Chris Anderson’s “The Scandal of Schism” – A Review
Image
Every Fundamentalist needs to read Chris Anderson’s new book The Scandal of Schism. The book charts the currents that are pulling younger Fundamentalists away from a strict separatist position. We ignore Anderson’s work to our own peril. His words must either be refuted from the Bible or acknowledged to be biblical.
In his characteristically self-assured fashion, Michael Barrett (Anderson’s lifelong mentor and former professor at Bob Jones University) sets the tone for the book in his endorsement,
In the providence of God, I was born, raised, educated, and involved in ministering within extreme fundamentalist environments. Ironically and thankfully, it was in those places that I became thoroughly convinced of Calvinism and covenant/reformed theology… . I serve now in a wider, yet conservative, evangelical environment without a guilty conscience.
Barrett’s disciple follows in his mentor’s footsteps,
I’ve become more comfortable over the years deferring to Christians on my left—people who may be less conservative than me on some issues but who share a love for Christ, for expository preaching, for reformed soteriology, and so on. Conversely, I’ve tended to roll my eyes at Christians on my right—people who still use the King James Version, who have more traditional services, or who minimize election. (160)
Fundamentalists are not the only ones that Anderson is writing to: “Every time I see a faithful brother criticized, censured, or canceled by fellow conservative evangelicals, I want to scream, ‘I’ve lived in hyper-separatist isolation. You don’t want to go there!’” (14) Anderson does not want “fellow conservative evangelicals” to hike the hyper-separatist trail that the Fundamentalists have blazed.
“Sadly,” Anderson observes, “whereas fundamentalists were right to combat apostasy (modernists) and to separate from compromise (new evangelicals), many drifted from a healthy defense of the truth into a schismatic spirit” (29). Hence, Fundamentalism “became mean” and “fractured through continual fault-finding and infighting” (30).
It was at a Together For the Gospel (T4G) event that Anderson finally “could enjoy fellowship with like-minded Christians and ministries on the basis of like precious faith, regardless of their denominational or historic affiliations” (47). Liberated from legalism, he is now “living by principle, not fear” (62). Though no longer a hyper-separatist, he does still call for separating from false teachers and unrepentant Christians.
Anderson criticizes Evangelist Billy Graham for aligning with those who deny the Gospel, but he also describes Graham as “the world’s greatest evangelist” and a “beloved gospel preacher [who] did a great deal of good” (70,71).
In chapters eight through eleven, Anderson intensifies his condemnation of unbiblical separation (or schism):
We should value every gospel-preaching church, imperfect as it may be. And more to the point, we should fear raising a finger—or a voice—against any body of believers… . We might well repurpose 1 Chronicles16:22 to refer to the church: “Touch not God’s anointed.” (121)
Chapter 11 pertains specifically to worship. Anderson admits he has “relaxed a bit regarding acceptable music styles” (125). He now calls most “arguments in favor of conservative music … ludicrous … borderline racist … comically pseudo-scientific … [and] alarmingly elitist” (126). He looks to the Psalms for his worship standards:
The inspired hymnal and handbook which tells us how our glorious God should be praised … [is] astoundingly expressive and emotive. Sometimes we weep as we worship God. But sometimes we shout, or clap, or (dare I say it) even dance. (131)
Anderson pleads with his “more conservative friends” to “stop pressing your preferences onto other people’s consciences. Stop justifying unbiblical judgmentalism. And stop separating from faithful brothers and sisters over musical preferences” (134, 135). In the book, music and alcohol are Anderson’s two favorite hobby horses.
Approaching the end of his book, Anderson encourages pastors to communicate this message to their people: “We don’t all have to listen to the same music. We don’t all have to home school, or Christian school, or public school. We don’t have to agree on alcohol. We don’t have to agree on politics” (141). To him, unity is Gospel-based (a major theme of T4G), and for the Gospel’s sake he pleads for deference among Christians. He closes his book by condemning “systemic racism” (163) and promoting a “big-tent orthodoxy” (177).
As a former hyper-separatist, Anderson confesses that at one time “anybody less conservative than me was a liberal or a new evangelical, and anybody more conservative than me was a legalist” (38). I must admit that this statement brought specific people to my mind!
Anderson’s division of all issues into “Core doctrines,” “Important doctrines,” and “Peripheral issues” is a useful analytical tool when determining how much and with whom we can cooperate in Gospel ministry (159).
Although I appreciate Anderson’s many nostalgic and helpful points, he comes across as a little arrogant in his book. The reason he gives for why he and his ministry friends have shifted their position on separation is because “after ten or fifteen years of preaching multiple times a week, we came to know the Scriptures really well. We learned discernment” (49). Didn’t their Fundamentalist Forefathers also preach “multiple times a week?” Didn’t they possess the same Spirit of discernment?
While considering Romans 14, Anderson claims that the Apostle Paul “is discussing practices that are amoral, not immoral” (155). I would love to pin Anderson down on which modern issues he classifies as “amoral”? Is music amoral? Was it wrong for me to be bothered when a musician sang “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” to the tune of Garth Brooks’ “Friends in Low Places” at a local evangelistic meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jj5G5OsUw)? Is hard liquor amoral? Is it wrong for me to distance myself from certain pastors who constantly post pictures of themselves imbibing? Is dress amoral? Do Christians have the right to wear bikinis and Speedos to a “mixed bathing” event? Surely, there are some boundaries.
Many of our Fundamentalist Forefathers opposed the “worldly practices” sanctioned in Anderson’s book because they were saved out of them. Understanding the powerful draw of these practices, they did not want themselves or others to be ensnared by them. Many third and fourth generation Fundamentalists have never experienced the ill-effects of activities such as drinking alcohol, gambling, dancing, etc., and this makes them unaware of their dangers.
Anderson saturates his book with the perspectives of Reformed Christians—both past and present. I would suggest he make some new friends among Arminian groups such as the Free Will Baptists and evangelical Methodists/Wesleyans. In his book, he fails to appreciate the odors emanating from these flowers in God’s garden. Perhaps he should show deference to their lack of “reformed soteriology” for the sake of a broader Gospel witness. Grace.
Some apply First Corinthians 15:33 very strictly: “Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals” (ESV). They are labeled hyper-separatists. Others apply it less strictly. They are labeled compromisers. Who is right? Jesus’ words in Luke 7:35 give the only possible answer to this question: “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” In other words, only time will tell.
C. D. Cauthorne Bio
C. D. Cauthorne Jr. earned his BA and MA at Bob Jones University during the 1990s. He and his wife Heather serve at Calvary Baptist Church near Clintwood, Virginia, where C. D. is pastor.
First, I appreciate C.D. submitting a review. I was not aware Chris Anderson had published a book on this topic.
Second, here’s a link to the book. I would encourage readers to get a copy and see for themselves what they perceive the emphasis and central message to be, as well as what he means by terms like ‘hyper-separatist,’ etc.
(It is an ‘affiliate’ link, so some tiny % of sales goes back to SI.)
A few thoughts on these topics, then…
- Since Romans 14 exists, there is as much obligation to respect and affirm fellow believers (unity) who disagree over the matters of the sort it refers to as there is obligation to separate over matters that are more, well, fundamental.
- Discernment does not come automatically to those who have the Spirit. (“Didn’t their Fundamentalist Forefathers also preach ‘multiple times a week?’ Didn’t they possess the same Spirit of discernment?”)
- I’ve shared thoughts here many times on the revivalist tradition and the expositional tradition in the fundamentalist movement. I witnessed first hand just how much influence the revivalist tradition had on ideas about separatism in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. I heard a ton of bad preaching from that neck of the woods. Doing exposition (if it can be called that) frequently but not well doesn’t improve discernment. (Confirmation bias pretty much defines the genre—aka hobby horsing and eisegesis.)
- I also heard a ton of good preaching out of the expositional tradition, so… by college days, I knew well the difference. When you do good exposition, frequency of practice does increase skill and discernment.
- One of first things we lose when we become too insular is our sense of scale. We get part of our sense of what’s a big deal and what’s a small deal and what’s a medium deal from our exposure to fellow believers who have different backgrounds and perspectives on matters of application.
- The older I get, the less time I feel like I have for hair-splitting. Just saying.
- Because Romans 14 and passages like it exist, we know that it is possible to disagree, stand firm, yet maintain respect for fellow-believers who disagree. We can even openly disagree and make a case for our beliefs in these matters without (a) categorizing those we differ with as something tainted or inferior and without (b) exercising punitive separation. (I wrote about this in The Neglected Posture of Conscience some years ago…. maybe not well, but maybe somewhat helpfully.)
- “Punitive separation” is redundant: real separation is always punitive in the NT, but many now use the term for passive cooperation-selectivity. So can we engage in selective non-cooperation in various ministry activities over some Romans 14 matters? Of course.
- We mostly engage in passive non-cooperation simply because other ministries are far away or simply because there is only so much time and money and we’re already booked.
- So, could we do it because we don’t like their music? I don’t see why not. … because they believe it’s OK to have a little wine with a meal and we don’t? Hard to see how that’s relevant, but OK. Because they seem booze-obsessed? There are some like that I guess. That’s more substantive.
- Refraining from working together due to differences in practice/emphasis/ applications of Scripture is not the same thing as classifying individuals and ministries as inauthentic, substandard, unworthy to be associated with, having cooties, etc.
- It’s also not the same thing as saying, “We disagree about this for these reasons.”
I haven’t read the book, but I know he’s reacting to a lot of the same nonsense I got sick of in the 80’s and 90’s. I would probably draw a few lines in a few different places. But schism is not a safer or more noble error than failure to separate. I suspect I’m in agreement with C. Anderson on that point.
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.
-
This is a great book, especially for those whose impression of Biblical Fundamentalism was one of of a group who was more interested in fighting and separating from other Christians than of fighting against those who denied clear Biblical truth. You know, those people who waged war against bad music, worldly clothing, movies, dancing, etc. and are finding that they've separated themselves into in insignficance. The author and I have travelled the same path from being suspcious of Christians who were different than ourselves to realizing that the Bible, while teaching separation on some issues, has more to say about unity in the Body of Christ. The difference between this book and others on the topic is that this one is personal and the author, like me, admits he was a schismatic and had sought to make up for his errors. He is humorous, self-depracating, and kind. He doesn't "name names". His position is Bibilically based, so those who would disagree are going to have to argue with Scripture. (The reviewer chooses to point out his differences with Anderson's points instead of the Scripture Anderson uses to support his points.) The fact is that schism created by doctrinally sound Christians with other doctrinally sound Christians is a sin that has existed since Corinth.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Fair to say there are different "flavors" of fundamentalism
My hope is that when we do recognize a need to separate or not to separate, it is because of a clear understanding of scripture rather than because of the peer pressure of those around us. My observation has been that some have separated when they should not have separated simply do to peer pressure while others should have separated yet did not because of peer pressure. Too often the doctrine of fundamentalism has been defined by peer pressure rather than by scripture and it can go both ways.
I used to consider Chris a friend. Our relationship began to deteriorate when he couldn't find it in himself to condemn the reprehensible Mark Driscoll. Instead he sang his praises. Oh, he would give lip service to tut-tutting about Driscoll's cussin' but Driscoll had such "sound theology" don't you know?
Chris has had very little discernment for a long time. His book as reported here puts it on public display.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Well, all I can say is that my heart was so encouraged by the defense of Biblical separatism and conservative Christian music that Chris used to thoughtfully and persuasively articulate in his My Two Cents blog. He has also graced our churches with many fine hymns, some that I have literally wept to when singing or hearing them sung. I will forever be grateful for those things.
As characterized in the review, Anderson's condemnation of moralistic fundamentalism appears to be a pretense for "raising a finger" against the separatist instinct which is integral to the fundamentalist movement. Cauthorne has aptly responded, particularly with regard to the historical and moralistic concerns.
Alternatively, I want to push back against the fatal flaw of the modern "theological triage" approach which has been popularized by Mohler,1 Putman,2 Ortlund,3 and now, evidently, by Anderson. This methodology is being used to encourage fellowship with others who subscribe to the minimal requirements of "big-tent orthodoxy." The model has value, but it fails in its handling of the first-level category, for it lays two disparate burdens on this central category—is a person saved and is that person orthodox? There are different levels of fellowship which one can have with an unbeliever (or wayward believer), with a new believer, or with one who affirms the elementary doctrines of Hebrews 6:1-2, or of the early creeds, or of Mohler's short-list which came out of the liberalism-fundamentalism battles of the early 1900s. But none of these criteria rise to the level of affirming that the believer is orthodox, to a level which would permit substantive fellowship, or uncritical deference in areas of orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
Further, we must always heed Scripture's admonition and warning. Out of a divine jealousy for the Corinthians, Paul expressed his fear that the Corinthians would be "led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:4 ESV). He was specifically concerned because they were happily fellowshipping with those who proclaimed a differed Jesus, spirit, or gospel from the one which he had preached. In his former letter, he plead for unity, but at the same time he stated that there "must be factions among you that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1 Cor. 11:19). Accordingly, in its deference to the authority of the Word of God, I suggest that the separatist instinct itself is an essential aspect of orthodoxy. It is an instinct to be both nurtured and managed, lest it become distorted.
Do we attend T4G, TGC, or ETS conferences? Perhaps, but not with the assumption that all participants follow or will be singing praise to the same Jesus, the same spirit, or the same gospel. The wolves are out there and many claim the merit badge of "conservative evangelical."
______
1 Albert Mohler, "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." https://albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/
2 Rhyne R. Putman, When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
3 Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
atrustworthygospel.com
So Anderson will not condemn drinking whiskey, bourbon, scotch, etc? If that's what his type of Christianity offers, No Thank You. What connects Anderson and others is not a better type of Fundamentalism or Conservative Evangelicalism but Reformed theology. Dr. Barrett was one of my teachers at BJU. How sad to see his change. But, then again, the connecting factor is Reformed theology.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Pastor Minnick preached an excellent message on Sunday evening that helps us understand what has happened in the controversies about fundamentalism vs. New Evangelicalism.
"Functioning in the World as Its Light"
This is a message that you would all do well to listen to and apply it to your understanding of the music issues of our day.
...I personally think that the author probably understates the case. While schism (Titus 3:10) is a big deal, the more "fundamental" part of the debate is what the root of the division is. In many cases, it is, IMO, the emphasis of cultural distinctives at the expense of Biblical ones, and conservative evangelicals scratch their heads and say "OK, remind me, what was Jesus' first miracle again?", and the like.
For example, I was blessed last week when my pastor, a teetotaler himself, noted that there are indeed a fair number of passages in Scripture which do indeed speak of wine in a positive way. It's OK to admit that some things one sees in Scripture are not one's personal preference, but it's absolutely not OK to fence off enjoyment of Biblical pleasures and practices for other believers.
Put another way, if you tend to explain away the wine in John 2, or the dancing and percussive instruments in Psalm 150, are you really a fundamentalist? If Scripture is inerrant, why talk around it?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For example, I was blessed last week when my pastor, a teetotaler himself, noted that there are indeed a fair number of passages in Scripture which do indeed speak of wine in a positive way. It's OK to admit that some things one sees in Scripture are not one's personal preference, but it's absolutely not OK to fence off enjoyment of Biblical pleasures and practices for other believers.
Put another way, if you tend to explain away the wine in John 2, or the dancing and percussive instruments in Psalm 150, are you really a fundamentalist? If Scripture is inerrant, why talk around it?
I am a teetotaler as well, yet I have pointed out the same as your pastor has. Further just last week I pointed out that dancing is not sinful, yet it is possible to sin while you are dancing. Too often the easy way out has just been to give people of list of things to avoid that are not sin while failing to teach them about avoiding actual sin.
This may be an accurate observation, though probably not in the way it is intended. If one is unable or unwilling to accept what the Bible teaches about soteriology, it is understandable that one may also be unable or unwilling to accept what it teaches about cultural issues.
G. N. Barkman
A friendship is broken because a brother in Christ seems to tolerate crude language in another Christian. (How about Martin Luther?) Reformed Theology is condemned in spite of our history from the Puritans to Spurgeon to Brokenshire to Paisely.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Is the concern that Chris Anderson's personal theology has changed? Or that Chris Anderson has not separated himself enough from Mark Driscoll?
In 2009, Chris wrote on his Two Cents Blog:
"I’ve also been turned off more than once, and more importantly, I have an enduring concern that Driscoll’s brand of Christianity has some serious downsides for those who follow him. I think there are important reasons for young pastors and students to avoid emulating his ministry"
https://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/my-two-cents-on-mark-driscoll/
What I said was:
Our relationship began to deteriorate
Since then, Chris has moved further and further left in philosophy.
The post in question was one where Chris made Driscoll a feature of praise for something or other, as I recall, with not even a single disclaimer in it. The reason was Driscoll's alleged "sound theology" (ie, Calvinism).
This is a big problem with the "young fundamentalists," in my opinion. Calvinism equals fundamentalism, everything else is suspect.
I value the contributions of Calvinism to some extent, but don't agree with some of its major tenets. And the church has argued about it for HUNDREDS of years. So it can't be as important as its adherents claim.
Driscoll and others got a pass too long, and it seems that showed a huge lack of discernment. Why should we consider those who made such errors suddenly wise and discerning today?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The only post that I was aware of, and that I could find, was the post that I posted above, where he cautioned about Mark Driscoll.
I am less concerned about Calvinism, even though I am not an ardent adherent to it. When I was at BJU from 1989 to 1994 (same time as Chris), Calvinism was rampant in the ministerial class. While the professors did not teach it becuase of the stance of the University, it was clear that some had sympathy toward it. I also know that many that I knew in the ministerial class were Calvinist or sympathetic to Calvinism. A rule came out, I think my Junior year on campus that discouraged arguing between the two camps. Some of those students have gone on to lead Reformed Churches. In fact, I am sometimes surprised at the number of BJU ministry graduates who lead Reformed churches.
Don, although we have not met, we have interacted enough here on SI that I consider you a friend. Based on what you have written, I can say that we agree on far more than we disagree on. Still there have been a number of things we have disagreed on.
If I were to praise you- as I expect I will from time to time- should other SI members who strongly disagree with you separate from me because of that praise if I do not also give a disclaimer about what I believe to be your errors? What if I even recommend one of your P&D articles without a disclaimer? Should those who disagree with you separate from me?
I understand that you are taking your positions in good conscience and that you believe you are correct- and on most issues I believe you are-, but others may not see it that way. So, if they were to apply your standard, should they thus separate?
First, remember that I am saying that the relationship began to cool at that point.
From there, I have come to seriously question Chris's wisdom and discernment and have said so from time to time publicly, as we had public disagreements on his blog and elsewhere.
It is not one single post that led me to this view, but a collective.
In the post in question, it wasn't simply the lack of disclaimer but the effusive praise when it should have been clear that the individual praised wasn't worthy of it.
At least that's the way I recall it. I will grant that memory can be faulty.
Anyway, let's not make the thread about me. The article is a critical review of Chris' book, and that should be the focus of the discussion. I think the book is an ongoing example of Chris' lack of discernment.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I do not come down hard on either side of the debates over divine sovereignty or human responsibility, but I've just got to say, as I remember Jack Schaap's signature "polishing the shaft" "sermon, that if the worst that can be said about the neo-Calvinist fundamentalists is that they might slip a bit of Anglo-Saxon verbiage out from time to time, they're doing pretty well.
And yes, it's not THAT clean, as I remember Driscoll's buddy James MacDonald and their antics together, but really.
No doubt that one's character, especially the word choices one uses, have a lot to do with Godliness and one's fitness for ministry. That goes for Anglo-Saxon verbiage, and it also goes for things like personal attacks and such from the pulpit and elsewhere--which I've seen on both sides of this debate here. Ephesians 4:29 can refer to use of Anglo-Saxon, but in its context, I'd argue it refers even more to cheap shots and personal attacks.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
C.D. Cauthorne Jr. said:
Every Fundamentalist needs to read Chris Anderson’s new book The Scandal of Schism. The book charts the currents that are pulling younger Fundamentalists away from a strict separatist position. We ignore Anderson’s work to our own peril. His words must either be refuted from the Bible or acknowledged to be biblical.
If you think that he has made some specific arguments concerning music and the Bible that you think need to be refuted, I'd like to hear more about what those are.
Review: "While considering Romans 14, Anderson claims that the Apostle Paul 'is discussing practices that are amoral, not immoral' (155). I would love to pin Anderson down on which modern issues he classifies as 'amoral'?"
I ordered Chris's book - but I disagree with this small quote. Romans 14 isn't about things that are amoral. It's about things that are immoral for some Christians.
Romans 14 isn't about things that are amoral. It's about things that are immoral for some Christians.
For someone to say that specific things that are not explicitly spoken of in the passage are "immoral for some Christians" but not for others would be to say that those things in and of themselves are not immoral. That would be a truth claim that would have to be proven on some biblical basis for it to be valid--Romans 14 does not establish the validity of such a claim.
Romans 14 does not establish the validity of such a claim
If each is to be convinced in his own mind, then it cannot be inherently immoral. The only question is how broad that category is.
If each is to be convinced in his own mind, then it cannot be inherently immoral. The only question is how broad that category is.
It seems that you may be saying more or less the same thing that I said in my comments.
My point was that someone who claims that the teaching of Romans 14 applies to specific things that are not directly mentioned in Romans 14 cannot legitimately use Romans 14 to assert that those things are not inherently immoral. They must provide some other biblical basis to establish that those specific things are also in view in the teaching that is in Romans 14 about things that are such that each is to be convinced in his own mind.
If you think that he has made some specific arguments concerning music and the Bible that you think need to be refuted, I'd like to hear more about what those are.
Rajesh,
Anderson draws his Biblical arguments for worship from the book of Psalms rather than passages in the Bible condemning worldliness or associations. Hence, he defends the use of things such as drums and dance in worship.
Can we say there is anything wrong with having a drum set on the church platform if the Psalms allow for it? Can we condemn dancing as a form of worship if the Psalms allow for it? Since the Psalms allow for clapping as a means of praising God, shouldn't we?
He presents a Psalm-centered theology of worship. If we want to stem the growing tide of contemporary worship within Fundamentalism, we must deal with his Psalm-centered arguments. I suggest you read the book and work through his points.
It seems that Romans 14 deals with things that some believers think are immoral and others think are amoral and on which the Bible has no clear declaration. The text encourages believers to hold to their own conscience on such matters and not force their consciences on others or condemn those who disagree with them. THIS idea of tolerance is central to Anderson's book.
SUGGESTION!!!! Maybe if everyone here read the book and then engaged it would be helpful. If they also could deal with Anderson's Biblical support for his position.
READ THE BOOK!!!!!!!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
"Can we condemn dancing as a form of worship if the Psalms allow for it? Since the Psalms allow for clapping as a means of praising God, shouldn't we?"
Allowing for drums, and dance, and clapping doesn't mean allowing for all forms of drums, dance, and clapping. That's the fundamental issue. Conservatives don't have any problems with drums in the church. We have timpani and cymbals but they are not played in a rock/pop style -- it is majestic and keeping with the character of God.
Dancing is any sort of bodily movement that keeps time with the music. We have children's groups that incorporate that sort of thing and clapping with some of their songs, and there is nothing objectionable to it at all. It's not sensual/erotic in any sense, or out of control. It's not Pentecostal and it's not pop-style either.
So, we fully embrace the Psalms style of worship but do so without incorporating wicked elements of the world's culture.
I wish we could stop with the Psalm 150 argument because Psalm 150 doesn't say anything goes with drums, dancing, or clapping.
He presents a Psalm-centered theology of worship. If we want to stem the growing tide of contemporary worship within Fundamentalism, we must deal with his Psalm-centered arguments. I suggest you read the book and work through his points.
It strikes me that CD hits at one of the key difficulties in the cultural arguments we have. Specifically, all too often, the emphasis is to achieve the desired result, rather than to ask "what does Scripture actually say about this?". Too many then get to the point of arguing around what Scripture actually says. And that is clearly that God commands the use of certain dance and percussive instruments to His people in the OT dispensation of law.
It doesn't mean that every dance or every use of percussive instruments is edifying, but I think it does mean that we can rightly infer--also see David's dance before the Ark--that Old Testament worship was a bit more exuberant than we might be used to. They way I put it is that God's message ought to convey itself from our hearts and minds to our hands and feet.
Regarding Romans 14, given that both Jew and Gentile were, within their cultures, enthusiastic meat eaters when they could afford it, and that there is little chance that Paul is affirming the celebration of Roman/Greek holidays for pagan gods. Hence, what seems to be at hand is many believers thinking they needed to keep kosher, or alternatively to move on from the Jewish festivals not required for Gentiles.
The way it's too often interpreted, in my view, is that anyone with an objection to a particular practice can say "I have a Romans 14 issue with that", and that is supposed to end discussion--it becomes in certain regards a pseudo-sanctified version of "hostage-taking" that can often deprive Christians of their freedom and their joy.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh,
Anderson draws his Biblical arguments for worship from the book of Psalms rather than passages in the Bible condemning worldliness or associations. Hence, he defends the use of things such as drums and dance in worship.
Can we say there is anything wrong with having a drum set on the church platform if the Psalms allow for it? Can we condemn dancing as a form of worship if the Psalms allow for it? Since the Psalms allow for clapping as a means of praising God, shouldn't we?
He presents a Psalm-centered theology of worship. If we want to stem the growing tide of contemporary worship within Fundamentalism, we must deal with his Psalm-centered arguments. I suggest you read the book and work through his points.
I have been studying the Psalms (as well as the rest of the Bible) intensively for the last 14 years concerning what they teach about music and worship. A Psalms-centered theology of worship absolutely does not equate to what contemporary worship advocates assert is true about acceptable music for corporate worship.
I had an extended conversation on Saturday morning with a former BJU Seminary Greek faculty member who just finished reading this book. I encouraged him to write a review of the book and address its arguments.
Based on what has been shared by you in your review and in other comments in this thread, I doubt that there will be anything in the book that is substantively different than the dozens of other works (books, articles, blog posts) supportive of contemporary worship that I have thoroughly examined in the past 14 years.
If you think that he has made some specific arguments concerning music and the Bible that you think need to be refuted, I'd like to hear more about what those are.
Rajesh,
Anderson draws his Biblical arguments for worship from the book of Psalms rather than passages in the Bible condemning worldliness or associations. Hence, he defends the use of things such as drums and dance in worship.
Can we say there is anything wrong with having a drum set on the church platform if the Psalms allow for it? Can we condemn dancing as a form of worship if the Psalms allow for it? Since the Psalms allow for clapping as a means of praising God, shouldn't we?
He presents a Psalm-centered theology of worship. If we want to stem the growing tide of contemporary worship within Fundamentalism, we must deal with his Psalm-centered arguments. I suggest you read the book and work through his points.
So, am I to conclude that we are supposed to reject what the Psalms teach because the Psalms are too worldly? I sure hope that is not what is being said, but a lot of the arguments I have heard through the years sound an awful lot like that. Then when enough vocal voices make those arguments, suddenly we have peer pressure to reject the Bible in favor of those loud voices. That is not standing for the fundamentals of Biblical faith, but rather the fundamentals of peer pressure.
Fundamentalism is a good and proper philosophy for Christian life and theology. But, because we believe in soul liberty, good folks will disagree about where the lines are between the fundamentals and principles and personal preference. I doubt few would disagree that separation can be taken too far. I also doubt few in our circles would disagree that separation isn’t negotiable—personal holiness isn’t a suggestion. I think the more books which aim to get us to think through these issues, the better.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Friends, I'm grateful that the book is generating some profitable conversation. That said, as its author, I found the review to be quite unfair, or at least inaccurate. The best thing would be for those who are interested to read the book for themselves. But I will offer a few corrections or clarifications regarding the conversation here:
- First, it's unfortunate that the reviewer's first comment is a dig at Michael Barrett. That was undeserved, and it offers no substantive critique of the book.
- Next, the reviewer's bias is clear even when he quotes me. I'll cite just the most egregious example. Yes, I wrote, "I’ve tended to roll my eyes at Christians on my right—people who still use the King James Version, who have more traditional services, or who minimize election." But the reviewer intentionally cuts off the very next sentence, where I acknowledge that I was wrong: "But the Lord has convicted me about these attitudes, revealing to me my own schismatic spirit" (160). Frankly, that just feels dishonest.
- Similarly, the reviewer misrepresents my treatment of Billy Graham. I do give caveats about the good Graham did. I'm glad the gospel was preached to so many. Then I launch into a full-blown critique of Graham's failure to separate from apostates. Nobody can read those pages (70-71) and think I'm unclear on Graham's tragic disobedience to Scripture. Again, the quotation he cites is ripped from context: I critique Graham's increasing ecumenism (including his horrific comments to Robert Schuller) and conclude, sadly, that "Behavior eventually affects belief, even for the world's greatest evangelist" (70). That's hardly a commendation.
- I do spend a chapter on discernment and deference, based on Romans 14. I believe the practices in question are amoral, not immoral (155). Murder isn't a discernment issue, for example. It's unfair to say that alcohol is my "hobbyhorse," but I bring wine up in my treatment of Romans 14 because it appears there. I think wine is one issue about which we've often preached what we wish Scripture said instead of what it does say. And it was a good book by a fundamentalist that helped me recognize that fact.
- I admit that I press fairly hard in the chapter on music. My intent was to demonstrate how conservatives have sometimes suspended the rules of sound hermeneutics when it comes to this topic. I carefully worded every main point to indicate how I had mishandled the Bible to reach my desired conclusions. I'm casting stones mostly at myself. Yes, I'm very comfortable using the Psalms as a guide for our worship. Of course! That makes far more sense than OT narratives that have nothing to do with music. But I don't use the Psalms to argue that anything goes. I argue repeatedly for reverence. I note how much I enjoy very conservative music. In fact, after mentioning the Bible's use of dancing (which the reviewer kindly cited), I deadpan, "though I'm not inclined to try it myself" (131). My main burden is that we not fear what Scripture teaches on this or any topic. Let it speak.
I'll wrap up. Perhaps I'm overly defensive, but I think the review misrepresents me and the book fairly significantly. The book is actually very conservative. It argues extensively in favor of separation. Yes, it points out times where I think we fundamentalists have become too enamored with the fight. But it's a critique of me as much as anyone. And I'm still unapologetically a separatist.
You may not agree with what I've written. I expected some of that, though I'm writing as a fundamentalist insider. But disagree with me, not a caricature of me. Grace to you.
P.S. I've gone on the record saying that Driscoll's antics were unbecoming a gospel preacher. :) For the record: https://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/my-two-cents-on-mark-drisco…
If it is legitimate to hold that what Romans 14 says about food and drink applies to what is true about the use of instrumental music in corporate worship, consider the following:
Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
If what we are to believe about and do with instrumental music in corporate worship really is like what we are to believe about and do with food and drink in ordinary eating, then the kingdom of God is not instrumental music, right?
We have a dishonest review that deserves an apology (but I'm not holding my breath), comments made by people who have not read the book, a proud comment by someone who doesn't need to read the book to know what's in it, and no one addressing Anderson's Biblical support for his conclusion. Do you still wonder why people, young and old, are walking away from the separated/schismatic fundamentalism?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Congratulations on finishing this book. Just got it today. Thanks for this gift to the church!
I went straight to chapter 13 on deference. (I'l read the rest later...)
On raw data,
1- I found it interesting that Blomberg puts 5 years between the expulsion of the Jews from Rome and their return. Moo puts it at 1.5-2 years, if I recall correctly. Either way, I think it's important that you noted this temporary freedom the gentiles experienced and the irenic nature of the letter to the Romans.
2- little typo: on p156 you quote Romans 14:10, 12, 4 not “Romans 14:10, 12, 14."
On interpretation of Romans 14:
1- You by-pass the aspect of active Lordship underlying the different convictions the Romans had. see v4(the Lord is able) and vv6-9(died...lived...that He might actively rule--or exercise Lordship). I would like to see how meditating on that would change this chapter.
2- On p157, you suggest the Romans issue was ham (abrogated food laws). But R14:1-3 doesn't say they avoided pork. It says they were vegetarian. Historically, we know Jews refused meat in foreign cities due to possible idolatrous defilement. That makes the biblical principles of these strict brothers idolatry-avoidance (see Daniel & the King's meat and Hodge). That's important because idolatry is still evil.
3- On p157: "...if I have the liberty in my conscience to [do X], I can do so with thanksgiving, even if other brothers and sisters can't." I LOVE the word choice here!
Overall, I'm encouraged that you to see that Paul had more respect for these strict Christians in Rome than we normally suppose (and I would encourage you so see that he had MUCH more respect for them).
Dan (and Rajesh), I'm sure there's much more to learn from Romans 14 than is evident in my cursory treatment. I'm glad you've spent so much time there.
My concern is not to fight for every individual's rights to live as they please, regardless of the consequences. Paul is clear that sometimes limiting your liberties for the good of the kingdom (as Rajesh mentions) and the spiritual health of a weaker brother (as Dan mentions) is the right thing to do. But we can't so emphasize that deference that we undo the entire passage. Paul had the perfect opportunity to say that we should all live by the consciences of other brothers and sisters, and especially of our most conservative friends. But that's not at all what he says. He brackets the entire section with commands to "welcome" those with whom you differ, whether they are more or less lenient than you are on issues of conscience (Romans 14:1-4 and 15:7). He didn't seek to settle these issues, but instead left the ambiguity and argued for mutual acceptance vs. judgment (14:3, 4, 10, 13, 22). So even as we talk about deference, it should be extended in both directions.
Glad for the conversation. Grace to you.
"We have a dishonest review that deserves an apology"
Yes. I agree. I do believe there are limits on how much we need to accommodate the strict brother. (I'm about to submit an article on that here...)
Every strict (on an issue) Christian thinks highly of his conviction.
Every free (on an issue) Christian thinks lowly of that conviction. (Thus, Don't despise.)
Paul writes Romans and does what?
--Did he push the strict Christian to think lower of his conviction? NO. He told him to be fully persuaded and to follow it to "honor the Lord" because Jesus is a Master with active Lordship.
But also YES. Paul told him to think highly of it for himself, but lowly of it as a general (or universal) conviction.
--Did he push the free Christian to think higher of that conviction? No. The Master has a different order for him, so he "honors the Lord" another way.
But also YES. Because he needs to honor the conviction in the life of his brother.
p155: You say, "Paul's instruction is for each believer to make up his own mind on these controversial topics (14:2, 5) and to guard his own conscience (14:22-23). And the assumption is that people will land in different places, which this passage says is fine!"
I like that you say these differences are "fine."
But I think it understates the active Lordship of Jesus in these things (thus what I said above about meditating on R14:4,6-9). I don't think these are depicted as "God says that's ok." It's more like, "God has led people to this conclusion, so they must obey it."
I'm not looking for an apology. I hope more people will read the book and engage with the Scriptures because of the review. I just wanted to correct what I deem to be some misrepresentations. I wish nothing but God's blessings on brother Cauthorne and his ministry.
Chris,
I hesitate to respond to your review of my review, but I want to offer an explanation for why I wrote what I wrote.
Michael Barrett is certainly fair game for this review. His endorsement appears on your front cover. He has had an outsized influence upon you. Your journey mirrors his journey. Your tone mirrors his tone. I sat in two of his classes at BJU, and I remember his occasional asides that were critical of 1990s Fundamentalism. You echo his sentiments. I am not saying your beliefs are not your own, but I am saying that you (and many other seminarians) have been heavily influenced by Barrett.
You can couch your statement (in my review I acknowledge that you criticize Billy Graham in your book), but I disagree with anyone who calls Graham "the world's greatest evangelist." Your phrase begs the question about what constitutes greatness -- numbers or Biblical faithfulness.
Your quote, "But the Lord has convicted me about these attitudes, revealing to me my own schismatic spirit" (160) is in a separate paragraph from your statement about rolling your eyes at "Christians on my right -- people who still use the King James Version, who have more traditional services, or who minimize election." (Perhaps you would accuse me of being a "Grammar Nazi" for pointing this out.) You acknowledge earlier in the paragraph that I quote from: "I'm working on the forgotten virtue of deference. I haven't arrived, to be sure." In other words, you are still struggling with dismissing "Christians on my right." I am glad you admit that your present attitude is sinful, but it is fair game for me to point out that you are still struggling with taking people like me (and others on your right) seriously. You are naturally attracted to Reformed Christians on your left and not to old-school Fundamentalists on your right -- by your own admission.
I must confess that I used "hobby horse" on purpose since the phrase is often used derisively against Fundamentalists whom you now criticize. I employ this phrase because you acknowledge in an early footnote: "I will cite alcohol a few times in this book as an example of an issue which is unnecessarily divisive" (30).
I state clearly in my review that you "call for separating from false teachers and unrepentant Christians." I am not misrepresenting you. I am simply bringing to light the undertones of your book.
I strongly encourage everyone to obtain a copy of your book and to wrestle with the Scriptures that you cite therein. As I note in my review: "His words must either be refuted from the Bible or acknowledged to be biblical."
My article is not "a dishonest review that deserves an apology." It simply points out areas of concern that many Fundamentalists have about you and your book.
I conclude my review by asking: "Who is right? Jesus’ words in Luke 7:35 give the only possible answer to this question: 'Wisdom is justified of all her children.' In other words, only time will tell." If my closing statement isn't deference, then I don't know what is.
Ironically, this entire thread demonstrates the very “scandal of schism” the book addresses. You could not ask for a better advertisement for the need to re-consider schismatic tendencies.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler says a group of guys disagreeing on an online form is schism. Am I getting that right?
The debate is about ministry philosophy and choices. I don’t think I have to protest that I am a fundamentalist after all. Most people, I guess, would consider it self evident. I am willing to confess to it, but I don’t have to protest to it. I think that marks a significant difference.
I’m sorry Dr Barrett, my former advisor in grad school, has changed his views. If there were fundamentalists in the 90s who went to far, what does that matter for the basic concept? Are we God centered or man centered to make our theological philosophy depend on what men do?
As I see it, fundamentalism among other things guides our ecclesiastical choices. We are separated from liberalism and we chose not to cooperate in ecclesiastical work with those who won’t fully separate. So we wouldn’t choose to co-author a book with, say Carl Truman for instance. And we wouldn’t join with Chuck Swindoll because he happens to like some music we produced.
Fundamentalists don’t condemn those guys as non-Christians, but we don’t cooperate with them either.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
God did not inspire Romans 14 by itself to stand alone apart from any consideration of what the rest of the book of Romans teaches. Faulty interpretations of Romans 14 disregard or deny Paul's teaching in Romans 1:30 about evil people who are inventors of evil things, in Romans 12:2 about not being conformed to the world, and in Romans 13:12-14 about casting off the works of darkness.
Rejecting what inventors of evil things have invented, not being conformed to the world, and casting off the works of darkness have everything to do with rightly determining what "genres" of instrumental music God accepts for use in corporate worship and what "genres" He does not accept.
*****Note: To prevent certain users of SI from wrongly attacking me for making these remarks, I am directly stating that I am not asserting that Chris Anderson has engaged in such faulty handling of Romans 14 as I have talked about above in this post. I do not know what Chris has or has not said about such matters.
Rather, I am speaking broadly about how Romans 14 must be interpreted correctly and about interpretations that are faulty because they have treated Romans 14 in isolation from the rest of what is taught in the book of Romans.
Don,
You say, "we chose not to cooperate in ecclesiastical work". Is this really the case? One of the biggest reasons for the friction between the BJU Board, the FBFI and Dr. Petit was inviting Trevor Lawrence, a Christian, but not sufficiently fundamentalist, to speak at a sporting event at the college. BJU is not an ecclesiastical institution, nor was the event an ecclesiastical function. The concern hasn't really been about cooperation at the ecclesiastical level, but the need to separate at the secondary, tertiary and further levels.
First, a whole lot of fundamentalist Christians had a lot to say about the Lawrence fiasco, not just the FBFI board, which led to the cancellation of that invitation.
Second, when some Christian organization does something wrong, other Christians have the responsibility to speak up about it, especially when there are close ties that raise questions. Would you say that SI was wrong to publish this review of Chris’s book?
It seems to me that if those criticizing the Lawrence decision were wrong, then publishing this review and all discussion of it is wrong also.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
To put a fine point on it, I was specifically highlighting that many will say separation is focused on ecclesiastical cooperation, but the facts show that it is much broader than ecclesiastical cooperation.
I only mentioned the FBFI because of the formality of their complaint and the push that is specifically gave to Dr. Jones and the Board. Yes, many people complained.
"Wrong" is a broad term. If it was focused on ecclesiastical cooperation, than having Lawrence speak would not have been wrong. The school has had all kinds of people speak that were not fundamentalist and in some cases against school values. If fundamentalism is about separating more broadly than ecclesiastical cooperation, than that should be clear.
I am not saying the Lawrence decision was right or wrong. Just that many in fundamentalism were screaming about the concerns with cooperation. But on the other hand narrowly focus that their real stance is ecclesiastical cooperation.
Because BJU is not a church, but is a non-denominational educational institution, I would not have minded hearing from people in other orbits (like, e.g. John MacArthur) while I was at BJU.
Interestingly, even back in the 80’s when I was there, at the yearly Bible Conference we always heard from speakers who were considered to be within fundamentalism, but would definitely be outside the typical IFB orbit. I think Paisley spoke every year I was there, and there were also Methodists, etc. who spoke as well. Again, while these men would be considered to be within broader fundamentalism at the time, they certainly would have had enough differences to not “do church together,” which is what I think of when I consider “ecclesiastical cooperation.”
I wouldn’t have wanted to hear Lawrence preach in chapel, but in a seminar-type setting, I think exposing students to Christians with positions outside the fundamental orbit would have been of great value in them learning to see both the similarities and the differences.
Dave Barnhart
Biblical separation is an important issue. It means we need to warn about those who promote false doctrine.
Ro 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. (NASB)
It also means we separate from others based on unrepentant conduct. I Corinthians 5.
I doubt anyone in our church will ever hear about the review of Chris Anderson's book shared at the beginning of this thread, but if they do, I will have to warn them about the author of that review. I will have to inform them about how Anderson was misrepresented and how that falls into the category of unrepentant conduct. I will also warn them about concerns about doctrine since Cauthorn has publicly questioned the teaching of the book of Psalms concerning worship.
This thread has rightly pointed out concerns about Driscal and Graham. As a pastor who wants to remain true to scripture and who understands the importance of Biblical separation, the issues with Cauthorn cannot be overlooked either.
With that in mind, we should not count him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother.
2Th 3:15 And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (NASB)
Dave,
I agree. If Lawrence was going to preach from the pulpit during chapel., bible conference.... than ecclesiastical separation would be called for. The school has had people like George Bush speak to the students. They have had Christian business men speak to the business classes. They have had Christian and dnon-Christian scientists and doctors speak to the science students. Again, I am not saying they should or should not have Lawrence at the school. Just if fundamentalism really wants to say that they separate over ecclesiastical cooperation, the facts are that the separation always goes way beyond that. And that is probably the rub that is going on with Chris's book and any perceived drift.
This whole line of argument really has little to do with the point of the review or the thread. Bottom line: Chris protests that he is a fundamentalist. He has done things and said things that cause others to question the validity of his protestation.
I am sure Chris thinks he is a fundamentalist, at least by his definition. Time will tell
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion