Now, About Those Differences, Part Twenty Four

The entire “Now About Those Differences” series is available here.

Fellowship and the Evangelical Spectrum

Finally we come to the hard part. I have been writing about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. In the process, I have tried to articulate briefly a vision of Christian fellowship and separation. This vision involves a boundary (the gospel), outside of which no Christian fellowship is possible. It also involves a center, the whole counsel of God. Increasing levels of fellowship necessarily index to this center.

In my thinking, separation is simply the absence of fellowship. Outside of the boundary, separation is absolute. No Christian recognition should ever be given. Inside the boundary, separation is decided by the extent to which we Christians mutually hold the faith (the whole counsel of God) in its integrity.

Even among fundamentalists, certain separations are unavoidable. These separations are forced upon us when we cannot jointly hold the whole counsel of God in its integrity. In that sense, each separation includes some element of censure. Nevertheless, separation at one level does not necessarily require separation at every other level. Nor do these separations necessarily require that we adopt a contemptuous attitude toward one another. To the contrary, separations can and usually should be carried out with grace and charity.

At the risk of publicly embarrassing a friend, let me cite an example. Some years ago, God in His grace allowed me to make the acquaintance of Dr. Michael Barrett, president of Geneva Reformed Seminary. Dr. Barrett is a committed Presbyterian, while I am a Baptist by conviction. He is a covenant theologian (though a premillennialist), while I am a dispensationalist (though hardly of the Hal Lindsey variety).

It should go without saying that Dr. Barrett and I find our fellowship limited in a number of areas. Both our ecclesiology and our eschatology differ at important points. He is not going to ask me to lecture on baptism and I am not going to ask him to make speeches about pretribulationism.

More importantly, we cannot be pastors in the same church. Dr. Barrett probably could not in good conscience pastor a church that strictly forbade infant baptism. I could not pastor a church that allowed it. Consequently, Dr. Barrett and I are not likely to plant any churches together.

In other words, we separate from one another. We separate in every area that requires a commitment to those areas of eschatology or ecclesiology over which we differ. We cannot cooperate in any way that would require either of us to surrender his obedience (as he understands it) to Christ.

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that Dr. Barrett and I see one another as enemies or even opponents. Far from it. When it comes to an understanding of the beauty of holiness, of the majesty of God and the mercy of the Savior, of the importance of gracious affections and the role of sober worship, I find that I have far more in common with Dr. Barrett than I do with most Baptists or dispensationalists.

For the sake of those things, I have a deep respect and love for Dr. Barrett, and I am convinced that he reciprocates. Each of us shares concerns with the other that we share with few other people. We pray for one another. Both of us yearn for God’s best blessings in the ministry of the other. Most germanely, we are committed to fellowshipping and collaborating wherever it is legitimately possible.

To put it baldly, I grieve to be separated from Mike at any level. I see our separation as an evil, and I yearn for the day when our fellowship will be utterly unhindered. If there were a legitimate way of overcoming that separation now, I would pursue it.

Our separation is an evil (an evil circumstance, not an evil act), but it is a necessary evil in view of the alternatives. One alternative would be for one of us to abandon his commitment to obeying Christ. The other alternative would be for us to pretend hypocritically that we are not divided in those areas where divisions really exist. I would sin against Dr. Barrett by asking him to do either of these things.

Until one of us can convince the other of the error of his ways (not a likely prospect at this point in our lives), Dr. Barrett and I will continue to separate from one another where we must. We will also fellowship and work together where we can. We will do both to the glory of God, precisely because we care about one another.

This ought to be our attitude toward all fundamentalists with whom we differ. Indeed, it ought to be our attitude toward all other Christians who stand in some degree of error. We ought to separate where we must, fellowship where we can, and love one another withal.

In my opinion, the now-old new evangelicals were guilty of a very serious error. It was as serious as a Christian can commit. I also believe that hyper-fundamentalists are guilty of errors that are (nearly?) as serious. Very few levels exist at which I can overtly cooperate with exemplars of either group. Fellowship in both instances is severely truncated. Nevertheless, I find leaders in each group who challenge me spiritually and whose examples (at least in limited areas) I wish to emulate. Furthermore, where they are obedient to the Lord and genuinely trying to serve Him, I want them to succeed.

Other fundamentalists do not necessarily draw the lines where I do. On one hand, some are more willing than I am to cooperate on the neoevangelical side. For example, Carl F. H. Henry (one of the original neoevangelicals) would sometimes attend chapel at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, where he would be asked to lead students and faculty in prayer. On the other hand, some are more willing than I am to cooperate on the hyper-fundamentalist side. Bob Jones University, for instance, has featured Clarence Sexton (a King James Only advocate) on its platform.

So what? My conscience, my attempt to apply biblical principles, does not govern the ministries of others. I am perfectly willing to concede that they may have the best reasons for making the decisions that they have made. Our ability to apply the principles of Scripture is often influenced by the circumstances in which we find ourselves and by the perceptions that control us. We need to allow each other a measure of latitude to apply those principles differently.

Limits still exist, of course. Even if we recognize that we are making judgment calls, we know that some judgments are better than others. A consistent pattern of poor judgments may lead us to rethink our relationship with a leader or an institution. We may even be constrained to offer a rebuke or a warning. Even then, however, we need to discipline ourselves to act with grace and charity, lest our separations become an endless round of one-upmanship and self promotion.

So what about my own actual choices? Two are worth mentioning.

The first occurred several years ago when I was invited to preach for the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, International. After I had accepted, I learned that I was to share the platform with Clarence Sexton. Some fundamentalists encouraged me to withdraw my name from the conference (i.e., to separate from the FBFI because of its affiliation with Pastor Sexton).

On my view, sharing a platform constitutes a relatively low level of mutuality and commitment, ceteris paribus. I believe that one’s presence on a platform entails little if any endorsement of the other speakers or of their positions. Reasonable people of all sorts are able to understand the differences between individuals who happen to be speaking at the same event. In my estimation, so-called “platform fellowship” is only a notch above personal fellowship in terms of its requirements.

Other fundamentalists weigh platform fellowship more seriously. This is probably not the place for a full discussion of that subject, though I believe that the interaction would be very useful. Whatever our conclusions, we do need to bear one factor in mind: we must apply our principles consistently. Those who believe that platform fellowship does constitute a significant endorsement are responsible to separate from friends as well as from opponents, from those on their Right as well as those to their Left. The greatest argument against the fundamentalists’ insistence upon highlighting platform fellowship is the inconsistency of the very fundamentalists who are most likely to make that argument.

At any rate, I did not believe that I should withdraw from the FBFI platform over the presence of Pastor Sexton. My presence there was no endorsement of his views in the King James debate, nor was his presence any endorsement of mine. In other words, I was not prepared to separate from the FBFI over the invitation of Clarence Sexton (who, I must add, I appreciate at several levels).

More recently, I have applied the same principle in a different direction. I was asked to speak this coming February at a conference being hosted by Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary. This is a conference at which I have spoken many times in the past. This time, I was told that Dr. Mark Dever would be on the platform. In many ways I am a great admirer of Pastor Dever, but the differences between us are quite real. We differ markedly over dispensationalism, over limited atonement, and over the value of the Southern Baptist Convention. Pastor Dever is a committed Southern Baptist, while I question the value of affiliating with a convention that will not respect at least the fundamentals as a test of fellowship (I am speaking here of convention membership and participation, not of institutional employment).

These differences limit the possibility of cooperation with Pastor Dever at more than one level. Nevertheless, appearing on the same platform does not (as I see it) constitute an endorsement of his views in those areas over which we differ. If it did, Mark would be as eager to avoid endorsing my views as I am to avoid endorsing his!

The issues over which I differ with Dever are less serious than the issues over which I differ with Sexton. In both cases, however, my thinking is essentially the same. We cannot cooperate in areas where we really have no fellowship. Our actual fellowship is limited wherever we do not hold the whole counsel of God together. Where we do, the fellowship is real and cooperation ought to be possible. Platform presence generally constitutes a very low level of cooperation and requires minimal agreement in the faith. I was not willing to separate from the FBFI over Clarence Sexton, and I am even less willing to separate from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary over Mark Dever.

As I write these words, I do so with full awareness that either Calvary Seminary or the FBFI may see things differently. One or the other (or both!) might very well choose to separate from me. That, too, is part of the judgment that they must make, and I must grant them liberty to make it. I am not the one to whom they will answer.

For my part, the dictum is pretty simple. Let us separate where we must. Let us fellowship where we can. Let us love one another withal.

Advent, 2
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)

Earth grown old, yet still so green,
Deep beneath her crust of cold
Nurses fire unfelt, unseen:
Earth grown old.

We who live are quickly told:
Millions more lie hid between
Inner swathings of her fold.

When will fire break up her screen?
When will life burst thro’ her mould?
Earth, earth, earth, thy cold is keen,
Earth grown old.

Discussion

When I entered graduate school at BJU 30 years ago, I discovered the Free Presbyterian Church after a year of visiting churches. That was the start of a friendship in the Gospel that continues to this day and I wish to add my personal “Amen” to what Dr. Bauder has written. When I preached for them they would refer to me as “Ron the Baptist” and our differences were never seen as reasons for separation. These people encouraged me in the ministry and challenged me to pray and to preach Christ; often to a greater extent than some of my Baptist brethren. I thank God for my brothers who are not my twins.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Thanks, Dr. Bauder, for this latest article in a series of excellent aticles. You have thought through and articulated common sense and Bible truth in an area where many of us have wrestled without coming to final clarity.

I hope you will consider publishing these articles as a book. Any chance?

Warm regards,

Greg

G. N. Barkman

I think Dr. Bauder has provided a pretty good working model of how limiting fellowship works in this article, and I thank him for it. What I don’t understand is how it fits with the previous one.

In the prior article, Dr. Sexton was labeled as a hyper-fundamentalist because he is part of the KJVO “movement” (if there really is such a thing). Notice that Crown College is specifically mentioned:
Neoevangelicalism and hyper-fundamentalism are equal errors. Whatever we should have done in response to the new evangelicals is the same thing that we should do now in response to hyper-fundamentalists. Historic, mainstream, biblical fundamentalism has no more in common with Pensacola, Crown, and West Coast than it had with Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham.
As such, we are “Biblically obligated” to separate from them, just as much as we are to separate from neo-evangelicals:
In my opinion, fundamentalists are biblically obligated to separate from brethren who practice the neoevangelical philosophy. In the same way, and for much the same reasons, we are also obligated to separate from hyper-fundamentalists. We should not separate from either group as if they are apostates or enemies. Nevertheless, our ability to work with them is limited by their errors.
In fact:
If we believe in separation, we ought to be separating from hyper-fundamentalists more quickly and more publicly than we do from conservative evangelicals.
Then we come to this article, in which we learn that actually, complete separation from Clarence Sexton is not appropriate or justified. In fact, separation from Clarence Sexton is just the same as it is from Michael Barrett (another fundamentalist) or from Mark Devers (a conservative evangelicall) — fellowship where you can, and separate in those areas where you must.

In other words, all the assertions in the prior article that we must particularly separate (and publicly, too) from KJVOers were simply sound and fury, signifying nothing. Dr. Bauder doesn’t believe we are Biblically obligated to separate from them in general any more than we are Biblically obligated to separate from anyone else. He may feel that he is closer akin to the conservative evangelicals, and so does not need to separate from them in as many areas as he needs to separate from Clarence Sexton. But there is no lesser or greater “Biblical obligation” with them than with any other believer — just more areas where he personally must apply that Biblical obligation.

In other words, the whole premise of the prior article, by Dr. Bauder’s words in this article, is shown to be deeply flawed. There is no great difference between separation from conservative evangelicals and separation from hyper-fundies. The need to limit fellowship is the same for all believers, and we apply it as we must. For Dr. Bauder, that permits “platform-sharing” with both Mark Devers and Clarence Sexton. It would presumably prevent even platform sharing with Grady, perhaps. You fellowship where you can, you limit fellowship where you must.
[Kevin Bauder] The issues over which I differ with Dever are less serious than the issues over which I differ with Sexton. In both cases, however, my thinking is essentially the same. We cannot cooperate in areas where we really have no fellowship. Our actual fellowship is limited wherever we do not hold the whole counsel of God together. Where we do, the fellowship is real and cooperation ought to be possible. Platform presence generally constitutes a very low level of cooperation and requires minimal agreement in the faith. I was not willing to separate from the FBFI over Clarence Sexton, and I am even less willing to separate from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary over Mark Dever.
You know, there are a lot of things we hold in common with Billy Graham. Using Kevin’s rationale, “the fellowship is real and cooperation ought to be possible.” And since platform presence is a very low level of cooperation, I think we should see how we can get Billy Graham and Kevin Bauder to share a platform, don’t you?

Well, I realize that isn’t likely to happen, especially since Billy isn’t doing much platform sharing even with himself these days. Perhaps we could get Franklin to substitute. Or pick a name from the evangelical spectrum. We hold a lot of truth in common with these men. We should seek to find where we ought to be able to fellowship, don’t you think?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

JG,

Dr. Bauder is making clear that few of his separation choices would be simply binary. He might not have Sexton speak at Central, but would share a conference platform, depending.

Don,

If Bauder sees Dever as less problematic than Sexton, I imagine Graham would have his own, more severe, level of problematicism (heh).

His point is separation by gradiation, dependant on level of error. You can’t throw in a Hitler figure (Graham) and ask why he’d treat him like Dever or Sexton. He wouldn’t/we shouldn’t.

My question concerns non-fellowship being equated as separation. This doesn’t seem to include the “mark and avoid” or the “reject” elements of separation, or does it? With fellow believers who are wrong on points of doctrine, I see separation being much less than with blatant apostates and heretics. I think there is more going on with separation than just non-fellowship.

That being said, there is much to commend Bauder’s model here, from my perspective. And I totally agree with him about the level of agreement needed for speaking at a conference with another person is different than having that same speaker at your church.

Personally, given the complexity of implementing separation commands into local church ministry and practice, we ought to allow latitude in how others implement separation too, rather than saying because so-and-so doesn’t separate in the same manner that we do, they don’t practice separation and thus are worthy of being written off.

Anyway, my impression is that the 24 part series has reached it’s conclusion. I kind of hope a few more parts are in store though. Nevertheless, thanks for a thought provoking series!

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[DavidO] If Bauder sees Dever as less problematic than Sexton, I imagine Graham would have his own, more severe, level of problematicism (heh).

His point is separation by gradiation, dependant on level of error. You can’t throw in a Hitler figure (Graham) and ask why he’d treat him like Dever or Sexton. He wouldn’t/we shouldn’t.
I can’t believe you used the H-word! If I was a sensitive 90s kind of a guy, I would demand an apology.

Listen, Bauder’s logic is that where we hold things in common, fellowship OUGHT to be possible. We have a LOT of things in common with Billy Graham.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[DavidO] Dr. Bauder is making clear that few of his separation choices would be simply binary. He might not have Sexton speak at Central, but would share a conference platform, depending.
Very good. Like I said, this article treats the “limited fellowship” aspect of ministry relationships well. It doesn’t address the “mark and avoid” situations which demand complete separation (I Corinthians 5, Titus 3:10, etc.). But for many of our relationships, this is a very good treatment of the problem.

What I don’t understand is the prior article. If separation is not simply binary for men like Sexton, why call on us to quickly and publicly separate from him? That sounded awfully “binary”, more like Titus 3 or Romans 16. But if Sexton is in the Titus 3 or Romans 16 category, we shouldn’t platform share, either, should we?

I echo Roland and Bob here. I don’t think defining separation as “absence of fellowship” makes any sense. If a church in Oklahoma doesn’t know that a church in Wyoming exists, then there isn’t any fellowship going on between them. Yet, it would be absurd to say, merely on that basis, that they are practicing separation. If that were so, then all Christians are practicing much more separation than any of us have supposed!

Rather, it makes much more sense to say that separation is the refusal to fellowship, either totally or in limited respects. It’s not until Barrett asks Bauder to plant a church with him that Bauder has to say, “Sorry, I can’t do that.” It’s that decision, or the pre-commitment to make that decision should the situation ever arise, that makes separation.

On another point, I still find it strange to hear Baptists talk about separation. I mean, if you’re independent and autonomous, being “separate” seems to be the default mode. Why should separation be such a grievous thing?

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

I appreciated the spirit in this article and agree with JG that it differs from the previous one. I grant Dr. Bauder the benefit of the doubt that he has thought through this current article more carefully. Dr. Bauder has preached in our pulpit on several occasions in the past and I have deeply appreciated his messages and personal fellowship. He has courage to tackle difficult issues publicly.

Platform fellowship is determined in part by the nature of the platform itself. The World Congress of Fundamentlists will have a much broader platform than a typical FBFI national meeting. Part of the misunderstanding regarding fellowship is that we mistakenly try to fit too many ideas into the word “fundamental”. I am a fundamentalist; however, the term fundamental only describes in part what I am. I am also a Baptist, a dispensationalist, Calvinistic (not Calvinist), cultural conservative, etc. When one endeavors to squeeze the latter descriptions into the term fundamentalist, it does create the misconception that fundamentalism is literally “everythingism,” to borrow KB’s nomenclature.

Personally, I have spoken side by side with Free Presbyterians on a WCF platform. However, I don’t invite FP’s to preach at FBCT. I view them similarly as does KB to Dr. Michael Barret, one of my former biblical language professors at BJU. The platform itself normally helps to define the implications of sharing the platform together. In the case of the FBFI, KB was preaching on the FBFI platform which specifically defines its position on bibliology, translations, and preservation. KB identified himself with that platform both by his membership in the FBFI and his preaching at the Conference. Had KB spoken with favorability at a KJVO conference where the platform directly represented the errors and distortions so commonly propagated by that movement, then the identification would be significantly different.

Pastor Mike Harding

I should be clear that I don’t pretend to speak for Dr. Bauder. I just pretend to understand him. ;)

JG, my assumption is that Bauder here gives anecdotal explanation for what he thinks the separation from Sexton should look like.

Don, Graham has played the part of Hitler in these discussions for a long time. Your nutshell of Bauder there omits “some form of limited” before “fellowship OUGHT”. That may simply play out as, “I will not refuse to return your phone calls.”

Roland et al, I think Bauder’s definition of boundary and center in the paragraphs prior render your concerns moot. He’s talking about intentional separation.

I’ll step out of this now. Dr. Bauder has an SI account, and I could be misreading …

[Charlie]

On another point, I still find it strange to hear Baptists talk about separation. I mean, if you’re independent and autonomous, being “separate” seems to be the default mode. Why should separation be such a grievous thing?
Charlie, do you (or your presbytery) fellowship with the presbyteries that hold to the Federal Vision?

[Mike Harding] Personally, I have spoken side by side with Free Presbyterians on a WCF platform. However, I don’t invite FP’s to preach at FBCT.
This seems to be personal application and not have anything to do with biblical separation per se. So someone can speak with someone else on a platform in one venue (conference, college) who they would not invite to speak in their church pulpit or would not accept an invitation to speak in the other’s church pulpit. It comes down to how far we believe we can go with a brother in gospel-centered fellowship. Pastors and churches may differ on their application of who to invite to their church. That should be expected but we should grant great liberty to others to disagree with our application and choices. I can’t think of many men with whom I would speak at a conference who I couldn’t invite to speak at my church or couldn’t accept an invitation to their church. Of course, there may be reasons for which I wouldn’t invite them or wouldn’t go – like they can’t preach or I don’t have the time to go away – but couldn’t and wouldn’t are not the same.

[Ted Bigelow]
[Charlie]

Charlie, do you (or your presbytery) fellowship with the presbyteries that hold to the Federal Vision?
Well, I don’t know that any presbyteries officially hold to the FV. Many of the FV people believe that they are interpreting the WCF correctly. However, in 2007 the PCA adopted resolutions against FV teaching. There may be individual pastors in the PCA who hold to FV ideas, but my impression is that most of them have been cordially shown the way out.

http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/pcafvreport.pdf

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Charlie]
[Ted Bigelow]
[Charlie]

Charlie, do you (or your presbytery) fellowship with the presbyteries that hold to the Federal Vision?
Well, I don’t know that any presbyteries officially hold to the FV. Many of the FV people believe that they are interpreting the WCF correctly. However, in 2007 the PCA adopted resolutions against FV teaching. There may be individual pastors in the PCA who hold to FV ideas, but my impression is that most of them have been cordially shown the way out.

http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/pcafvreport.pdf
Charlie, would you (or your presbytery) be in fellowship, or separation, with the CREC presbyteries: http://crechurches.org/churches/

Follow - up question -

What passage(s) in Scripture lead you to a Presbyterian (i.e. Connectional-Representational) view of polity. Thanks.