We line them up like mannequins in a store window when it suits our purposes, and then promptly turn on them. What do I speak of? That old standby in arguments gone awry–straw men. They show up wherever arguments are made, they find prolific life in Christian circles, and we in the Independent Baptist world have dolled up several in their Sunday best.

One of the most horrid that retains life after many years when the shirt is still but stuffed with straw is the tale that John MacArthur believes the Blood of Christ is of no effect. I can’t tell you how many times I have had it quoted as fact, though I never once was provided with documentation. I did come across a few dubious articles where a few obscure quotes went a long way, but no proof. Then I stumbled over an article written by MacArthur himself where he reiterated his belief on the subject. After reading that response you realize he was crucified by some before the evidence was even considered.

The point is not the value of MacArthur’s teaching, or the lack thereof (you can make your own opinion there). No, the issue is that some could concoct such a story and get such great numbers of people to believe it and requote it. It is sad that such a farce could have him labeled a heretic and so many not even care enough to see if it were true. I actually know of several such straw man arguments that have been widely accepted.

Why do some offer these type of arguments? Some may be thoughtlessly repeating what they have heard. But if you go back to the originators of such arguments, you must figure deeper motives; such as:

1. Inability to handle the legitimate argument.

When you have no good answer for your opponent’s good answer, and admitting defeat will never be a possibility for you, then coming up with some ugly charge to divert attention from your weak arguments is always a temptation.

2. A desire to tear down another voice so that only yours remains.

If a radio teacher like MacArthur is enjoyed by some you preach to, could it be that tearing him down means you can have all the love to yourself? I fear this is often the issue.

We can’t stop others from offering straw men arguments, but we are in control of our responses.

Remember this about straw man arguments:

1. They are insulting.

As one article said, “To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.” So they only work if we are ignorant! We, then, should be more thoughtful about accepting arguments without checking the facts. We have all done it before, but don’t you feel embarrassed when you figure it out?

2. They can not spread without our help.

Were we to be more careful, these type of arguments would not thrive. In fact, it would throw the embarrassment back where it belongs–on the backs of the perpetrators of straw man arguments.

Let’s stop crucifying those blindsided in a straw man attack. Instead let’s stop being gullible and value accuracy as a matter of integrity. Were we to do so, the real issues could be profitably discussed.

Find all articles in the series here.

If it weren’t hard enough to reach people with the Gospel message in our day, we often do the most exasperating things to complicate it. While I suppose every Christian group could conceivably falter here, I must relate what I have seen among Independent Baptists time and again. Worse than zeal without knowledge, it is zeal without understanding or integrity. We see it in both churches and colleges. Before I define or analyze, please allow me to simply describe cases of it.

Perhaps you have seen the interaction between two Independent Baptist churches in the same area. It is not always a mutual admiration society! In some cases, one church will actively attempt to lure members away from the other. Sometimes more energy is expended here than going after unchurched folks. Trumped up charges of the other church being more liberal is often thrown out, though differences in a few standards is the only noticeable difference. If you overheard either of them presenting the Gospel, it would really sound the same. Many feel this is perfectly legitimate.

Sometimes the same type of shenanigans appear in soliciting students to Bible college. In some cases it is not actually the college staff doing it, but some rouge supporters. Of course colleges must pursue young folks to come, but the issue is when we do it at the expense of other similar colleges. I have seen some colleges at its meetings allow other colleges to have a booth set up, and that is commendable, but that is not always the case.

Again, there are cases where the school is labeled so liberal that dishonesty is in play. It is ridiculous to paint something so similar as something so different. Every Bible college in the Independent Baptist world has more in common with each other than any other school outside of it. Majors or classes offered are a fair point of discussion, but to attack on minor issues is again a smokescreen for petty marketing. I once heard of a college staff member tell a pastor that he should come to their conference instead of another because it was the real deal. The other one wasn’t according to the staff member. In these type cases, urban legends of faults, like they aren’t really for soulwinning, etc., are passed around like bread. Sadly, it is rather moldy.

We so often lose sight of the big picture. What is our goal? Is it not to carry out the Great Commission and disciple believers and form local churches? My question is simple–are we pursuing the goal when we proselytize others who believe as we do? I think we all know the answer to that question.

It goes back to a concept I heard in business school years ago–the cannibalization of sales. It is bad business to come up with a product that steals from a current product in order to be successful. That is why the Coca-cola Company after creating the product Coca-Cola would not create and market another similar product, though they would create and market Diet Coke or Sprite. You might create Mello Yellow to compete with Mountain Dew, but after making Sprite you wouldn’t create and market another lemon-lime drink. See how it works?

We are giving the Gospel. You could argue that, in crude terms, we are marketing the Independent Baptist brand. In bottom-line language, we add nothing when we take from other Independent Baptist churches or schools. The only way that could be so were if our church or school were all that is important. I pray we are not so jaded as to think that! It is the Name of Jesus that is the big picture; there are so many that do not know Him that it is trivial at best, and criminal at worst, to give our lives to just repositioning what He already has. May God help us get on the right track and put a stop to this cannibalization within our ranks.

Find all articles in the series here.

It is the ultimate question. Do we ever ask it? The things we emphasize, the way we act, the things that have come to define us– here we should ask it. To Independent Baptists or any group within Christianity it is the necessary, but overlooked, question. Would Jesus like it?

His name is thrown around carelessly, even among contradictory opinions. We are not at the loss here that some feel because He came and lived among us and we have four Gospel records telling us how He acted in a multitude of situations. Great caution is needed. Our dogmatism may be suspect in light of what Jesus has actually said and done. The most religious of that day, the Pharisees, often found themselves on the wrong side of the issue when the dust settled and God the Son went on record. Are many of us in our actions doing the same thing? Does our spirituality suffer the same fate when subjected to the only real test–would Jesus like it?

Let’s put the question to the areas where it is seldom asked:

1. Would Jesus Like Our Emphasis On Standards And Preferences?
Was it ever His emphasis? Read the Gospels again and in the area of personal sin He greatly favored discussing sins of the spirit. Pride, hatred, a lack of love– these ever were discussed by Him. That is not to say He didn’t discuss the sins of the flesh. To a lesser degree He did. But how often did He discuss standards and preferences? Read and read and read and you just won’t find it. (Before you ask, you will fare little better in the Epistles either).

As you read you will find that it was actually the Pharisees that pushed standards and preferences. They had different ones then. Hand washing rituals, Sabbath standards, rules for who you could eat with–they had the highest standards imaginable. And guess what? Jesus made it clear He did not like it. Why would we think it would be different today?

2. Would Jesus Like It When We Shun Others

Let’s be clear–He never practiced it! I challenge you to find one case where He did. Everyone else shunned a woman at a well who finally just gave up and went to draw water when no one else was there. Then Jesus came by. Before you argue that He only took witnessing opportunities, find me one case where He shunned an erring believer. Not only did He never shun Judas who He always knew was a devil, but He never shunned Peter after his denial and complete backsliding. Jesus sought him out and then found him naked. Did any of that stop Him? Did He refuse to eat with Him? Who was that actually prepared breakfast? I think you know.

3. Would Jesus Like It When We Take His Word Out Of Context To Prove Our Point?

Jesus would often retort with “you do err not knowing the Scriptures.” You see it was not that they didn’t quote Scripture. The Pharisees quoted plenty of it in defense of their positions. The problem was that Jesus did not like how they misused it. He showed that He insists that we take His Word only in the context He has given it.

4. Would Jesus Like It When We Sacrifice Soul Liberty On The Altar Of Following The Party Line?

Like we see too often in our day, the Pharisees held complete conformance to their convoluted positions as essential. Jesus didn’t even pass their test! Actually from a whole different perspective, the Sadducees did too. Jesus constantly ignored their cries. He openly ignored them too. Jesus was perfectly transparent. If it was wrong He did not do it. If it was not wrong, He never spent one moment worrying about how the Pharisees would take it. I imagine if Jesus had a Facebook account He would gladly have shared pictures of eating with ceremonial unwashed hands, or sharing a meal with an unrepentant person. (I do not make that statement to slam anyone, just to encourage you to be free).

We could say more, but I pray you get the point. Have we so lost our way that we have forgotten the only One whose opinion counts? So let’s start asking: Would Jesus like it?

Find all Articles in the series here.

How many times have you heard someone boast that they were battling for the truth? How many times have you and I seen ourselves as great contenders for the faith? Though I have seen it in several groups, it would be hard to deny that it is oft-repeated around the Independent Baptist world. Is it as true as we imagine?

No doubt when you proclaim the Gospel with caution and clarity you are defending a much-attacked truth. I can think of no place more than the Gospel where error is thrown like mud against the wall to see what will stick. If you are a Baptist, you may spend a great deal of time clarifying Baptist distinctives that you believe to be thoroughly Bible based. Even though Christians may disagree, for example, on something like Baptism, at least there are a multitude of Scriptures that can be brought to bear on the subject. Surely there would be some justification on making a stand on a subject prolifically mentioned in the Bible!

What about, however, when we go beyond the foundational truths of Scripture? Or what is often mentioned in the Bible? Have you ever, as I have, heard standards, preferences, or worship styles mentioned with equal fervor? Is this defending truth?

I maintain that it is not truth at all, but tradition. I won’t even claim that there isn’t some place for tradition, but that is not the place to divide the sheep and the goats, or cull out the heretics.

I fear that we have even lost our way. We hardly even recognize a biblical criteria to determine core truths. We make a clod of dirt and a mountain of equal value. I have long since lost count of all the articles I have seen on some subject held up as of paramount importance biblically, and even be filled with endless scripture citations, that was merely someone’s preference. The strange thing about these articles is that if you actually check the references,they are not speaking of the subject at hand in any material way. One of the favorites is to call the discussed subject a critical doctrine and quote II Timothy 3:16 on “profitable for doctrine” when it is actually about the Word of God, not the pet topic under discussion.

The saddest thing is that type of teaching is either: a) deceptive, or what I believe to be much more likely, b) naive. The writer does not even realize just how ludicrous that line of reasoning is!

But that is the problem with tradition– to force it you must use strong handed methods. You must be ugly to propagate it with those who no longer want it. What else could you do?

Truth is altogether different. It only needs proclaimed. Unlike tradition, it loses nothing if some let it go. Tradition dies if we can’t prop it up, but truth is ever marching on.

Strangely, we are the group most often lambasting tradition in others while we are blinded to it in ourselves. Vestal garments aren’t the only traditions out there!

Let’s, then, learn the difference between tradition and truth as clearly as we would distinguish the temporal and the eternal. If we don’t, we may waste our lives fighting for the wrong things.

Find all articles in the series here.

In light of the barrage of attacking media on the Bible these days, canonicity is suddenly a hot topic. Sadly, most Christians do not really know how to discuss the topic of how our canon of Scripture came about, or more importantly, how it can be trusted. So we need volumes to educate us such as we have in this volume published by Hendrickson.

We have to either remove the rustiness that has developed or come up to speed as the world is asking the tough questions. The book can distinctly help us. This subject is complex and so subject to easy potshots! You will need a basic knowledge if, say, someone starts reading Bart Ehrman and says your Bible is hopelessly an untrustworthy text of antiquity and dares you to answer. Mr. McDonald is a scholar who gives us an introduction, a starting place, that assumes we may not the story of the our canon.

Though it comes as a surprise to some there were pseudepigraphal and apocryphal books that rose up to compete with the cannon that became what we know as authoritative Scripture just as the critics say. What is not true is the level of acceptance. This volume weaves through how that worked out.

The key value in this book is the way unfamiliar things are defined and explained. Both in the text and in an outstanding glossary of terms one can learn the language of canonicity. He gives full charts on all the books that you may hear of as “lost” too.

I do not reach every conclusion he does, but my only real fault with this book is that it does not hold up as a work of apologetics nearly as well as it as simply an educational one. On occasions he raised more questions than he answered, or at least answered powerfully. I believe an even stronger case can be made. Still, this book will be handy to have on the shelf.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

BONUS REVIEW:

Another book I just read that you may enjoy along these lines is Behind The Bible: A Primer on Textual Criticism by Jeffrey D. Johnson.

In around a short power-packed 100 pages the issue of how we can trust the text of Scripture is given. I don’t personally agree with which family of texts he says is best, but he is calm in his handling of these issues. You really get a feel for how the process has worked and how scholars have approached it in different time periods. I recommend it.