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.
>>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<<
I think most of us have a good theoretical idea about what “true” fundamentalism looks like. However, it’s clear with the benefit of hindsight that fundamentalism today doesn’t look like the version of the 1950’s, which doesn’t really look like the version of the 1920’s. And from discussions here, it’s clear that there are plenty of differences in the way contemporary Christians define and use it. Someone I know a few years ago called it the “ecumenism of the orthodox,” which doesn’t sound too far off, at least of the 1920’s version. Men in orbits like Brandenburg’s don’t consider themselves fundamentalists either, because they hold all doctrines to be equally important (i.e there are no 2nd-tier or 3rd-tier etc. issues).
As others have pointed out, the differences on fundamentalism among today’s Christians seem to really come down to which issues fit into the set of core doctrines one must believe and practice to be an obedient Christian. While I have big differences with those who think “anything goes” in relation to music, I have a really hard time putting one’s position on which music can be used into the essential category. I haven’t read Chris’s book, and I’m sure music is just one part of it, but it does seem to be a very real dividing line for some as to whether one is a fundamentalist or not.
Dave Barnhart
Isn't the Trevor Lawrence situation an example? Lawrence's speaking to an athletic booster club is declared "wrong" by one group of Christians but deemed permissable by another group of Christians. In what appears to be a matter of contradictory consciences, one group pressures the other to yield. BTW, perhaps a clear statement on what was "wrong" would have been helpful.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
And if individuals are railing against one reviewer, are we also saying someone like Sam Horn, a faculty member at BJU, who provided a review has also drifted away from fundamentalism? I am lost in this discussion a bit. I feel like we are back in the mindset that Chris hasn't separated himself enough from certain issues. Which, from what I have read in a portion of the book, the crux of the issue.
Dave, do you have a link for the Sam Horn review?
The argument really is about definitions. Often, we've had some say, "I'm a historic fundamentalist," meaning, I would stand with those guys in the 1920s fighting liberalism in the Northern Baptist Convention. I think that's basically what Chris is saying, but I could be wrong.
However, consider this question: if those 1920s fundamentalists were alive today, and had an understanding of all the history since their heyday, what position would they take towards "conservative evangelicalism"? Would they be willing to cooperate, invite them to their pulpits, publish books with them, etc, etc?
I don't know if we can answer that, and probably, depending on the individual, the reactions would differ. Nevertheless, my point is that in defining fundamentalism, one has to consider what is the fundamentalist viewpoint at any given point in history. Movements and definitions aren't static. Generally speaking, those who embraced the separatist position have reacted consistently to changes in the ecclesiastical scene.
In other words, if you had someone inviting a Trevor Lawrence to an event sponsored/connected to an erstwhile fundamentalist institution, how would you expect fundamentalists to react?
To say "I am a historic fundamentalist" and basically go along with cultural changes and trends, go soft on social and moral issues because there are "fuzzy lines" at points, or because we don't want to be so narrow-minded or rules based, or because that guy has good doctrine despite his behaviour problems, or whatever... does that suggest the so-called "historic fundamentalist" really gets what fundamentalism is all about?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
>>In other words, if you had someone inviting a Trevor Lawrence to an event sponsored/connected to an erstwhile fundamentalist institution, how would you expect fundamentalists to react?<<
You write off my fine distinction of the the purpose/venue for inviting Lawrence to speak at a fundamental college as a rabbit trail, but then you go on to show why reaction to it is at the heart of this issue.
I would expect true fundamentalists to react very differently to having Lawrence in the pulpit, particularly at a fundamental church, vs. having him speak in a non-preaching context at an institution that is, by definition, tasked with educating (not being a surrogate church to) Christians in how to live for Christ and lead in a world hostile to Him, and that would include how to deal with Christians and their viewpoints that are outside what we would consider to be part of fundamentalism.
>>To say “I am a historic fundamentalist” and basically go along with cultural changes and trends, go soft on social and moral issues because there are “fuzzy lines” at points…<<
But the “fuzzy lines” are central to the point here. I would say that the main bone of contention in defining who is in and out of fundamentalism today (for those who claim it) is taking particular non-core issues (like music) and placing them correctly in the moral or conscience bins. If scripture is not clear enough on such issues, as it is on say, the virgin birth, then I think it’s inaccurate (if maybe not quite schismatic) to take such an issue and label differences on that issue as “going soft.” If that issue cannot be connected clearly to the core beliefs and practices of Biblical Christianity, who is really the one who doesn’t get “what historical fundamentalism is all about?”
Dave Barnhart
Don,
Sam Horn’s endorsement is on the cover of the book, right next to Michael Barrett,
“This book is outstanding! Chris has written a deeply thoughtful and spiritually helpful work to help us regain the apostles' passion for biblical unity for our churches and for our times. The purity of the gospel at times demands the difficult and painful work of Spirit-directed, Bible-shaped, and truth-centered separation. But that necessary work is easily diverted from the boundaries that govern it in the New Testament. Chris speaks to this clearly, charitably, honestly, transparently, and personally. While not everyone will agree with everything in this book, everyone needs to read this book. Growing in grace demands at times the uncomfortable discipline of letting others speak carefully and transparently in urging us to think deeply from the Scriptures about a topic like this one. Chris has done so in ways that are both engaging and deeply profitable for his readers.”
Historic Fundamentalism is known primarily for its militant defense of historical and clearly declared Biblical doctrine as stated in historic Christian creeds and separation from as well as battle royal against those who deny and/or distort those doctrines.
Fundamentalism 2.0, while holding firmly to the doctrinal position and practice of historical fundamentalism, is known primarily for its practice of separation from other Christians who hold firmly to historic Christian doctrine but are viewed as not being fundamental enough for practices that are seen as not part of the Fundamentalist 2.0 identity. These practices are not consistently applied and may include things like music styles, Bible versions, eschatology, Reformed theology, dancing, wine, dress, degrees of association, worship styles......... This separation may range from denial of friendship to condemnation.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Historic Fundamentalism is known primarily for its militant defense of historical and clearly declared Biblical doctrine as stated in historic Christian creeds and separation from as well as battle royal against those who deny and/or distort those doctrines.
Fundamentalism 2.0, while holding firmly to the doctrinal position and practice of historical fundamentalism, is known primarily for its practice of separation from other Christians who hold firmly to historic Christian doctrine but are viewed as not being fundamental enough for practices that are seen as not part of the Fundamentalist 2.0 identity. These practices are not consistently applied and may include things like music styles, Bible versions, eschatology, Reformed theology, dancing, wine, dress, degrees of association, worship styles......... This separation may range from denial of friendship to condemnation.
I keep reading the phrase: "Historic Fundamentalism" in this thread and yet there does not seem to be agreement about what that is. I must admit that it makes me very uncomfortable when I feel like we have to go back to history instead of to scripture in order to determine what the "right" fundamentalism is. No doubt there is value in looking at the traditions of Christianity throughout the ages, but much of what is being looked at in these threads only dates back about 100 years. Shouldn't we primarily be looking to scripture to figure out how those faithful to God conducted themselves- the Psalms?
I don’t know what historic fundamentalism is. For many of us, we see it through the lens of fundamentalist located in the SouthEast United States. My grandfather was part of the 1940’s to 1950’s fundamentalist movement in Texas with Dr. Frank Norris. That was a different flavor and they didn’t always see eye to eye. My grandfather wrote a series of articles in the 1970’s seriously criticizing an article that Dr. Wisdom from BJU wrote questioning whether some of the beliefs that some fundamentalist held to were not really fundamentals. While they respected BJU, they also didn’t see eye to eye on lots of different things. Even in the historic ages of the past there were disagreements.
Dave, your grandfather and Dr. Wisdom would probably have both accepted each other as fundamentalists, though they disagreed on points. No one says fundamentalists moved in lockstep.
But you are talking about the 1970s. Usually those who are calling themselves "historic fundamentalists" mean "just like the 1920s" (see Ron's comment above).
JD, the fundamentalists of the past no doubt thought their views were based on the Bible. They weren't relying on history.
And really, the point here is not that so-called "historic fundamentalists" define what a fundamentalist is, but that there are people who want to use the term as a self-description. Usually it means "I still want to be called a fundamentalist" (for some reason???), but "I'm not like those guys over there" (usually pointing to fundamentalists of the 70s, 80s, 90s, or the FBFI right now, or the KJV-onlyist fundamentalists right now.) For some reason they don't want to abandon the term fundamentalist, so they've invented "historic fundamentalist."
I think they should just confess that they aren't fundamentalists and are really conservative evangelicals -- but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The problem with your 1920s theory, Don, is that I and most others like me are very critical of Billy Graham's inclusivism in the 1950s and well beyond. My book is extremely critical of New Evangelicalism's non-separatism. And while it may mess with your categories, most people you'd identify as "conservative evangelicals," including say John MacArthur, are similarly critical of Billy Graham's refusal to separate from apostates.
I think where we likely differ is that I see healthy fundamentalism, historically and today, as those who believe, defend, and do battle royal for the faith once delivered to the saints... but not for matters where the Bible is far less clear, matters of conscience. That "triage" approach, contrary to an earlier commenter in this thread, isn't Mohler's or mine. It was the hallmark of early fundamentalists. They united to defend the fundamentals, not cultural preferences. And they gave each other space to differ on other important issues. You know that was the early spirit of fundamentalism and of BJU. And I'd say that approach actually goes way back to the Scriptures themselves. I'm not saying nothing matters but the fundamentals. But I think it's unwise to separate—to censure other believers as unrepentantly sinful—over second- or third-tier issues on which sincere godly men and women differ. And I do think that was the position of fundamentalism at its best.
Grace to you.
I think that very few of us want the label fundamentalist. After all, even the FBFI dropped the word from its title.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I am not the one who claims the "historic fundamentalist" label. I've seen it countless times by those who argue for something different from whatever fundamentalism has become. They want to claim they are standing where the historic fundamentalists stood. It's their term, not mine.
As for this:
I'm not saying nothing matters but the fundamentals. But I think it's unwise to separate—to censure other believers as unrepentantly sinful—over second- or third-tier issues on which sincere godly men and women differ. And I do think that was the position of fundamentalism at its best.
I would say that is mostly a caricature. (I am sure there are some who did it, but I don't think that was mostly what fundamentalism was about.)
I've long advocated for a different term than separation. There are brothers with whom I will not cooperate, but I don't "censure them as unrepentantly sinful." I'm pretty sure that is true of many, if not most, fundamentalists. Exceptions might be the more extreme KJOs with very strict dress standards and the like.
But really, I don't think you are arguing against them, are you?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I think I was unclear. When I said, "And I do think that was the position of fundamentalism at its best," I meant that they showed deference on secondary issues, not that they censured one another. They agreed on the fundamentals. They gave each other space on non-fundamentals. That was the position of fundamentalism at it's best.
I appreciate that you make a distinction between non-cooperation and censure. I think that's not the way separation has typically been expressed, though. We've long called everyone but fundamentalists "disobedient brothers." But if you truly choose not to cooperate with orthodox brothers, without censure, why blame other good brothers who draw the lines somewhat differently?
And are you sure that's your practice? It felt like your very first comments about me in this thread had some censure in them.
Grace to you, Don. Truly. I'm praying for God's blessing on your ministry in Canada. Preach Christ. Make disciples. Go get 'em. The world is beating us up; we don't need to help them out. Godspeed.
First, you said:
to censure other believers as unrepentantly sinful
Then you said:
It felt like your very first comments about me in this thread had some censure in them
OED: says censure means:
An adverse judgement, unfavourable opinion, hostile criticism; blaming, finding fault with, or condemning as wrong; expression of disapproval or condemnation. (The usual sense.)
So, yeah, if someone criticizes you, that's censure. And I am still critical of your ministry choices. I don't think you should have made those choices.
But if we can't criticize one another, how can we talk meaningfully about differences? And criticism is not censuring "as unrepentantly sinful"
I know that the term separation is used for all kinds of disassociation. I have advocated that we shouldn't say separate when we mean withhold cooperation, or whatever term you want to call it. "Separation" in the Bible sense (2 Cor 6) is more appropriate when we are talking about liberalism/modernism, etc.
Yet there are many issues that cause one to pause when it comes to various levels of cooperation. Lifestyle choices often are some of them, and I see no reason why that is illegitimate grounds for criticism.
Anyway, this is all very old ground. We've been debating these things for years.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You do realize that where Chris has landed when it comes to separation and unity is basically where the GARBC and IFCA have been throughout the past 40+ years? Both have 1000 or so churches in their associations and both have been and still are part of the Fundamentalist movement of Churches (If we can still call it a movement). Their posture towards Billy Graham, towards music, and other cultural issues are pretty much the same as what Chris has shared. As someone who grew up in the GARBC and appreciated my heritage and grounding, including its teaching on separation, I acknowledge Chris' view to be more biblical. Its a different stripe of fundamentalism than some of the stripes of fundamentalism that aligned themselves with the old BJU.
Now granted, the original fundamentalists of the early 20th century by no means implemented it perfectly, but I think the clear goal was a limited set of theological imperatives--say the original five Solas, the original five Fundamentals, the Trinity, and most likely a few points from the Apostle's Creed. I'm guessing the "infamous" (?) Trevor Lawrence would affirm these, and if so, I extend my hand to him as a fundamental brother who, per Ron's comment, might not want the title.
Regarding "Fundamentalism 2.0", and the extension of separation to any number of social issues, you've got to be very careful about that, as very often, when you want to take a strict social stand, or even a Bible version stand, you've got to trample on one of the theological fundamentals. As I noted before, if you're explaining around the second chapter of John, the final Psalm, or arguing that most of the historic manuscripts of the New Testament are fatally flawed, you're really doing a lot of violance to Sola Scriptura. At least in my book.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Breaking my commitment to avoid such arguments conversations, might I suggest that trying to define “fundamentalist” might be a bit like trying to define the GOAT. Was Michael Jordan the GOAT? Or Bill Russell? Was Jack Nicklaus the GOAT? Or Tiger Woods? Or Bobby Jones? Was it Tom Brady or Johnny Unitas? Or Joe Montana?
Or perhaps someone else altogether?
GOATs and Fundamentalists should be defined in terms of eras. It seems hard to compare the era of the 20s (and Babe Ruth) with 70s (and Hank Aaron) and the 2000 (and Barry Bonds). Would Ricky Henderson have stolen as many bases in the 20s? What would Tiger have been with equipment from the 1970s? Still good. But as good? Who knows.
So why compare the issues of WB Riley and Curtis Lee Laws with those of other generations? Arguments appealing to the historic fundamentalism of the 20s might partake of the line from the great philospher who once said, “The good ole days weren’t always good and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems-ee-eems.” Perhaps there is an idealistic view of the historic fundamentalists that grants them a bit too much credit. They stood tall in their time but perhaps missed some things that are no longer preserved in mainstream history.
It seems easy to put ourselves in shoes we don’t have to wear. I recall old conversations where we were discussing whether or not we should fellowship or cooperate with So and So when there was zero chance of such cooperation or participation. The Fundamentalists of different eras faced different challenges and different issues. What would Riley have done in the 1950s? Or Graham in the 1920s? Which side was Ockenga on in the 20s? And if he were to look back from our perspective in the 21st century would he be satisfied with the outcome of his new evangelicalism?
And does it matter anyway?
Perhaps we should focus on biblical obedience rather than labels. And focus on local church more than broader Christianity of whatever flavor. I find little usefulness in trying to ferret out the true fundamentalists. I just show up every week with a group of people and sing and preach and fellowship together. And that’s what matters most to me.
I think you said better what I was trying to say. It is fruitless to try to define my own version of fundamentalism by any particular era.
In this case, as Chris titled his book, The Scandal of Schism, he seems to be taking aim at my version of fundamentalism. He used to roughly inhabit that version, but now sees it as schismatic.
When I was in school, I saw some of the moves of then fundamentalist leaders and sometimes cringed. However, I believe the fundamentalist idea is right, and it must be applied to various associations that I might consider for myself or the church I lead. In saying that, though I didn't always agree with fellow fundamentalists, I still think it is the right way to proceed.
Chris' book seems to attack what I consider to be the basic idea of fundamentalism. That is probably a more worthy topic than comparing eras.
My "seems" in that last sentence is based on the review and other comments I've seen online (and who has endorsed the book and why).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Far from being two very different approaches, a truly Psalms-centered approach to worship and music and not being conformed to the world are vitally interconnected facets of the right approach to worship and music:
What Psalms 1:1-3 Compared to Romans 12:2 Teaches Us about the Right Approach to Worship and Music
Romans 12:2a And be not conformed to this world:]
[Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Romans 12:2b but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,]
Romans 12:2c that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.]
Years ago I heard Chris speaking on a panel in which issues of separation were discussed, and he made what I considered to be a helpful point. Sometimes fundamentalists have been guilty of embracing brothers with really atrocious theology because they "stand in the right place on music" or some other cultural issue.
As I recall, Chris never suggested we embrace an "anything goes" mentality with respect to music so far as the guy's theology was correct, but there needs to be a recognition that we can be far too quick to separate over disputed matters than over genuinely problematic theology or unbiblical practice. I still think his words on the score were wise, and I may pick up this book.
And on the other hand, there are guys who will give charismatics and morally indefensible people (two different groups) a pass if they are Calvinists.
“At least they have sound theology” — I’ve heard that one tons of times
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Much great stuff has been written on fundamentalism. I think this excerpt from an article by Dr. Fred Moritz, from the inaugural issue of Maranatha’s now defunct theological journal, sums it up pretty well:
The fundamentalist movement began to develop in the 1870s as a defense of biblical doctrine and theology against the theological liberalism that developed from 1650 and took shape in the nineteenth century. The term came into usage in 1920.
Fundamentalism as a movement is the historical expression at a particular point in history of the Bible truth that God has revealed Himself to the human race in His Word. This movement also takes at face value that the divinely revealed truth is to be earnestly contended for as Jude 3 mandates. At its best fundamentalism is a “back to the Bible” movement to proclaim and contend for the truth.
Fundamentalism is therefore a theological and militant movement. It was interdenominational by definition. Fundamentalists also allowed each other latitude in the use of Bible versions and in their understanding of Calvinism and Arminianism.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
For decades I've been watching hyper-separatist fundementalists ignore the failings of their own. I won't use the hyperbolic "tons", but I've seen key men in associations/fellowships/churches be caught in immorality, convicted of DUI, advocate violence against homosexuals, and spread falsehoods and be ignored by their brethren and allowed to disappear quietly. And yes, everybody else does it too!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Should we rehabilitate and restore failures like evangelicals often do?
We aren’t a denomination or church. If a man fails, he loses position and influence. What else are we to do?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As I recall, Chris never suggested we embrace an "anything goes" mentality with respect to music so far as the guy's theology was correct...
There may be some who will accept any and all comers who claim the Calvinist label. I don't believe that's what Chris has done, but I admit I'm not close enough to him to really know.
I've always been told to take an "eat the meat and spit out the bones" approach, when it comes to men with different theological views than my own. Yet when it comes to disputable matters like acceptable worship music or dress standards, I've been warned to avoid being led astray by even a hint of loosening. That seems inconsistent to me.
My point was that over the years I have seen many who were willing to give guys with serious, obvious, and longstanding theological and/or moral flaws just because they were Calvinists.
It is true that we all are tempted to do the same if somebody touts our favourite issue, but we need the integrity to see when these flaws in our “heroes” are disqualifying
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I got this book late Friday afternoon and read the music chapter first. By Sunday evening, I finished reading the entire body of the book, including reading the music chapter again as I successively read through the book.
My reading confirmed what I expected the book to be before I had read it. I did not find anything in the book that moved me or convinced me that I need to repent because I supposedly have been and am guilty of "sinful division" and lack of "biblical fidelity" by my supposedly being a schismatic believer because of my strongly conservative positions on worship and music.
As God directs, I anticipate responding in varying forms to the arguments made in the book.
I've been lurking in the shadows and reading the comments and the discussion has been pretty standard but I wanted to point out something that Don mentioned in one of his responses: "We are not a church."
I have often wondered if this is the crux of the issue. The passages that speak to separation envision their application in the context of the local church. They were written to local churches and to pastors of local churches. As I see it, the primary application of the doctrine of separation is in the local church.
I think things get so convoluted because we have organizations that are not churches applying the principles of separation. So what happens is position statements are written, individuals are called out, but the "teeth" of separation (which is church discipline) are never shown.
So I seek to practice and live the doctrine of separation in the context to which it is applied in scripture, my local assembly. If the church down the street or across the country, the popular preacher, or even men who I have interacted with and appreciate apply separation differently in their various local church contexts, that is something for which they will give account to the Lord. It really only concerns me and my ministry if it affects my local assembly. So while I may choose not to cooperate with Samaritans Purse or to pursue traditional worship, the fact that another church lead by another elder makes a different decision is not only something I really should not get up in arms about but further is something to be expected. Each church has their own particular context and apply their doctrine in different ways. As a Baptist, my belief in autonomy means that my primary focus should be my local assembly.
I think we would all be better suited to consider separation a local church issue that local churches apply in their various situations rather than something that organizations or universities lead the charge on. If the FBFI, the GARBC, BJU, or Cedarville make decisions that I do not agree with (and all of them have to one extent or another done things I am not comfortable with), it doesn't change my focus. My local assembly is where I need to exert my efforts.
Phil Golden
If yes, then you cannot help but be affected when Christians in other churches make unbiblical compromises of some kind, or deny the faith altogether. I don’t think any local church can exist and function without connections to other churches and ministries.
But let’s take your premise, separation, or the like, is only a local church issue. Even so, what can a church do when a leader sins in some way that requires discipline? About all that can be done is impose a program of rehabilitation and accountability if the person is repentant. If he/she isn’t, then the only option is to kick him/ her out.
So in the cases that Ron so snidely brought up, there isn’t much else that could be done. (And I think they were done in some of the cases he is alluding to).
My question stands, what else could we or should we do?
BTW, I had lunch with your dad yesterday. I always enjoy talking to him.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Scripture provides many indications that what God directed to one or more churches was authoritative and pertinent to other churches. Here are some of the passages that teach that this is true:
1 Cor. 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
1 Cor. 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Gal. 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Col. 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev. 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev. 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
What the Spirit inspired a writer of Scripture to write to a particular church was not intended to just be for that church. This truth applies to all the teaching about separation.
- - "Romans 14 does not establish the validity of such a claim"
Larry: - "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."
My question is this: have you encountered attempts to answer that question?
Some writers state the importance of it, but I've never seen anyone answer it well.
For instance, Jamie Dunlop, in Love the Ones Who Drive You Crazy, said,
Paul begins Romans 14 by warning us not “to quarrel over opinions.” The word the ESV translates as “opinions” literally means “reasonings”—consistent with its use here as reason-based implications of Scripture. . . These disagreements are not about truths “either expressly set down in Scripture, or [that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” . . . they’re based on reasoning from those truths. About such matters we should not quarrel . . . I should note that categorizing which disagreements are legitimately “disputable” in your church is beyond the purview of this book. That would be an entire book in itself.
My question is this: have you encountered attempts to answer that question?
A few but I haven’t looked hard. It seems to take from very narrow (only what’s mentioned in the text) to really broad (whatever anyone wants to put in there). I believe the best understanding is connected to things that are reasoned about … Convinced in their mind. The mind plays a role. But it isn’t the end because a conscience can be poorly trained. There are things of a good and necessary consequence but how do we get there? Not everyone agrees on what how that works. And not everything fits in there.
As an example and Rajesh above says he has not seen any reason to repent or change, which is a common response I think. I don’t think that is quite the trump card many think it is. It might be an indication of spiritual immaturity, a hardened conscience, poor scriptural reasoning, stubbornness, pride, or perhaps other reasons. It’s is probably often not easy to tell. But Rajesh, for example, had a duty to accept in love those who differ, to be kind and gentle (2 Tim 2:24). And everyone else has a duty to accept Rajesh in love and to be kind. Because no one here is the Master that we answer to. We can debate the specifics and allow for Christians to differ with us.
I think it is far less complicated than many try to make it. It send to me it is about things that God approves but some believers do not.
Don and Rajesh,
I do, of course, believe in a universal church and I believe that every principle from scripture applies to every church. However, while the universal church exists, it is the local church that applies the truths of scripture.
It becomes an issue when para-church organizations and fellowships become the determiner of how separation is to be applied. For instance, all the hubbub around Alistair Begg's advice to a grandmother. I disagreed with it. I discussed it in passing with some in my church who had a question about it. I had a more detailed discussion with my men's group whom we have taken to his Basics Conference. I stated my disagreement to them to address how it affected my local congregation. That was it. I did not feel the need to issue a public statement. Our church attended the Basic's Conference that following year and this past fall I had the opportunity to sit under Begg's teaching with a few dozen other men. In my very very limited personal interactions with Alistair, it never once crossed my mind that he needed to be confronted by me, even though I disagreed with him. His accountability is not to me... its first, to the Lord, and second to his local assembly's leadership and congregation. He also did not see fit to ask my opinion so I really didn't think it appropriate to offer it unsolicited.
But you had MacArthur issuing statements and Begg being uninvited to Shepherds conference. There were a number of articles online decrying the liberal lean of Begg. While there were a few passing comments in traditional fundamentalism, the majority of the separation statements and actions actually came from "conservative evangelicalism." (Masters, G3, Ligonier, etc.)
But as I wrestled with it, I dealt with the issue's application in my local context... and that was all that was needed to be said.
So, Don, while you asked if I believed in the Universal church... of course I do... but let me ask you... who has greater authority for the application of separation: Universities and Fellowships or the local church?
Phil Golden
And if you are an obedient Christian, you will apply separation/non-cooperation/what have you in obedience to him, depending on the context.
MacArthur has a responsibility to his constituents so a decision had to be made about Begg. While fundamentalists had less responsibility since they had no potential entanglement to start with. Fundamentalist leaders had some duty to make some kind of statements because their constituents would require some response. In that case, I think pretty well everyone but Begg handled themselves properly
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As an example and Rajesh above says he has not seen any reason to repent or change, which is a common response I think. I don’t think that is quite the trump card many think it is. It might be an indication of spiritual immaturity, a hardened conscience, poor scriptural reasoning, stubbornness, pride, or perhaps other reasons. It’s is probably often not easy to tell. But Rajesh, for example, had a duty to accept in love those who differ, to be kind and gentle (2 Tim 2:24). And everyone else has a duty to accept Rajesh in love and to be kind. Because no one here is the Master that we answer to. We can debate the specifics and allow for Christians to differ with us.
I think it is far less complicated than many try to make it. It send to me it is about things that God approves but some believers do not.
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying with these remarks. Again, after reading Chris' book, I hold that I have absolutely no reason to repent of anything because Chris is wrong about what he teaches about music (and separation) in his book to assert that those whose views differ from his are wrong.
Concerning Romans 14, just because Scripture does not say anything directly about pornography being sinful does not make it a Romans 14 issue.
Similarly, just because Scripture does not say that a given "genre" of instrumental music is unacceptable for use in corporate worship does not make its use in corporate worship necessarily a Romans 14 issue.
The Scripture teaches both unity among Christians and separation from Christians. It seems that unity that is willing to accept differences in matters of conscience gets the most attention. We are also instructed to separate from other Christians who are involved in unrepentant sin with the goal of seeing them repent and experience reconciliation. (FOOTNOTE: It seems to me that schism occurs when Christians end friendships with other Christians, harshly criticize other Christians, or refuse to have any fellowship or association with other Christians over issues that to one are matters of conscience and to the other are convictions but on which the Scripture are not adamant.)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I agree in general with what Ron said. The only thing I would note is that our efforts towards preserving unity seem directed to the local church. See Ephesians 4.1-6
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don... I'm trying to understand your response to Ron in light of our discussion. If separation is a universal church issue should unity also not be considered a universal church issue as well.
It just reads like an inconsistent application of biblical principles. I would hold that both unity and separation have universal church implications but that both of their primary applications are in the context of the local church. So I don't disagree with what you are saying in response to Ron. I'm just wondering why separation seems to have a broader application in your mind than unity.
Phil Golden
Therefore, local pastors have a duty to their people to mark and avoid those outside the local church and their errors. That might involve warning or denunciation or some other measure.
If the local church belongs to a wider organization (convention, fellowship, denomination, etc) the pastor may need to get involved in organizational disputes or to lead his people to withdraw.
It’s all about guarding and guiding the flock. But the main commands about unity (as far as I can see, are within the local church)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thanks, Larry,
I'm very interested to see any attempts to delineate the scope of Romans 14 "weak/strong" issues. So if anyone comes across one, please let me know.
There are things of a good and necessary consequence...
George Gillespe, who was a contributor to the WCF, seemed to use good and necessary consequence to mean Biblical truth. For what I would call applications, he used a different term: Legitimate consequences. Those, in his words "admit variable expression."
So I (and I think Gillespe) would not agree that some applications are "good and necessary consequences."
-------
Rajesh. Ok, he's a tough one (to talk about him in front of him so to speak).
"has a duty to accept..." Maybe--right? "kind and gentle" Yes.
But we are also told to "admonish, rebuke, reprove, encourage to good works, etc."
So if you mean "accept others and accept their music-conviction as ok," then Rajesh has to discern whether music is an "accept" issue or a "rebuke" issue.
So it comes down to my main question in this thread: How can Rajesh know whether:
- it's a Romans 14 issue (others can and should differ and Rajesh is committing blasphemy when he calls their good music evil)
- it's not a Romans 14 issue (others should not differ and Rajesh is sinning (omission) if he doesn't call out their sinful music)
I’m very interested to see any attempts to delineate the scope of Romans 14 “weak/strong” issues.
It seems to me to be pretty clear Romans 14 is addressing things that are acceptable to God but things which some Christian’s conscience forbids them because they wrongly believe it is sin. There’s not a catalog of those things and it might be entirely clear or able to make a full list.
I think “good and necessary consequence” is likely biblical truth but it is not always clear how we get there. I don’t think it is application, per se.
Rajesh. Ok, he’s a tough one (to talk about him in front of him so to speak).
“has a duty to accept…” Maybe—right?
Maybe? Romans 14 makes it a command to accept and not to judge. I don’t think that is a maybe. It is a duty.
It doesn’t mean we have to agree. In fact, in Romans 14, they don’t agree. And perhaps there is room for discussions about it. I don’t think that is forbidden by Romans 14. In fact, perhaps discussions are how we come to determine these things.
Again, before Paul ever gets to his teaching in Romans 14, he already has declared that there are evil people who are "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30). Asserting that the evil things that such people invent do not include any "genres" of instrumental music is entirely a question-begging claim with no biblical basis.
Similarly, before Paul gets to his teaching in Romans 14, Paul commands believers "to cast off the works of darkness" (Rom. 13:12). Asserting that, of course, there are no "genres" of music that are works of darkness is purely question begging that has zero biblical support.
There is no biblical basis to claim that God accepts the use of all "genres" of music in corporate worship. Claiming that the "genres" of music that God accepts in corporate worship is a Romans 14 matter merely because Christians differ strongly about that issue does not prove that it is a Romans 14 issue.
There is no biblical basis to claim that God accepts the use of all "genres" of music in corporate worship.
Of course, it is also true that there is no biblical basis to the claim that God refuses to accept the use of any certain "genre" of music in corporate worship.
Don,
Thanks for the clarification. I think that the difference in emphasis regarding the local church is perhaps the crux of the issue between old guard fundamentalists and the newer generation. While you may see unity as a primarily local church issue with a secondary universal church application, I think younger generations (at least speaking for myself) see a need for recovering unity in a universal sense as a greater emphasis. I think this is the reason for the draw of groups like TGC, T4G, G3 and the like have toward younger fundamentalists. It is this "main thing" emphasis where we find unity (particularly around the gospel) and that is the draw. And, to be honest, when these groups begin to diverge from the "main thing" emphasis (like Social Justice), I know for myself (and perhaps other younger fundamentalists) that those groups began to have less appeal.
There is much to learn from old guard fundamentalists about standing for the faith but perhaps cultivating (little c) catholicism unified around the gospel is also something that needs to be considered. I know that traditionally fundamentalism has had a catholic emphasis but the rally point was around not what we are for but what we are against. The "gospel-centered" groups provided a basis for unity without casting stones.
As is so often the case, we approach these issues with an "either or" mindset when perhaps we should think of them with a "both and" mindset, mainly because the scriptures apply both unity and separation to the whole church, both universal and local.
Phil Golden
Maybe? Romans 14 makes it a command to accept and not to judge. I don’t think that is a maybe. It is a duty.
I meant that yes, it's a duty IF it's in the domain of Romans 14.
If it's not a Romans 14 issue then he should rebuke (kindly and gently).
I think you are partly making a caricature of what you call the old guard. But I won’t debate that point.
You talk about the “gospel-centred” groups having more appeal. So far they aren’t succeeding. T4G has collapsed. Some of the others continue, but the reality is that they are united only under the gospel as they define it. That is, Calvinism. Further, their Calvinism makes Reformed ecclesiology more attractive, hence their unbiblical view of unity. I say unbiblical because they say things about unity that aren’t found in the Bible.
In the end, they create a quasi unity that ultimately is as fractious as any other movement outside the Catholic Church ever was.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I don't believe that T4G was intended to be a long-lasting fellowship/association/organization. It served a purpose in bringing together doctrinally sound believers from varied backgrounds who are still together in ways other than a biannual meeting. May I suggest we consider what has happened to groups whose most noted charactertistic was separation from other believers.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The schism or divisiveness described in Titus 3:11-12 is not actually a Romans 14 issue. As I walk through Titus 3, the context is foolish controversies about geneologies and quarrels about the law, and we might suggest that what's at hand is a hermeneutic/exegetical method not consistent with the New Testament. I think I remember Kevin Bauder pointing out that these geneologies were not likely those of Matthew or Luke, but rather of the gnostics, and the controversies about the law would likely have been of Oral Torah, not the written Pentateuch.
So I would suggest that while there is a parallel between this passage and some of our hot button issues, probably the better way to address them is to address the ways that people come to certain conclusions. I would argue it's very often a basic question of exegesis and hermeneutics.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Of course, it is also true that there is no biblical basis to the claim that God refuses to accept the use of any certain "genre" of music in corporate worship.
Not true. God has plainly directed His people about what they must not do:
Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. 13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God. 14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
Only through question begging can it asserted that this instruction did not pertain to the distinctively occult musical practices of the many different kinds of occultists spoken of in this seminal instruction to God's people about what they must not do.
Based on this passage and others, any and all "genres" of instrumental music that are distinctively of occultists as well as all the derivatives of all those "genres," etc. are categorically off-limits to God's people for any use by them in their lives, including in corporate worship.
For example, I have already presented plain evidence in another thread about the perverseness of drums made from human skulls that occultists in several Asian countries use in abominable activities to have interaction with demons. No Christian has any justification for having anything to do with the distinctive musical "genres" of such occult percussive activities.
Discussion