Scott Brown Says “It’s Bush’s Fault”…

…well, not exactly. However, what he has been saying lately is very similar to what liberals always say. I once heard a joke that if a liberal stubbed his toe, he would say “It’s Bush’s fault.” If a liberal fell down and scraped his arm, he would say “It’s Bush’s fault.” If a liberal struck out in a baseball game, he would say “It’s Bush’s fault.” Even Barack Obama, rather than taking responsibility for the high gas prices, said that it was Bush’s fault for giving him such a bad economy. Anytime something bad happens for the liberals, it is always the fault of the conservatives, and Bush imparticular. Unfortunately, liberals never seem to grow up and take responsibility for their actions.

In his latest posts Scott Brown says the following here and here:

For over a decade, we have been advocating breaking what we believe is a harmful custom: age segregation in the church. Most people also know that, for us, advocating this has come at a price. It draws indignation. It illicits rejection and gives you fewer friends, even though you hope to be friendly about it. Here is how Richard Baxter explains what happens when you oppose a destructive custom:

Custom, as I said before, is the thing that sways much with the multitude; and they who first break a destructive custom must bear the brunt of their indignation. Now, somebody must do this. If we do it not, it will lie upon our successors; and how can we expect that they shall be more hardy, and resolute, and faithful, than we?… But if they do prove better than we, the same odium and opposition must befal them which we avoid, and that with some increase, because of our neglect; for the people will tell them, that we, their predecessors, did no such things.

Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, Page 271, Benediction Books (January 13, 2010)

This is a very helpful analysis of an essay that appeared in The New York Times.

Albert Mohler makes this very insightful comment:

The church would demonstrate the power of the gospel in a whole new way by assisting young people into the successful and faithful transition to adulthood, celebrating this transition as a matter of spiritual maturity to the glory of Christ. These young adults are desperately needed for the cause of Christ, and many are indeed making their way into authentic adulthood with faithfulness, energy, conviction, and excitement. Let’s pray that their example is infectious.

One way the church continues to dumb down and delay maturity is by continuing its unbiblical practice of age segregation.

Now, aside from Albert Mohler’s views on adulthood, marriage, and children being something we have criticized before, notice that, if there is a problem, if there is “destruction” or if people are “dumbing down” or “delaying maturity,” it must be because of “age segregation.” No reason is given, just like no reason is given when liberals try to blame everything on Bush. I wonder, would they blame all of the spiritual abuse found in the book Quivering Daughters on age integration? Hardly!

The problem is that age specific ministry is a scape goat for these folks, just like Bush is for the liberals. They don’t want to deal with the real problem, and that is sin. The real reason you have immaturity amongst both the young and the old in our society is because of sin. The real reason you have spiritual destruction in our churches today is sin. Might I also add that it is impossible to change this problem by changing externals such as whether discipleship is age specific or age integrated. As the fruits of this movement start coming forward, you will see more and more people leaving Christianity altogether, and/or viewing these folks as controlling and abusive because these externals simply cannot change the heart.

Also, “unbiblical” must be understood in the light of a movement that has ignored an entire field of linguistics, namely, the field of pragmatics. I have seen one person from this radical branch of the FIC try to deal with speech acts, and they couldn’t even represent the concept of perlocution properly, and couldn’t even represent my argument properly! When you arbitrarily treat the Bible differently while arguing for your position on something, that might indicate that *you* are the one that has the unbiblical practice! The question is simply this: if our position is right, are the scriptures insufficient, or is it the NCFIC’s hermeneutics that are insufficient?


One Response to “Scott Brown Says “It’s Bush’s Fault”…”

  1. Shawn Mathis Says:

    Too bad given their claims of “reformation” and revival via the FIC model that they are not more ridiculed for their bold stance on the pure Gospel, Calvinism. And that’s because this particularly offensive Gospel message is buried in the mole-hill of age-segregation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: