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.
- 3179 views
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
Discussion