Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

In light of Wally’s FBFI column and the issues of clothing and musical standards, somehow James 2:2 and Psalms 149 and 150 come to mind. Inasmuch as BJU is moving towards a regime where somewhat more casual clothing and modern music is becoming acceptable, I’d argue that they are becoming more fundamental, not less.

Regarding Stiekes’ line of thinking, that’s simply an approach that any good exegete of any text uses, and for me to get worked up about it, I’d have to come to the point where I conclude that it actually does infringe on one of the theological fundamentals. Really, Wally’s FBFI article boils down to the slippery slope fallacy—change is opposed on the grounds that it will necessarily lead to ever worse results.

The trouble with indulging this fallacy—beyond the fact that it’s bad logic and proves nothing, which ought to be sufficient—is that it leads to what Jim Peet would call “everythingism”, where every theological and cultural distinctive becomes a hill to die on. The trouble with “everythingism”, in turn, is that people don’t just choose to die on every hill, and hence “everythingism” becomes “nothingism.”

[Dave Doran]

Here’s what has always been the bottom line for me—will a student’s heart be turned away from a church like ours? If so, we don’t encourage students to go there. Might be simplistic, but it fits our focus on the primacy of the church. BJU has always been broader than us on separation (with whom we would work and fellowship), but they have not turned hearts away from a church like ours.

This is an excellent assessment of why most pastors have sent their children to BJU in the past.

I watched a chapel during the recent Spiritual Enrichment Conference at BJU. I did not recognize any of the songs being played during the prelude. The students clapped after the special music. I guess having females in pants on stage is commonplace in our movement nowadays, but it still somehow rattled me seeing it at BJU.

These are small changes, but they are coupled with a relaxed attitude towards contemporary and evangelical ministries (SBC, PCA, Samaritan’s Purse, etc.). Graduates who would have been criticized in Preacher Boys Class for compromise in times past are now presented as models for BJU ministerial students to emulate (e.g., contemporary, SBC Pastor Adam Bailie at the BJU Seminary Pastors Roundtable on 9/25/21 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQT6iUx5UQY&t=231s).

As the pastor of an independent Baptist church that still utilizes the KJV and an older hymnbook, will students I send to BJU be drawn to a more flashy, contemporary style of ministry while in college? Will they walk across Wade Hampton BLVD and attend the SBC church currently pastored by a department head at BJU? Will the church I pastor (and others like it) be dismissed as dead by BJU grads?

As an alumnus and member of the “bread and butter” BJU constituency, these are my concerns.

What if the recent changes at BJU are from a desire to become more fundamental, not less? Are extra-biblical dress requirements a fundamental of the faith? Is one a better, or worse Fundamentalist if one espouses as doctrine that which is actually cultural? Was Paul less fundamental when he abandoned Mosaic dietary laws for the correct practice of recognizing that all food was good, if received with thanksgiving? (Some of the Jewish believers thought Paul had compromised the faith, but they were wrong. They were the ones who were compromising the faith by insisting upon rules that did not apply to New Covenant believers.)

The problem is that, over the years, Fundamentalism has often made cultural practices a “fundamental” of the faith. That charge would usually be denied, but in practice, that’s the way many rules functioned. “If you don’t adopt the same dress standards that we require, you are not a Fundamentalist.” Really? Is that how Fundamentalism is defined? No wonder some, who are 100% fundamental in doctrine, are hesitant to accept the label “Fundamentalist.” “If THAT’s what it means to be a Fundamentalist, then I would rather be called something else.” In the light of this, what, exactly, does it mean to move away from Fundamentalists and toward Evangelicals? What if I move away from the KJVO crowd because I believe it’s wrong? Does that make me a compromiser, or am I a more Biblical Fundamentalist than those who make KJVO a requirement in order to be labeled a Fundamentalist?

As the pastor of an independent Baptist church that still utilizes the KJV and an older hymnbook, will students I send to BJU be drawn to a more flashy, contemporary style of ministry while in college? Will they walk across Wade Hampton BLVD and attend the SBC church currently pastored by a department head at BJU? Will the church I pastor (and others like it) be dismissed as dead by BJU grads?

As an alumnus and member of the “bread and butter” BJU constituency, these are my concerns.

Thank you for sharing your concerns; I appreciate it. As one of the disavowed “convergent” fundamentalist offspring, I can assure you that mainstream Evangelicalism is indeed a tire fire, especially with a lot of what has been allowed to transpire within the SBC.

That being said, I strongly prefer the old hymnals over 99.9% of the schlock that is used for “worship” music but I would prefer a more modern translation like the NKJV or NIV (I’ve pulled my support for the ESV).

All of that being said…why can’t old school Fundamentalists like you and conservative Evangelicals like myself work together? There are hundreds of good churches in Greenville that are faithful to the Gospel (not the fundamentalist movement) but there is precious little up here in NYS. I can’t be as picky or as tied to the “movement” as I might have liked when I was younger and more dialed into BJU circles.

Could a church like mine work with you on an evangelistic outreach? If not, why not?

Contra Bert, the “slippery slope” which he likes to talk about is easily provable in the last 200 years of American church history. Small changes at first led cumulatively to more significant changes: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the SBC in the first half of the 20th century - all started with small changes which people warned about but few listened. The “slippery slope” is obvious in politics. Can anyone deny that political liberals use strategies which result in ever-increasing liberalization of moral codes, getting others to compromise a little here, a little there until they have what they want? The “slippery slope” that Bert says does not exist clearly exists.

Also contra Bert: I am not against all change. Dangerous, specific changes are the concern. How can anyone deny that BJU’s dress code changes, music standard changes, allowing a professor to promote Redaction Criticism, and, as C.D. noted, a BJU department head pastoring an SBC church and an SBC pastor who uses contemporary music promoted at a BJU roundtable are all significant changes at BJU? It is ludicrous to think these are not and will not have significant effects at BJU longterm. Some have stated in this discussion that those who have concerns should talk to BJU’s leadership. We have - to no effect.

James 2:2 is not relevant to this discussion nor to my post at P&D. James is concerned with showing favoritism to people based on wealth or clothes. That is not the issue here at all. Red Herring and Straw Man. Psalm 149 & 150 are beautiful Psalms. Not sure what point Bert is making, unless he is referring to the “dancing” references. To perhaps suggest that these references justify modern dance would be strange, since modern dance almost always characterized by the sensual. Also: The Hebrew word has a variety of meanings, some even think it may refer to a musical instrument, not dancing as we think of it. To equate ancient Jewish dance with modern dance is more extragesis than exegesis. But, again, I am not sure what part of Ps 149 & 150 he wants to use for his argument.

“somewhat more casual clothing”?? BJU has a dress code in theory but anyone looking at pictures of school events can see that casual clothing is the dominant practice on campus. A member of the administration admitted to me a few years ago that the school is inconsistent in enforcing its dress code.

Someone(s) at BJU made the decision several years ago to keep the school open by expanding its base and changing its practices in order to attract a wider spectrum of students from a wider spectrum of churches. The decision was a pragmatic one in order to keep the school open. Adding intercollegiate sports was part of that decision. Can we have discussions about the different groups in conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism? Sure. But to imply that anyone who has concerns about some of the changes at BJU is simply expressing “cultural Fundamentalism” is ignoring the last 200 years of American church history and is perhaps more influenced by our culture than the “cultural Fundamentalists”.

Having said all this: Nothing will be decided or changed by this discussion thread. The same arguments are being made by the same people on both sides of the debate. The discussions can be helpful at times. Perhaps, if we are still here, some can look at BJU in 20 years and see who was right.

Wally, not only is the slippery slope not provable in the past 200 years, but…it’s still a logical fallacy.

But since you bring up history, let’s remind this forum of the situation in 1821. For starters, since modesty is a big issue with you, may I remind you that women in those days were generally corseted, with their bosoms on display in a way that would be totally at home in Hollywood today? A missionary to the Waxhaws in the time of the Revolution actually commented on how the young women bound up their blouses to put their “assets” on display. (Parisans and Redcoats, Walter Edgar)

A look at the attire in which the Founders were portrayed reveals that men were not that much better, especially in their pants. Regarding music and dancing, dances were a favorite activity of the Founding Fathers, and the punch was, yes, spiked—the Puritans and Anglicans alike drank an amount of liquor that would stagger modern Americans. Edgar notes as well that a great degree of undress was common among the Scots Presbyterians in the Waxhaws.

Regarding religious views, it was common, even in Separatistic churches, for men to belong to both the church and Masonic lodges, and even in the non-Unitarian churches, Unitarian and anti-Trinitarian views were common, as by John Quincy Adams. Deism was, as we learned in history class, also a common theme among men of that day, even in theoretically Bible believing churches.

It also ought to be noted that keeping slaves was extremely common in that day, and it wasn’t just Thomas Jefferson who was, per the Rolling Stones’ song “Brown Sugar”, taking advantage of those in slavery in hideous ways.

Call me weird, but I think it’s a good thing that the corset has rightly been consigned to the dustbin of history, that Bible believing churches generally prohibit Masonic lodge membership, that church constitutions are explicitly Trinitarian (and hence anti-deist as well), and that we’ve consigned slavery to the dustbin of history.

So the progress of history is anything but a monotonic sequence as you suggest, Wally. Personally, I think the theological fundamentals represent a wonderful addition to the ancient creeds that have kept the church from straying too far, and many of the cultural fundamentals are a digression from that noble goal. Hopefully that digression does not follow the slippery slope path you suggest, or we’ll all be in burqas like in Afghanistan pretty soon.

Contra Bert, the “slippery slope” which he likes to talk about is easily provable in the last 200 years of American church history. Small changes at first led cumulatively to more significant changes: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the SBC in the first half of the 20th century - all started with small changes which people warned about but few listened. The “slippery slope” is obvious in politics. Can anyone deny that political liberals use strategies which result in ever-increasing liberalization of moral codes, getting others to compromise a little here, a little there until they have what they want? The “slippery slope” that Bert says does not exist clearly exists.

The problem with cultural fundamentalists using the slippery slope logical fallacy is that many times, as Thomas Sowell likes to say, correlation does not equal causation. Conservatives Christians will rightly point out that correlation not equaling causation within progressive thought, but rarely apply it to their own cultural prejudices and thinking. I remember over 30 years ago having a conversation with my bro-in-law’s father who was a hard-core KJ only guy. He tried to convince me that the cultural moral slide of America, beginning in the 1960s happened because of the Bible scholars who were developing the NIV and NASB versions of the Scripture during that time period. Once people were deceived by the versions, it was all down-hill for America and fundamentalist and evangelical churches who eventually switched from the KJV. And that the only way there would be revival and a restoration of a Christian America would be if Christians turned back to the only pure version of the Bible, the KJV.

I’m far more concerned about guys who preach from an ESV in business attire but whose teaching results in evil than I am about a guy who preaches from a KJV in a suit and who really loves and cares for his sheep.

I also have yet to meet (or hear of) someone who caromed into heresy because they decided to stop wearing suits in a pulpit.

Even though I disagree with Wally on the Redaction Criticism issue, or the KJV issue that CD Cauthorne brought up (BJU has never been King James Only), I definitely share some of their other concerns. I get the idea that Dave often brings up about the landscape changing. Some evangelicals have become more cognizant of the need for separation. How that works out in practice seems pretty iffy to me, and it’s hard for me to believe that conservative evangelicalism across the board has all of a sudden become separatist. On the other hand, it seems like bizarro world when someone like Scott Anoil (whose views I largely share) can find a home in the SBC and SWBTS but is not welcome at BJU. It seems that most of the movement has been on the fundamentalist side, not only in becoming less concerned about ecclesiastical separation but also in becoming more accepting of things like CCM, and other stuff that used to be a distinction between fundamentalism and those in evangelicalism.

[AndyE]

Even though I disagree with Wally on the Redaction Criticism issue, or the KJV issue that CD Cauthorne brought up (BJU has never been King James Only), I definitely share some of their other concerns. I get the idea that Dave often brings up about the landscape changing. Some evangelicals have become more cognizant of the need for separation. How that works out in practice seems pretty iffy to me, and it’s hard for me to believe that conservative evangelicalism across the board has all of a sudden become separatist. On the other hand, it seems like bizarro world when someone like Scott Anoil (whose views I largely share) can find a home in the SBC and SWBTS but is not welcome at BJU. It seems that most of the movement has been on the fundamentalist side, not only in becoming less concerned about ecclesiastical separation but also in becoming more accepting of things like CCM, and other stuff that used to be a distinction between fundamentalism and those in evangelicalism.

Andy, I’m also unsure who to agree and disagree with at times. Until this discussion, I was unaware of the redaction criticism issue, and I’d have to spend some time with it. On KJV, I’m KJVP (based on Byzantine priority), but not KJVO, which really puts me at odds with both sides on that topic. As regards Scott Aniol, I completely disagree with his views on the intrinsic meaning and morality of music, but I’m pretty in line with his views on elevated worship and worship music. And as we have discussed before with BJU, I’m kind of a fence sitter there too, really liking some of the changes while some concern me.

For me, all of that adds up to trying to figure out what the core beliefs are (I see them as bigger than the 5 solas, but less than your typical type-A (to use Joel T.’s notation) fundamentalist). I mourn the loss of some of the outward forms of worship I’m familiar with (e.g. people dressing up for church, and on the whole treating church as something different from daily life), while realizing that those are hardly a hill I want to die on.

Like most of current/former fundamentalists, I’m trying to navigate the separation issue. There will always be disagreement with what to separate over and the lines of application, and because of that, I’m continually trying to re-evaluate what my views on separation are, knowing that some of what I think is based on my preferences and not on what is absolute biblical truth. I see that as something I’ll never be able to completely settle over the course of my life, but something I do need to continually work on.

Here’s the problem as I see it. Fundamentalism has acquired too much baggage over the years, so that the distinction between doctrine and preference has become blurred.

Take CCM. I am NOT a fan, and am unwilling to bring it into our church. But is it a fundamental of the faith? Likewise with dress standards. Blatant immodesty is condemned by nearly all Bible believers, but haggling over slacks on women, etc., is hardly a Biblical fundamental either. Likewise with KJV onlyism. It’s one thing to have a preference for the KJV, and something else altogether to make KJVO a fundamental of the faith. Fundamentalism as a movement has added too many non-fundamentals, and then accuses those who do not agree on the non-fundamentals of not being a Fundamentalist. True, if you require embracing non-fundamentals as proof of being Fundamental. False, if you accept those who believe and contend for the actual fundamentals as Fundamentalists.

Many of us do like to operate on the basis of lists as a quick operating shorthand. Answers the question, “What should I separate over?” While such lists provide some ease of analysis, they also bring out our inner Pharisee, and we tend to forget the whole pint of orthodoxy and holiness we started with.

The main issues in the battle are often more subtle. If you read Dr Beale’s book, or even some of George Marsden’s work, you will find that theological liberalism and unbelief are very crafty and cover there tracks well. For the most part, at least. That is why the moderates sided with the liberals in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. The same was true with the rise of the New Evangelicals.

Today, we who are fundamentalists have struggles internally, but mostly not with modernistic tendencies. Externally, though, we see some evangelicals waking up to the mixed multitude they belong to. They are taking some steps towards identifying and calling out those errors. We can applaud that, but until they can clarify all their entanglements, I see no advantage in allying myself with them.

The problem at BJU, in my view, is that they are rushing towards closer cooperation with evangelicals far faster than I would like. They have clearly loosened the fine arts standards in a more worldly direction, see the last Shakespeare performance as an example. It is my perception that they have long since de-emphasized the preacher’s class. Reports I’ve heard of it’s dwindling size are a big concern to me. Also, so far, I haven’t met young preachers coming out of BJU with the kind of ministerial philosophy that I like. Maybe I haven’t met enough of them… but there aren’t that many of them anymore.

To conclude, then, to some extent, dress standards and the like are mostly irrelevant. I think the change from a higher standard to a lower is, however, emblematic rather than symptomatic.

One thing, regarding the claim that the former type of clothing is a “higher standard”, a big part of what’s going on is that we have modern heating and cooling. The heavy wool suits you see in 1950s (and before) movies are no longer needed to keep warm in today’s well-heated homes and offices.

Another part of what’s going on is that during the 1960s and 1970s, wearing a suit, or the feminine equivalent, to church was a sign that you were part of the “respectable white collar workforce”, even if in truth you were a plumber or an electrician most of the week, and only brought the suit out on Sundays. For many, that suit was not natural fibers and breathable, and after suffering through summer services in polyester, a lot of people decided to ditch the suit starting in the 1990s. Ill-fitting sack suits and womens’ dresses apparently designed by the Marquis de Sade didn’t help, either.

And really, on what basis do we say that a suit is better than a pair of jeans that fits well, or a dress better than the same? Again, James 2:2. Let the children come. I’m personally fairly conservative in my clothing, but really, as long as it covers the important areas with a little bit of “ease” and servers the wearer’s needs, I’m reluctant to judge at all, let alone separate from someone based on what they’re wearing.

The argument about “higher standards” has also been used in the English Bible translation debate. As Mark Ward has discussed, some people refuse to consider using modern English Bible translations because of the “exalted” Elizabethian English of the KJV compared to the “downgraded” English in modern translations. I remember as an English major at PCC being lectured on prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics. We were told we must fight against the liberal linguists who were removing prescriptive rules of grammar and downgrading the English language.

Folks, language changes. Dress standards change. Changes in language or dress do not necessarily equal downgrading to a “lower standard.”

[T Howard]

The argument about “higher standards” has also been used in the English Bible translation debate. As Mark Ward has discussed, some people refuse to consider using modern English Bible translations because of the “exalted” Elizabethian English of the KJV compared to the “downgraded” English in modern translations. I remember as an English major at PCC being lectured on prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics. We were told we must fight against the liberal linguists who were removing prescriptive rules of grammar and downgrading the English language.

Folks, language changes. Dress standards change. Changes in language or dress do not necessarily equal downgrading to a “lower standard.”

Transferring in the versions argument is simply a red herring. So what. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Yes, styles change. But when you see business execs, politicians in their legislative assemblies, etc regularly showing up to work in tight jeans and the like, then I will concede that those standards have changed.