taught (in a nutshell) that the Kingdom of God is both a future hope and a present reality. In effect, that the Kingdom is "now and not yet". The defining element of his thinking is eschatological tension. However, Ladd's recognition of eschatological tension - in and of itself - is not unique; only in its scope and application.

Perhaps the most prominent of his doctrinal scions was John Wimber - and through him, the Vineyard. (Interestingly, the Vineyard and Calvary Chapel share a common history. The Vineyard broke away from CC early in the 1980's over the issue of the primacy of experience over the Word.) Wimber took Ladd's eschatology and ran with it, and paved the way for the Vineyard's current (in my opinion) de facto abandonment of the Blessed Hope - among other things, this comprises perhaps one of the greatest weaknesses/shortcomings of the Vineyard movement, which in turn stems necessarily from "the" issue which led to the Vineyard breaking fellowship with the Calvary Chapel Movement: a sidelining of the Word in favor of experience. But I digress.

The Achilles Heel of Laddian thought is the same one shared by virtually all non-dispensational theologies: a failure to properly distinguish between Israel and the Church. Coupled closely with this is a tendency to equate the Church and the Kingdom (though, admittedly, less so than Kingdom Now or more magisterio-temporal groups like the Roman Catholic Church). This twin failure leads directly to an abandonment in effect and practice of the "Blessed Hope" of the Church - note Driscoll's commentary on dispensationalism: "[t]he problem with the older generation of strong dispensationally minded evangelicals was that they had an under-realized eschatology." The very fact that "looking unto and hastening" the Day of the Lord can be called "under-realized eschatology" by Laddites is quite telling.

The Kingdom of God is "now" in the sense that a "kingdom" is anywhere a king reigns, and so we as Christians do experience a foretaste of the Kingdom now in the Person of the Holy Spirit. But it is "now" only in the most anticipatory sense. The Kingdom was offered to and rejected by Israel, and awaits its fulfillment in the end times when Israel calls for her Messiah-King to return [cf. Luke 13:35... note it says until, directly implying that the time will come when Israel will reverse her corporate rejection of the Messiah, an event which signals the end of the Time of Jacob's Trouble and the commencement of the Kingdom Age]. It is the "not yet" aspect of the Kingdom which Ladd, in my opinion, didn't adequately appreciate, and which his spiritual sons likewise miss.

The problem with most of the critiques I've read of the dispensational position from Laddites (such as Driscoll) is that they tend to set up, then promptly and with aplomb proceed to knock down a straw man. Note Mark's contrasting of an "under-realized eschatology" (i.e., looking for the Blessed Hope) with the "over-realized eschatology" of liberals like MacLaren & Co. Inherent in the contrast is the supposition that unlike liberals, dispensationalists aren't getting involved in social works, and are thus missing it RE: the "now" aspect of the Kingdom (liberals, on the opposite end, miss the boat on the "not yet" aspect). It is only the erudite Laddites who have a properly balanced view, and we should all lock arms and sing We Shall Overcome while keeping a vague notion that "one day" Jesus will return, but there are far more pressing things to concern us in the meantime, thank you very much. The implication is that dispensationalists are generally unconcerned with temporal issues and are just waiting around for the Rapture.

Here's the problem with that: it ain't so. Not with consistent dispensationalists, anyway.

Consistent dispensationalists take Jesus' command to "occupy 'till I come" seriously. We are to "look for and hasten" that Day, but we are to be about our Father's business in the interim - and that business includes clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and giving cups of cold water. This is because of the doctrine of immanency.

Basically, that means that Jesus can return at any time. Corollary to that is the fact that if He can return at any time, then it necessarily follows that He does not have to return at any specific time. Hence, no consistent dispensationalist will be caught dead date-setting. And, it's why we "occupy 'till He comes." Calvary Chapels are and have consistently been at the forefront of humanitarian causes. Note that one of the most active (albeit unassuming and self-consciously "under the radar") expressions of the Body of Christ in post-9/11 NY and the post-Katrina Gulf Coast has been the Calvaries (we're still in both places - long after the TV crews and disaster paparazzi are gone, long after the ADHD-like attention of the American people have turned elsewhere). And just "everyday" feeding the hungry and clothing the naked? Yeah... we do that, too. We just generally don't toot our own collective horn about it and seek to show everybody just how compassionate & relevant we really are; we're just quietly taking our King's command to occupy 'till He comes literally and applying it without a whole lot of fanfare.

But a more full analysis of Driscoll's analysis of the place of the Blessed Hope will be taken up in a later blogpost dealing with his treatment of the Rapture.

The real problem that a Laddite (and, by extension, Driscoll & other more conservative ECM types) has with consistent dispensationalism is the fact that we dispies view social justice & similar subjects as inevitable consequences of the mission of the church, but not the actual mission of the church itself. In other words, we see the Bible as giving the church a tightly defined mission:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you..."

Matthew 28:19-20

The mission of the church, which the Head of the Church deigned to deliver to the very ones He selected to lay the foundation of that church, is to go into all the world and make disciples.

Thus, the mission of the church is not:

  • evangelism

  • worship

  • political activity

  • feeding the hungry

  • clothing the naked

  • succoring the poor

  • uplifting the downtrodden

  • righting wrongs

  • correcting injustice

  • leaping tall buildings in a single bound

  • group hugs

  • finger painting

The mission of the church is to go into all the world and make disciples.

Now, as a necessary consequence of living out that primary mission, these other things may naturally flow. As we seek to make disciples, we will naturally evangelize the lost. In the process of becoming disciples, we will naturally become worshippers. As disciples who worship the King, we will naturally desire to reach out and do His works - which include feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. And as a natural result of walking with our Master (which is what a disciple is, by the way - one who walks with and emulates the life of another), we will increasingly see beauty in His world, and as stewards over that and created in His creative image, we will want to improve and beautify the world around us. In reaching out, we'll seek to engage the culture... yadda yadda yadda. You get the picture.

But all of this flows from and is a consequence of the real mission of the church: Making disciples.

These are not in themselves that mission.

And when these things - or anything else - begin to supplant the real mission of the church (and make no mistake: they will supplant that mission, eventually), we have problems.

So should the church clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc.? Answer: Yes and no.


Allow me to explain.

The church, Biblically, should be about making disciples.

CHRISTIANS should be about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, evangelizing, worshipping, etc., as an outgrowth and expression of their relationship with Jesus and as a fruit of their growing in Christlikeness (i.e., discipleship).

Thus, social works, social justice, and all other "extra-curricular" activities are the jurisdiction of Christians, whether individually or in aggregate; but the job of the church is to make disciples. To the extent that that disciple-making works itself out in doing all these right and lovely and good things, all is well. The problem arises when these things begin to be viewed as being the raison d'etre of the church, rather than an auxiliary of its mission. Subtle distinction, perhaps, but utterly vital.

The question has arisen in Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore as to why we don't do ____________________, and usually involves something like, "why don't we dance during worship?" or "why don't we allow utterances in tongues during our corporate gatherings" (usually asked by those who don't come to the Sunday night prayer meeting, which is also our time set aside for the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I digress), or something similar. What I've noticed is that usually people want to do in public what they are not doing but should be doing in private. You want to be very expressive in your worship? Great! Go to your prayer closet. In corporate worship, we want to make sure the attention is on Jesus and not drawn to any individual, so we voluntarily refrain from flamboyant expressions of worship there, out of love for our brother who will certainly be distracted by our "Holy Ghost Jackhammering." Why insist on doing it in public - is it less worshipful if it is done in private? Is it more valid if everyone can see how spiritual we are because we dance before the Lord? Where's my heart and what's my motive?

The same applies to acts of social justice & the like. Why does it have to be an official instrument of the church? Why can't Christians, as a holy outworking of the Spirit's work in their hearts as He through His church makes them disciples, just go out and do it? Individually, or even as groups? Hey - as a church, we (and by "we" I mean CC Lakeshore) get behind the saints when they step out in faith to minister to the hurting. We come alongside the Muskegon Rescue Mission, the Crisis Pregnancy Center, and other ministries and groups that are doing the grunt work of reaching out in physical/material ways. We have gone to Ground Zero after 9/11, we have supported those who ministered and continue to minister to the Katrina victims, and we seek to meet the needs of those within our body and others within the household of faith...

...but all of this comes as an outgrowth of focusing on the primary mission of the church, making disciples. None of it is that mission or supplants it in any way.

Now, for the Laddian, this does not compute. Because of their peculiar view of eschatological tension (which we dispies, incidentally, recognize, but see from a very different perspective), the church's function is to... do a whole lot more than what Jesus actually gave her to do. So even though we dispies are doing these things, since we're not self-consciously (the ECM Dilbertism for it is "intentional") focusing on them as our sine qua non, we've got an "under-realized eschatology."


The Kingdom of God is present in the Person of the Son as mediated through the Person of the Spirit; but it also is not, in a very profound way that your typical Laddian can't wrap his mind around, and attempts to make it otherwise end badly.

And we dispies (Calvary Chapel is decidedly dispensational in eschatology) focus unapologetically on the "not yet" aspect of the Kingdom, recognizing that the "already" aspect is really a "preview of coming attractions" and is not the main event.

I've said it before: I predict that the ECM will eventually and inevitably (and in the none-too-distant future) either re-merge back into more mainstream evangelicalism, or continue its leftward gallop and become fully liberal. Or both.

Article on media reporting of goings-on in Iraq

Great blogpost here from the In From The Cold intelligence analysis blog run by "Spook 86". Well worth the read (and the read of the linked National Post article).

Important articles on the Middle East

I get the "News Report from Jerusalem" weekly missive from CC Jerusalem and pastor Bradley Antolovich. The latest NRFJ contains some very interesting, very important articles concerning the Middle East adn what we're not hearing from the managed U.S. media...

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Mandriva Linux 2007

I have long been a Linux fan - and I have in the last few years become a fan specifically of Mandriva Linux (formerly: Mandrake) for a variety of reasons...

  • Power of Linux

  • Ease of use (designed so that the power user and the neophyte can use, enjoy, and appreciate it...)

  • Well-stocked package inventory, even in the free-distribution download

  • Cool name (MANdriva... 'cause I'm a MAN, hear me geek...)

  • Redmond doesn't like it

So I'm very excited to download, install, and try out the new 2007 distro.

Thought I'd share that.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Bob Coy @ Midwest Conference - Session 4 Notes

Bob Coy spoke at the recent Midwest Pastors' Conference; I think you can
order the DVDs of the conference from CC Crawfordsville...

I was very blessed by Bob's sessions. As sort of a "preview of coming attractions" for those who order the DVDs, I'm uploading my notes I took during his sessions...

2006 Midwest Conference
Session 4
Bob Coy

  1. We are in this to win
    1. Prov., "he "who wins souls is wise..."

  2. "...the face of somebody I lost, somebody the devil has had his way with."

  3. We are in competition with the devil...

  4. Walkman... to iPod
    1. the method has changed, but the message has not.

  5. John 1:19-23 -> our call...

  6. I am not the Christ.

  7. Am I okay with being one crying voice?

  8. Home stereo...

  9. You don't answer the call to get stuff... you answer it to be one crying

  10. Our Cause: to bring people to repentance.

  11. Repentance must be a part of the message.

  12. The truth will set you/them free... so give them the truth.

  13. Who are we to tell the world how to live if we won't live it...?

  14. Mark 6:24 -> Stay the Course
    1. ...even if you loose your head.

  15. Staying the course is a vital part of our message.

  16. Matthew 28:18 -> He didn't separate the doubters! He called them all to make disciples
    1. He knows that when you do ministry, all doubts are dispelled.

  17. Having better stuff doesn't make ministry better.

  18. Keep on doing ministry! Keep on keeping on!

  19. God honors those who honor Him.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Still more on coffee...

Another great one I found regarding that subject near and dear to my heart... coffee...

Speaking of coffee, I need to get out the door to hit Speedway on the way in to church so that I'm awake enough to coherently lead worship and deliver the Word! DOH!!!

Saturday, October 21, 2006

More on coffee...

Ran across this pic on one of my MySpace friend's profile pages, thought it was stellar...

Friday, October 20, 2006

Clarification on "Apologetics"

Quick note, inspired by the post below: I do not believe that either the Purpose Driven flash-in-the-pan or the Emergent Church thing are apologetics issues. I am thoroughly convinced that you can be an utterly committed disciple of Rick Warren and still actually be saved!

Please hold all gasps 'til the end of the show. Thank you.

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of those in the ECM are thouroughly saved (though to be very candid, I am very concerned for MacLaren and Bell - but that's another subject entirely, I beleive they're out-and-out liberals). Much of the ECM is thoroughly wrong, to be sure... but you can be wrong and still be a brother.

Driscoll's a stark-raving, pinko-Commie Calvinist. Oh, well, nobody's perfect.

So this is not an apologetics issue.

"Apologetics" is the science of the defense of the faith "once for all delivered unto the saints." We apply apologetics to those outside the household of faith, as defined by Scripture (not tradition or "common culture" - one of the erros of the ECM). These are "in-house" debates, which while being important are not heresiological in nature.

These are subjects which we can (and must) vigorously debate; but we can never divide over them (in the sense of drawing the proverbial line in the sand and saying "if you're on that side, you're a heretical ninny).

Hope that helps bring some perspective to the issues at hand...

Calvary Chapel and Purpose Driven

Roger Oakland was one of the speakers at the recent Midwest Pastors' Conference down in IN.  He spoke on the subjects of being men of understanding (taking off from 1 Chronicles 12:32) and the importance of discernment, and on the subject of evolution/creation.  He was initially scheduled to speak on the subject of the Emergent Church Movement... but was instructed last-minute to change his conference topic.


Whatever you feel about the ECM, two things immediately thrust themselves into view here:

  1. Roger was forced to change subjects (and being a gracious man submitted to those in authority over him, he acquiesced) because of a fear that his subject would spark some fireworks due to another of the conference speakers who has proven friendly to the ECM (no, I won't single the dude out, and yes, I still love and respect him and like his teaching, and yes, there would have been fireworks, and yes, I was actually looking forward to them - I'd like to see two Calvary Chapel heavyweights hash through this issue, and yes, I think the conference organizers who ordered Roger to change subjects were wrong, and yes, this is a run-on parenthetical statement, and no, I'm not in the least bit sorry you had to wade through it to get to this point...); hey, we're all adults here; why not let two guys who have strong opinions on opposite sides of the issue "duke it out" so to speak so that the rest of us are edified by being exposed to all angles of this issue and how it affects us as a movement?  I do not like the attitude that's beginning to prevail amongst some in Calvary that want to quell all discussion rather than promote necessary dialogue (and by "dialogue," I mean that in the most Ken Graves-ish, manly-man, non-Emerging way possible).  I think it's the laying of a dangerous foundation, and I pray there's enough iconoclasts in the movement to do an end-run around the establishmentarians and dialog anyway.

  2. Even prominent leaders within the ECM acknowledge problems and potentially massive issues; Mark Driscoll, for instance, has been one of the most incisive critics of ECM from within.  Driscoll's rhetorical sparring with MacLaren has achieved legendary status.  So whether or not you think Roger's spot-on with his assessment of the ECM (and I think his appraisal is closer to being right on the money than it is not...), why not let him speak, let the potentially perturbed peer respond as he may or may not have been led to during his sessions, then open up one of the final sessions for a Q&A with both of them on the panel, and sit back and evaluate their common responses?

On that note, many of my fellow pastors expressed concern about the panel discussion two Murrieta Conferences ago, since it was quite obvious that there was such a huge divergence of opinion regarding the Purpose Driven fad that was still in its heyday.  Personally, I was tremendously blessed by it, because it enabled me to hear men I respect debate an important (however briefly; PDL, like all fads, blew in, blew up, then blew on back out... I am convinced that ECM as it currently exists will ultimately do the same) issue, and it blessed me that there could still be a wide range of opinion within the overarching canopy of that which is Calvary Chapel.

But that's just me; I don't like mindless lock-stepping.  Acts 17:11 applies both ways, and in all directions, venues, contexts, and issues.

Anyway... as I was browsing here at "tentmaking" on lunch, I ran across this article from Roger Oakland regarding Calvary Chapel and the short-lived Purpose Driven movement which I think is worthy of reading and considering.

Agree or disagree with him (and I don't 100% agree with his assessment and conclusion, though I appreciate both); but do so on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of "that article really wrecks my ecumenical warm fuzzy, man!"

Hast Thou No Scar?

One of my favorite writers to read is Amy Carmichael, a missionary to India in the 19th century whose life of devotion to Jesus is convicting and inspirational all at the same time. What she went through, still clinging to Jesus and His Word, worked in her tremendous, priceless insight.

One of her poems, which has stuck with me ever since I first heard it, is called "Hast Thou No Scar?"


Hast thou no scar?
No hidden scar on foot, or side, or hand?
I hear thee sung as mighty in the land;
I hear them hail thy bright, ascendant star.
Hast thou no scar?

Hast thou no wound?
Yet I was wounded by the archers; spent,
Leaned Me against a tree to die; and rent
By ravening beasts that compassed Me, I swooned.
Hast thou no wound?

No wound? No scar?
Yet, as the Master shall the servant be,
And pierced are the feet that follow Me.
But thine are whole; can he have followed far
Who hast no wound or scar?


"The Numbing"

Okay, on the subject of Dilbert, I just had to post this one, too... it's a classic... vintage Dilbert...

Now, so that you know, my workplace isn't quite like this. It's just funny.

I can quit any time...

I love Dilbert. Have I said that before? Working (as I do) a day job to support my habit, I really appreciate Adams' perspectives on the idiosyncrasies of office life.

The current "story arc" has Dilbert discovering the joys of caffeine, AKA "Christian Crack." I so relate...

I can quit any time.

...just not today.

(The 64oz. vat to the left is filled with Diet Coke, the 32oz. to the right is gas station coffee.)

And as a final, parting thought...

Heh, heh, heh... Ironically, I believe I was told earlier that Pastor Chuck doesn't drink coffee.

I like the pic anyway. Neener.

Permission to Travel

...interesting blogpost from The Practical Nomad, "Permission to Travel." Very, very interesting, 'specially for those who are prophetically savvy...

Thursday, October 19, 2006

In From The Cold

I'd like to recommend In From The Cold, a great blog from a former U.S. intelligence community operative who brings an interesting "insider's perspective" on current events...

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

Great article here from Professor Moshe Sharon contrasting Judaism and Christianity with Islam and explaining the reason why there cannot be lasting peace with the Islamic world (hint: It has to do with the fact that the religion of peace... isn't).

Eye-opening, insightful read...

Friday, October 13, 2006

"Christ" Community "Church" Strikes Again

So I'm at the Mojo Java Lounge today here in sunny downtown Spring Lake, and I walk by the bulletin board... and see this flyer from our good friends down at "Christ" Community "Church," advertising a class on the Four Noble Truths as a method to solve our human problems.

Again I'm blown away.

"Christ" Community "Church" is one of the biggest, most popular churches in the area. It has consistently been... well, it'd have to shift waaaaaaay over to the right to be able to be classified as being liberal. The Unitarians are more conservative than "Christ" Community "Church." And here they go, at it again...

What blows me away is that there are so very, very many who would rather go and study how to contemplate the Four Noble Truths while picking navel lint than sit at the feet of Jesus and hear His eternal Word being taught. Frustrating... and unimaginably heartrending.

But, at the end of the day, not surprising.

Paul told us in II Timothy 4, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Boy, is that ever true...

And boy, it sure does look like we are definitely in the last of the last days, doesn't it?

Luke 21:28, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh..."

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Da Wings...

Dominic "The Dominator" Hasek is back in net for the Detroit Red Wings, and it looks like Nicky Lidstrom is now wearing the "C". It's a bit odd, seeing the "C" worn by anyone other than Yzerman, the iconic team captain. But I'm excited to see that team leadership has devolved to a proven veteran.

Of course, the season opener wasn't anything to brag about.

But I'm excited that sports season's started up again! ;D

I've said it before, but...


Friday, October 06, 2006

Star Trek XI: What We Know

This is the latest information/speculation on the new Star Trek movie in the works...

Thursday, October 05, 2006


Just got an e-mail that had an "oooooooh... that's good..." quote:

If the Muslims put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

Where was God in the Amish shootings?

I'd like to recommend this blog post by my friend and fellow Calvary Chapel pastor Joe Paskewich regarding the recent shooting of school girls in the Amish community of Paradise, PA. Well worth the read.

Digital Red Wings

So it's looking like today's going to be a day for blog posting. Makes sense; since we're in the process of moving, we changed our cable service to the new house. Comcast was supposed to keep service at the old house 'til we moved, but... anyway, I do much typing/Graffiti'ing offline on my laptop and Palm, then upload what I've done when I'm near a wi-fi access point. So there.

Yesterday I found out that because my lovely and gracious wife works for Charter Communications, we're going to be getting full reciprocal digital cable (and hi-speed modem) for the same price that we have been getting basic cable (and hi-speed modem). Actually $5/month less, even when adding in a DVR. Bwa ha ha ha haaaaa...

I mean, not that I have time to veg in front of the real American Idol; but sports season is starting up, so I only have one thing to say...


Stick With Your Work

John MacArthur is a treasure trove of insight. I'm reading the book Pastoral Ministry, have only gotten through the introduction and the first chapter so far, and about a third of it is highlighted. Zoiks.

One thing stood out in particular (and it's sure hard to choose only one thing in this book), at the very end of chapter one. He writes, "As Jesus engaged in His Father's work, so must we. An anonymous writer vividly captured the essence of pastoral stewardship before the Lord with his exhortation to do God's work God's way according to God's Word:

"Stick with your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil's dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil's rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do h is worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you.

He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has never bidden you defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood (about yourself) which Satan's or God's servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord.

Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, "I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do."

Palm Gush

BTW, on the note of handhelds (not that anyone's brought it up; I just made
an illegal segue.  Neener.); I really really really really love my new Palm T|X.  I can surf wirelessly (and since the city of Grand Haven has free wi-fi, that's not an insignificant super power to have), download blogposts (such as Dr. Larry Taylor's or Mark Driscoll's) to mull over, write my responses offline during ::ahem:: down time, check e-mail, upload them, do the do-si-do and turn myself about...

I've tried WinCE devices (yes, yes, yes... I know, they're called "Mobile
Windows" or something along those lines; but they'll always be WinCE in my heart 'cause that's what I do every time I contemplate using one of them) and I just like the Palm platform much, much better.  I love the fact that I can create and edit truly native Office docs (it's a dirty little secret that WinCE's Office support is not, in fact, seamless and native; also see [1]), synch with Outlook (I have no choice), or Evolution (uses similar conduits on my Linux [1], [2] box), and the fact that I'm doing my part to stick it to the man.

Okay, nix that last one.


Anyway, just thought I'd take the opportunity to gush about my Palm, and since it is MY blog...

A Young Earth

Okay, having mulled the whole Creationist thing last night while working on our brand spanking new (to us) small yet tiny house to get it ready for move-in, I thought I'd kick off the day's festivities by citing a few articles which highlight the superb scholarship of Creationist scientists engaged in the study of the age of the universe and correctly choosing to self-consciously interpret science through the lens of Scripture rather than the reverse (ahem... Hugh Ross, et al).

Just a small, small sampling. ICR (and Answers in Genesis and other Creation Science organizations and networks) have done a superb job of lending the lie to the calumny that Creationists are iggnit' knuckle-dragging droop-jawed flat-earthers, and that all real science has proven that the earth is (start: Carl Sagan voice) billions and billions (end: Carl Sagan voice) of years old, and that it's only scandalized-minded evangelical dolts and other inbred doofuses who take the opening chapters of the Bible at face value.


Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Mark Driscoll on the Chucks - (1) Creationism

Quoting from Driscoll's blogpost:

Creationism: Chuck Smith Sr. holds the conservative position of a young earth while Chuck Smith Jr. holds the apparent position of an old earth. This is an issue where there should be some room for disagreement among even biblical literalists. Why? Because though the Bible is clear that God created the heavens and the earth, it does not tell us the age of the earth. The age of the earth can only be inferred and is therefore not a point on which Christians should divide, though we can certainly debate and disagree about the issue as it relates to the Bible.

First off, I'd like to acknowledge, right off the bat, that I'm very biased on this issue. I grew up a committed evolutionist,indoctrinated in a decidedly Darwinian public education system which effectively stifled any spiritual stirrings I may have had, and it wasn't until the United States Navy trained me in the practical (i.e., outside of the insulated, isolated, and largely surreal environment of school and into the crucible of real-world) application of the scientific method as part of my undergoing the Advanced Electronics Field training for working on high-tech shipboard fire control radar systems, and subsequently meeting three guys onboard ship who took the Bible seriously, that I began to finally think for myself and question my presuppositions. After coming to the stunning conclusion that evolution is based on a very tenuous set of assumptions, and that the evidence alone (without an a priori commitment to materialism, for instance) just doesn't support it, and after learning what Creationism actually taught (as opposed to the many caricatures of it that one encounters), I rapidly became convinced that I had been sold a bag of goods, and after examining the evidence on its own merits, became a Creationist. Then I became a Christian.

I became convinced of the Bible's testimony of origins before I became convinced of it's testimony of destiny; in fact, for me, the latter flowed organically and necessarily from the former.

So I admit to a fair amount of bias on this subject.

That said, though I do not place Creationism in the same hand as Driscoll puts Trinitarianism or the Virgin Birth, I hold to it, if anything, even more tightly than I do eschatology or pneumatology. Whether you like it or not, one's view of Creation says volumes about their view of the perspicacity and sufficiency of Scripture. If you can't take the first few chapters of the Bible seriously enough to take them at face value, where does that leave the rest of it...?

Now, having said that, I don't believe it is an issue to divide over any more than one's view on the gift of tongues, for instance, or the Rapture. Important, yes, but entirely secondary in importance to what someone has called "left-hand" issues of the faith.

And having said that, I disagree wholly with Driscoll's statement, "[t]his is an issue where there should be some room for disagreement among even biblical literalists." Why? Because the more literally you take the Bible, the more you'll move away from an Old Earth view and move toward a Young Earth view - and thus, Creationists are definitionally biblical literalists.

This isn't just a "because I said so" assertion, either.

Consider: If you take a child and give him the Bible, without any prior conditioning or coaching, and have him read it, then come back and report on what it says about things, you will not have him deliver a dissertation on why Genesis 1 doesn't really say what it says it says. You won't have him conclude that there are (begin: Carl Sagan voice) billions and billions (end: Carl Sagan voice) of years of death and suffering before Adam. Taken at its most basic, face value, unless you have a prior commitment to another worldview or to a higher interpretive authority through which you read the Text, you will conclude that the universe is at most a handful of millennia old.

However much that insults the materialist or compromised Bible student, it is the most plain understanding of the Text.

And I find it fascinating that those who raise tremendous hue and cry over taking the Bible at face value in every other area become astonishingly inconsistent at this point.


I know for me, I considered it foolish that Christians believed in a Young Earth. What idiots! How could you, when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of (begin: Carl Sagan voice) billions and billions (end: Carl Sagan voice) of years as the age of the universe?

...and, frankly, nobody likes looking like a dumb dummy.

So, there is a subtle shift away from an otherwise solid commitment to Biblical fidelity to interpreting the opening verses to say what they don't say.

(Of course, Driscoll's also a Calvinist, so he falls for the same trap in certain thorny soteriological passages like Hebrews 6, but I digress...)

I respect those (like, for instance, Chuck Smith, Sr.) who try to compromise by imagining a "gap" between vv.1 and 2 of Genesis 1, but again - unless you have an a priori commitment to even finding such a "gap" won't.

(Note, BTW, that Chucks Sr. and Jr. both adhere to an Old Earth; Smith Sr. holds to the Gap Theory, while Jr. seems to believe in progressive creationism/theistic evolution. But both seem to agree that the Earth is essentially old. So much for media accuracy...)

Many men make take far stauncher stands on far less clear points of doctrine than Creationism, without batting an eyelash. But since this one is perhaps the most uncomfortable one to take in our modern (or "post-modern," depending on who you're talking to and which Dilbertisms you're willing to employ to back it up), well...

Keep in mind, Scientific Creationism is hardly the inbred yokelism that evolutionists and other Old Earthers really really really wish it would be; many of the finest scientific minds (such as the über-smart Dr. Russel Humphreys, one of my personal heroes of the faith - his White Hole Cosmology was seminal in my developing Christian walk as a spiritual young'un) have taken the wildly unpopular position of choosing to view the universe through the lens of Scripture, rather than the reverse ((::cough-cough:: Hugh Ross ::cough-cough::)).

I'd recommend especially the work of the Institute for Creation Research as representative of the finest work of the Creationist community. You can call them many things, but "slackers" isn't one of them. These boys pay the price to do their homework.

Now, all of that having been said, I must point out that Creationism isn't a Calvary Chapel distinctive; there are Young and Old Earthers within the ranks of Calvary Chapel. Hence, this is not one of the areas which moved Chuck Jr. outside the borders of what constitutes a CC, symptomatic as it is of the primary issue (a slow creep away from Biblical fidelity) which did.

Finally, what does this have to do with the growing divide between "older evangelicals" and the new batch of Emergents? What I've noticed in the Emerging/Emergent community is at best a general apathy towards the plain understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis. While that same apathy exists in the "older evangelical" community, it certainly seems all but institutionalized in the ECM. Along with eschatology, it comprises what for ECM-types can be thought of as "disposable doctrine." Forget holding it in either the left or right hands of faith - it's not held at all.

I find this very instructive, because, again - one's attitude towards the opening chapters of the Bible inexorably governs his ultimate attitude toward the rest of it.

I'm not that excited about the future of evangelicalism as it currently exists.

I'm even less excited about the ultimate fate of the ECM.

I've said it before, but this, too, shall pass.

The Word remains.

There Goes Dr. Larry Taylor...

Okay, nobody panic. I still like Dr. Larry Taylor, and I still appreciate his writings and views. But I have to admit to being a bit saddened by his recent blog post, "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," which I found to be uncharacteristically sloppy in its logic with regard to the whole Creationism debate. I'm noticing more and more, that otherwise good and godly evangelical thinkers are abandoning the Genesis record in favor of a less offensive, "well, we really can't know when the Beginning was..." stand which makes the critical - and fatal - mistake of assuming that the "two books of revelation" (assumed to be the Bible and Nature) are never in conflict.

Okay, first off: No, they're not. Ever. However, that's not the same thing as saying that science and the Bible are never in conflict - and of course, by "science" I mean "science falsely so called." Modern secular science isn't really all that scientific - that is, where the conclusions which one is forced to draw based solely on the evidence, when viewed through the unadulterated grid of the scientific method, militate against their presuppositions (which are overwhelmingly Darwinian), those conclusions are rejected outright and more implausible interpretations of the data substituted, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle. Therefore, when (for instance) radiometric dating produces wildly divergent results, the one that fits with the preconception of an old Earth is kept - forget the fact that the wildly divergent results should at least cast suspicion on the very methodology used for obtaining dates. Etc.

However, when taken just at face value, the evidence leads one inevitably to only a very small handful of conclusions, and which one you wind up choosing is almost entirely based on your presuppositions, not on the evidence alone. I give you, for instance, the superb work of Dr. Russel Humphreys in which he proposes a fesh new cosmology based on the opposite presuppositions of classical Darwinian "Big Bang" theory (namely, a closed universe with a discernible center and, therefore, locus of gravity).

Dr. Taylor seems to buy into the tragic assumption that us Kreeashunnists're stuppud 'n dum-laaahk... when in fact some of the finest minds in science today are at least friendly to the Creationist position (and I'm not talking about the heartening, but woefully inadequate "Intelligent Design" camp). I point you to the superb Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for great (if really really really really heady) information/discourse on current Creationist science trends.

Personally, the stuff on RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) research is top-notch. As an example.

So don't give me that "you Creationists are fundie boobs who are stupid and dumb and dumbly stupid, you dumb dummies." With all due respect, "pththpptphphtphphtphtphtphtttt." And you can quote me.

However, and second off (to continue the numbering from the "and first off" comment a few paragraphs above), who says there's two books of revelation? Does God reveal Himself in nature? Sure. Romans 1 makes that abundantly clear. However, and this is where I think both Mark Noll (the "scandal of the evangelical mind" dude) and Dr. Taylor goof, the "book of nature" is not even close to being on par with the only Book of God. Isaiah didn't say "To the Law, the Testimony - oh, and before I forget, go outside and hug a tree while you're at it." The invisible things of God are clearly seen by the things which are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, to be sure; however, they are seen through a broken and shattered glass since the Fall.

It all comes down to presuppositions, I suppose. It is impossible to hold both the Bible and science on the same level - one will interpret the other. And whichever is your interpretive base is your ultimate authority.

I think it's foolish in the extreme to interpret the Bible (which is eternal, unchanging, and has always been proven right) through the lens of science (which is constantly changing - in a humorously Clintonesque episode, astronomers are struggling over what the definition of a "planet" is... even the Big Bang theory is largely in question now). Nature never lies - but our perception of its message is at best incomplete and inadequate.

Ergo, I interpret science through the lens of the Bible.

Ergo, when given a handful of options for the interpretation of the available data (let's say, for instance, on the age of the Earth) and the ones in my left hand stem from the assumption of an old Earth, but the ones in my right hand agree with the plain reading of Scripture and stem from the assumption of a young Earth, given that both are equally valid on the basis of the evidence alone and that the only deliberative criteria are my presuppositions (I'm not advocating a Polyanna view of the evidence that conveniently ignores inconvenient facts - I'll leave that to the Darwinists and Old Earthers), I'll go with the Bible.

But I'm kind of silly that way, and I don't particularly care whether or not it's hep and cool and emergent and all that.

And so, without further ado (since we've already "a-done" with all that above - I'd only intended this all to be a brief introduction to the article I'm about to recommend - I'm typing this at my workstation at tentmaking), I'd like to recommend the following Back to Genesis article which I think superbly summarizes the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge (and, in my opinion, insurmountable) problem that Old Earthers have with regard to rejecting the plain reading of Genesis and allowing for (Carl Sagan voice:) billions and billions (/Carl Sagan voice) of years of death and suffering before Adam.

Oh, one final point about evangelicalism and crises and Creationism. Christian Reconstructionists like the Chalcedon Foundation and the Institute for Applied Presuppositionalism (Greg Bahnsen's baby) are no friend to evangelicalism (calling evangelicals "evanjellyfish"). Yet they're committed Creationists. So, too, with a lot of other, non-inbred evangelical types. Interestingly, mostly of the Reformed flavor. Ice and Rushdoony being particularly vocal about Creationism... so much for this being a crisis in provincial evangelicalism. Seems to be more of a crisis in/of those who are self-consciously attempting to take the Bible at face value.

And, with all that said, I still recommend Dr. Taylor's stuff. Just use a bigger helping of salt, I suppose... ;P