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.
- 5207 views
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.
Since there has been some discussion of Romans 14, I started this thread: https://sharperiron.org/forum-post/romans-14-presuppositional-approach-…
Featured Resource
Discussion