Antidote: A Cure for a Common Problem of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism
The first thing Aaron Blumer (publisher, SharperIron) said to me when we talked about our next conference was “I’m pretty skeptical of the idea of convergence.” Convergence—the idea that fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism are heading toward, or should be working toward, convergence into one movement—has certainly been what some have perceived Standpoint Conference to be about. We would argue that’s an oversimplification of what we’re about. As our last Standpoint Conference concluded, we made a conscious choice to leave previous issues behind and move on to more critical issues.
Specifically, we believe that fundamentalism and evangelicalism face similar crises. For different reasons, fundamentalism has lurking at its most conservative end some who are less concerned with doctrine than they should be. Evangelicalism has, in the mainstream, those who are also less concerned with doctrine than they should be. On the extreme right of fundamentalism, this expresses itself with a near-obsessive attention to stylistic details that distracts from doctrinal issues. On the left of evangelicalism, church growth, political activism and social influence provide similar distractions.
The alarming result is that both are disengaged from issues that have serious doctrinal consequences. Among those on the far right of fundamentalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that the larger problems of Christianity are irrelevant to them. (“All who are to the left of us are ‘liberals’ anyway.”) Among those on the left of evangelicalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that all must be well because their churches are growing numerically.
Meanwhile, battles are being waged over ideas that represent vast theological shifts. These shifts are happening not just in institutions of higher learning, but in the pews. Rob Bell preaches a form of universalism, and thousands don’t know how to respond—or feel the need to soft-pedal their rejection. N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul is only dimly understood (if at all) by the vast majority of those reading this article. The gay theologians advance their theories and they are uniformly rejected—but few realize that they are using hermeneutical models that are only slightly more radical than the ones taught in our colleges and seminaries. Ground is given, or freedom granted, on the roles of women in leadership, hermeneutics, creation models, eschatological views, all without recognizing that all of the changes are attached to theological structures that mean something and that changes in one area are harbingers of other changes to come—or changes that have already been made in theological viewpoints.
The role of writing
In the early 1900s, the spread of liberal theology drove a few men to engage in a series of lectures, papers and eventually books designed to address the crisis. The goal was to draw attention to liberal theology and renew interest in good theology. The Fundamentals, as a publication, became the foundation for all the fundamentalisms and evangelicalism we see today. They raised awareness of the issues and helped to turn back the tide of Liberalism.
We at Standpoint Conference propose to begin something similar. Over our next three conferences, we intend to address key issues that have theological implications that should alarm us. Your written contributions—or even lectures—may be helpful to us, and we desire your input.
We believe that the doctrinal drift of our times transcends the very real issues that still divide conservative evangelicals and those within the fundamentalist movement. Regardless of whether you believe in what Standpoint Conference has done in the past, or agree with its leadership team on certain particulars, you ought to care about theological purity. We challenge you to be part of the discussion.
This year’s planned topics include the importance of gender in theology and practice, the sufficiency of Scripture and modern counseling, the new mechanistic hermeneutics, responses to the gay theologians, which eschatological schemes are orthodox (and which are not), what constitutes authentic worship, the essentials of a believer’s life within the church body, the recent resurgence of various forms of inclusivism and universalism, and issues surrounding how we promote sanctification (if we can at all). The Standpoint Conference leadership is prepared to address some of these topics, if necessary; we are confident that there are persons with better knowledge of the topics who could address them more effectively. Perhaps you are one such person.
This need not be limited to the work of great doctors of theology. Pastors grounded in the Word through years of study can have equally valuable input. A detailed description of our topics for the next conference is at our website. Please consider them. In fact, we would welcome work on an entirely different topic of major doctrinal concern.
As of now, the conference has a great key-note speaker in Phil Johnson, of Grace to You. Phil is passionate about this topic and has spoken elsewhere on the need to re-emphasize sound doctrine in the church. Other speaker announcements will be made shortly. But we need the doctrinal core of the conference to come together soon—and that involves your help. Please stop by www.standpointconference.com today, look over our topics, and consider being part of the discussion.
Mike Durning Bio
Mike Durning has been the pastor at Mt. Pleasant Bible Church in Goodells, MI for more than 15 years. He attended Hyles-Anderson College, Midwestern Baptist Bible College and Bob Jones University over 8 years and somehow emerged with a mere bachelor’s degree. He lives in Goodells with his wife Terri and adult son, Ryan, and about 12 chickens that have wandered into his yard and like it better than the neighbor’s yard. Mike is flattered if you call him a “young fundamentalist,” since he is 46 and is prone to self-deception on such issues. If you see someone on the street who looks like the picture of Mike, but with gray hair, it probably is Mike.
At 2:30 AM, I received a call to go to the hospital where they were taking my mom. Tests are underway. Please forgive me if I am slow to respond to comments for a day or two. Your prayers are appreciated.
At 2:33 AM, I received an email complaining about this article. I didnt even know the article was up yet. Don’t you folks ever sleep?
The email was calling us Evangelicals, because of the inclusion of Phil Johnson on our platform. So, before the doctor comes in and gives us some results, let me respond. This seems like a great time to recap what the article indicates: This doctrinal drift issue transcends the issues between our two movements. We can’t very well say that and then lock out folks for not agreeing with us on every issue. Are there limits? Sure. We wouldn’t invite those who are part of the problem — from either movement.
At 2:33 AM, I received an email complaining about this article. I didnt even know the article was up yet. Don’t you folks ever sleep?
The email was calling us Evangelicals, because of the inclusion of Phil Johnson on our platform. So, before the doctor comes in and gives us some results, let me respond. This seems like a great time to recap what the article indicates: This doctrinal drift issue transcends the issues between our two movements. We can’t very well say that and then lock out folks for not agreeing with us on every issue. Are there limits? Sure. We wouldn’t invite those who are part of the problem — from either movement.
Mike, one of the problems among fundamentalists is that they think their stripe of fundamentalism and their stance of separation such as who are platform speakers at different conferences is the only valid ones. Growing up in the GARBC, there was regular movement among us fundamentalists and those who were conservative evangelicals. We saw it modeled in Dr. Ketcham and his friendship and platform sharing with Warren Weirsbe (who would be considered comparable to today’s conservative evangelical).
Dr. Bauder talks about this in the recent Baptist Bulletin article…….
Dr. Bauder talks about this in the recent Baptist Bulletin article…….
Anyway, my point is that labeling you and those who are putting on this conference as evangelicals is just crazy talk! Since it is being held at the church that I grew up in, there is even more of a motivation for me to participate :)
It is more true of some branches of fundamentalism than others, to say that we built the wall and never crossed it. I grew up in the Regular Baptist movement, and in the Regular Baptist movement that wall was crossed very regularly. And sometimes perhaps, even too regularly! On the campus of the school I attended (a Regular Baptist institution) it was not at all unheard of to hear conservative evangelical speakers, individuals who at the time would have been the equivalent of conservative evangelicalism today. Lots and lots of us have been to evangelical schools. Lots and lots of us have sat through Don Carson’s classes.
When, oh when will we finally understand that doctrine is more important than camps and labels. (Ever hear of the “I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Cephas syndrome?) When, oh when will we understand that the Gospel is central and foundational, and everything else is secondary to it? When will we understand that a solid understanding and defense of the Gospel is far more important than taking a stand on Bible versions? When will we understand that fellowship around the Gospel is more God-honoring than fellowship around religious movements and issues?
Sigh. Perhaps not until we get to Heaven. But one can always hope and pray.
Sigh. Perhaps not until we get to Heaven. But one can always hope and pray.
G. N. Barkman
Not considering myself old, I must still admit to being old enough to remember when the terms fundamental and evangelical were equated with each other. I remember when the shift became evident - when doctrine was downplayed and evangelism became more important than truth and sanctification. I was just a child as I watched my father, the director of an independent Youth for Christ, grapple with the issues separating Christians. Dad became more and more of a
fundamentalist as he attempted to be true to the Word of God.
Today, I am watching conservative evangelicals fight the battle for doctrinal purity and I applaud them. I am watching some fundamentalists leave the preaching of Christ in His glory for minor areas of style and it saddens me. If God brings His people together around the truths of the Bible, for His glory, it will be a day for rejoicing. May you Christian men have wisdom from on high as you seek the Lord’s will in this matter.
fundamentalist as he attempted to be true to the Word of God.
Today, I am watching conservative evangelicals fight the battle for doctrinal purity and I applaud them. I am watching some fundamentalists leave the preaching of Christ in His glory for minor areas of style and it saddens me. If God brings His people together around the truths of the Bible, for His glory, it will be a day for rejoicing. May you Christian men have wisdom from on high as you seek the Lord’s will in this matter.
L Strickler
Part of the problem with rhetoric on the subject is that people use “evangelical” pejoratively and narrowly. I think we should get back to using the term per it’s actual meaning, “one who believes in and promotes the evangel,” i.e., the gospel
I would hope that we are all evangelicals here!
The distinction between “them” and (some of) “us” has to do with what else we are besides evangelical… and how we understand certain implications of the evangel.
Kevin Bauder and others have written a good bit of what kinds of things still distinguish fundamentalist evangelicals from non-fundamentalist-but-conservative ones. FWIW, I think these differences are still important and shouldn’t get lost, but the “keep the fence, keep it low, shake hands often” paradigm is a good one for where we now live… i.e., in a world where the very problem Mike addresses in the article is a reality.
There really is a major doctrinal erosion that characterizes all the flavors of gospel-believers/gospel-affirmers. And this problem is bigger than any one neighborhood in the evangelical landscape.
So… I’m not interested in “convergence,” but the reality is that fundamentalists have always read the books and listened to the speakers and (to some extent) attended the conferences of non-fundamentalists. It’s silly to think that we can isolate ourselves from what’s happening in evangelicalism generally—and as Mike says here, we’ve got doctrinal problems of our own. It’s already “inside” the (mostly imaginary) fundamentalist fortress. So that’s the disease that is killing all of us.
I would hope that we are all evangelicals here!
The distinction between “them” and (some of) “us” has to do with what else we are besides evangelical… and how we understand certain implications of the evangel.
Kevin Bauder and others have written a good bit of what kinds of things still distinguish fundamentalist evangelicals from non-fundamentalist-but-conservative ones. FWIW, I think these differences are still important and shouldn’t get lost, but the “keep the fence, keep it low, shake hands often” paradigm is a good one for where we now live… i.e., in a world where the very problem Mike addresses in the article is a reality.
There really is a major doctrinal erosion that characterizes all the flavors of gospel-believers/gospel-affirmers. And this problem is bigger than any one neighborhood in the evangelical landscape.
So… I’m not interested in “convergence,” but the reality is that fundamentalists have always read the books and listened to the speakers and (to some extent) attended the conferences of non-fundamentalists. It’s silly to think that we can isolate ourselves from what’s happening in evangelicalism generally—and as Mike says here, we’ve got doctrinal problems of our own. It’s already “inside” the (mostly imaginary) fundamentalist fortress. So that’s the disease that is killing all of us.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Convergence rhymes with emergence :) :(
When the Lyman brothers paid for the distribution of the Fundamentals in 1909 there was not an Evangelical seminary in the country. All the graduate theological seminaries had been influenced by liberalism. In addition, the denominations were intact yet and many in them were fighting the truth battle. The undergraduate Bible Institute movement was just starting.
Today there are several graduate seminaries that are considered Fundamentalist in doctrine and practice of separation. Also, there are numerous undergraduate Bible Colleges and colleges that are considered as Fundamentalist. Today there are several seminaries that would be classified as Evangelical, conservative, but not Fundamentalist in practice. There are also several colleges and universities that would be classified as evangelical and conservative. In addition there are numerous specialty organizations such as Answers in Genesis, ICR, and others.
These Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical schools and organizations regularly publish Journals and papers which handle the issues of the day in a rigorous academic manner. We also have the Evangelical Theological society and other such groups. This is not 1909 or the 1920s.
With the above institutions and groups speaking to the issues and having their own conferences, what real purpose is the conference going to accomplish? The leaders of this attempted effort appear to be confused as to Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism. These labels now are very inclusive and include a wide variety of people. Most are independent in their own right. What most who accept the label Fundamentalist call Conservative Evangelicalism is a large pool with a lot of swimmers doing different strokes and going different directions. The manufactured concept of “convergence” appears to be a made up scenario of some who were brought up in Fundamentalism, are dissatisfied with many aspects of what has happened or is under the label, and instead of calling themselves the “Young New Evangelicals” wish to hope that somehow some new movement may emerge. Today there are too many independent mega churches and schools for such to happen. Also, we need no further movements, labels, or studies.
With all due respect, I would suggest these gentlemen get on with their individual ministry callings and responsibilities. Please leave the studies and conferences, of which there are already way too many, to the already established groups. Instead of convergence we need common sense emergence. Something all of us, including myself, need more of.
Fundamentalism is Fundamentally Evangelicalism plus separation. At the heart is the admonition of Acts 20: 17-31. Fundamentalists take the degree and application of separation necessary to protect the churches and institutions. Evangelicals, whether conservative, moderate, or new, do not.
Today there are several graduate seminaries that are considered Fundamentalist in doctrine and practice of separation. Also, there are numerous undergraduate Bible Colleges and colleges that are considered as Fundamentalist. Today there are several seminaries that would be classified as Evangelical, conservative, but not Fundamentalist in practice. There are also several colleges and universities that would be classified as evangelical and conservative. In addition there are numerous specialty organizations such as Answers in Genesis, ICR, and others.
These Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical schools and organizations regularly publish Journals and papers which handle the issues of the day in a rigorous academic manner. We also have the Evangelical Theological society and other such groups. This is not 1909 or the 1920s.
With the above institutions and groups speaking to the issues and having their own conferences, what real purpose is the conference going to accomplish? The leaders of this attempted effort appear to be confused as to Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism. These labels now are very inclusive and include a wide variety of people. Most are independent in their own right. What most who accept the label Fundamentalist call Conservative Evangelicalism is a large pool with a lot of swimmers doing different strokes and going different directions. The manufactured concept of “convergence” appears to be a made up scenario of some who were brought up in Fundamentalism, are dissatisfied with many aspects of what has happened or is under the label, and instead of calling themselves the “Young New Evangelicals” wish to hope that somehow some new movement may emerge. Today there are too many independent mega churches and schools for such to happen. Also, we need no further movements, labels, or studies.
With all due respect, I would suggest these gentlemen get on with their individual ministry callings and responsibilities. Please leave the studies and conferences, of which there are already way too many, to the already established groups. Instead of convergence we need common sense emergence. Something all of us, including myself, need more of.
Fundamentalism is Fundamentally Evangelicalism plus separation. At the heart is the admonition of Acts 20: 17-31. Fundamentalists take the degree and application of separation necessary to protect the churches and institutions. Evangelicals, whether conservative, moderate, or new, do not.
[Jim Peet] Convergence rhymes with emergence :) :(And always results in divergence! ;)
[Bob T.] Today there are several graduate seminaries that are considered Fundamentalist in doctrine and practice of separation. Also, there are numerous undergraduate Bible Colleges and colleges that are considered as Fundamentalist. Today there are several seminaries that would be classified as Evangelical, conservative, but not Fundamentalist in practice. There are also several colleges and universities that would be classified as evangelical and conservative. In addition there are numerous specialty organizations such as Answers in Genesis, ICR, and others.Sure, there are many fine colleges, seminaries, and para-church ministries standing for the truth. And yet, Bob, the doctrinal erosion continues. The situation in my own state demonstrates it well.
These Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical schools and organizations regularly publish Journals and papers which handle the issues of the day in a rigorous academic manner. We also have the Evangelical Theological society and other such groups. This is not 1909 or the 1920s.
With the above institutions and groups speaking to the issues and having their own conferences, what real purpose is the conference going to accomplish?
There are several reputedly fine Evangelical schools in Michigan. I can say with confidence: every undergraduate ministerial student I have met from these institutions in my own state (and a fair percentage of those who have completed their degrees) has alarmed me. The things that fall from their lips… “Contemplative modes” of spiritual development, mocking Biblical counseling advocates and speaking out in favor of purely secular methodologies, the creation account in Genesis 1-2 doesn’t matter (not that they are open to debate: they think it actually doesn’t matter), and, of course, “Who am I to condemn Rob Bell’s teaching?” Of course, these schools are not even Conservative Evangelical, but mainstream Evangelical, demonstrating one of my points from the article.
When meeting the same level students or graduates from Fundamentalist institutions, the pattern of distraction I addressed in the article emerges quickly. Their obsession is over Bible versions, music, and other secondary (or, dare I say, tertiary?) issues. Nobody asks me what our church believes about any theological position of any kind.
Fortunately, those with graduate-level educations show more wisdom and balance, whether from Evangelical or Fundy institutions. But the problem continues, even at that level.
I think we would be foolish to wait until things get as bad as they got in the early 1900’s to raise awareness of this issue.
Mike and all,
You are addressing the REAL issues that need to be addressed. The New Perspective is particularly dangerous, and the real battle line is hermeneutics.
One of my long term goals is to write a second book after my first book, The Midrash Key, paves the way. The Midrash Key explains how many of Jesus teachings’ are explanations and applications of Old Testament texts.
The next book I intend to write (but have yet to start) will probably be titled, “The Amazing Doctrines of Paul as Midrash.” I am convinced that the best defense within the community of believers that acknowledges the Bible is to demonstrate how NT teachings are based on OT passages. That can refute the New Perspective and other errors particularly in soteriology with amazing force. For example, consider that Isaiah 53 demonstrates that a penal sacrifice was in mind when Paul wrote “Christ died for our sins.” Paul’s doctrine of justification — being declared righteous and being given the righteousness of Christ— is based on Zechariah 3:1-9. The eternality of hell is based on Daniel 12:2.
If we can demonstrate that all the fundamentals and essential beliefs we embrace are found in the First Testament and elaborated on in the Second, we have a pretty tight case. That is what I hope to do, personally. You can only distort the New Testament so much when you include Old Testament mother texts for New Testament teaching.
What Mike and the conference wants to do is crucial for us all! I am with you, brother. The need is real, the threat greater than most realize.
You are addressing the REAL issues that need to be addressed. The New Perspective is particularly dangerous, and the real battle line is hermeneutics.
One of my long term goals is to write a second book after my first book, The Midrash Key, paves the way. The Midrash Key explains how many of Jesus teachings’ are explanations and applications of Old Testament texts.
The next book I intend to write (but have yet to start) will probably be titled, “The Amazing Doctrines of Paul as Midrash.” I am convinced that the best defense within the community of believers that acknowledges the Bible is to demonstrate how NT teachings are based on OT passages. That can refute the New Perspective and other errors particularly in soteriology with amazing force. For example, consider that Isaiah 53 demonstrates that a penal sacrifice was in mind when Paul wrote “Christ died for our sins.” Paul’s doctrine of justification — being declared righteous and being given the righteousness of Christ— is based on Zechariah 3:1-9. The eternality of hell is based on Daniel 12:2.
If we can demonstrate that all the fundamentals and essential beliefs we embrace are found in the First Testament and elaborated on in the Second, we have a pretty tight case. That is what I hope to do, personally. You can only distort the New Testament so much when you include Old Testament mother texts for New Testament teaching.
What Mike and the conference wants to do is crucial for us all! I am with you, brother. The need is real, the threat greater than most realize.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek] I am convinced that the best defense within the community of believers that acknowledges the Bible is to demonstrate how NT teachings are based on OT passages.Brilliant!
I remember when taking Hebrew my prof opened my eyes to this. And just recently having a converted Jew explain a lot of the symbolism between the Passover and Easter/Jesus. I am trying to get him to do similar things for a few of the other feasts. So many NT things make so much more sense when first understood from the OT.
Plus, there really are a lot of good things in the OT.
[Ed Vasicek] I am convinced that the best defense within the community of believers that acknowledges the Bible is to demonstrate how NT teachings are based on OT passages. That can refute the New Perspective and other errors particularly in soteriology with amazing force. For example, consider that Isaiah 53 demonstrates that a penal sacrifice was in mind when Paul wrote “Christ died for our sins.” Paul’s doctrine of justification — being declared righteous and being given the righteousness of Christ— is based on Zechariah 3:1-9. The eternality of hell is based on Daniel 12:2.Ed, I’m sure I speak for our team when I say give us a paper on it! We’d love that!
[RPittman]Ha, Roland! I admit I don’t have a scientific survery, but let’s be frank. I surveyed a bunch of pastors standing around at a meeting recently. I knew more about it than any of them - and I’ve barely scratched the surface of the topic. I don’t think the ignorance is because they are dumb rubes, but because of the priorities the modern version of ministry places on us.[Mike] N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul is only dimly understood (if at all) by the vast majority of those reading this article.What’s so hard to understand? It seems that Mike is saying, “Hey, most of you guys are ignorant!” IMHO, this is not the way to win friends and influence readers. :-)
I’m reminded of the guy who told me I hadn’t been out to visit him at his house in 6 months. I asked “How long have you been a Christian?” His answer: “25 years”. I said “You should be out visiting, not waiting at home for a visit!”. They go every week now, visiting shut-ins and seniors, and are a great blessing. But as long as every believer thinks the pastor is there to help him raise the new barn, or the pastor should visit him every few weeks (whether he is being discipled or not), we’ll have pastors who can’t keep up on their reading filling our pulpits.
I do have a friend who has gone to hear Wright speak and will lecture exhaustively on his errors, though.
The things that fall from their lips… “Contemplative modes” of spiritual development, mocking Biblical counseling advocates and speaking out in favor of purely secular methodologies, the creation account in Genesis 1-2 doesn’t matter (not that they are open to debate: they think it actually doesn’t matter), and, of course, “Who am I to condemn Rob Bell’s teaching?” Of course, these schools are not even Conservative Evangelical, but mainstream Evangelical, demonstrating one of my points from the article.This compares two fairly distinct sets of issues and I think it highlights a key distinction. The first issues are doctrinal, and they are settled matters for fundamentalists. So these things do not “fall from their lips” because they know better. The unfortunate part is the second issues. It reminds me of a conversation years ago where someone was commenting negatively on the fact that fundamentalists weren’t speaking out about complementarianism and egalitarianism, where people like Driscoll and Piper were. My response was simple: Fundamentalists aren’t speaking out about it because the people they are speaking too aren’t confused about it.
When meeting the same level students or graduates from Fundamentalist institutions, the pattern of distraction I addressed in the article emerges quickly. Their obsession is over Bible versions, music, and other secondary (or, dare I say, tertiary?) issues.
And that brings me to the NPP. As for the NPP, I think that outside of academia, it’s not that big of a deal. If I had a dime for every time one of the people in my community asked me about the NPP, I would be … well, penniless. And with good reason. It’s not the stuff that local church ministry is made of. Very few pastors know about it because it is not that big of a deal unless you are in academia. Which is why I am skeptical that it is a worthy topic for a pastor’s conference. It may be helpful to give an overview of some sort, but I doubt that it will be useful in preaching or teaching in most local churches.
I’m not excited by this venture, nor do I think it has any hope of living up to the Fundamentals. (Of course, I’m not sure that the Fundamentals were actually that significant in the first place.)
Fundamentalism cannot address the issues of the day, for Fundamentalism is removed from the issues of the day by self-imposed exile. Fundamentalism cannot speak with a scholarly voice, for it has no scholars through which to do so. The essence of scholarship is a commitment to research in a critical yet cooperative peer-reviewed environment. It is through forced interaction with people of differing views that one comes to understand one’s own position and its significance. Since most Fundamentalists refuse to participate in the very activities that define scholars - publishing in peer-reviewed papers and presenting at peer-reviewed conferences - they have not developed scholarly mindsets. Listening to Fundamentalists critique broadly Christian theology is like listening to a lecture on French culture by an American who has never visited France and knows no French people. It’s impossible for them even to recognize how incomplete, skewed, and arbitrary their thoughts are.
The scholar listens before making himself understood. This requires open dialogue and meaningful interaction with divergent viewpoints. Because this is contrary to the majority Fundamentalist modus operandi, Fundamentalism maintains no scholarly voice. Any papers presented or lectures given at such a conference will be ignored except by those who already care about and agree with the speakers. It is speaking into an echo chamber.
I will be excited to hear Fundamentalist critiques of other culture when Fundamentalists themselves can produce rigorous theological works that stand up to peer criticism, and when they have first-hand knowledge of what they’re talking about through open, professional dialogue with non-Fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism cannot address the issues of the day, for Fundamentalism is removed from the issues of the day by self-imposed exile. Fundamentalism cannot speak with a scholarly voice, for it has no scholars through which to do so. The essence of scholarship is a commitment to research in a critical yet cooperative peer-reviewed environment. It is through forced interaction with people of differing views that one comes to understand one’s own position and its significance. Since most Fundamentalists refuse to participate in the very activities that define scholars - publishing in peer-reviewed papers and presenting at peer-reviewed conferences - they have not developed scholarly mindsets. Listening to Fundamentalists critique broadly Christian theology is like listening to a lecture on French culture by an American who has never visited France and knows no French people. It’s impossible for them even to recognize how incomplete, skewed, and arbitrary their thoughts are.
The scholar listens before making himself understood. This requires open dialogue and meaningful interaction with divergent viewpoints. Because this is contrary to the majority Fundamentalist modus operandi, Fundamentalism maintains no scholarly voice. Any papers presented or lectures given at such a conference will be ignored except by those who already care about and agree with the speakers. It is speaking into an echo chamber.
I will be excited to hear Fundamentalist critiques of other culture when Fundamentalists themselves can produce rigorous theological works that stand up to peer criticism, and when they have first-hand knowledge of what they’re talking about through open, professional dialogue with non-Fundamentalists.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
To the StandPointers among us:
I went to the website to see what has been publicly discussed in the last 2 years, and found nothing. Do you have to be logged into the site to see the discussions, or is there really nothing being said there?
Thanks…
I went to the website to see what has been publicly discussed in the last 2 years, and found nothing. Do you have to be logged into the site to see the discussions, or is there really nothing being said there?
Thanks…
SamH
[SamH] To the StandPointers among us:Great question, Sam.
I went to the website to see what has been publicly discussed in the last 2 years, and found nothing. Do you have to be logged into the site to see the discussions, or is there really nothing being said there?
Thanks…
The discussion forum is empty. There was vigorous downloading of the MP3’s of our last conference, and a huge number of hits on the site pointing people to the MP3’s on Sermon Audio. There was extensive emailing between myself and others who listened on the web for many months afterward. But the Forum engine is terrible. It is difficult to navigate, and confusing as to who is responding to what. Quite frankly, a single post on it reveals the problem.
We have people on our team with the skills to put something spiffy (like SI) together, but no time, and a decision was made to route all of our discussion through SI rather than reinventing the wheel (I hope it’s ok that I say that publicly at this time, SI). Shortly the disussion forums on the Standpoint site will go away.
At the same time, don’t imagine that I’m representing the previous Standpoint Conferences as huge. The best attended sessions of the last one were just a couple hundred (and those were on Sunday). Some of the worst attended were weekday afternoon sessions with about 25 or so. The fact that we pre-announced the posting of MP3’s immediately after the sessions bled off some potential attendance (we were told that by a number of people). But they missed the far more interesting discussion periods afterword.
We hope to transition from what can more accurately be titled “a group of friends” into a full-fledged conference soon, since these issues are important. We know of no place where they are being addressed in this way.
[Larry]The first set are perhaps less settled than you think. I can think of sermons in some parts of Fundamentalism where some modes of contemplative Christianity are taught under a different, less mystical sounding name. The EXTENT of how much sufficiency of Scripture applies to the counseling issue can and should be a rigorous discussion, and needs some clarification from Scripture itself. I know many who disagree on it, despite their nominal adherence to Biblical Counseling paradigms. You need look no further than the manner in which some would defend their views on the Creation story to demonstrate the diversity of hermeneutic models being used among those who self-identify as Fundamentalists. Not all of these models are theologically sound. There is softness on all of these issues.The things that fall from their lips… “Contemplative modes” of spiritual development, mocking Biblical counseling advocates and speaking out in favor of purely secular methodologies, the creation account in Genesis 1-2 doesn’t matter (not that they are open to debate: they think it actually doesn’t matter), and, of course, “Who am I to condemn Rob Bell’s teaching?” Of course, these schools are not even Conservative Evangelical, but mainstream Evangelical, demonstrating one of my points from the article.This compares two fairly distinct sets of issues and I think it highlights a key distinction. The first issues are doctrinal, and they are settled matters for fundamentalists. So these things do not “fall from their lips” because they know better. The unfortunate part is the second issues. It reminds me of a conversation years ago where someone was commenting negatively on the fact that fundamentalists weren’t speaking out about complementarianism and egalitarianism, where people like Driscoll and Piper were. My response was simple: Fundamentalists aren’t speaking out about it because the people they are speaking too aren’t confused about it.
When meeting the same level students or graduates from Fundamentalist institutions, the pattern of distraction I addressed in the article emerges quickly. Their obsession is over Bible versions, music, and other secondary (or, dare I say, tertiary?) issues.
And that brings me to the NPP. As for the NPP, I think that outside of academia, it’s not that big of a deal. If I had a dime for every time one of the people in my community asked me about the NPP, I would be … well, penniless. And with good reason. It’s not the stuff that local church ministry is made of. Very few pastors know about it because it is not that big of a deal unless you are in academia. Which is why I am skeptical that it is a worthy topic for a pastor’s conference. It may be helpful to give an overview of some sort, but I doubt that it will be useful in preaching or teaching in most local churches.
The New Perspective on Paul is largely, as you say, an academic matter. But it has implications for the pulpit. I’ve heard some pretty fuzzy sermons on the atonement (and preached a few myself before I became a theology wonk). Some of our pastors from some of our institutions are vulnerable to errors of this kind, and the study of NPP is a great place from which to conclude not just where NPP is wrong but where orthodoxy is right. Good theology is not only defined in textbooks; it is affirmed and sharpened in the crucible of theological crisis.
[Mike Durning] We have people on our team with the skills to put something spiffy (like SI) together, but no time, and a decision was made to route all of our discussion through SI rather than reinventing the wheel (I hope it’s ok that I say that publicly at this time, SI). Shortly the disussion forums on the Standpoint site will go away.Fine by me! :D
Charlie - your points are valid, and what I’m hoping Standpoint will eventually do is really wrestle with what doctrines are fundamental and more importantly, why. I don’t think that they could put together a complete list, but if they can at least get the conversation started, that would be great.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’m encouraged that you have scheduled Phil Johnson to speak. I’ve heard him a number of times, and he’s one of the hardest hitting, straightest shooting preachers I’ve ever heard. He could easily be mistaken for a fundamentalist! However, he sticks to Scripture. No shooting from the hip.
He is solid on the fundamentals, and scathing in his denunciation of compromisers. He’s fearless. He labors in an independent ministry, separates from apostates, and openly rebukes those who are worldly in life and language as well as those who are soft on doctrine.
He’s the kind of preacher fundamentalists can appreciate, learn from, and identify with. Except for the fact that he does not call himself a fundamentalist, and can be just as hard on foolish fundemantalists as he is on wishy-washy evangelicals, he sounds like a fundmentalists in the best sense of the term. Good choice!
He is solid on the fundamentals, and scathing in his denunciation of compromisers. He’s fearless. He labors in an independent ministry, separates from apostates, and openly rebukes those who are worldly in life and language as well as those who are soft on doctrine.
He’s the kind of preacher fundamentalists can appreciate, learn from, and identify with. Except for the fact that he does not call himself a fundamentalist, and can be just as hard on foolish fundemantalists as he is on wishy-washy evangelicals, he sounds like a fundmentalists in the best sense of the term. Good choice!
G. N. Barkman
The first set are perhaps less settled than you think.thanks Mike.
I am not real well connected in fundamentalism these days, but it seems difficult to believe that the positions you talk about are broadly disputed. Even here at SI, which seems on the “cutting edge” of fundamentalism at times, there is really not much dispute about most of these, at least to a large degree. They seem, to me at least, to be largely intramural type debates about particular nuances. I wonder if, by and large, the discussion doesn’t exist and it should because things are too often unnuanced.
I suppose, in thinking about it, if you are trying to bring CEs back towards fundamentalism, these things might be a profitable discussion to show that fundamentalists have well thought out positions.
The New Perspective on Paul is largely, as you say, an academic matter. But it has implications for the pulpit. I’ve heard some pretty fuzzy sermons on the atonement (and preached a few myself before I became a theology wonk). Some of our pastors from some of our institutions are vulnerable to errors of this kind, and the study of NPP is a great place from which to conclude not just where NPP is wrong but where orthodoxy is right. Good theology is not only defined in textbooks; it is affirmed and sharpened in the crucible of theological crisis.I think those fuzzy sermons on the atonement have nothing to do with the NPP though. They existed long before that, and clearing up covenantal nomism for people who don’t know what it is probably won’t fix that. By your description of yourself, your problem wasn’t your lack of understanding NPP; it was lack of understanding theology. I would think there are better ways to go about teaching on the atonement and justification, like teaching on the atonement and justification.
And for me, I don’t care if people study and understand NPP. All the better if they do. I am just not sure it’s one the pressing issues that fundamentalist pastors need to be well informed on. I wonder if there are not some things that might be more profitable.
Carl Trueman had a great article recently on picking your battles in the Themelios. One of his points was that often we respond to things that people don’t know about, thereby exposing them to heresy they would never be exposed to anyway. It is a thought worthy of serious consideration. I wonder if NPP doesn’t fit into that category, at least for most people.
Again, maybe I’m all wet and just don’t get out enough.
Well, I put it in parentheses because I’m willing to be corrected here. It’s my understanding that the Fundamentals never had the same sort of status as the Communist Manifesto for Communistis or any other sort of founding and guiding document. Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture represents it as the brainchild of a few individuals that received little notice at the time. He suggests that its significance lies in retrospect, giving historians an outline of the movement at an early point. He further asserts that The Fundamentals represents a transitional point, showing Fundamentalism before its changes under the heat of battle. (119, new edition)
I’m suggesting that many people viewed The Fundamentals as a useful collection of literature, but I don’t see any evidence that Fundamentalists looked to it as a manifesto or a creed or a binding definition of their beliefs and goals. I have, however, heard a few contemporary Fundamentalists speak about it that way.
I’m suggesting that many people viewed The Fundamentals as a useful collection of literature, but I don’t see any evidence that Fundamentalists looked to it as a manifesto or a creed or a binding definition of their beliefs and goals. I have, however, heard a few contemporary Fundamentalists speak about it that way.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] Well, I put it in parentheses because I’m willing to be corrected here. It’s my understanding that the Fundamentals never had the same sort of status as the Communist Manifesto for Communistis or any other sort of founding and guiding document. Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture represents it as the brainchild of a few individuals that received little notice at the time. He suggests that its significance lies in retrospect, giving historians an outline of the movement at an early point. He further asserts that The Fundamentals represents a transitional point, showing Fundamentalism before its changes under the heat of battle. (119, new edition)Charlie, I think these statements are essentially correct, but miss the point. It is not just the publications themselves, but the entire process, including the large lecture tour in association with W.B. Riley that raised awareness of doctrinal deviation and the need to return to solid doctrine — this is the groundswell, the impact of which we hope to emulate. Most web-sources emphasize the anti-evolutionary aspects of Riley’s work, but it was much more broad than that, and contributed to the stew of doctrinal emphasis boiling at that time.
I’m suggesting that many people viewed The Fundamentals as a useful collection of literature, but I don’t see any evidence that Fundamentalists looked to it as a manifesto or a creed or a binding definition of their beliefs and goals. I have, however, heard a few contemporary Fundamentalists speak about it that way.
I have asked Dr. Bob Snyder, our team historian, to pull together a few paragraphs about this time and setting, and I hope to post later today or early evening.
[Charlie] Fundamentalism cannot speak with a scholarly voice, for it has no scholars through which to do so.This is simply not true. There may not be many, but there are a few. Google Paul Hartog Polycarp. He also has an article in Themelios.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
As mentioned in post # 25, here is the promised material from Dr. Bob Snyder, our Standpoint Conference team historian. He not only gave material on what I asked, but gave us a little challenge as well:
Mike D
___________________
The Beginnings of American Fundamentalism and a Lesson to Learn
May 12, 2011
Every child has a father, and organized American fundamentalism is no exception. In the summer of 1918, William Bell Riley, pastor of First Baptist Church in Minneapolis, met with other prophecy-conference leaders in the summer home of R. A. Torrey, dean of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, to discuss future plans. The group had just completed a successful “prophetic conference” in Philadelphia, where attendance far exceeded expectations; but instead of planning for another one in Philadelphia, Riley convinced the group to host a conference on the defense of the fundamentals of the faith. Such a confederation had been his desire for at least a year, as seen in his book The Menace of Modernism (1917); surely, he must have been excited to see this vision get some traction.
During May 25 to June 1, 1919, over six thousand attended the first ever World Conference on the Fundamentals of the Faith. Riley gave the keynote address, comparing this nascent movement to the Protestant Reformation. Citing anti-modernism as a cause for the conference, Riley then mentioned the goal of “a new fellowship, a fellowship that is bringing into closer and closer union men from the various denominations who hold to the certain deity of Jesus Christ and to the utter authority of the Bible” (God Hath Spoken, 45).
As a result of the conference, the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) emerged, representing the first “organizational structure capable of correlating the fundamentalist opposition to modernism” (Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties, 18). Riley served as president. One of his main goals was “to bring under the WCFA umbrella the just-emerging interdenominational network of fundamentalist Bible schools and publications” (Trollinger, God’s Empire, 39). To correlate the work of these separate institutions, five standing committees were created:
(1) On Bible Schools – to standardize curriculum and creeds
(2) On Colleges and Seminaries – to create a list of doctrinally safe schools
(3) On Religious Magazines and Periodicals – to promote WCFA and in turn receive articles and reports
(4) On Missions – to withdraw support from unfaithful boards and to give it to approved boards
(5) On Conferences – to bring the concerns to other cities
Of the five, only the fifth produced substantial results. Chaired by Riley, the committee “launched an extraordinarily ambitious cross-continent tour,” with speakers staggered out in a series, going on ahead without waiting for the others to finish speaking. The results were amazing. In six week, the tour reached eighteen cities, and “transformed the concerns of Riley and other conservative Protestant leaders into a national crusade” (Trollinger, God’s Empire, 39-40).
Equally amazing, however, was how quickly this initial organized faded in importance. By 1922, the WCFA was already in decline. Commenting on this decline, Riley’s biographer noted, “Although Riley’s speaking tours and related activities heightened antimodernist sentiment, they were of minimal value in banding fundamentalists together in a tightly structured organization” (ibid., 41). What went wrong?
Chief among the factors was a stiff independent spirit among the fundamentalist leaders. In the words of Riley’s second wife Marie, “Some personal incompatibilities, and a constant tendency towards independent leadership combined to retard the progress of what was intended to be an ‘all-inclusive fellowship’ in the Association itself” (ibid., 41). This independent spirit seemed to include Riley himself, who probably chose unwisely to lead the surge that he had birthed. Yes, he himself lamented, and perhaps rightly so, that “some fundamentalists are laws unto themselves, and [that] even those who have no such disposition are not as yet in the close co-ordinated fellowship that would accomplish the best and most to be desired results” (ibid., 41-42); but the fact also remains that he himself kept the coordinated effort under his supervision.
If there is one lesson to learn from the beginnings of American fundamentalism, it may be this lesson: Revival comes through brotherly unity (cf. Psalm 133). Disunity grieves the Spirit and dooms all effort to the resources of the flesh, which cannot succeed in building the temple of God (cf. Ephesians 4:30; Zechariah 4:6).
Regarding the 1920s, more than one commentator has noted that fundamentalist “internecine battles, especially the power struggles among ambitious spokesmen, help to explain their organizational difficulties as well as their failure to achieve some of their stated goals” (Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties, 17-18; cf. Trollinger, God’s Empire, 41-42). As a result, the WCFA in particular failed to provide “an institutional alternative to the modernist-tainted denominations,” and eventually shifted its goal to antievolutionism, which was in essence almost an admission of defeat, though not as public a defeat as the ill-crafted Scopes Trial it later sponsored (Trollinger, God’s Empire, 43, 44).
Brothers, there is a spirit of unity among many churches today. God be praised! Let it be discerning unity, as the ground for unity is ever the truth that is in Jesus, but let it also be an ambitious unity, for the motive for unity is the love that makes us speak the truth (cf. Ephesians 4). If we hold to the fundamentals with a firm faith, and promote them with a genuine love, how can God the Father and God the Son not be pleased and pour out the Holy Spirit on such a house?
Sources:
Gatewood, Willard B., Jr. Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, and Evolution. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.
God Hath Spoken: Twenty-Five Addresses Delivered at the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals, May 25
– June 1, 1919. Philadelphia: Bible Conference Committee, 1918. Reprint, Fundamentalism in American
Religion, 1880 - 1950, ed. Joel E. Carpenter. NY: Garland Publishing, 1988.
Light on Prophecy: A Coordinated, Constructive Teaching Being the Proceedings and Addresses at the Philadelphia
Prophetic Conference, May 28-30, 1918. New York: The Christian Herald Bible House, 1918.
Trollinger, William Vance, Jr. God’s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
Mike D
___________________
The Beginnings of American Fundamentalism and a Lesson to Learn
May 12, 2011
Every child has a father, and organized American fundamentalism is no exception. In the summer of 1918, William Bell Riley, pastor of First Baptist Church in Minneapolis, met with other prophecy-conference leaders in the summer home of R. A. Torrey, dean of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, to discuss future plans. The group had just completed a successful “prophetic conference” in Philadelphia, where attendance far exceeded expectations; but instead of planning for another one in Philadelphia, Riley convinced the group to host a conference on the defense of the fundamentals of the faith. Such a confederation had been his desire for at least a year, as seen in his book The Menace of Modernism (1917); surely, he must have been excited to see this vision get some traction.
During May 25 to June 1, 1919, over six thousand attended the first ever World Conference on the Fundamentals of the Faith. Riley gave the keynote address, comparing this nascent movement to the Protestant Reformation. Citing anti-modernism as a cause for the conference, Riley then mentioned the goal of “a new fellowship, a fellowship that is bringing into closer and closer union men from the various denominations who hold to the certain deity of Jesus Christ and to the utter authority of the Bible” (God Hath Spoken, 45).
As a result of the conference, the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) emerged, representing the first “organizational structure capable of correlating the fundamentalist opposition to modernism” (Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties, 18). Riley served as president. One of his main goals was “to bring under the WCFA umbrella the just-emerging interdenominational network of fundamentalist Bible schools and publications” (Trollinger, God’s Empire, 39). To correlate the work of these separate institutions, five standing committees were created:
(1) On Bible Schools – to standardize curriculum and creeds
(2) On Colleges and Seminaries – to create a list of doctrinally safe schools
(3) On Religious Magazines and Periodicals – to promote WCFA and in turn receive articles and reports
(4) On Missions – to withdraw support from unfaithful boards and to give it to approved boards
(5) On Conferences – to bring the concerns to other cities
Of the five, only the fifth produced substantial results. Chaired by Riley, the committee “launched an extraordinarily ambitious cross-continent tour,” with speakers staggered out in a series, going on ahead without waiting for the others to finish speaking. The results were amazing. In six week, the tour reached eighteen cities, and “transformed the concerns of Riley and other conservative Protestant leaders into a national crusade” (Trollinger, God’s Empire, 39-40).
Equally amazing, however, was how quickly this initial organized faded in importance. By 1922, the WCFA was already in decline. Commenting on this decline, Riley’s biographer noted, “Although Riley’s speaking tours and related activities heightened antimodernist sentiment, they were of minimal value in banding fundamentalists together in a tightly structured organization” (ibid., 41). What went wrong?
Chief among the factors was a stiff independent spirit among the fundamentalist leaders. In the words of Riley’s second wife Marie, “Some personal incompatibilities, and a constant tendency towards independent leadership combined to retard the progress of what was intended to be an ‘all-inclusive fellowship’ in the Association itself” (ibid., 41). This independent spirit seemed to include Riley himself, who probably chose unwisely to lead the surge that he had birthed. Yes, he himself lamented, and perhaps rightly so, that “some fundamentalists are laws unto themselves, and [that] even those who have no such disposition are not as yet in the close co-ordinated fellowship that would accomplish the best and most to be desired results” (ibid., 41-42); but the fact also remains that he himself kept the coordinated effort under his supervision.
If there is one lesson to learn from the beginnings of American fundamentalism, it may be this lesson: Revival comes through brotherly unity (cf. Psalm 133). Disunity grieves the Spirit and dooms all effort to the resources of the flesh, which cannot succeed in building the temple of God (cf. Ephesians 4:30; Zechariah 4:6).
Regarding the 1920s, more than one commentator has noted that fundamentalist “internecine battles, especially the power struggles among ambitious spokesmen, help to explain their organizational difficulties as well as their failure to achieve some of their stated goals” (Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties, 17-18; cf. Trollinger, God’s Empire, 41-42). As a result, the WCFA in particular failed to provide “an institutional alternative to the modernist-tainted denominations,” and eventually shifted its goal to antievolutionism, which was in essence almost an admission of defeat, though not as public a defeat as the ill-crafted Scopes Trial it later sponsored (Trollinger, God’s Empire, 43, 44).
Brothers, there is a spirit of unity among many churches today. God be praised! Let it be discerning unity, as the ground for unity is ever the truth that is in Jesus, but let it also be an ambitious unity, for the motive for unity is the love that makes us speak the truth (cf. Ephesians 4). If we hold to the fundamentals with a firm faith, and promote them with a genuine love, how can God the Father and God the Son not be pleased and pour out the Holy Spirit on such a house?
Sources:
Gatewood, Willard B., Jr. Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, and Evolution. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.
God Hath Spoken: Twenty-Five Addresses Delivered at the World Conference on Christian Fundamentals, May 25
– June 1, 1919. Philadelphia: Bible Conference Committee, 1918. Reprint, Fundamentalism in American
Religion, 1880 - 1950, ed. Joel E. Carpenter. NY: Garland Publishing, 1988.
Light on Prophecy: A Coordinated, Constructive Teaching Being the Proceedings and Addresses at the Philadelphia
Prophetic Conference, May 28-30, 1918. New York: The Christian Herald Bible House, 1918.
Trollinger, William Vance, Jr. God’s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
It always comes up in some form.
It’s a complex subject for many reasons, not least of which—there is no strong consensus on what a “scholar” is in conversational English.
My view FWIW: we need scholars but scholars mostly talk to other scholars and peer review eachother, etc. A subset of them excel in taking those scholarly conversations to “the rest of us.” Another group, not quite among the scholars, read them and also participate in gleaning salient stuff from the scholarly conversations for “the rest of us.”
In the long run, it would be great to have fundamentalist scholars. I think we have a few now, though not many. But if we have some guys who can interact thoughtfully with the work of scholars and mostly focus on talking to regular pew-folk, well… let’s just not undervalue that.
But the question does raise a problem w/respect to a “Fundamentals II” scenario: who is going to be influenced by another Fundamentals series? After answering that question, we’re ready to ask “How would these writings most effectively influence them?”
I think we’re not looking for writings that influence professional scholars. My impression from reading Mike and talking some about this is that Standpoint is more concerned about the doctrinal hollowness of the masses. If that’s the case, a strategy that involves producing scholarly writings read and reviewed by other professional scholars, in hopes that it will trickle down—doesn’t seem like the best strategy.
All that to say, some kind of bridgework between the world of scholars and the world of the “I think a read book in ‘09” crowd is more urgent.
I wonder if maybe “The Fundamentals II” should be a series of videos!
It’s a complex subject for many reasons, not least of which—there is no strong consensus on what a “scholar” is in conversational English.
My view FWIW: we need scholars but scholars mostly talk to other scholars and peer review eachother, etc. A subset of them excel in taking those scholarly conversations to “the rest of us.” Another group, not quite among the scholars, read them and also participate in gleaning salient stuff from the scholarly conversations for “the rest of us.”
In the long run, it would be great to have fundamentalist scholars. I think we have a few now, though not many. But if we have some guys who can interact thoughtfully with the work of scholars and mostly focus on talking to regular pew-folk, well… let’s just not undervalue that.
But the question does raise a problem w/respect to a “Fundamentals II” scenario: who is going to be influenced by another Fundamentals series? After answering that question, we’re ready to ask “How would these writings most effectively influence them?”
I think we’re not looking for writings that influence professional scholars. My impression from reading Mike and talking some about this is that Standpoint is more concerned about the doctrinal hollowness of the masses. If that’s the case, a strategy that involves producing scholarly writings read and reviewed by other professional scholars, in hopes that it will trickle down—doesn’t seem like the best strategy.
All that to say, some kind of bridgework between the world of scholars and the world of the “I think a read book in ‘09” crowd is more urgent.
I wonder if maybe “The Fundamentals II” should be a series of videos!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Mike:
Dr. Snyder laid the blame for the decline of the WCFA on the stiff independence, disunity, empire-building spirit, and grieving the Holy Spirit within the group. While there is some of that in any such group, one of the greater difficulties that I see was the interdenominational infrastructure of almost all of fundamentalism. I suppose, given the interdenominational spread of the liberal cancer, the battle would be fought in that framework. But the biblical/doctrinal base of such is far too flat and thin. To be workable, it must have a minimal, lowest common denominator basis of truth. W. B. Riley, 1st Baptist, Mpls and Northwestern Schools formed a corporate Mr. Interdenominational Fundamentalist. But eventually that wears thin for practicality, and such coalitions tend to decline. Their day in the sun is cordinate with strong leaders and personalities. Their absence begets attrition.
If the NT teaches the primacy of the local church, and it surely does (1 Tim 3:15), then a biblically vibrant local church, and fellowships thereof, can declare all the counsel of God all the time. They are not dependent on riding the crest of current issues in order to stay “relevant” and “united.”
I think one could attribute the WCFA switch to anti-evolutionism more to the realities of the day, especially the aura that surrounded the Scopes trial in 1925. It may or may not have “failed to provide ‘an institutional alternative to the modernist-tainted controversy,’” but I wonder if that is really relevant in light of 1 Tim 3:15.
Groups, coalitions and endeavors that sometimes appear to be “crossovers” between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism in order to demonstrate a common brotherhood and united front face major difficulties. Whether fundamentalists go to the CE domain, or vice versa, to clear the air, find fellowship, explore possible common ground, plan strategies and such, their efforts and the afterlife thereof are murky and confusing. The lines of similarity and difference are already clear and rather easily found in the available literature and observation, with very little logistics.
Local church ministries and fellowships may seem slow, fragmented and unproductive, but that view is usually predicated on the notion that some biblical convictions are are considered negotiable, marginal and ancillary to a greater good. It is not just prickly fundamentalism that decries such a view, note (OPC) D. G. Hart’s article, “Al Mohler … the Gospel Coalition,” oldlife.org.
When all is said and done the often unmentioned “dividing line” is still ecclesiastical separation. It would certainly clear the air if the CEs would openly declare their historical errors and that they do not /will not have fellowship with the apostasy or those that maintain connections and/or sympathies with it, however delicately worded. I have not seen such declarations nor are they readily empirically discernible
I am not insterested in going over all the current controversies; I am only attempting to enunciate a biblical principle that gets lost in the emotionalism, pietism, idealism, worries and the like that rise to the fore. The formula of R. V. Clearwaters is quite “relevant” today: Take the “historical approach” and take the “long look” ahead in contemplating proposals.
Rolland D. McCune
Dr. Snyder laid the blame for the decline of the WCFA on the stiff independence, disunity, empire-building spirit, and grieving the Holy Spirit within the group. While there is some of that in any such group, one of the greater difficulties that I see was the interdenominational infrastructure of almost all of fundamentalism. I suppose, given the interdenominational spread of the liberal cancer, the battle would be fought in that framework. But the biblical/doctrinal base of such is far too flat and thin. To be workable, it must have a minimal, lowest common denominator basis of truth. W. B. Riley, 1st Baptist, Mpls and Northwestern Schools formed a corporate Mr. Interdenominational Fundamentalist. But eventually that wears thin for practicality, and such coalitions tend to decline. Their day in the sun is cordinate with strong leaders and personalities. Their absence begets attrition.
If the NT teaches the primacy of the local church, and it surely does (1 Tim 3:15), then a biblically vibrant local church, and fellowships thereof, can declare all the counsel of God all the time. They are not dependent on riding the crest of current issues in order to stay “relevant” and “united.”
I think one could attribute the WCFA switch to anti-evolutionism more to the realities of the day, especially the aura that surrounded the Scopes trial in 1925. It may or may not have “failed to provide ‘an institutional alternative to the modernist-tainted controversy,’” but I wonder if that is really relevant in light of 1 Tim 3:15.
Groups, coalitions and endeavors that sometimes appear to be “crossovers” between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism in order to demonstrate a common brotherhood and united front face major difficulties. Whether fundamentalists go to the CE domain, or vice versa, to clear the air, find fellowship, explore possible common ground, plan strategies and such, their efforts and the afterlife thereof are murky and confusing. The lines of similarity and difference are already clear and rather easily found in the available literature and observation, with very little logistics.
Local church ministries and fellowships may seem slow, fragmented and unproductive, but that view is usually predicated on the notion that some biblical convictions are are considered negotiable, marginal and ancillary to a greater good. It is not just prickly fundamentalism that decries such a view, note (OPC) D. G. Hart’s article, “Al Mohler … the Gospel Coalition,” oldlife.org.
When all is said and done the often unmentioned “dividing line” is still ecclesiastical separation. It would certainly clear the air if the CEs would openly declare their historical errors and that they do not /will not have fellowship with the apostasy or those that maintain connections and/or sympathies with it, however delicately worded. I have not seen such declarations nor are they readily empirically discernible
I am not insterested in going over all the current controversies; I am only attempting to enunciate a biblical principle that gets lost in the emotionalism, pietism, idealism, worries and the like that rise to the fore. The formula of R. V. Clearwaters is quite “relevant” today: Take the “historical approach” and take the “long look” ahead in contemplating proposals.
Rolland D. McCune
Rolland McCune
[Aaron Blumer] But the question does raise a problem w/respect to a “Fundamentals II” scenario: who is going to be influenced by another Fundamentals series? After answering that question, we’re ready to ask “How would these writings most effectively influence them?”Great observations, Aaron. I think it would be safe to say we are looking for scholarly work (in that it is thorough and engages all the issues involved at a high-level) yet aimed at non-scholars. That’s a tall order!
I think we’re not looking for writings that influence professional scholars. My impression from reading Mike and talking some about this is that Standpoint is more concerned about the doctrinal hollowness of the masses. If that’s the case, a strategy that involves producing scholarly writings read and reviewed by other professional scholars, in hopes that it will trickle down—doesn’t seem like the best strategy.
All that to say, some kind of bridgework between the world of scholars and the world of the “I think a read book in ‘09” crowd is more urgent.
I wonder if maybe “The Fundamentals II” should be a series of videos!
As for video, I’m open to it. Maybe music videos! Wait, forget I said that, as that will open up a new can of worms.
[Mike Durning] As for video, I’m open to it. Maybe music videos! Wait, forget I said that, as that will open up a new can of worms.http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-dance006.gif
What can I say? It’s Friday. We so excited.
Dr. McCune,
It was fun to see your post.
Is it not significant that you have a host of conservative evangelicals who are rejecting ecuminicalism and even practicing primary if not even a kind of secondary separation? For myself I think that is a big deal on some level. It’s no longer the Mac’s and Dever’s of the evangelical world. We now have the Ken Ham’s (AIG) and David Nobel’s (World View/Summit Ministries) and a host of others that are becoming militant not only against Romanism and Protestant Liberalism, but now these guys are openly tagging compromising evangelicals…..and yet they’re still holding to the term “evangelical” in part because of many “hyper-orthodox” who at least in their view dominate the landscape if not even the term fundamentalist. So I enjoyed your counter proposal to your former student, Dr. Snyder….but I wonder….do we not have evangelicals who are practicing Biblical separation….I’ve heard many of them admitt that evangelicalism was indeed sick when it was controlled by the approach of the newevangelicalism. I actually wouild love to get you and Bob in the same room….I don’t think in the end you would be that far apart from each other.
Hey…..do you have any plans for March of 2012? Do you like Indianapolis?
With the most respect,
jt
It was fun to see your post.
Is it not significant that you have a host of conservative evangelicals who are rejecting ecuminicalism and even practicing primary if not even a kind of secondary separation? For myself I think that is a big deal on some level. It’s no longer the Mac’s and Dever’s of the evangelical world. We now have the Ken Ham’s (AIG) and David Nobel’s (World View/Summit Ministries) and a host of others that are becoming militant not only against Romanism and Protestant Liberalism, but now these guys are openly tagging compromising evangelicals…..and yet they’re still holding to the term “evangelical” in part because of many “hyper-orthodox” who at least in their view dominate the landscape if not even the term fundamentalist. So I enjoyed your counter proposal to your former student, Dr. Snyder….but I wonder….do we not have evangelicals who are practicing Biblical separation….I’ve heard many of them admitt that evangelicalism was indeed sick when it was controlled by the approach of the newevangelicalism. I actually wouild love to get you and Bob in the same room….I don’t think in the end you would be that far apart from each other.
Hey…..do you have any plans for March of 2012? Do you like Indianapolis?
With the most respect,
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[RMcCune] Local church ministries and fellowships may seem slow, fragmented and unproductive, but that view is usually predicated on the notion that some biblical convictions are are considered negotiable, marginal and ancillary to a greater good. It is not just prickly fundamentalism that decries such a view, note (OPC) D. G. Hart’s article, “Al Mohler … the Gospel Coalition,” oldlife.org.Appreciate the thoughts…. Link to that D.G. Hart article
http://oldlife.org/2011/04/21/al-mohler-the-gospel-coalition-and-me-abo…
A very interesting article and a very interesting site. Sample…
[D.G. Hart] This leaves us with the following set of memberships and identities:
The Southern Baptist Convention rejects D. G. Hart because he is Orthodox Presbyterian.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church rejects Al Mohler because he is Southern Baptist.
The ‘Gospel Coalition accepts Al Mohler and D. G. Hart no matter what their ecclesial identities (if they choose to join).
This picture would seem to make the Gospel Coalition a commendable organization in that it looks aside from seemingly petty ecclesiastical differences in order to unite seemingly conservative Protestants together in promotion of Christ as revealed in the gospel. And set of allegiances would also seem to depict the Southern Baptist Convention and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as narrower and more divisive than the simple gospel of Jesus Christ and its proclamation.
Beneath this picture’s warm and alluring hues is the downside of the Gospel Coalition, namely, that they run their affairs as if the church does not matter, as if the gospel is independent of every church affiliation and membership (Protestant, that is). That may sound strong but ecclesiastical membership and ordination pose no apparent barrier to working with, attending, or speaking at the Coalition. The reason for setting up an organization free from denominational norms apparently is to get around the difficulty that confronts administrators at denominational seminaries and officers in churches: ecclesiastical standards are divisive and the creators of the Coalition seem to think that the gospel should not nurture such separation. For a confessional Protestant, this logic is a huge problem since confessionalists believe that the gospel not only inevitably produces good works but also is inevitably embodied in a disciplined ecclesiastical body. This is not, by the way, simply the oddity of hard-core Missouri Lutherans or vinegary Orthodox Presbyterians. It is also the outlook of Southern Baptist institutions like Southern Seminary (such as I understand it).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Good article, and very helpful comments. I realize that I am pretty much out of my league here, as my relationships and experiences do not include many of the people, conferences, and organizations mentioned in this thread.
Perhaps I may comment on a couple of matters. It became obvious to me some years back that some who Fundamentalists labeled “Neoevangelical” were stronger in contending for sound Biblical doctrine than many Fundamentalists, and were also speaking out boldly against compromising neoevangelicalism. Their stand produced a defacto separation from both apostasy and compromised evangelicalism. They had become real leaders in contending for the faith. It represented a Biblical, principled stand, not a separation over associations, relationships and personalities so much as separation because of truth. Truth unites, and truth divides. When truth is clearly and boldly proclaimed, people start lining up on either side of the truth. This, in my opinion, is why many “young fundamentalists” identify to a degree with strong “conservative evangelicals.” They see them taking a stand for truth that is principled and effective. They see them making a difference on the national scene, whereas fundamentalists have largely retreated to their own world to contend among themselves without significant impact beyond their own spheres of influence. It would appear that conservative evangelicals have become the fundamentalists of the twenty-first century, taking the kind of national stand that fundamentalists did in the first half of the twentieth century.
As to interdenominationalism, it seems to me that it contains both strengths and weaknesses. The strength is that it recognizes that the true Body of Christ crosses denominational lines, and the battle for Biblical fidelity is a shared battle with all Bible-beliving Christians. Thus, some conferences and publications should, and indeed must, cross denominational lines to unite forces and oppose a common enemy. The weakness becomes apparent whenever we try to institutionalize nondenominationalism. It doesn’t work. Far better to maintain denominational distinctives for the ongoing work of local churches, and leave the interdenominationalisn for occasional conferences and publications. We should be able to cross denominational lines for a common appreciation and defense of the Gospel. We cannot remain in a nondenominational mindset for long. It will always gradually move to a pragmatic denominationalism, even if it maintains the label nondenominational. The demands of partnership in church planting and ministerial training require it to do so.
Perhaps I may comment on a couple of matters. It became obvious to me some years back that some who Fundamentalists labeled “Neoevangelical” were stronger in contending for sound Biblical doctrine than many Fundamentalists, and were also speaking out boldly against compromising neoevangelicalism. Their stand produced a defacto separation from both apostasy and compromised evangelicalism. They had become real leaders in contending for the faith. It represented a Biblical, principled stand, not a separation over associations, relationships and personalities so much as separation because of truth. Truth unites, and truth divides. When truth is clearly and boldly proclaimed, people start lining up on either side of the truth. This, in my opinion, is why many “young fundamentalists” identify to a degree with strong “conservative evangelicals.” They see them taking a stand for truth that is principled and effective. They see them making a difference on the national scene, whereas fundamentalists have largely retreated to their own world to contend among themselves without significant impact beyond their own spheres of influence. It would appear that conservative evangelicals have become the fundamentalists of the twenty-first century, taking the kind of national stand that fundamentalists did in the first half of the twentieth century.
As to interdenominationalism, it seems to me that it contains both strengths and weaknesses. The strength is that it recognizes that the true Body of Christ crosses denominational lines, and the battle for Biblical fidelity is a shared battle with all Bible-beliving Christians. Thus, some conferences and publications should, and indeed must, cross denominational lines to unite forces and oppose a common enemy. The weakness becomes apparent whenever we try to institutionalize nondenominationalism. It doesn’t work. Far better to maintain denominational distinctives for the ongoing work of local churches, and leave the interdenominationalisn for occasional conferences and publications. We should be able to cross denominational lines for a common appreciation and defense of the Gospel. We cannot remain in a nondenominational mindset for long. It will always gradually move to a pragmatic denominationalism, even if it maintains the label nondenominational. The demands of partnership in church planting and ministerial training require it to do so.
G. N. Barkman
[Rolland McCune] I suppose, given the interdenominational spread of the liberal cancer, the battle would be fought in that framework. But the biblical/doctrinal base of such is far too flat and thin. To be workable, it must have a minimal, lowest common denominator basis of truth…“Lowest common denominator basis of truth” is a derogatory way of expressing a Bible-based teaching on unity.
[Rolland McCune] …but that view is usually predicated on the notion that some biblical convictions are are considered negotiable, marginal and ancillary to a greater good…Some are.
[Rolland McCune] I am not interested in going over all the current controversies; I am only attempting to enunciate a biblical principle that gets lost in the emotionalism, pietism, idealism, worries and the like that rise to the fore.The biblical principle you are trying to enunciate is only part of the story.
The endless separation from one another over every little thing is not a help to Fundamentalism; it is its bane. It is also unbiblical:
There is a doctrine of unity taught in Scripture, despite the fact you will seek for it in vain among the doctrinal statements of most institutions and churches.
Unity is to be presumed and expected of all who show certain doctrinal formations in common (Eph. 4:2-6, for example). It is part of the much-ignored doctrine of Unity (I said “unity”, not ecumenism, and not compromise). This unity that is in most cases demanded of us must not just be merely ideological (as in “I admit those crazy folks in the church next door are brothers in Christ, but…”), but must in some fashion be visibly demonstrated before the world (John 17:21-23), though I don’t think it needs to be institutional. Only when certain criteria are met does the doctrine of separation hold sway over the presumed default position of unity (I would list the verses for separation, but it would be preaching to the choir on a Fundy site). Beyond the doctrinal formations held in common (Eph. 4:2-6), and clearly revealed moral instructions (Gal. 5:19-21, for example) there can be liberty of belief and practice in many areas. Even Paul, granted near-limitless proclamatory power through his Apostleship, doesn’t require agreement with himself on everything (Rom. 14:1-6), and URGES unity, even within the local church, where there are such disagreements.
Ancillary issues exist, but they are not a basis for separation. They are teaching issues.
This Hyper-Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things great and small before unity is granted is not separation; it is arrogance.
Unity is not granted. Unity is presumed among believers. Separation is regretfully required in some circumstances as they arise.
Too many Fundamentalists reverse this flow, practicing automatic separation (and skepticism), and require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.
[Rolland McCune] When all is said and done the often unmentioned “dividing line” is still ecclesiastical separation. It would certainly clear the air if the CEs would openly declare their historical errors and that they do not /will not have fellowship with the apostasy or those that maintain connections and/or sympathies with it, however delicately worded. I have not seen such declarations nor are they readily empirically discernibleWell, I agree with you here somewhat. But…
1). Some CE’s have made these declarations, and are attempting to observe them.
2). Some have not. I think the CE’s are where Fundamentalists were in the 1920’s – 1940’s. Their ideas on separation are still in formation. Hopefully they will not overbalance as some Fundamentalists have. We have not been especially helpful to them; our example of the separation mindset has been rather dark.
3). Some of that which Fundies perceive as being lack of separation among CE’s is a difference of definition of what is essential. I’m not at all claiming that their definition is right. In fact, in many cases, I think it IS soft. But as you can see above, I think too many Fundamentalists separate over too much.
[Rolland McCune] When all is said and done the often unmentioned “dividing line” is still ecclesiastical separation. It would certainly clear the air if the CEs would openly declare their historical errors and that they do not /will not have fellowship with the apostasy or those that maintain connections and/or sympathies with it, however delicately worded. I have not seen such declarations nor are they readily empirically discernibleSo well said, Dr. McCune.
But who has shown the way forward? Who has done the work in the Scriptures to show us that ecclesiastical separation, by which we really mean secondary separation, is a practice derived from the text of God and is not the imposition of men? Dr. Bauder has attempted through a message at a recent conference, but with a suspect application of 2 John 11. Are there no other Scriptures to explain such a massive issue as ecclesiastical separation? Perhaps the reason it is so often unmentioned, as you rightly say, is that ecclesiastical separation as presently defined is biblically indefensible. Just to be clear, I’m not speaking of personal separation as per 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11.
For when our Lord enjoins us to “love one another,” but men yet say we should separate from a brother in Christ because of x, y and z, how can the souls of tender sheep be anything but mislead away from obeying Christ’s command to “love one another?”
Who can bring the Word of God to us, rightly interpreted, and say, “this brother must be separated from because of X”? If the man is to be separated from, shall we yet grant him fellowship status (“a brother in Christ”) while telling others he is dangerous and to be separated from? Prevarication on these matters is simply worldly pragmatism. Those led by the Spirit don’t separate from brothers; they lay down their lives “for the brethren” (1 John 3:16). We love, because He first loved us.
Let’s be discerning. Some false teaching requires expulsion (1 Tim. 1:20), while some false teaching is far less virulent and only requires reproof without expulsion (1 Tim. 1:3-7).
No, the way forward is not to speak out of both sides of our mouths, but to be more clear and more delineated, more biblical. That is why I appreciate D.G. Hart’s clear thinking so much. For he is willing to point out what you rightly allude to - that the real doctrines to be dealt with here are ecclesiological, not soteriological.
Joel T:
I like the optimistic tone of your reply; pass it on.
It may well be that there is a “host of conservative evangelicals” whose faces are turning our way, even a
“silent majority” perhaps. You may have “heard” of many who are dissatisfied with the old New Evangelicalism and now perceive the deterioration of the whole experiment and how it has morphed into something that Carl Henry, et al., spent their cerebral energies combating. From my perspective in retirement in SW Florida, I neither hear nor see in writing anything like a groundswell. These people need to speak out and be quoted, put their new convictions in print preferably. Again, the dividing line is ecclesiastical separation, and is it asking too much for a clear, biblical position regarding ecclesiastical fellowship with those who are connected and/or sympathetic with elements of the apostasy?
You will recall that in calling the roll in theology class, someone would say of an absent student, “he’s coming,” or “he’s on his way.” To which I would often reply, “so is Christmas.” I.e., he has to show the whites of his eyes and warm the seat to be counted .
RDM
I like the optimistic tone of your reply; pass it on.
It may well be that there is a “host of conservative evangelicals” whose faces are turning our way, even a
“silent majority” perhaps. You may have “heard” of many who are dissatisfied with the old New Evangelicalism and now perceive the deterioration of the whole experiment and how it has morphed into something that Carl Henry, et al., spent their cerebral energies combating. From my perspective in retirement in SW Florida, I neither hear nor see in writing anything like a groundswell. These people need to speak out and be quoted, put their new convictions in print preferably. Again, the dividing line is ecclesiastical separation, and is it asking too much for a clear, biblical position regarding ecclesiastical fellowship with those who are connected and/or sympathetic with elements of the apostasy?
You will recall that in calling the roll in theology class, someone would say of an absent student, “he’s coming,” or “he’s on his way.” To which I would often reply, “so is Christmas.” I.e., he has to show the whites of his eyes and warm the seat to be counted .
RDM
Rolland McCune
Mike:
A summary response to # 35:
1. A “minimal” or “lowest common denominator basis of truth” refers to the number of articles that form the “basis” not the intrinsic worth or value of any one truth.
2. What “biblical convictions” are truly negotiable, and why only them?
3. I find a little too much hyperbole that gets in the way, to wit, “endless separation from one another over every little thing,” “this Hyper Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things … is arrogance,” or “too many Fundamentalists … require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.” If the above group or thinking is any summary of what the Standpoint Conference is up against, their opposition is completely unworthy of you. Fundamentalists that I know have long since been content to “hit them with a big chunk of silence.”
4. I share your concerns about unity but am unsure of what is meant by the “presumed default position [of unitiy] ” vis-a-vis ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t you agree that (biblical) truth itself is the presumed default position in all relationships—personal,civil, and ecclesial (which was the issue in my article)? I would prefer to say that unity and separation are both “presumed” and “required” by truth, and the fortunes of truth govern both. But maybe I quibble.
RDM
A summary response to # 35:
1. A “minimal” or “lowest common denominator basis of truth” refers to the number of articles that form the “basis” not the intrinsic worth or value of any one truth.
2. What “biblical convictions” are truly negotiable, and why only them?
3. I find a little too much hyperbole that gets in the way, to wit, “endless separation from one another over every little thing,” “this Hyper Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things … is arrogance,” or “too many Fundamentalists … require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.” If the above group or thinking is any summary of what the Standpoint Conference is up against, their opposition is completely unworthy of you. Fundamentalists that I know have long since been content to “hit them with a big chunk of silence.”
4. I share your concerns about unity but am unsure of what is meant by the “presumed default position [of unitiy] ” vis-a-vis ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t you agree that (biblical) truth itself is the presumed default position in all relationships—personal,civil, and ecclesial (which was the issue in my article)? I would prefer to say that unity and separation are both “presumed” and “required” by truth, and the fortunes of truth govern both. But maybe I quibble.
RDM
Rolland McCune
Ted:
In reference to #36
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation). Unless I totally misread him, that was D. G. Hart’s problem with being in the Gospel Coalition with Al Mohler, et al. Now we can quibble over whether Hart was exercising separation or just choosing non-cooperation in terms of the GC. I personally would see building skyscrapers of different meaning between the two thoughts as nonsense.
Fundamentalists have on numerous occasions made the case for separation from a Chrisltian brother but they have always been met with a “dead on arrival,” or as you put it “biblically indefensible,” rejection. But these exegetical expositions have been clear, delineated and biblical, to say nothing of loving and concerned. For some of us a little longer in the tooth, that is exasperating. It is probably also for your side of the fence. In my opinion, it is a stand-off by this time and is incapable of being resolved, and has historically (and biblically) resulted in new and/or different formations of carrying out Gospel work.
But the dichotomy between love, gentleness, tenderness, kindness, et al. and forcefulness, straight talk, rebuke, separation and even excommunition/excision is false. Two of the best examples are Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul.
RDM
In reference to #36
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation). Unless I totally misread him, that was D. G. Hart’s problem with being in the Gospel Coalition with Al Mohler, et al. Now we can quibble over whether Hart was exercising separation or just choosing non-cooperation in terms of the GC. I personally would see building skyscrapers of different meaning between the two thoughts as nonsense.
Fundamentalists have on numerous occasions made the case for separation from a Chrisltian brother but they have always been met with a “dead on arrival,” or as you put it “biblically indefensible,” rejection. But these exegetical expositions have been clear, delineated and biblical, to say nothing of loving and concerned. For some of us a little longer in the tooth, that is exasperating. It is probably also for your side of the fence. In my opinion, it is a stand-off by this time and is incapable of being resolved, and has historically (and biblically) resulted in new and/or different formations of carrying out Gospel work.
But the dichotomy between love, gentleness, tenderness, kindness, et al. and forcefulness, straight talk, rebuke, separation and even excommunition/excision is false. Two of the best examples are Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul.
RDM
Rolland McCune
[Rolland McCune]Dr. McCune, how do you separate from a brother, warn others to do likewise, and lay down your life for him at the same time (1 John 3:16)? If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but secondary separation.
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation).
I think it would be healthy if we stopped thinking in terms of conservative and liberal, much like we think in terms of American politics. In Mike’s initial post he says that those who are “more conservative” are also those who are less concerned with doctrine. Yet being less concerned with doctrine is not a quality of conservatives but liberals. I think that they are more culturally conservative perhaps in that they don’t want to see culture remain the same as it was in generations gone by. But I don’t think we can say that they are more conservative Biblically than someone who is seriously attached to doctrine.
I’d like to see us begin to separate out cultural conservatism from Biblical conservatism. One way we can do that is to end the practice of calling our music conservative. We shouldn’t frame the discussion as conservative vs. contemporary. In the end, conservative isn’t Biblical anyway.
Matt
I’d like to see us begin to separate out cultural conservatism from Biblical conservatism. One way we can do that is to end the practice of calling our music conservative. We shouldn’t frame the discussion as conservative vs. contemporary. In the end, conservative isn’t Biblical anyway.
Matt
[Rolland McCune] 1. A “minimal” or “lowest common denominator basis of truth” refers to the number of articles that form the “basis” not the intrinsic worth or value of any one truth.My apologies. If you were not using it in a derogatory fashion, then it is not such here. I have heard some use the term in derogatory fashion.
[Rolland McCune] 2. What “biblical convictions” are truly negotiable, and why only them?Well, that’s a whole new post – perhaps even an article. What are the Fundamentals? By what Biblical criteria can they be distinguished from other, “lesser” teachings? Does such a hierarchy exist? And that is an article I’ve been toying with for years. Made good progress last August. Hope to finish writing it soon. But my post was not about what is negotiable. My post was about the basis of unity. Paul gives it in Eph. 4:2-6.
[Rolland McCune] 3. I find a little too much hyperbole that gets in the way, to wit, “endless separation from one another over every little thing,” “this Hyper Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things … is arrogance,” or “too many Fundamentalists … require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.” If the above group or thinking is any summary of what the Standpoint Conference is up against, their opposition is completely unworthy of you. Fundamentalists that I know have long since been content to “hit them with a big chunk of silence.”I’m sorry that I did not have precise numbers at hand. I find this lack of omniscience troubling at times. :)
Hyperbole can be used to make points. Christ Himself does so. My imprecision does not eviscerate my point, I hope.
[Rolland McCune] 4. I share your concerns about unity but am unsure of what is meant by the “presumed default position [of unitiy] ” vis-a-vis ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t you agree that (biblical) truth itself is the presumed default position in all relationships—personal,civil, and ecclesial (which was the issue in my article)? I would prefer to say that unity and separation are both “presumed” and “required” by truth, and the fortunes of truth govern both. But maybe I quibble.What I’m trying to say is this: Paul’s discussion in Ephesians frequently returns to the unity theme. There is an assumption that all believers will be unified. Eph. 4:2-6 outline the beliefs (common spiritual possession) of all believers, and discusses it in terms of unity. This is why I call Unity the default position. When I determine someone else is a true believer, I should gravitate toward feeling, acting, and practicing unity with them.
However, there are circumstances (most notably and indisputably, heretical teaching and unrepentant disobedience) that require a different reaction to this person who is a believer than the default unity position.
I argue that too many Fundamentalist reverse this order. They behave as though the assumption should be that a person is a heretic or disobedient believer unless they find evidence to the contrary. Nobody is granted “unity” status until they have proven themselves to be virtually identical. I know this is true, because I have talked to pastors who admit that this was their attitude until they studied through Ephesians.
And that is why I referred to it as arrogance. Those who require others to be just like them before granting them the treatment and love owed to all fellow believers are setting their standard higher than God has set it.
I fail to see how any Fundamentalist could appreciate D. G. Hart on this issue. Hart is an OPC scholar who really thinks that Old Side Presbyterianism had it right and that America was ruined by revivalism — not just the Finney-esque 2GA revivalism, but even the George Whitefield 1GA revivalism. He sees them as moving the heart of American piety outside the institutional church, where it belongs.
Notice that his objection to TGC is that it brings together people who couldn’t be in the same church communion. In other words, he rejects all sorts of interdenominational fellowship. That would include Fundamentalism as well, to the extent that Fundamentalism is (theoretically) an interdenominational reaction against modernism, and not just a homogenous Baptist group. For Hart, there’s only one level of fellowship - institutional church. That might get modified a bit for something like the NAPARC denominations, that all share the same confession of faith, but it certainly doesn’t extend to cross-denominational fellowships. That’s how he can say that these men’s participation in TGC entails a stance that “they run their affairs as if the church does not matter, as if the gospel is independent of every church affiliation and membership.” Well, I’m comfortable saying that the gospel is not independent of every institutional church, but it is independent of any single one. If my own beloved denomination bit the dust, it wouldn’t be the end of the gospel.
Notice that his objection to TGC is that it brings together people who couldn’t be in the same church communion. In other words, he rejects all sorts of interdenominational fellowship. That would include Fundamentalism as well, to the extent that Fundamentalism is (theoretically) an interdenominational reaction against modernism, and not just a homogenous Baptist group. For Hart, there’s only one level of fellowship - institutional church. That might get modified a bit for something like the NAPARC denominations, that all share the same confession of faith, but it certainly doesn’t extend to cross-denominational fellowships. That’s how he can say that these men’s participation in TGC entails a stance that “they run their affairs as if the church does not matter, as if the gospel is independent of every church affiliation and membership.” Well, I’m comfortable saying that the gospel is not independent of every institutional church, but it is independent of any single one. If my own beloved denomination bit the dust, it wouldn’t be the end of the gospel.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I fail to see how any Fundamentalist could appreciate D. G. Hart on this issue.Is this because you don’t fully appreciate fundamentalists? :) … I don’t think I am alone in agreeing with Hart on the issues you mention, at least if I understand them/him. Many of us “fundamentalists” are not enthralled with interdenominationalism or extra-local church organizations. Or perhaps I am not a fundamentalist.
Thanks Mike for your comments. Hopefully, this will help move the discussion forward a little. I know we have conversed about this a bit before, but I think it was left a bit open, or at least with me being unclear about your understanding.
BTW, as perhaps a side point, I think the hyperbole probably hinders your point (though “eviscerate” may be too strong), because it seems to elicit an emotional response (rather than an carefully considered one) and because it bases a whole position on rejecting an extreme that most people reject anyway. In other words that kind of complaint does not distinguish your position from most other positions. There is a lot of room between no separation at all and separation over every little thing, and I imagine that is probably where most people are. I think hyperbole is helpful at times, but not all the time.
I think there are some who want to limit “one faith” to the bare essentials of the Christian faith—the gospel. But I wonder how that is justified? How do we define “faith” in that passage?
I think earlier I made the point that in John 17 unity is visible (as you say above). And you and I have nothing “visible” that I know of, no matter how much we agree on anything (and I imagine that we agree on quite a bit). So do you and I have unity? And since the obvious answer seems to be no, are we required by Scripture to pursue it? What would that look like between here and Goodells? I can tell my church, that we have unity with Mike and the gang up in Goodells, and there will be a collective, “What? Who? Where is Goodells?” I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I really don’t understand what unity is if you and I have it? Or me and Bob Hayton (another guy that I think I interacted with a bit on this). If unity is visible, and there is nothing visible, do we really have unity?
I also am curious as to when one crosses the line of “hyper-fundamentalist”? What would one have to separate over to be one?
Is there a category in your paradigm for non-cooperation of some sort while still maintaining “unity” according to your definition?
[Mike Durning] “Lowest common denominator basis of truth” is a derogatory way of expressing a Bible-based teaching on unity.Why is your view of unity is “Bible-based” while Dr. McCune’s is not. I think that would be a worthy topic for a post. Where has he gone afoul of the Bible? Where/how does the Bible delineate between central doctrines and ancillary or non-essential doctrines? Where does the Bible give us the basis for determining these things?
The endless separation from one another over every little thing is not a help to Fundamentalism; it is its bane. It is also unbiblical:Has Dr. McCune, or anyone here, suggested “endless separation over every little thing”? I am wondering who this is a response to.
BTW, as perhaps a side point, I think the hyperbole probably hinders your point (though “eviscerate” may be too strong), because it seems to elicit an emotional response (rather than an carefully considered one) and because it bases a whole position on rejecting an extreme that most people reject anyway. In other words that kind of complaint does not distinguish your position from most other positions. There is a lot of room between no separation at all and separation over every little thing, and I imagine that is probably where most people are. I think hyperbole is helpful at times, but not all the time.
There is a doctrine of unity taught in Scripture, despite the fact you will seek for it in vain among the doctrinal statements of most institutions and churches.One reason for a doctrinal statement is to outline the basis for unity. As you recall, unity in Eph 4 is based on sharing “one faith,” or a belief. The doctrinal statement of a church or organization sets out the “one faith” that must be shared for unity. When we disagree on what that “one faith” is, we cannot have unity or fellowship in those areas.
I think there are some who want to limit “one faith” to the bare essentials of the Christian faith—the gospel. But I wonder how that is justified? How do we define “faith” in that passage?
This unity that is in most cases demanded of us … must in some fashion be visibly demonstrated before the world (John 17:21-23).I think this is a key thing that I asked about earlier, that I missed your response to. What is unity if you and I have it?
I think earlier I made the point that in John 17 unity is visible (as you say above). And you and I have nothing “visible” that I know of, no matter how much we agree on anything (and I imagine that we agree on quite a bit). So do you and I have unity? And since the obvious answer seems to be no, are we required by Scripture to pursue it? What would that look like between here and Goodells? I can tell my church, that we have unity with Mike and the gang up in Goodells, and there will be a collective, “What? Who? Where is Goodells?” I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I really don’t understand what unity is if you and I have it? Or me and Bob Hayton (another guy that I think I interacted with a bit on this). If unity is visible, and there is nothing visible, do we really have unity?
Ancillary issues exist, but they are not a basis for separation.Ancillary to what? Again, this is a key question. The fact that we believe the same gospel does not mean we can plant a church together. There are some “ancillary” issues that require separation at some level. For instance, the issue of baptism explains why there is a Baptist church on one corner and a Presbyterian church on another. The respective doctrinal statements outline the basis for unity with each church and separation from the other. And there is visible disunity (two buildings, several pastors, two meetings, two budgets, etc.) that is irreconcilable unless one side (or both) gives us core biblical convictions since we as Baptists say (or at least should say) that the Presbyterians are disobedient to the command to be baptized, and they say that about us as Baptists. This is a very practical and common scenario. Both Baptists and Presbyterians believe there is something “essential” about baptism to have unity with a church. It’s just the reality of disagreement past the “lowest common denominator.”
Some of that which Fundies perceive as being lack of separation among CE’s is a difference of definition of what is essential.What is the difference between essential and ancillary, or perhaps to make the comparison parallel, between “non-essential” and ancillary. Here, you say the perception of a lack of separation is over what CEs consider “non-essential,” whereas with the “hyper-fundamentalists” (as you called them) it was about what was “ancillary.” How would you characterize this difference? Am I correct in understanding that you have more tolerance for CEs who have a different definition of what is essential than hyper-fundamentalists do?
I also am curious as to when one crosses the line of “hyper-fundamentalist”? What would one have to separate over to be one?
Is there a category in your paradigm for non-cooperation of some sort while still maintaining “unity” according to your definition?
There is an assumption that all believers will be unified.I think the assumption in Ephesians 4 deals with believers at Ephesus. I think it was you who tried to make a universal case earlier, but I was not convinced by it, mostly because I don’t know that Paul would have had that in view. I don’t even know what it means or what it would look like now, much less in the first century. Again, remember that unity is “visible” (according to both you and me). So what was visible between the church at Ephesus and say Philippi, Galatia, Rome, or anywhere else?
[Larry] Thanks Mike for your comments. Hopefully, this will help move the discussion forward a little. I know we have conversed about this a bit before, but I think it was left a bit open, or at least with me being unclear about your understanding.Larry, thanks for the great questions. I like them.
The comments, however, were frustrating to me. But that’s because I’m not communicating clearly enough, apparently.
My sermon for next Sunday is finished (3 AM this morning). I have some errands to run today. I hope to write a lengthy response to your questions and comments by late tonight.
I’ll try not to leave anything hanging.
Mike
No rush. I will look forward to it. Sorry about frustrating you with my comments. Hopefully, you will give me a chance to clarify.
Ted:
I don’t think I can solve your dilemma of the supposed incompatibility of Christian love and loving obedience to a command of God. The way you have framed the issue in your mind seems like any biblical resolution is the eternally elusive holy grail. Your reconciliation of the problem is to deny the problem by denying one of the horns of the dilemma, i.e., any biblical warrant to ecclesiastically separate from a Christian brother. I resolve the issue by denying the incompatibility/dilemma in the first place. So where are we?
To me, separation from Christian brothers (by any other name such as withdrawal,non-cooperation, probation, et al.) is not intrinsically different from the way we approach any Christian in any context of his disobedience to the commands of Christ, be it organizationally/institutionally ecclesial, local church, home and the family, personal, etc.). By the rubrics of your position, there seems to be no room for genuine confrontation, chastening, or any active remedial negativism because one could never “lay down his life” in Christian love in so doing. Organizational separation, in my view, definitely does not entail personal animosity or any denial to do what is best for the other, the essence of biblical love. I confess that I frankly don’t comprehend it. Maybe I am oblivious to the obvious; others must surely have a better answer.
I don’t think I can solve your dilemma of the supposed incompatibility of Christian love and loving obedience to a command of God. The way you have framed the issue in your mind seems like any biblical resolution is the eternally elusive holy grail. Your reconciliation of the problem is to deny the problem by denying one of the horns of the dilemma, i.e., any biblical warrant to ecclesiastically separate from a Christian brother. I resolve the issue by denying the incompatibility/dilemma in the first place. So where are we?
To me, separation from Christian brothers (by any other name such as withdrawal,non-cooperation, probation, et al.) is not intrinsically different from the way we approach any Christian in any context of his disobedience to the commands of Christ, be it organizationally/institutionally ecclesial, local church, home and the family, personal, etc.). By the rubrics of your position, there seems to be no room for genuine confrontation, chastening, or any active remedial negativism because one could never “lay down his life” in Christian love in so doing. Organizational separation, in my view, definitely does not entail personal animosity or any denial to do what is best for the other, the essence of biblical love. I confess that I frankly don’t comprehend it. Maybe I am oblivious to the obvious; others must surely have a better answer.
Rolland McCune
[Ted Bigelow] Dr. McCune, how do you separate from a brother, warn others to do likewise, and lay down your life for him at the same time (1 John 3:16)? If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but secondary separation.Ted, this seems like a false dichotomy and also seems like it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Dying for another person doesn’t mean that you’re in favor of everything they’ve done.
The secondary separation question is - is it biblically justified to withdraw from someone who is affiliated with someone else who is in error? I think the answer is yes, and I have advocated in the past that Fundamentalists should begin withdrawing from the FBF when they sent their leaders to preach and teach at Hammond a few months ago.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Rolland McCune] Ted:Well, when you frame it that way, who could disagree ;)
I don’t think I can solve your dilemma of the supposed incompatibility of Christian love and loving obedience to a command of God.
But that’s not the dilemma I posed. The dilemma I posed is that of claiming secondary separation is compatible with 1 John 3:16. So, using your words, where is the command of God to separate from a brother? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church with a disobedient member for a season (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but the purview of this discussion - secondary separation.
By the rubrics of your position, there seems to be no room for genuine confrontation, chastening, or any active remedial negativism because one could never “lay down his life” in Christian love in so doing.Hardly. In my posts I queried, “If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person?” My words do not call for less but better confrontation, as well as far more clarity.
To claim someone should who is a brother can be best loved by separating from him is prevaricating, IMO. In other words, I’m claiming the secondary separation position is weak-kneed.
[Ted Bigelow]If I may put on my Mouse ears hat from Disneyland, I will give an opinion here.[Rolland McCune]Dr. McCune, how do you separate from a brother, warn others to do likewise, and lay down your life for him at the same time (1 John 3:16)? If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but secondary separation.
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation).
IMO Acts 20:17-38 is the heart of Fundamentalism. Passages such as 2 Cor.6:11-18; are clear on our separation from unbelievers. However Acts 20 is an admonition that appears to have both unbelievers and believers in view when it warns of protecting the flock. For this reason we separate from Charismatic and Pentecostal believers as their view of the continuation of revelation and sanctification is a danger to the truth of God and other believers.
There are others who may be Christian and saved but pose a threat to the local assemblies. A present example is Harold Camping and his followers who have predicted the Lord’s return to be on May 21st. He and a few other Reformed teachers (Very small group) also teach that we have no certainty or assurance of salvation as such assurance cannot be of faith but of pride and therefore is human works which is contrary to faith alone. They say we can only plead “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner” and hope we are among the elect. These may very well be brothers in Christ but very confused. Their confusion is a danger to the flock. There are numerous other major deviations from truth that may make it necessary to separate from brothers in Christ. I would place those in the KJVO movement as among those.
As to how separation from brothers in Christ fits in with a duty to lay down our lives for the brethren? It is a necessary part of being willing to lay down our lives for the protection of the flock. We must be faithful to the God no matter who is dangerously attacking the flock. God’s truth guides us as to who is to be protected and who are the dangerous attackers. When the Anabaptists were attacked by the Reformers, they probably were being attacked by some brothers in Christ. They laid down their lives for the innocent brethren who stood for more complete truth. The Reformed brethren who attacked became murderers upholding error, though possibly Christian. IMO the duty to love one group would outweigh any duty to the dangerous brethren. Or one could say the duty to one is far greater than any duty owed to the other.
Separation cannot be divided into just first and secondary separation with a duty to one but not the other. Separation is of various degrees depending on the reason, danger, and specific circumstances. I may separate with all ministry or public entanglements from a Charismatic but have some degree of personal Christian fellowship with some. I may have lunch and Christian fellowship with an Assembly of God pastor. I would never be entangled in ministry or public entanglement with him as it would be dangerous to Christians that may be susceptible to his false doctrine.
The Fundamentalist is one that takes the duty to discern and separate as serious and diligently endeavors to practice such protection.
What some are calling Conservative Evangelicals take various stances toward separation but none are as diligent as most all who accept the Fundamentalist label. As I have said before it is a pool filled with swimmers doing various strokes and going in different directions. IMO all are inconsistent and some advocate almost no separation at all. They may select certain dangers such as inerrancy or the New Perspectives approach and defend well against them. However, they overlook many other dangers and are ambivalent toward them.
This is why I am a Fundamentalist and am willing to accept the label even though it is a label often applied to and accepted by extremists such as the KJVO group. All Conservative Evangelicals do not want the Fundamentalist label and some have shown disdain for the label and those who accept it and practice diligence in protecting the flock.
[Jay C.]Hi Jay,[Ted Bigelow] Dr. McCune, how do you separate from a brother, warn others to do likewise, and lay down your life for him at the same time (1 John 3:16)? If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but secondary separation.Ted, this seems like a false dichotomy and also seems like it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Dying for another person doesn’t mean that you’re in favor of everything they’ve done.
The secondary separation question is - is it biblically justified to withdraw from someone who is affiliated with someone else who is in error? I think the answer is yes, and I have advocated in the past that Fundamentalists should begin withdrawing from the FBF when they sent their leaders to preach and teach at Hammond a few months ago.
I’m behind the curve on this one bro… FBF?
My response to you is along the lines of my response to Dr. McCune. If you believe the person (or group) is in error, then don’t render judgments of separation while still regarding the person a brother in Christ.
Go to those you believe in error. Confront them with an open ear and open heart. Love them biblically in this way. Instruct them humbly on their error. Give them some time to absorb what is said.
But if error remains that is serious enough for separation, then declare their error as apostasy from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. This the NT way. Don’t prevaricate and say they are brothers who so seriously compromise with the faith that they must be separated from. If they deny the NT faith of Jesus and the apostles then let them know where they do it, and if impenitent, then let others know as well. Then let the label (and judgment) of “apostate” be attached to them, but not the label “brother.”
You and I are to love our brothers “to the extent” of laying down our lives for each other. 1 John 3:16 is the extent to which genuine Christian love cares for all those who are in Christ. By virtue of God’s grace in your life, I am obligated to love you to that extent. To do less is sin.
Now if I consider you a brother in Christ, but also claim that I and others must separate from you, how does that “love you to that extent?” - that of being willing to even die for you? Secondary separation is not love but judgment. (Again, we’re talking secondary separation here, not that which our Lord tells us to do in the local church with a disobedient brother, 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11).
Featured Resource
Discussion