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

[Charlie] As a Presbyterian, I still can’t really wrap my head around what separation means for Baptists. It seems like half a doctrine. After 24 installments, I still don’t have any clarity on the issues that have always confused me.
Charlie -

I think you nailed it! I don’t understand it either. In one of the first posts in this series I commented that it seems that the IFBs have an unhealthily strong affection for the denominational mindset. *Some* factions of the movement seem obsessed with a constant re-evaluation of ‘who is on my team.’ Perhaps this is a by-product of the separation from liberal denomination battles that took place in the 40s and 50s - I’m not sure. I’m learning though, from the folks here at SI.com, that not all IFBs see the world that way - but I think many still do.

By the way, I believe the Free Presbyterians allow Baptizing congregations.

I also believe that Dr. Barrett is a pre-tribulationist - believe it or not. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I believe he’s the only non-dispensational pre-tribulationist I’ve ever heard of.

[Don Johnson]
[Jay C.] The purpose of separation is correction for the erring brother.
No, Jay, that is not true. The purpose of separation is to protect the flock. Acts 20. The purpose of discipline is for correcting an erring brother in the local assembly. Mt 18 and 1 Cor 5.
It’s not either-or. In the case of Acts 20, though, I think he’s not talking about erring brothers but pseudo-brothers. “Wolves,” he calls them.

In any case, separation—like discipline—in the case of a brother should be seen as both corrective and preservative, don’t you think?

(On Godwin’s Law… nothing personal. We just thought the thread could use a little humor.)

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.

I thought I posted this earlier, but apparently it didn’t “take.” I have observed the following in my wrestlings with separatio over the years.

1) Many of the NT texts used to teach the doctrine of separation are given to local churches as instructions for church discipline. Although they may well have broader application beyond local churches, they should first be understood and applied as given for the purpose for which they were intended. Until this is being done faithfully, it is questionable whether they can be properly applied to a either individual relationships, nor broader Christian relationships.

2) The NT teaches as much about unity as it does about separation. If we are not giving the unity passages equal emphasis, we are almost certain to become unbalanced in our understanding of separation. We can, we the best of intentions, run into the ditch because we failed to hold all Biblical truth in proper balance.

This has been a helpful discussion. Thanks to all who contributed.

Warm regards,

Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

[AndrewSuttles]
[Charlie] As a Presbyterian, I still can’t really wrap my head around what separation means for Baptists. It seems like half a doctrine. After 24 installments, I still don’t have any clarity on the issues that have always confused me.
Charlie -

I think you nailed it! I don’t understand it either. In one of the first posts in this series I commented that it seems that the IFBs have an unhealthily strong affection for the denominational mindset. *Some* factions of the movement seem obsessed with a constant re-evaluation of ‘who is on my team.’ Perhaps this is a by-product of the separation from liberal denomination battles that took place in the 40s and 50s - I’m not sure. I’m learning though, from the folks here at SI.com, that not all IFBs see the world that way - but I think many still do.

By the way, I believe the Free Presbyterians allow Baptizing congregations.

I also believe that Dr. Barrett is a pre-tribulationist - believe it or not. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I believe he’s the only non-dispensational pre-tribulationist I’ve ever heard of.
Why do Baptists need to be protected from Presbyterians?

The Free Presbyterian Church takes no position on baptism other than to deny baptismal regeneration.

And Dr. Barrett is not the only one. :)

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

[Aaron Blumer]
[Don Johnson]
[Jay C.] The purpose of separation is correction for the erring brother.
No, Jay, that is not true. The purpose of separation is to protect the flock. Acts 20. The purpose of discipline is for correcting an erring brother in the local assembly. Mt 18 and 1 Cor 5.
It’s not either-or. In the case of Acts 20, though, I think he’s not talking about erring brothers but pseudo-brothers. “Wolves,” he calls them.

In any case, separation—like discipline—in the case of a brother should be seen as both corrective and preservative, don’t you think?
Aaron did an admirable job filling in for me. Yes, I am making a distinction between how we treat apostates, heretics, and infidels (separation to preserve purity of doctrine), and people who are Christians who are wrong but who are actually Christ’s people (separation for the purpose of correction). Nor do I think that separation is always hard and fast and easy to know when to implement…as the Graham controversies from the mid to late 50’s and resulting migrations within the Evangelical movement show.

I am (semi) concerned when I read posts like yours, Don, because it makes you sound like separation is the first line of defense for anything that doesn’t agree with the holder’s position, and I don’t see that in the Scriptures. Am I misreading you?

"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

[Jay C.] I am making a distinction between how we treat apostates, heretics, and infidels (separation to preserve purity of doctrine), and people who are Christians who are wrong but who are actually Christ’s people (separation for the purpose of correction).
I think there is a difference between how we deal with Christ’s people. As I have often said, I think we overuse the term separation and it does cause some confusion.
[Jay C.] I am (semi) concerned when I read posts like yours, Don, because it makes you sound like separation is the first line of defense for anything that doesn’t agree with the holder’s position, and I don’t see that in the Scriptures. Am I misreading you?
Let’s put it this way. Suppose we have a brother in town with whom we have had some fellowship, we have maybe supported the same camp ministry, held joint youth meetings, etc. But the brother starts embracing and promoting emerging/emergent philosophy in his ministry. I express my disagreement and find him unrepentant. So far so good.

Now, what elders can I take him before? What assembly can I take him before assuming I can find some elders? THERE IS NO DISCIPLINARY PROCESS OUTSIDE THE LOCAL CHURCH.

Any separation decisions I would make about this brother would be with my local assembly in mind. I would leave any correction of him up to God. My goals are protecting the flock, not discipline.

I believe that besides some confusion as a result of the term ‘separation’, there is also widespread confusion and mis-application of church discipline passages. These passages are NOT separation passages.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[AndrewSuttles]

By the way, I believe the Free Presbyterians allow Baptizing congregations.

I also believe that Dr. Barrett is a pre-tribulationist - believe it or not. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I believe he’s the only non-dispensational pre-tribulationist I’ve ever heard of.
Hardly any confessional Presbyterians consider the Free Pres church really Presbyterian. They have way more in common with Baptist Fundamentalists than with PCA or OPC folk. You’ll notice that most of their pastors have degrees from Bob Jones, not Presbyterian schools. Many of their pastors, perhaps including Barrett, wouldn’t meet ordination standards in http://www.naparc.org/ NAPARC churches. I speak from knowlege; I attended Faith Free Pres while at Bob Jones. The Presbyterians in town refer to it as the “halfway house.”

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

[Charlie] The Presbyterians in town refer to it as the “halfway house.”
I’m surprised. I thought Presbyterians who left NAPARC were only subject to church courts. Now they, as part of their chastisement, have to live in a half-way house too?

The article and comments have been generally helpful and clarifying. A couple of follow-ups:

1. Pulpit & platform fellowship does come into play and is used as a basis of separation (think Billy Graham having a Catholic on the platform) so there is some potential liability there. I realize we are talking about a false teacher as opposed to a believer in that instance. Because it has been used in the past, folks who are trying to create “a more perfect Fundamentalism” have narrowed it to where acts such as being with Dever or Sexton are now thought of as punishable acts.

2. Does pulpit fellowship also imply organizational fellowship? For example, does Bauder’s pulpit presence imply approval of Central Seminary? Isn’t this a legitimate issue?

In 2003 I had just become the president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. That October I made my first trip as president to Watertown, Wisconsin, to visit Maranatha Baptist Bible College. As I recall, I had been invited to preach in chapel.

One of the professors asked me if I would like to meet Carl F. H. Henry. For those who may not know, Henry was one of the original New Evangelicals. His book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, was one of the manifestos of the New Evangelical movement. He was an early professor at Fuller and became the first editor of Christianity Today. Late in life he retired to Watertown, and as his health failed he entered a nursing home there.

At least one faculty wife from Maranatha was employed by the nursing home, and she developed a warm relationship with Dr. and Mrs. Henry. Based on that relationship, the professor thought that he could easily get me an audience.

Of course I was interested in meeting the man. Who wouldn’t be? He embodied a lifetime of evangelical history. He was probably the most significant evangelical theologian of his generation.

When we entered Henry’s room, he was lying in bed. Mrs. Henry was there, and she rose to greet us. She positioned herself between her husband and his visitors. If any comment was addressed to Dr. Henry, she immediately intercepted it and gave her own answer. Henry said nothing.

Two things were apparent. First, Henry was suffering and did not have long to live. Second, Mrs. Henry was protecting him. Under these circumstances, continued intrusion was unthinkable.

I turned to Mrs. Henry and asked, “Would you mind if we read the Scriptures and prayed with you and your husband?” She immediately stepped aside and said, “Oh, please do.”

Essentially, I performed the “hospital drill.” I read most comforting Scriptures (out of the King James Version, of course), talked about heaven, encouraged Dr. and Mrs. Henry with words of Jesus’ return and the coming resurrection, then prayed for God’s grace to be upon them.

Did this constitute fellowship with a neoevangelical? In retrospect, the answer seems obvious. At the moment, however, I had ceased to think of Henry as a New Evangelical, as a theologian, or even as a churchman. I saw only a brother and sister who were suffering and whose souls hungered for the hope of the gospel.

As I turned to leave, Mrs. Henry caught my arm. With tears in her eyes she said, “We are so grateful for the people from Maranatha Baptist Bible College. They read the Bible to us. They pray with us. None of our old friends come to see us any more.”

Within about two months, Dr. Henry was with his Lord.

What an irony that in the hour of his death, the people who loved and prayed for the old neoevangelical and who ministered to him were Fundamentalists.

Should they (we) have separated from him, or perhaps even rebuked him as he lay dying?

If not, then what difference was there between fellowshipping with Henry at his bedside versus preaching at a conference with him versus teaching on the same faculty versus serving on the same pastoral staff?

Does mutual encouragement in the gospel (such as the Henrys and I enjoyed) constitute or necessitate or imply some sort of an “emerging middle” in which our difference pale into insignificance?

of Dr. Cedarholm’s graciousness. Dr. C was a Fundamental Northern Baptist not a Baptist Fundamentalist.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Kevin T. Bauder] Should they (we) have separated from him, or perhaps even rebuked him as he lay dying?

If not, then what difference was there between fellowshipping with Henry at his bedside versus preaching at a conference with him versus teaching on the same faculty versus serving on the same pastoral staff?

Does mutual encouragement in the gospel (such as the Henrys and I enjoyed) constitute or necessitate or imply some sort of an “emerging middle” in which our difference pale into insignificance?
Should you have separated? On a personal level? Of course not! Sometimes people talk about “coffee shop fellowship” when they speak of the personal level of fellowship. That’s really not correct, because we can have coffee with lost people. But what you describe with Dr. Henry is Christian fellowship on a personal level. You can read Scriptures with a dying lost person, but there is no real fellowship there, is there? You can pray with a fellow believer and both of you are communing with the eternal Father Son and Holy Spirit. We can have that kind of fellowship, really, with any believer. If given such an opportunity with a saint like Henry or even the much vilified Billy Graham, you would have to be an utter churl to refuse such fellowship.

So then, to the next question: obviously sharing platforms is ecclesiastical cooperation and partnership in some measure. It means something with respect to the fundamentalist position. It appears that we are yet again wrestling with what it means. I don’t propose to argue that question, but visiting Henry at his bedside really has not much to do with the answer to it.

No, such fellowship implies no ‘emerging middle’, it implies genuine faith in Christ which I am confident we all share.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Ted Bigelow]
[Charlie] The Presbyterians in town refer to it as the “halfway house.”
I’m surprised. I thought Presbyterians who left NAPARC were only subject to church courts. Now they, as part of their chastisement, have to live in a half-way house too?
Well, technically, NAPARC isn’t a governing body. The member denominations aren’t “subject” to each other.

I’m not speaking ill of the Free Pres people. I have many good friends who are Free Pres, and I know several of their ministers. That said, when the denomination is compared to other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations (hence the NAPARC reference), they come off seeming very eccentric. Their whole ethos and set of priorities is more Fundamentalist than NAPARC. I believe both Ian and Kyle Paisley have spoken at Bob Jones and Crown College. I wonder if they’ve spoken at Geneva or Covenant or Grove City (I honestly don’t know).

So, all I’m saying is that Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul is more typical of mainstream conservative Presbyterianism than is Cairns or Barrett. If people want to compare how Fundamental Baptists operate with how Presbyterians operate, the Free Pres church might not be the best denomination to represent Presbyterianism.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

[Charlie]

Well, technically, NAPARC isn’t a governing body. The member denominations aren’t “subject” to each other.

I’m not speaking ill of the Free Pres people. I have many good friends who are Free Pres, and I know several of their ministers. That said, when the denomination is compared to other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations (hence the NAPARC reference), they come off seeming very eccentric. Their whole ethos and set of priorities is more Fundamentalist than NAPARC. I believe both Ian and Kyle Paisley have spoken at Bob Jones and Crown College. I wonder if they’ve spoken at Geneva or Covenant or Grove City (I honestly don’t know).

So, all I’m saying is that Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul is more typical of mainstream conservative Presbyterianism than is Cairns or Barrett. If people want to compare how Fundamental Baptists operate with how Presbyterians operate, the Free Pres church might not be the best denomination to represent Presbyterianism.
Well put, Charlie. Still, if I were Free Church (and Michael Barrett is a friend of mine), how could I not pick up a tone of condescension?

Perhaps some day I’ll post an article on polity here on SI to generate debate; my book on it comes out next month. However, it is not a defense of Baptist polity, which differs from church to church, and century to century.

When I asked you for the Scriptures you appreciate most, that led you to embrace Presbyterian polity, I was sincerely looking to understand, not debate. Its a question I’ve interacted with M Barrett on as well.

Is it possible to separate from a brother who doesn’t know you?

What is accomplished by separation from a brother who doesn’t know you?

What gives a pastor the right to declare that his church is separate from another ministry?

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