Preserving Some Truth
On Friday and Saturday (January 7-8), more than three hundred registered attendees (and about that many more walk-ins for the evening service) gathered for a “symposium on biblical separation.” I’m pleased to have had the opportunity to be among them.
Though the event could be improved in some substantial ways, it was an important step toward developing a biblical separation model that (a) improves on what separatists have practiced in the recent past and (b) functions better in the current evangelical landscape in America.
A significant plus is that this more theologically grounded and thoughtful approach to separatism stands a chance of winning the acceptance of theologically serious young people within fundamentalism (but on their way out) or outside fundamentalism but still listening to its better representatives.
Host pastor Mike Harding described the goal as a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” separatism as well as “cultural conservatism.”
What follows is a survey of conference highlights followed by some analysis.
Conference highlights
The event began with two workshop periods of about an hour each. Due to a snow storm I hadn’t anticipated, I missed the first hour and walked in just as the second was about to begin. Since I was late, I just headed straight for the nearest workshop.
It turned out to be one in which Dr. Bruce Compton provided an analysis of Wayne Grudem’s view of the NT gift of prophecy (a non-authoritative and potentially erroneous cousin of the OT gift). Grudem’s view has been foundational for much of current non-cessationist thought about the gifts of the Spirit. Compton’s analysis was interesting and helpful and highlighted some of the unresolved problems with Grudem’s view. The session concluded with brief consideration of whether non-cessationism is a separation issue. Compton’s view was that personal fellowship with non-cessationists was not a problem, but that continuationism’s threat to our belief in a closed canon is serious enough to preclude some other forms of fellowship. He explained that this included avoiding ministry cooperation and pulpit cooperation with non-cessationists.
An evening double-header
The evening service began at 7 PM. I was encouraged by the quantity of teens and young adults attending. This was not one of those “old guys bemoaning how things aren’t like they used to be” events. The gray hair ratio was probably well below 50%.
To me, things had a noticeable “Bob Jones” feel as well. Maybe it was the giant piano on the unusually high platform or the duet Mr. & Mrs. Scott Aniol sang in the characteristic BJU vocal style (thankfully, not with the full operatic-amplitude vibrato I recall hearing so often in my BJU days). Maybe it was the relative scarcity of women in pants (there were a few here and there, I think, though I didn’t exactly make a study of it). Men involved on the platform were in coats and ties but I saw few elsewhere.
The BJU déjà vu passed when we sang two songs I’d never heard before by Chris Anderson and Greg Habegger (words projected on the big screen and sheet music in the conference binder). These were traditional hymn-structured songs but still clearly (to me, anyway) not set to music of the 19th or 20th centuries. I’d characterize them as thoughtful, doctrinally meaty and not short on pathos and warmth. We’ll definitely sing these at our church.
Chris Anderson was the first of the evening’s two speakers. His message on “Gospel-Driven Separation” (from Jude) set an excellent tone for the meeting. The high insight-per-paragraph ratio will reward taking the time to hear the mp3. Some points:
- Jude 3: Jude was a reluctant warrior. His delight was in the gospel and he wanted to write a letter focused on “our common salvation.” The situation required that he write about contending for the faith instead.
- Our own contention for the faith must begin with a delight in the gospel. “If we don’t defend the gospel, we lose the gospel.” But we must make sure the fight has not become our delight.
- Jude urges the defense of the faith on every believer. It is not a fundamentalist thing. It’s a Christian thing.
- Contending does not begin with separation. This comes late in the process.
- Jude is not about separation from disobedient brethren (taught elsewhere). Our dealings with brethren in error do not fall under the Jude umbrella.
- If we allow the fight to distract us from the faith, we experience a slow death.
- We must delight in the gospel, defend the gospel, and advance the gospel (v.20-22).
After a song or two, Dr. Mark Minnick took the pulpit and preached on the topic of what the gospel is. Again, the audio is well worth hearing. This was the first message I’d heard by Dr. Minnick in person since the late 1980’s. I was encouraged to see that his love for people, love for the gospel, love for the Scriptures and love for teaching are undiminished.
Day two
Saturday’s first session belonged to a newly-bearded Dr. Kevin Bauder who noted that he was lecturing, not preaching. The topic was officially to be “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, Part 1,” but rather than rehash the points of his 2005 address by that title (given to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries), he focused on what else (beyond defending the gospel and practicing separation) a future fundamentalism should do.
The rest of the lecture articulated a vision for a relentlessly—and comprehensively—thoughtful fundamentalism, one that concerns itself with all of life, especially the questions weighing most heavily on the society in which we live. A key component, he said, was to recover the Christian doctrine of vocation and stop viewing God’s call to business, science, medicine, the arts, etc. as inferior to God’s call to do the things we usually think of as “ministry.”
I can’t begin to say how encouraging I found that lecture. Where can I sign up? It’s true that the vision is far from the reality, but everything important begins with a vision. If we can get the audio transcribed, the lecture may appear here at SharperIron in written form down the road.
Later in the morning, Dr. Dave Doran provided a thoughtful exegesis and application of Romans 16:17. A twenty-something young man told me later that this was the most persuasive case for separation he’d ever heard and that he was now far more open to the whole idea.
The discussion session
The highlight of the event for many was probably the afternoon “discussion session.” All the platform and workshop speakers were invited to the platform to discuss a series of selected questions.
Though the audio will probably be available shortly, you’d really have to see video to fully appreciate this session. The body language was at least as interesting as the verbal responses (and several moments in the audio will make no sense at all without seeing the interaction).
Several thoughts stood out in my mind when the session ended.
- These men possess serious and thoughtful convictions. The discussion format was making some of them squirm but their willingness to be involved speaks well of their courage as well as their desire to be persuasive.
- The old separation-by-category (or maybe separation-by-acronym, as Chris Anderson observed in his Friday PM message) paradigm doesn’t work anymore. There are too many leaders and ministries promoting and defending the gospel these days that just do not fit into the boxes we used in the 70s and 80s (it’s debatable whether the boxes worked well back then either, but that’s another subject). There seemed to be general agreement on this point, though Doran was most emphatic and Minnick most hesitant.
- We need more of this. When the hour ended, there was a silence I took to mean something like “What? We’re done already?” It’s difficult to impossible to alter the schedule of an event of this sort on the fly. But I wished we could have taken a break and resumed the discussion for another hour.
- We separatists have work to do. As a thoughtful conversation about separation—with no fear of anyone labeling anyone else a “neo” or “pseudo” for differing on one point or another, the discussion was important and encouraging. But it also revealed that though we’ve awakened to the deficiencies in the separation paradigm of the past, we do not yet have another paradigm to adopt in its place. Many questions remained unasked and unanswered.
Next time?
I came away with the feeling that more work toward a “theologically robust” and “biblically consistent” doctrine and practice of separation is too urgent to wait for 2013 when the next PTC is tentatively planned. I also believe that what we need now is not so much a conference as a work group of some kind that produces a document or two—not another “resolution” by a fellowship or association, but a document aimed at answering the questions most are actually asking about separation, developed through a process that is sure to attend to those questions. Ideally, the document(s) would have the support of leaders from multiple associations and fellowships.
Mike Harding suggested that the next PTC may be devoted to “cultural conservatism.” Either way, I look forward to how this event develops in the future.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 53 views
I’ll bite.
Usually the discussion is spurred on by an angst concerning John 17:21. Rarely is it noticed that the verse teaches the mutual indwelling of God in God, and that this mutual indwelling is the unity Jesus prays for in the life of every believer.
If someone wants to mutually indwell me, then I guess they can try to apply this verse that way. But even my wife has a hard time getting inside me, if you know what I mean, and we’re one flesh. It is better to see the answer to Jesus’ prayer for us as the unity He has with His Father, and that we have a full spiritual unity with each other. Not an indwelling unity with each other, but an indwelling unity in the same God, and He in us.
The other Arminian angst here is that Jesus prayed something that we are supposed to answer. Somebody made that point earlier in the thread. But no need for angst, for this prayer of our Lord is fulfilled every time the Father sovereignly regenerates another lost sheep, and causes His Holy Spirit to indwell them.
BTW, the faith Jesus prays for the world is not the belief that we Christians are unified, but a faith that the Father sent the Son. This has yet to be fulfilled, but it will. It will.
[G. N. Barkman] It has long bothered me when I hear fundamentalists say that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 was a spiritual unity effected by God, and therefore has no practical applications for Christians today, or something similar. It sounds to me like, “We can ignore the unity for which Christ prayed, and get back to our first and second degree separation unhindered without wrestling with the troubling implications of Christ’s prayer.”I don’t know who is saying the whole chapter of John 17 has no practical application for today. Help me here, Greg.
Usually the discussion is spurred on by an angst concerning John 17:21. Rarely is it noticed that the verse teaches the mutual indwelling of God in God, and that this mutual indwelling is the unity Jesus prays for in the life of every believer.
If someone wants to mutually indwell me, then I guess they can try to apply this verse that way. But even my wife has a hard time getting inside me, if you know what I mean, and we’re one flesh. It is better to see the answer to Jesus’ prayer for us as the unity He has with His Father, and that we have a full spiritual unity with each other. Not an indwelling unity with each other, but an indwelling unity in the same God, and He in us.
The other Arminian angst here is that Jesus prayed something that we are supposed to answer. Somebody made that point earlier in the thread. But no need for angst, for this prayer of our Lord is fulfilled every time the Father sovereignly regenerates another lost sheep, and causes His Holy Spirit to indwell them.
BTW, the faith Jesus prays for the world is not the belief that we Christians are unified, but a faith that the Father sent the Son. This has yet to be fulfilled, but it will. It will.
[CPHurst]Grudem is a charismatic which would remove him in some manner from some non-charismatic Evangelicals and fundies. That would be one reason I am sure you would understand. Secondly Grudem is not just a charismatic but a Calvinist charismatic. This combination may seem benign but this particular label, Calvinist charismatic, is an identity which has with it specific levels of fellowships within Evangelicalism which are based on very specific views.
Ok, forget Grudem since he is a hang up for everyone (though I cant understand why)
Within the Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed circle, charismaticism is rejected on many levels, yet tolerated and embraced in other places. For those rejecting it, it is not just charismaticism that is rejected for the sake of rejecting charismaticism thereby placing Grudem at a distance for some, rather it is the hermeneutic and theology upon which it is based which forces one to respond and interact with Grudem as a proponent of an interpretive practice not received by those who otherwise may share theological views with Grudem. It is a consequential separation due to a view and practice of Grudem’s. Surely you can understand why non-charismatics are removed from a charismatic to some degree though they may share some or much of the remaining theology.
But do remember, it isn’t just the objectionable position(s) of Grudem but the hermeneutic and theology which he embraces that lies behind such assertions; assertions which hold implications that eventually lead to very unacceptable theological constructs. I believe the link at the main article on Dr. Bruce Compton’s coverage of Grudem on prophecy is worth a listen.
[Larry]Before I try to counter to this let me mention something about the balance of the scales tipping to separation rather than unity. I believe that in the world we find ourselves in, with its thousands of churches with no real interconnectedness and cooperation between most of them, intentional unity becomes somewhat odd and so a default isolationism sets in. The American situation of freedom from persecution, and good ol’ American individualism also prejudice us toward a self-existant, sufficient idea of our individual local church. Add the history of sectarian fights and all that fundamentalism has endured from all quarters, and I guess it’s little wonder that we have to defend the very idea of the “essential fact of unity” bearing with it a responsibility to act out that unity in visible ways.[Bob] As for where unity is taught, it is taught in the places that emphasize a universal church and a fellowship that believers have one with another.And where is that? I don’t want to be pedantic, but I think it would be helpful to get the verse on the table so we can see them….
The whole “local church” thing is a big one. Even if we grant that it is as big as a city, it is still smaller than the universal idea right? And at least in a city, we can do stuff together. Again, go back to the example of me and you. I really can’t do any of these things with you in any meaningful way. I think the internet has made us, in some ways, redefine what fellowship and ministry participation is….
It’s interesting to read of Calvin trying to preserve unity and prevent further splits among the Reformed back at a time when only three or four Protestant church options were available in all of Europe. We are so far removed from that day….
Now tallying up the teaching on unity is a bit of a tall order, but just focusing on Ephesians 3 and 4 should suffice for my purposes. Given the setting I’ll just try to draw a brief sketch and not get too detailed.
Eph. 3:1-13 The inclusion of the Gentiles into the “one body” of the Church, (alongside Jews equally), is the mysterious “eternal purpose” of God. And through this new reality in the universal church, heavenly beings can see the manifold wisdom of God.
Eph. 3:14-21 Paul prays for the Ephesian believers individually to experience more fully and to know more deeply the love of Christ, together in a shared experience with all the saints. And he prays for Christ to receive glory in the universal church throughout all generations.
Eph. 4:1-3 On the basis of this cosmic purpose of the global and universal church, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling (shared with all saints), and to bear with one another patiently aiming to maintain this unity of the Spirit (that God is working throughout the universal church as described previously) in a bond of peace. A bond between their brothers in their own city, and a bond which extends beyond even (by implication in the cosmic nature of Ephesians as the wider context).
Eph. 4:4-6 As a further ground for this activity of living together in light of the unity of the Spirit, Paul lists how unified the Ephesians are with all the saints, they share one Lord, faith, baptism and one Father God. God being over all and through all and in them all, as well as in all believers.
Eph. 4:7-10 As a practical reality working out from this existential unity, grace was given to Paul and the Ephesians, indeed to all of us, according to the measure of Christ’s gift that he gave to man in general. And this gift is tied into cosmic realities again as Jesus is ascended above all heavens, and filling up all things through this gift.
Eph. 4:11-16 The gift includes the offices of apostles and prophets and evangelists (all universal church offices, I would think), as well as pastor-teachers, and these men God has given the church (and by the way that means historical theology is important as the teachers of yester-year remain a gift to the church) are to equip all the saints for ministry-work and for mutual up-building of the universal body of Christ (as well as it’s local manifestations). All of this with the goal of all of us attaining to “the unity of the faith”, and knowledge of the Son of God.. leading to maturity and growth and experienceing the fullness of Christ, himself. Christ being the head joins the entire body, so it may grow and build itself up in love.
I would contend that yes, the local church is included in this picture. But everything about the context roots the local church reality in a context of global unity. And just as all believers want to have the fullness of Chirst and true knowledge of the Son of God, so too, they should all have unity of the faith and work toward unity with one another.
Since Christ is head of the universal church, what right have we to act as if our own church is all that matters in a given locale? Why ignore other gospel preaching churches and seek to do everything on our own without recognizing and finding ways to celebrate our unity in the faith with these other believers? The mentality is wrong, not just the practice. Yes it’s easy to do nothing, given our current culture and background. It’s easy to focus on our own church and act independently of others. Easy, but is it right?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Ted,
Several good insights. Thanks. I’m still not sure that this removes the “practical” application that because all born again believers are one with Christ, and one with each other in Christ, that we have a duty to reflect this unity, which is admittedly already accomplished by the work of the Father, in our relationship with other believers. At least we should give it every effort. Something like “as much as lies wihin you, live at peace with all men.”
Cordially,
Greg
Several good insights. Thanks. I’m still not sure that this removes the “practical” application that because all born again believers are one with Christ, and one with each other in Christ, that we have a duty to reflect this unity, which is admittedly already accomplished by the work of the Father, in our relationship with other believers. At least we should give it every effort. Something like “as much as lies wihin you, live at peace with all men.”
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
Ah, yes … that day from which we are so far removed! You know why, don’t you Bob, that so much unity existed during Calvin’s day? The Catholic Church and all Reformed Churches were state churches. Whoever tried to start a new group that he felt was more along the lines of the Bible was burned alive, or beheaded, or drowned, or tortured to death, or branded, or maimed, or thrown into prison where he stayed until he died of a disease. So much for the love of Jesus securing unity in those days! Martin Luther admitted that the majority of the people in the churches of the Reformation were not in heart true believers in Jesus as their Lord. They were drawn or held to the Reformation out of other concerns than the Spirit of God dwelling in them. Frankly, though I will agree that the disassociation experienced in American Christianity is unfortunate, there is more true Christian unity there today, than was present in Europe in Calvin’s day. I am a great lover of Calvin’s Institutes and his commentaries, and my volumes are well underlined and noted, but please do not wish those former days on me again! Ever!
You have well-reasoned points from Ephesians, and they are worth interacting with.
You have well-reasoned points from Ephesians, and they are worth interacting with.
Jeff Brown
Great point, I must admit. What I was getting at was Calvin lamenting the disunity between Lutherans and Reformed in his day, and the counsel he gave to Knox and others to permit some things they didn’t like (vestments, and other high church trappings in worship) so as to still maintain unity. And yes the state church is not ideal in my view, either. Still we independent church folk could do a better job at working together realizing that small compromises and allowances for differing opinions on lesser matters are not a sell out to the cardinal truths of the Gospel.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I was thinking about this thread while talking to a friend who drives 45 minutes to church. Others I know drive 1 to 1-1/2 hours to church.
In the olden days, logistics defined much of how people interacted, did business, and attended church. It seems that today people don’t live near their church, their place of employment, or regularly do business where they live, so all sense of community is gone, and the cooperative spirit and community church is gone with it.
Just seems to me that it could be a contributing factor regarding how churches view cooperation today. Not deep doctrinal thoughts here, just mental ramblings. But about a year or so ago my husband and I decided to attend a local (literally) church, and that was one of the reasons- to be part of a church in our community where we live and work, and get some of that sense of community back for our family. It certainly feels like a good place to start.
In the olden days, logistics defined much of how people interacted, did business, and attended church. It seems that today people don’t live near their church, their place of employment, or regularly do business where they live, so all sense of community is gone, and the cooperative spirit and community church is gone with it.
Just seems to me that it could be a contributing factor regarding how churches view cooperation today. Not deep doctrinal thoughts here, just mental ramblings. But about a year or so ago my husband and I decided to attend a local (literally) church, and that was one of the reasons- to be part of a church in our community where we live and work, and get some of that sense of community back for our family. It certainly feels like a good place to start.
You bring up a great point, Susan. Think about this too, many times people drive that far to find a church they agree with on all points or that they are comfortable with. The churches near them are weaker and not as good. Do you think that maybe if they stayed in those churches and tried to help and work for growth and change, that maybe they would eventually become better churches? Instead, we leave them for greener pastures.
In fact, we end up having people jump from church to church, always looking for the perfect one, as if that just happens completely independently of their involvement. Never satisfied they move on, and the churches are the worse for it.
In fact, we end up having people jump from church to church, always looking for the perfect one, as if that just happens completely independently of their involvement. Never satisfied they move on, and the churches are the worse for it.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Susan and Bob, I concur with your remarks about the locality of the local church. Paradoxically, the more global we become, the more fragmented, it seems. I am most familiar with the history of the Reformed churches, but I believe a similar story holds for all the older European denominations.
From about 1565 to a bit after 1725, there was a tight consensus throughout the Reformed churches about doctrine and practice. Some tensions existed, of course, mostly between Anglicans and the rest or between proponents of various polities. Nevertheless, the congruence and cooperation is remarkable. The Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Synod of Dordt, Westminster Standards, both Helvetic Confessions, and French Confession are nearly indistinguishable in doctrine, despite the fact that they span a century and all of Europe. Some Reformed churches and schools hold to all the first 4 for their doctrinal standards. The Synod of Dordt, though a Dutch affair, included representatives from all of Europe except France, where royal decree prohibited attendance. The Westminster Assembly included over 150 people representing all of England and Scotland. Despite some disagreements, they composed one of the most coherent systems of doctrine ever created.
So, even though they had no telephones, airplanes, or cars, these churchmen were far more conscious of the theological scholarship and state of the churches throughout the world than we are. We are incredibly self-absorbed and near-sighted by comparison.
From about 1565 to a bit after 1725, there was a tight consensus throughout the Reformed churches about doctrine and practice. Some tensions existed, of course, mostly between Anglicans and the rest or between proponents of various polities. Nevertheless, the congruence and cooperation is remarkable. The Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Synod of Dordt, Westminster Standards, both Helvetic Confessions, and French Confession are nearly indistinguishable in doctrine, despite the fact that they span a century and all of Europe. Some Reformed churches and schools hold to all the first 4 for their doctrinal standards. The Synod of Dordt, though a Dutch affair, included representatives from all of Europe except France, where royal decree prohibited attendance. The Westminster Assembly included over 150 people representing all of England and Scotland. Despite some disagreements, they composed one of the most coherent systems of doctrine ever created.
So, even though they had no telephones, airplanes, or cars, these churchmen were far more conscious of the theological scholarship and state of the churches throughout the world than we are. We are incredibly self-absorbed and near-sighted by comparison.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
A couple of comments and questions about the conference:
The word “Christian” was nowhere to be found on the PTT website nor is it usually present in the labels we give ourselves. I suggest we always call ourselves “Christian” first and then, if we really have to, follow with other labels, after all none of the other labels are in the Bible! This would be good for us first, as a reminder of what we really are, or should be, Christ like, and as an identifier for those not familiar with our “name calling”.
From the history of fundamentalism we are told that there was and still is, if I am not mistaken, a trend among some against too much education; I now see a trend toward too much emphasis on a lot of education. A question raised in my mind from one of the presentations is as follows: of two highly educated scholars who have differing interpretations of the same Greek text, which one do I, regular, non-Greek knowing Christian, believe?
I understand the need for scholars to interact and exchange ideas and I understand that there are different levels of education Christians have and that some things are over my head (this discussion may be one and I may be sorry later that I wrote this!) but could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about? Just maybe and in some respects, is Christian academia loosing touch with the regular Christian Joe?
If not now, in times past, would the statement made in the discussion session that “repentance is not part of the Gospel” have been reason for harsh separation?
I wonder what Christians in China or Darfur or Iran or Saudi Arabia would say of our topics and our discussions?
Gabe
“Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1st Timothy 1:2
The word “Christian” was nowhere to be found on the PTT website nor is it usually present in the labels we give ourselves. I suggest we always call ourselves “Christian” first and then, if we really have to, follow with other labels, after all none of the other labels are in the Bible! This would be good for us first, as a reminder of what we really are, or should be, Christ like, and as an identifier for those not familiar with our “name calling”.
From the history of fundamentalism we are told that there was and still is, if I am not mistaken, a trend among some against too much education; I now see a trend toward too much emphasis on a lot of education. A question raised in my mind from one of the presentations is as follows: of two highly educated scholars who have differing interpretations of the same Greek text, which one do I, regular, non-Greek knowing Christian, believe?
I understand the need for scholars to interact and exchange ideas and I understand that there are different levels of education Christians have and that some things are over my head (this discussion may be one and I may be sorry later that I wrote this!) but could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about? Just maybe and in some respects, is Christian academia loosing touch with the regular Christian Joe?
If not now, in times past, would the statement made in the discussion session that “repentance is not part of the Gospel” have been reason for harsh separation?
I wonder what Christians in China or Darfur or Iran or Saudi Arabia would say of our topics and our discussions?
Gabe
“Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1st Timothy 1:2
[gsm]There is always the possibility that academia is serving its own interests rather than those of the church. That said, as someone embarking on a life of Christian scholarship, I’d like to share a few thoughts on the other side of the scale. First, American Christianity has long been influenced by several prevailing American trends — egalitarianism, populism, and pragmatism. Most Americans share these three traits at the level of their attitudes, even if they reject the developed philosophies they represent. All three can work against developing the intellect.
From the history of fundamentalism we are told that there was and still is, if I am not mistaken, a trend among some against too much education; I now see a trend toward too much emphasis on a lot of education. A question raised in my mind from one of the presentations is as follows: of two highly educated scholars who have differing interpretations of the same Greek text, which one do I, regular, non-Greek knowing Christian, believe?
I understand the need for scholars to interact and exchange ideas and I understand that there are different levels of education Christians have and that some things are over my head (this discussion may be one and I may be sorry later that I wrote this!) but could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about? Just maybe and in some respects, is Christian academia loosing touch with the regular Christian Joe?
Egalitarianism tells us that all people are basically equal, and though there are manifold benefits to this impulse, it can easily become a force that seeks to tear down any hint of excellence, legitimate or not. [Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in his justly famous Democracy in America.] Populism is the tendency to weight the beliefs, needs, and preferences of “the common person” as more correct, legitimate, or proper than those of other classes. So, populists are naturally suspicious of anyone exhibiting extraordinary knowledge or skill in an area. Pragmatism, in its popular form at least, is the belief that ideas are to be tested by their usefulness. In its more vulgar expressions, it comes with the corollary that ideas for which no immediate use presents itself are useless, even wasteful.
Now, I believe that the biblical model of church discipleship is anti-egalitarian, anti-pragmatist, and not particularly populist. It is anti-egalitarian in that not anyone can be a teacher: it requires both divine calling and human aptitude. It is anti-pragmatist in that it does not begin with human curiosities and questions (though it does get there), but in the reality of what God has displayed in Christ. In fact, unregenerate people don’t know what they need to know, and they don’t feel the need to know what they need to know. When they become Christians, these sensibilities need training. Distinguished from populism, Christian truth is not to be identified with majority sentiment or the ideals that will be received eagerly by the “middle class.”
So, your question “could it be that some of these topics are not really what the regular church goers are struggling with or maybe even care about?” evidences traces of these sentiments to me. I’m not convinced that regular church goers know what they’re struggling with. I don’t know that they care about what they should care about. Reading this link about the http://michaelhyatt.com/the-100-bestselling-christian-books-of-2010.html 100 Bestselling Books of 2010 tells me that American Christians want to be secure in their finances, charismatic in personality, and happy in their marriages. Legitimate desires, but hardly a God-transfixed vision of all things.
In all areas of learning, the teacher works to overcome not only the students’ ignorance, but their lack of perspective. They want to be engineers, but they don’t see the point of differential calculus. They want to be medical doctors, but they don’t think they need chemistry. It’s a general rule that you don’t perceive the usefulness of a given field of study until you’ve acquired some proficiency in it. The teacher’s job (like a Chinese mother?) is to get you to that point, where you’re sufficiently equipped to keep learning on your own. My first year of Greek had almost zero actual effect on my life. Year two was a bit better, and every year since has reaped exponential dividends.
[gsm] If not now, in times past, would the statement made in the discussion session that “repentance is not part of the Gospel” have been reason for harsh separation?Well, historically speaking, yes. This happened in Scotland in the 18th century, and is called the Marrow Controversy. It ended up splitting the Church of Scotland. http://cavman.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/considering-the-marrow-controver… Here’s a link .
[gsm] I wonder what Christians in China or Darfur or Iran or Saudi Arabia would say of our topics and our discussions?I really don’t know what they would say, but I don’t think it’s relevant. The challenges facing unstable, martyr nations and established Christian cultures are very different. And, as much as we must respect the faith of the martyrs, being persecuted isn’t a qualification for ecclesiastical leadership.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie,
Great points you’ve added in your last two points. On your first post, I wanted to demur a bit and say that there has been some togetherness and unity shown of late that can approach (in a limited sense), that displayed in the time period you surveyed. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy comes to mind. But part of our problem is a few more centuries full of ever more numerous differences between Protestant churches and more distance from a one state-one church reality than they had then.
ON your second post, I particularly amen the pragmatism points you make. I think that Gabe’s comments are sincere but represent a pietistic emphasis in American church culture too, which prizes the heart over the head, rather than affirming both spheres as important.
Great points you’ve added in your last two points. On your first post, I wanted to demur a bit and say that there has been some togetherness and unity shown of late that can approach (in a limited sense), that displayed in the time period you surveyed. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy comes to mind. But part of our problem is a few more centuries full of ever more numerous differences between Protestant churches and more distance from a one state-one church reality than they had then.
ON your second post, I particularly amen the pragmatism points you make. I think that Gabe’s comments are sincere but represent a pietistic emphasis in American church culture too, which prizes the heart over the head, rather than affirming both spheres as important.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Let me chip in here quickly on a few things:
To Forrest (#57) regarding Grudem and Graham, I think the difference is two –fold. First, Graham’s ecumenicism is/was a direct affront to the gospel inasmuch as he recognized unbelievers as worthy ministry partners without confrontation and rebuke and inasmuch as he sent “converts” back to churches that were/are no church at all since they did not have the gospel. Grudem has not done that, to my knowledge. Second, Graham is much more widely known and it is likely that most people in our fields of ministry are familiar with Graham and have never heard of Grudem. Therefore, comments or explanations are more necessary when something is more central or more threatening to our ministry.
To say that Christian unity is the default position is true, but again I ask (and I hope someone will chime in here), what is unity? As I have said, if Grudem and I have it, or Graham and I have it, or you and I have it, what is it? For me, at least, I am still not sure what you mean when you say “unity.” It sounds like “agreement.” But I agree with Catholics on some things, and I agree with JW’s on some things. I even agree with Muslim’s on some things, but I have no unity with them. Yet I disagree with Presbyterians on some things, and disagree with Bible church people on some things, and I do have unity with them.
Furthermore, I would suggest again that the unity of John 17 is visible unity. Whatever it is, it has to be seen.
To Bob (#63) on Ephesians and unity, let me enumerate a few things:
1. The present situation with communication has brought a world that I do not believe the apostles ever imagined. I think it would be inconceivable to them that unity would include the things we are talking about. To them, it was all local because that is what was possible and that is what was seen. And that is my point, largely. Unity, in order to be meaningful, has to actually be seen. You say it yourself when you speak of bearing it out in visible ways. But I don’t see any responsibility to go and seek visible unity with people who are far out of my ministry realm.
2. The passages you reference in Eph 3-4 are, to me, all so obviously local and so obviously not universal that I don’t think they support your point at all. I thought of responding to each individually, but I don’t want to take the time to do that. I just don’t see the universal church in that, in terms of visible unity, at least in terms of Paul’s intent. Paul was not, so far as I can tell, saying anything about how the Ephesians should relate to the Philippians or the Galatians, or the Romans, or us. He was talking about how the Ephesians should relate to each other. You invoke 4:11-16 and speak of offices in the universal church, but I can’t attach any meaning to that at all. I think apostles are the only offices with any “universal church” applicability, and that is a unique situation that does not exist today. The others are all local in nature. Reading from some pastor or teacher of the past does not make them a universal church officer and is not biblical fellowship or unity, so far as I can see.
3. As far as being the only gospel preaching church in our community, or acting like it, again I focus on ministry context. I was preaching on this yesterday on Mark 9 and the exorcist who was “not following us.” There are many gospel preaching churches and we are not enemies with them. But in Mark 9, that guy didn’t have unity with the disciples, and Christ’s message was essentially “Leave him alone.” Christ didn’t say, “Yes, you’re right, he’s not following us. Let’s go seek him out and get him on our team.” Or “let’s have a conference and invite him so that others will see we have unity.”
4. I suppose my default is too some too narrow for some, but I struggle to see that biblical commands for unity have any meaningful application to relationships that don’t exist and have no reasonable way to exist. To me, John 17 has a visible ongoing feature where the ongoing relationships of life show a life-transformation in which old barriers and issues are removed, in way that can only be explained by the power of Jesus. That is the same point of Ephesians 2. And having a one-time meeting with some teacher, or attending a conference, does not show that.
To Greg (G.N. Barkman, #64) I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by “reflect that unity” outside of our local ministry contexts? How do I reflect unity with you? Am I commanded to do that? Does the NT teaching on unity really mean that we participate in the same online discussion forum? There are people on SI that I am cordial to, and have a conversation with, with whom I cannot imagine anyway to participate in ministry. Yet we are both believers and will be in eternity in heaven together. But practically, we can’t participate in ministry. What do I do about that? Do I compromise what my conscience tells me the Bible teaches?
To Gabe (gsm, #70), two things: First, the statement “repentance is not part of the gospel,” as used in the conference is not really debatable, I think. The gospel is the good news that Jesus died for sin and rose again. Repentance is the response to the gospel, which I think was explicitly stated. I think this is the historic position. If not historic, it is at least the biblical position, precisely speaking. But I think the confusion comes from using “gospel” imprecisely, so it begins to include all manner of stuff.
Second, the question with regards to what other Christians would think is helpful, but a bit misleading I think. I would suggest that we must address the issues we are facing. The Christians in Darfur, Sudan, China, etc., are all facing different issues. Now, do they need teaching on these types of things? Certainly they do. But they need application in different areas, and perhaps teaching on some different areas. That’s not to say that we should be preoccupied with these things. I think Chris’s point from Friday night is well-needed: We need to delight in the gospel and talk about it. Separation is a necessary step, but not one that we delight in. So the fact that other Christians might not talk about a particular topic does not mean it isn’t relevant for us.
In sum, I think a more biblical vision of unity involves visible participation in ministry efforts. I don’t think NT “unity” or “fellowship” is something like the Chicago Statement, or a conference. I don’t think it is merely agreeing on doctrine, or professing the same faith. I think it is actually participating in ministry.
To Forrest (#57) regarding Grudem and Graham, I think the difference is two –fold. First, Graham’s ecumenicism is/was a direct affront to the gospel inasmuch as he recognized unbelievers as worthy ministry partners without confrontation and rebuke and inasmuch as he sent “converts” back to churches that were/are no church at all since they did not have the gospel. Grudem has not done that, to my knowledge. Second, Graham is much more widely known and it is likely that most people in our fields of ministry are familiar with Graham and have never heard of Grudem. Therefore, comments or explanations are more necessary when something is more central or more threatening to our ministry.
To say that Christian unity is the default position is true, but again I ask (and I hope someone will chime in here), what is unity? As I have said, if Grudem and I have it, or Graham and I have it, or you and I have it, what is it? For me, at least, I am still not sure what you mean when you say “unity.” It sounds like “agreement.” But I agree with Catholics on some things, and I agree with JW’s on some things. I even agree with Muslim’s on some things, but I have no unity with them. Yet I disagree with Presbyterians on some things, and disagree with Bible church people on some things, and I do have unity with them.
Furthermore, I would suggest again that the unity of John 17 is visible unity. Whatever it is, it has to be seen.
To Bob (#63) on Ephesians and unity, let me enumerate a few things:
1. The present situation with communication has brought a world that I do not believe the apostles ever imagined. I think it would be inconceivable to them that unity would include the things we are talking about. To them, it was all local because that is what was possible and that is what was seen. And that is my point, largely. Unity, in order to be meaningful, has to actually be seen. You say it yourself when you speak of bearing it out in visible ways. But I don’t see any responsibility to go and seek visible unity with people who are far out of my ministry realm.
2. The passages you reference in Eph 3-4 are, to me, all so obviously local and so obviously not universal that I don’t think they support your point at all. I thought of responding to each individually, but I don’t want to take the time to do that. I just don’t see the universal church in that, in terms of visible unity, at least in terms of Paul’s intent. Paul was not, so far as I can tell, saying anything about how the Ephesians should relate to the Philippians or the Galatians, or the Romans, or us. He was talking about how the Ephesians should relate to each other. You invoke 4:11-16 and speak of offices in the universal church, but I can’t attach any meaning to that at all. I think apostles are the only offices with any “universal church” applicability, and that is a unique situation that does not exist today. The others are all local in nature. Reading from some pastor or teacher of the past does not make them a universal church officer and is not biblical fellowship or unity, so far as I can see.
3. As far as being the only gospel preaching church in our community, or acting like it, again I focus on ministry context. I was preaching on this yesterday on Mark 9 and the exorcist who was “not following us.” There are many gospel preaching churches and we are not enemies with them. But in Mark 9, that guy didn’t have unity with the disciples, and Christ’s message was essentially “Leave him alone.” Christ didn’t say, “Yes, you’re right, he’s not following us. Let’s go seek him out and get him on our team.” Or “let’s have a conference and invite him so that others will see we have unity.”
4. I suppose my default is too some too narrow for some, but I struggle to see that biblical commands for unity have any meaningful application to relationships that don’t exist and have no reasonable way to exist. To me, John 17 has a visible ongoing feature where the ongoing relationships of life show a life-transformation in which old barriers and issues are removed, in way that can only be explained by the power of Jesus. That is the same point of Ephesians 2. And having a one-time meeting with some teacher, or attending a conference, does not show that.
To Greg (G.N. Barkman, #64) I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by “reflect that unity” outside of our local ministry contexts? How do I reflect unity with you? Am I commanded to do that? Does the NT teaching on unity really mean that we participate in the same online discussion forum? There are people on SI that I am cordial to, and have a conversation with, with whom I cannot imagine anyway to participate in ministry. Yet we are both believers and will be in eternity in heaven together. But practically, we can’t participate in ministry. What do I do about that? Do I compromise what my conscience tells me the Bible teaches?
To Gabe (gsm, #70), two things: First, the statement “repentance is not part of the gospel,” as used in the conference is not really debatable, I think. The gospel is the good news that Jesus died for sin and rose again. Repentance is the response to the gospel, which I think was explicitly stated. I think this is the historic position. If not historic, it is at least the biblical position, precisely speaking. But I think the confusion comes from using “gospel” imprecisely, so it begins to include all manner of stuff.
Second, the question with regards to what other Christians would think is helpful, but a bit misleading I think. I would suggest that we must address the issues we are facing. The Christians in Darfur, Sudan, China, etc., are all facing different issues. Now, do they need teaching on these types of things? Certainly they do. But they need application in different areas, and perhaps teaching on some different areas. That’s not to say that we should be preoccupied with these things. I think Chris’s point from Friday night is well-needed: We need to delight in the gospel and talk about it. Separation is a necessary step, but not one that we delight in. So the fact that other Christians might not talk about a particular topic does not mean it isn’t relevant for us.
In sum, I think a more biblical vision of unity involves visible participation in ministry efforts. I don’t think NT “unity” or “fellowship” is something like the Chicago Statement, or a conference. I don’t think it is merely agreeing on doctrine, or professing the same faith. I think it is actually participating in ministry.
[G.N Barkman] What other area of God’s will, revealed in Scripture, are we free to ignore?I explained in some earlier posts that it’s not about ignoring God’s will but about understanding what that will is, and specifically, what Jesus actually meant in John 17 when you take it in context.
Surely the fact that all who believe posses an actual unity—whether visible or not—is indisputable. But the question remains whether intentional displays of this unity are called for in the NT.
They are certainly not called for by Jesus’ prayer. He was asking the Father to do something, not instructing us to do something (and as I pointed out earlier, the “something” has to do with shared faith).
I’m open to the possibility that other passages make that case, though I have not yet seen a persuasive one.
So… much hinges on understanding the difference between actual unity vs. displays of unity/cooperation. These are not the same thing and we really need to stop using the word “unity” to lump these different things together. It’s not helpful to understanding the teaching of Scripture. You have unity and you have cooperation. The latter can exist without the former (as in the case of the old Billy Graham events… he was cooperating with men and ministries who did not share his belief in the gospel: cooperation without unity.) And the former can exist—does exist—without the latter. I have unity with thousands (millions?) of believers I’ve never even met.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Larry] Repentance is the response to the gospel, which I think was explicitly stated.Yes, it was.
Minnick was a bit confusing I think… or illustrating the confusion that exists among fundamentalists. He wanted to be able to say that the gospel is a small, distinct set of ideas and simultaneously say that it encompasses everything Jesus’ taught and lived (which really means all the teaching of Scripture if you think it through… it’s the “word of Christ”).
So he described a model where you have a central core set of beliefs that are necessary for justification, and a broader set of beliefs including all the teaching of “the Gospels” (it seemed important to him to link “the gospel” with “the Gospels”)—and these both constitute “the gospel.”
So when repentance came up, he denied that it was part of the gospel (the core of ideas you believe for justification) then amended his statement to say that repentance is part of what Jesus taught so it’s part of the “gospel” in that sense.
I think Kevin Bauder’s approach (not part of the conference but in several Nick of Time essays) is better in general. If I remember right, the idea was that you have the core tenets of the gospel (1 Cor.15) but also have several necessary implications of it—ideas that cannot be denied without effectively denying the gospel (even though you may insist you are not denying it). He identified both the core and the necessary implications as the standard for “separation” (in the sense of rejecting apostasy).
But Minnick’s understanding of what “separation” is seems better to me than Bauders. He made several observations that indicated that he sees the action properly called “separation” as intentional and punitive. It is a rebuke, not just the presence/introduction of non-cooperation/non-fellowship. Doran seemed to see it this way as well.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion